محمد بن سلمان على خطى حليفه بولتون؟

سبتمبر 13, 2019

د. وفيق إبراهيم

يبذلُ آل سلمان في السعودية كامل جهودهم لوقف مسلسل التراجع السياسي الكبير الذي يخشون من تداعياته على ادوار مملكتهم في الداخل والخارج.

ويرون ان هناك خطرين قد يطيحان بهم: الاول من اجنحة آل سعود وخصوصاً من المتضررين منهم والثاني تيارات شعبية بينها متشدّدون منغلقون وآخرون من فئات شعبية ساخطة على جمود بلدهم عند حدود القرون الوسطى.

هذا ما دفع بولي العهد محمد بن سلمان باعتباره محور مملكة ابيه، الى البدء بسياسة تراجعات للحد من الانهيار المرتقب، خصوصاً انه مهدد مرتين: فشل سياساته في محيطه العربي واغتياله بواسطة الامن السعودي الصحافي جمال الخاشقجي في قنصلية بلاده في مدينة اسطمبول التركية.

ما هي اسباب هذا الخوف؟ مجموعات مشاريع فاشلة خسرت بداية في الميدان السوري الذي أطاح بحلفاء الرياض الارهابيين فانكسر الدور السعودي في سورية، كذلك انتهى هذا الدور في العراق لفشل القوى العراقية المؤيدة للوهابية، وهذه قطر الامارة الصغيرة صمدت في وجه مقاطعات صارمة من حلف سعودي بحريني اماراتي مصري.

اما اليمن فاستنزف مساعيها الداخلية والخليجية والعربية والعالمية صامداً في وجه اعنف هجمات منذ سنين خمس.

من جهة ثانية ادى صمود ايران الى اصابة محمد بن سلمان بشلل كامل، لان الاميركيين لم يعلنوا حرباً لتدميرها كما وعدوه، وبقيت قبالة سواحل بلاده منيعة الجانب ومرهوبة تصادر الناقلات البريطانية وتُسقط المسيرات الاميركية من دون رد وتؤدي ادوارها الاقليمية بتمكن.

وتبين له ان المدى الذي يمكن لـ»إسرائيل» ان تعلبه لا يصل الى سواحل ايران بسهولة كما كان يعتقد خصوصاً انه كان يستند الى معلومات اميركية واسرائيلية كانت تقول له إن السلاح الايراني اصبح قديماً ويعود الى 1980 بما يعني انتهاء فعاليته.

ولما استشعر بتململ داخلي، حاول ان ينقل السعودية وبسرعة البرق من عصر أهل الكهف الى زمن اندية الليل والمطربات والراقصات ليشتري قناعات الناس.

لكنه اكتشف ان عصر «النيو» والانفتاحات الخليعة لم تنتج ما أراده، فذهب لحماية ملك ابيه من خطر داخلي يتجسد اولاً في اجنحة آل سعود الصاخبين الرافضين لحصر المُلك في عائلة آل سلمان بما يناقض المفهوم التاريخي السابق للسلطة عند آل سعود، هذا بالاضافة الى ان ولي العهد سبق له واحتجزهم في الريتز كارلتون منتزعاً منهم معظم اموالهم بذريعة انهم سرقوها من موازنات المملكة، وكأن امواله واموال ابيه واشقائه ليست نتاج المعادلة نفسها. اما المهم هنا، فإنه نجح في سلبهم حقوقهم السياسية المنبثقة في تداول السلطة بين ابناء المؤسس اولاً ثم بالمداورة بين الأحفاد.

هذا ما دفع بإبن سلمان الى تنظيم حركة تراجعات مدروسة، متفقاً مع الاميركيين على مفاوضة انصار الله الحوثيين سراً، فحربه في اليمن آلت الى فشل ذريع وتهدد بالانتقال الى عمق السعودية، بعد تحول مصافي النفط فيها والمواقع العسكرية الى اهداف للمسيرات والصواريخ اليمنية.

وانسحب تقريباً من واجهة المشاريع السياسية في كل من سورية والعراق مكتفياً بتمويل بعض التنظيمات التي يزكيها الاميركيون ومتراجعاً عن الكثير من عقوبات السعودية على قطر بطلب اميركي، كما يتجه الى تفويض الاميركيين بحل نزاع بلاده مع الامارات جنوب اليمن.

عند هذا الحد لم يبدُ جديد محمد بن سلمان جاذباً، فقرر ضرب توازن داخلي قديم كان يقضي بإيلاء وزارة الطاقة في بلاده لشخص ليس من آل سعود، ويشكل نقطة توازن بين أجنحتهم.

وبما ان ما يهم الغرب في المملكة هو النفط، فقام بتعيين شقيقه خالد وزيراً للطاقة، بما فيها ارامكو اكبر شركة في العالم والتي يبدأ قريباً عرض اسهمها للبيع في بورصات العالم. وبذلك يمسك بمعظم دول الغرب من شدقيها، محطماً القرون التي تُنخزُه بها احياناً.

إن لوزارة الطاقة في السعودية اهمية اضافية عندما يتسلم مقاليدها ابن الملك فيستطيع بذلك التعامل مع الشركات الغربية القريبة من معادلتهم «السلمانية» في السلطة، مُفسحاً المجال لاكبر استثمار في منطقة الربع الخالي التي يتردد انها تحتوي على اكبر احتياطات عالمية معروفة من الغاز.

وبما ان المرحلة المقبلة الموسومة بالتراجع الاميركي وبالتالي السعودي تفترض تراجعاً سعودياً موازياً، فتجب اعادة الخط السعودي الى مستوى غير صديق لـ»إسرائيل» كما هو الآن.

فقام محمد بن سلمان بخطوة يهدف منها العودة الى قيادة العالم الإسلامي ومعه العالم العربي.

فما ان اعلن رئيس وزراء الكيان الاسرائيلي عن نيته ضم شمالي البحر الميت والاغوار والمستوطنات في الضفة الغربية المحتلة، حتى سارعت السعودية الى دعوة منظمة التعاون الاسلامي للاجتماع، واستنكرت اتجاهات صديقها نتنياهو، علماً ان السعودية لم تستنكر الضم الاسرائيلي للقدس المحتلة، وتحويلها عاصمة لـ»إسرائيل»، بما يكشف ان تراجع مشاريعها يفرض عليها الابتعاد نسبياً عن الكيان المحتل.

اما الحركة الاخيرة لخنق السعودية، فتجسدت بتعيين خالد شقيق ولي العهد وزيراً للدفاع، وبذلك يصبح الملك وولي العهد والأمن والمخابرات والدفاع والطاقة في يد محمد بن سلمان الذي يضع كامل امكاناتها في سبيل الوصول الى العرش السعودي، فهل هذا ممكن؟

نهاية بولتون لا تشجع افلات محمد بن سلمان من عقاب كبير على مشاريعه العربية والاقليمية التي ادت الى مئات آلاف القتلى ونمو التطرف الديني والاضطرابات المندلعة في كامل العالم العربي وقسم من المدى الاسلامي.

وكان بإمكان سكان جزيرة العرب الانتهاء منه لولا التغطية الاميركية، لكن للظلم نهاية، ومحمد بن سلمان يجري اليها معتقداً بنجاته، لكنه لا يفعل إلا الغرق في مزيد من الهاوية.

Related Videos

Advertisements

واشنطن تبحث عن بدائل لداعش وأخواتها من كابول الى بغداد

سبتمبر 4, 2019

محمد صادق الحسيني

تحاول واشنطن عبثاً تأخير إعلان هزيمتها التاريخية المدوية امام مشروع المقاومة…! وذلك من خلال تبديل أسماء ميليشياتها، بعد توالي الهزائم عليها في أكثر من عاصمة عربية وإسلامية، ظناً منها انّ تبديل الجلد كفيل بإطالة عمرها الاستعماري.

وكما بدأت غزوها الحديث لبلادنا عبر الحرب بالوكالة من أفغانستان ها هي تحاول الهروب المنظم من أفغانستان…

1 ـ يعود تاريخ العمل السري للمخابرات المركزية الأميركية في أفغانستان الى حقبة الوجود العسكري السوفياتي في هذا البلد، خلال عقد الثمانينات من القرن الماضي، حيث كانت سي أي آي هي الجهة التي تقدّم الدعم اللوجستي فيما تقدّم السعودية الدعم المالي للمجموعات الجهاهدية الأفغانية آنذاك. وكان أسامة بن لادن هو المنسّق الرسمي لنشاطات المجموعات الأفغانية التي تقاتل القوات السوفياتية.

2 ـ بدأت وكالة المخابرات المركزية الأميركية، بالتعاون مع الاستخبارات العسكرية الباكستانية وبتمويل سعودي أيضاً. بإنشاء ميليشيا مسلحة جديدة، تحت قيادتها وإدارتها المباشرة، وذلك مع بدء انسحاب القوات السوفياتية من أفغانستان سنة 1989.

تلك الميليشيا التي كانت قد أعدّت مسبقاً، أيّ قبل الانسحاب السوفياتي، في مدارس باكستان الدينية المموّلة من آل سعود، وهي حركة طالبان، التي كانت تدعو لـ الجهاد العالمي مما أدخلها في نزاع مسلح مع المجاهدين الأفغان انتهى باستيلاء حركة طالبان على الحكم في أواسط تسعينيات القرن الماضي.

أيّ انّ الولايات المتحدة، بالتعاون مع آل سعود، قد زرعت بذور الفوضى الشاملة الحروب الأهلية والإرهاب في أفغانستان منذ أواخر ثمانينيات القرن الماضي، خاصة أنها أفشلت محاولة دبلوماسية، قامت بها منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية على سبيل المثال، وهدفت الى إقامة حكومة متفق عليها بين الاتحاد السوفياتي والمجاهدين وملك أفغانستان السابق، الملك محمد ظاهر شاه، ورئيسة الوزراء الباكستانية آنذاك، بنظير بوتو.

فالولايات المتحدة، عبر المخابرات المركزية الأميركية، كانت هي من أفشلت هذا الاتفاق الذي تمّ التوصل إليه بعد اتصالات وجهود مضنية مع الأطراف المعنية وفي ثلاث قارات من قارات العالم.

3 ـ والآن ومع قرب التوصل الى اتفاقية وقف لإطلاق النار، بين الولايات المتحدة وحركة طالبان، تمهّد لانسحاب القوات الأميركية وقوات حلف الناتو من أفغانستان، فإنّ من الضروري الإضاءة على السياسة الميليشياوية، التي تواصل الولايات المتحدة تنفيذها في هذا البلد، من خلال إنشائها لتنظيمات مسلحة جديدة ميليشيات منذ احتلالها لأفغانستان في شهر تشرين الأول 2001.

4 ـ وأشهر هذه التنظيمات وأكثرها قوة وتسليحاً هو تنظيم: قوات حماية خوست Khost Protection Force والتي تدار عبر غرفة عمليات لها في قاعدة المخابرات المركزية الأميركية التي تسمّى: قاعدة شابمان CIA s Camp Chapman والموجودة في مقاطعة خوست الأفغانية، جنوب شرق العاصمه كابل.

علماً انّ إجمالي تعداد هذه الميليشيات، التي تموَّل وتدار بالكامل من قبل المخابرات الأميركية، قد وصل الى ثلاثة عشر ألف رجل منتشرين في معظم أنحاء أفغانستان.

5 ـ أما عن علاقتهم بالاتفاق، المزمع إعلانه قريباً بين الولايات المتحدة وحركة طالبان، فهو طرح موضوعهم، من قبل المفاوض الأميركي سلمان خليل زاد، على طاولة البحث مع طالبان، حيث طلب خليل زاد ضمانات من طالبان لأمنهم بعد انسحاب القوات الأميركية. وهو الأمر الذي ترفضه طالبان، حتى الآن، مما يؤخر الإعلان عن الاتفاق، أملاً من الطرف الأميركي في التوصل الى صيغة ما، تحافظ على عنصر التفجير هذا الميليشيات لاستخدامه مستقبلاً، الى جانب فلول داعش، التي نقلتها طائرات سلاح الجو الأميركي من سورية والعراق ونشرتها على حدود أفغانستان مع إيران وجمهوريات الاتحاد السوفياتي السابقة شمالاً.

6 ـ إذن فالولايات المتحدة الأميركية، وكما يتضح من المشار إليه أعلاه، تقوم بإنشاء تشكيلات مسلحة وزرع بذور الفوضى والحروب قبل ان تنسحب من أيّ مكان. فما يعيق انسحابها من سورية والعراق، هو استكمال تدريب وتسليح القوات العميلة، سواء في شمال شرق سورية أو في مناطق أخرى، والتي يجري تدريبها وإمدادها بالسلاح في قاعدة التنف في سورية وفي قواعد أميركية أخرى في الأردن، كما في قاعدة عين الأسد غرب بغداد وفِي قواعد ميليشيا البرزاني الكردية والتي يشرف على تشغيلها وتحريكها ضباط من الاستخبارات العسكرية الإسرائيلية.

7 ـ وهذا بالضبط هو العامل الذي يحدّد موقف المراوغ الأطلسي، أردوغان، في ما يتعلق بمحافظة إدلب وغيرها من المحافظات السورية المحتلة أميركياً أو تركياً. انه أمر عمليات القيادة المركزية الأميركية للمنطقة الوسطى، ومقرّها قاعدة العيديد في قطر، الذي يقضي بإيجاد الترتيبات الضرورية، للحفاظ على المجموعات المسلحة، في سورية والعراق كقوات احتياط، يمكن للولايات المتحدة وحلف شمال الأطلسي ان يناوروا بها، في الزمان والمكان الذي يقرّرونه مستقبلاً.

وبكلمات أكثر وضوحاً فإنّ ذلك يعني: الحفاظ على هذه العصابات المسلحة، سواءً في العراق، حيث يقوم الجيش الأميركي بهذا الدور، أو في سورية حيث يتشارك الأميركي والتركي تنفيذ مؤامرة إطالة عمر العدوان على سورية، من خلال تغليف ذلك بغلاف ما يطلقون عليه الحلّ السياسي، أو في العراق من خلال ما يسمّونه استكمال محاربة داعش ومواجهة تعاظم النفوذ الإيراني في هذا البلد.

8 ـ أما ما يغيب عن بال المخططين الاستراتيجيين الأميركيين فهو عامل الانقلاب الذي شهدته موازين القوى، في المنطقة والعالم، والتي لم تعد تسمح لهم بفرض إرادتهم وهيمنتهم على الشعوب كما كان الأمر في العقدين الماضيين. الأمر الذي يجعل تكتيكاتهم تلك، ايّ المناورة بالعصابات الإرهابية المسلحة هنا وهناك، عاجزة عن تحقيق أهدافهم، وبالتالي فإنّ عليهم البحث عن استراتيجيات تنطلق من موازين القوى الدولية المستجدة والاعتراف بهزيمة مشاريعهم وفتح مسار جديد في سياساتهم، بالعودة الى الأسس والقوانين الدوليهة، التي يجب ان تحكم علاقات الدول بين بعضها البعض، ما يخلق الأرضية لعلاقات متوازنة بين الدول ولاستقرار سياسي على الصعيد الدولي سيمثل القاعدة الصلبة لمسار اقتصادي اجتماعي دولي يمنع إشعال الحروب ويبعد الأزمات الاقتصادية والمالية عن دول وشعوب العالم أجمع. كلّ هذا شرطه استخدام واشنطن لعقلها وهو ما بات مشكوكاً فيه كثيراً في عهد إدارة ترامب المتخبّطة في استراتيجيتها والغارقة في التيه الإسرائيلي .

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله…

Bibi in Banderastan, or the importance of words

Bibi in Banderastan, or the importance of words

[this column was written for the Unz Review]

Israeli Prime Minister made it to Kiev today, where he was greeted by the (pseudo) “traditional” Ukronazi slogan “Glory to the Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!”. For somebody like me who dislikes Zionism and Nazism just about the same, it was a sweet irony to see an Israeli Prime Minister officially traveling to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine to commemorate the massacre of Jews at Babii Iar greeted by the very same slogan which the Jews murdered at Babii Iar heard from their Banderite executioners while they were being shot.

STOP!

Do you already hear the choir of voices protesting: how can anyone expecting to be taken seriously write a paragraph about the civil war in the Ukraine with all the following words: Ukronazi, Zionism, Nazism, Nazi-occupied, Jews and Banderite?

That is a very good question.

But I have a better one!

How can anyone expecting to be taken seriously write a paragraph about the civil war in the Ukraine WITHOUT all the following words: Ukronazi, Zionism, Nazism, Nazi-occupied, Jews and Banderite?

Let’s begin with the first question. The obvious implied criticism behind the first question, is very simple and it assumes that there is a profound and inherent contradiction between everything Nazi and Jews/Zionism. Speaking about a “Nazi Jew” or a “Nazi Zionist” is just as nonsensical as speaking about dry water or and diamonds raining from the sky!

Except that both dry water and diamonds raining from the sky do exist in real nature, so let’s not jump to conclusions too fast and see which contradictions are real, and which ones are only apparent.

I won’t even go into the (deliciously controversial) topic of the historical fact of the collaboration of the German National Socialists with various Zionist organizations which, rather naively, thought that a nationalist like Hitler would understand their own nationalism and help them to emigrate to Palestine. But this goes even further than that as Hannah Arendt said, in her superb book “Eichmann in Jerusalem” (see excerpt here or, even better, read the full book (for free!): various Jewish organizations continued to work with/(for?) the Nazis well into the so-called “Holocaust”.

[Sidebar: to be honest, I don’t think that we, safely sitting in the comfort of our homes, should be too quick to condemn these Jewish organizations. Yes, of course, many of them were “naive” (and I am being polite here), but others must have realized that European Jews are in a great deal of danger and must be evacuated at any cost and if the only way to achieve such an evacuation was to deal with the Nazis, then so be it! This is no different than offering a bribe to a jail guard to obtain some kind of favor. Thus I think that Jewish organizations which today categorically deny having collaborated with the Nazis are mistaken on not one, but two grounds: first, the truth is coming out and it is impossible to suppress it and, second, there is nothing shameful in swallowing your disgust to save a person. Except that for the racially deluded minds of modern Zionists, such an admission would take the air out of their silly notion of racial superiority. Hence the categorically crimethink nature of speaking about this]

No, what I want to suggest here is very different: in our 21st century, most of the 20th century terminology has lost its meaning. What is a liberal (no, not Hillary!)? What is a Communist (no, not Obama!)? What is a Christian (no, not the Pope!)? What is a democrat (no, not Kamala Harris!)? What is a patriot (no, most definitely not Trump!)? What is a tyrannical dictator (nope, not Putin!)?

You think that I am being facetious here?

Then explain to me how a rabidly Takfiri regime like the one in Saudi Arabia can get help from Zionist Israel? Or how the “democratic West” gave its full support to Takfiris in Chechnia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya and Syria? How is it that during the so-called “Global War on Terror”, (which was supposed to be officially waged against al-Qaeda and its various local subsidiaries, in retaliation for 9/11) the various Takfiri groups only got stronger? Yet what we really see is that the US provides training, financing, coordination and even close air support for pretty much every al-Qaeda type out there?

There are two phenomena which explain this gradual dissolution of meanings into meaningless and insipid categories: first, the correct meaning of many terms has been covered by a thick layer of ideological imperatives and, second, most 21st century politicians couldn’t care less what any word really means. All they care about is framing the discussion in a way which makes it easy for them to obfuscate their numerous crimes.

The truth about the Ukraine is very simple: yes, there are bona-fide Nazis in the Ukraine and, yes, they have a lot of influence due to their quasi monopoly on violence and total collapse of the state. True, these hardcore Ukronazi freaks are a rather small minority, but one which is well organized, well funded and fully prepared to use violence.

Jewbanderite

There are also a lot of Zionists in the Ukraine. And while these folks silently hate each other, they hate (and fear!) Russia much, much more; just like mobsters can fight each other, but can unite against any common threat (such as, say, an honest police chief).

Oh, and yes, there are also plenty of very influential Jews in the Ukraine (Kolomoiskii and Zelenskii being the two best known ones right now) and they have the full backing of the AngloZionist Empire and all of the Zionists interests in the West. And I think that most folks fully understand that. The real reason behind all the protests about me using terms such as “Ukronazi” stems from a very different cause.

The problem is that you get a lot of ruffled feathers when you suggest that the USA, which is supposed to be some kind of “land of the free and the home of the brave” aka “the indispensable nation” is found in bed with the self same folks who the US propaganda machine paints as arch-villains: Nazis, of course, but also Takfiris. As for the Zionists, it would be wrong to say that the US of A is “in bed” with them. No, it’s even worse: the much-maligned and ridiculed term of ZOG (as in “Zionist Occupation Government”) is much more accurate, but it offends those who rather think of themselves as “rulers of the world” than the voiceless serfs of a regime of foreign occupation!

US Americans love to thump their chests while mantrically chanting some nonsense along the lines of “USA is number 1!” and they get really mad when they are told that “the party is over” which I did in this article in which I wrote:

Both US Americans and Europeans will, for the very first time in their history, have to behave like civilized people, which means that their traditional “model of development” (ransacking the entire planet and robbing everybody blind) will have to be replaced by one in which these US Americans and Europeans will have to work like everybody else to accumulate riches

And, just by coincidence, Paul Craig Roberts recently wrote an article entitled “American Capitalism Is Based On Plunder” in which he explained that US foreign policy is basically driven by a plunder imperative and that if that imperative cannot be realized abroad, it will be implemented at home (I wonder if he will be accused of being anti-American or even of “Communism”? It is quite striking to see a paleo-conservative like Paul Craig Roberts basically paraphrasing Lenin and his statement that “imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism” (a historical truism which the western propaganda system is doing its best to bury, obfuscate, ridicule and the like).

Writing things like these typically result in a barrage of ad hominems which, by itself, is quite telling (usually the same 2-3 folks, some probably remunerated for their efforts) There is a Russian saying that “the hat of the head of the thief is burning” (see here for an explanation of this rather weird expression) and this is exactly what is happening here: the folks protesting the loudest are always the ones who are most unwilling to stop the planetary plunder, messianic arrogance and imperial hubris in which they were raised. It is not only their livelihoods which are threatened by such talk, but even their very identity. Hence the very real and very high level of rage they feel.

Finally, there are all the Nazi sympathizers who absolutely hate Jews and for whom any notion of Nazi and Zionist collaboration are just as much a case of crimethink as it is for Zionist Jews to admit that they have collaborated with bona fide Nazis many times in the past.

However, if we set aside silly ideological shackles, we can immediately observe that the kind of ideology of racial superiority which the Nazis are known for can also be found in the Judaic (religious) and Zionist (secular) ideologies. In fact, both National-Socialism and Zionism are just two amongst many more types of European nationalisms which have their root in 19th century ideological categories.

Let’s try a different approach: what do Ukie “dobrobats”, al-Qaeda forces in Syria, KLA units in Kosovo and Israeli settlers in Palestine have in common? Correct! They are all first and foremost *thugs* who all prey on the weak and defenseless. In other words, they are the perfect tool to force civilians to surrender and accept some kind of foreign rule. That foreign rule is, in each case, the one of the AngloZionist Empire, of course. This, in turn, means that their official ideologies are almost irrelevant, because in reality they are all servants of the Empire (whether they understand it or not).

Conclusion one: it’s all a big lie!

Yes, it is a big lie. All of it. And this is how we end up with an Israeli Prime Minister who, by any criteria, is not only a Fascist, but also a Nazi as long as we make it clear that his brand of Nazism is a Jewish one, not a Germanic one. And it’s not just Bibi Netanyahu who does not mind dealing with Ukronazis, so the the the Chief Rabbi of Ukraine (see here for details). As for the said Ukronazis, they are now trying hard to deny that Bandara and his gang massacred Jews during WWII. As for Zelenskii, he is most definitely not a Nazi, but he has already caved in to the Ukronazi ideology (i.e. a form of Nazism which substitutes myths about “ancient Ukrs” to the more traditional Germanic myths about the Aryan-Germanic “race”). Then there is Kolomoiskii who is simply a typical Jewish mobster who has no personal ideology whatsoever and who has no love for the bona fide Ukronazis, but who is being very careful about how to purge them from power lest they beat him yet again. And above them all, we have the leaders of the Empire who use ideological categories as slurs but who don’t give a damn who they back as long as it is against Russia.

Against this background it is worth asking a simple question: do these words even matter? Do they still have any kind of meaning?

Conclusion two: yes, words do still matter!

I believe that they do, very much so! This is precisely why the legacy corporate ziomedia and those brainwashed by it freak out when they see expressions such as “AngloZionist”,“Ukronazi” or even the rather demure “Israel Lobby”. When somebody comes up with a powerful and correct descriptor, say like “ZOG” – the propaganda machine immediately kicks into high gear to shoot down in flames whatever author and article dared to use it. In fact, there are at least two types of wannabe word censors which typically show up:

TYPE ONE: the real McCoy. These are the sincere folks (whether of the Nazi or Zionist persuasion) who are truly outraged and offended that such “hallowed” words as Nazi/Zionist (pick one) can be combined with “abominations” such as Nazi/Zionist (pick the other one). These are all the Third Reich nostalgics, the defenders of a “White Christian West” and all the rest of them neo-Nazis.

TYPE TWO: the paid trolls. These are the folks whose task it is to obfuscate the real issues, to bury them under tons of vapid ideological nonsense; the best way to do that is to misdirect any discussion away from the original topic and sidetrack it into either a barrage of ad hominems or ideological clichés.

Seriously, what we are witnessing today is a new age of censorship in which government and corporations work hand in hand to crush (ban, censor, demonetize, algorithmically purge and otherwise silence) all those who challenge the official ideology and its many narratives. It would be naïve to the extreme to assume that the so-called “alternative media” and blogosphere have been spared such an effort at silencing ideological heresies.

Next time these self-appointed enforcers of the politically correct doxa come out, try this experiment: when you read their comments, don’t just look at what they write, but also try to guess why they write what they write and then mentally place a T1 or T2 sign next to their comments and you will soon see that they follow a careful pattern 🙂

The Saker

The Saker interviews Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi

August 21, 2019

[this interview was made for the Unz Review]

The Saker interviews Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi

Introduction: 

First, several friends recently suggested that that I should interview Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi; then I read this most interesting text on Moon of Alabama and I decided to ask Professor Marandi to share his views of the current situation in Iran, the Persian Gulf the rest of the Middle-East who very kindly agreed to reply to my question in spite of his most hectic and busy schedule. I am most grateful to Prof. Marandi for his time and replies. Crucially, Prof. Marandi debunks the silly notion that Russia and Israel are allies or working together. He also debunks that other canard about Russia and Iran having some major differences over Syria.

Prof. Marandi, who is currently in Iran, is superbly connected and informed, and I hope that with this interview some of the more outlandish rumors which were recently circulated will finally be seen for what they are: utter, total, nonsense. Enjoy the interview!

The Saker

——-

The Saker: It is often said that there is an “axis of resistance” which comprises Syrian, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia and China. Sometimes, Venezuela, Cuba or the DPRK are added to this list. Do you believe that there is such an “axis of resistance” and, if yes, how would you characterize the nature of this informal alliance? Do you think that this informal alliance can ever grow into a formal political or military alliance or a collective security treaty?

Professor Marandi: I definitely believe there is an Axis of Resistance that currently includes Iran, Syria, Iraq, Gaza Lebanon, parts of Afghanistan, and Yemen. I do not think that we can include the DPRK in any way or form. I believe that Russia could be considered to a certain degree as aligned or affiliated to this resistance, but that this is not something many would feel the need to acknowledge. At certain levels, there is a lot of overlap between Russian and Chinese policy and the policies of the countries and movements in this region that are affiliated to this Axis of Resistance. The same is true with countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, and Cuba, which I do not consider to be similar to North Korea at all. Just as almost everywhere else, American policy in the Korean Peninsula is ugly, hegemonic and malevolence, but the nature of the DPRK government is fundamentally different from that of Venezuela or Cuba, whether the Americans or Europeans like to acknowledge that or not. Others can interpret the Axis of Resistance to include or exclude certain countries, but it is pretty clear that Iran and Russia have similar policy objectives when it comes to certain key issues. Nevertheless, Russia has a close relationship with the Israeli regime whereas Iran considers it to be an apartheid state, almost identical to that of apartheid South Africa. Or for example the Syrian government position regarding Israel is different from that of Iran’s. The official Syrian position is that the West Bank and Gaza Strip must be returned to the Palestinians, in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions, and that the occupied Golan Heights have to be handed back to the Syrian people, which are legitimate demands. But the Iranian position is different, Iran firmly believes that Israel is a colonial and apartheid regime and that it is morally unacceptable for it to exist in its present form. Therefore, at least officially, there are substantial differences. So people can interpret the Axis of Resistance in different ways.

It is important to keep in mind that despite Syria, Iran, Turkey and Qatar are also moving closer together partially thanks to US, Saudi, and UAE hostility towards the Muslim Brotherhood. What is important is that there is a growing consensus about key issues in this region and what the major problems are, and I think that as time goes on this loose alliance of countries and movements is growing more influential and more powerful. I cannot say whether there will be a formal or open collective security treaty or military alliance created by any of these countries in the near or foreseeable future and I do not see such a necessity. However, I think this convergence of ideas is very important and I think that the formal and informal links that exist between these countries is in many ways more important and more significant than formal political or military alliances or security treaties.

The Saker: In recent months a number of observers have stated that Russia and Israel are working hand in hand and some have gone as far as to say that Putin is basically a pawn of Netanyahu and that Russia is loyal to Israel and Zionists interests. Do you agree with this point of view? How do Iranian officials view the Russian contacts with the Israelis, does that worry them or do they believe that these contacts can be beneficial for the future of the region?

Professor Marandi: That is nonsense. The US and Israeli regimes are culturally and ideologically bound to one another, whereas the Americans have a deep antipathy towards Russia. That is why the Russians have a very different position on Syria than do the Americans and Israelis.

The Israelis alongside the US, the EU, the Saudis, and some of Syria’s neighboring countries, supported ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other extremist entities and attempted to tear Syria apart.

As explained earlier, the Russian view of Israel is different from Iran. There are many Russian Jewish immigrants in Israel and they constitute a large segment of the colonists in Palestine and they are largely utilized for the further subjugation of the Palestinian people and ethnic cleansing. Generally speaking, Russian interests are in sharp conflict with those of the United States, Israel’s strongest ally. In addition, Russia’s close relationship with Syria dates back to the cold war and the relentless US pressure on China and Russia has also acted as a strong catalyst to quicken their convergence with one another as well as with Iran on key issues. The Chinese and Russians know quite well that the United States, the Europeans, and regional countries have extensively used extremists in Syria to undermine the state and that those forces could later be used to undermine security in Central Asia, Russia, and China. A large number of Russian, Chinese, and Central Asians have been trained to fight in Syria, and this is a major threat to their collective security. The United States could use these and other extremists in an attempt to impede the potential success of the Belt and Road Initiative or other plans for Asian integration. Thus, there is a sharp and growing conflict between the Russians and the Americans.

The Israeli regime constantly tells the Russians and the Chinese that they are the gateway to Washington and that if they maintain strong ties with Israel, the Israelis can help them solve their problems with the United States. I do not think there is much truth to that, because this growing conflict is about the fate of US global dominance and there is nothing the Israelis can do to change that. Nevertheless, this has been used as an incentive for the Russians and the Chinese to maintain better relations with the Israeli regime.

In any case, Russia does not have to maintain identical views with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Iraq, or Yemen. Differences exist, but strong relationships exist nevertheless. All of these countries recognize that if the Americans are able to undermine any of them, whether it is Syria, Iran, Russia, or China, then that would only encourage the United States to be more aggressive towards the remaining countries that impede US foreign policy objectives or exist as potential rivals whether regionally or globally. So even though their political structures are different, even though their foreign policies are different, the similarities that exist are quite striking as well as the common threats. Again, to a large degree this coalition is a result of US and Western foreign policy, which has strong undercurrents of Eurocentricism, tribalism, and racism.

Not only has this pressure brought these countries and movements closer to one another, but it has also created a deeper understanding among them. The Russians understand Iran better today than they did 5 years ago, partially as a result of their cooperation in Syria. This greater understanding enhances the relationship, and helps to dispel many of the misunderstandings or myths that may exist about one another due to Eurocentric narratives and orientalism.

Hence, Iran is not concerned about Russian-Israeli relation. Obviously, in an ideal world Iran would like Russia to break relations with the Israeli regime for its apartheid nature. But reality is reality, and Iranian relations with Russia are very good and at times I am sure the Iranians send certain warnings to the Israelis through the Russians.

The Saker: How is Russia viewed in Iran? Are most Iranian still suspicious of Russia or do they believe that they have a viable and honest partner in Russia? What are the main reservations/concerns of patriotic Iranians when they think of Russia?

Professor Marandi: Historically, the Iranians have had serious problems with the Russians. The Russians and the Soviet Union interfered extensively in Iranian internal affairs and they undermined Iran’s sovereignty. But ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union the image of Russia has changed. Especially since Russia began fighting alongside Iran in Syria in 2015, Russia’s image has improved significantly. When we look at polls, Russia’s image is pretty good compared to Western countries.

Western governments own or fund dozens of Persian language media outlets These outlets, such as VOA and BBC Persian among others, are constantly spouting anti-Russian propaganda. Obviously they have an impact and that couples with historical Iranian concerns about Russia, but despite all that, the Russian image is relatively favorable and that says a lot.

The Saker: How about Turkey? Iran and Turkey have had a complex relationship in the past, yet in the case of the AngloZionist war against Syria, the two states have worked together (and with Russia) – does that mean that Turkey is seen as a viable and honest partner in Iran?

Professor Marandi: Iran’s relationship with the Turkish government is complicated, especially, because of the constant policy changes that have occurred IN TURKEY over the past few years. This has made the government seem unreliable in the eyes of many. Having said that, Turkey is very different from Wahhabi influenced regimes in the Arabian Peninsula. Turkish Islamic tradition has striking similarities with Iran’s Islamic culture and because of its strong Sufi tradition, Turkey is much closer to Iran than it is to, for example,Wahhabi Saudi Arabia.

The global Wahhabi menace has grown as a result of Saudi financial support, as well as the support of other countries in the Persian Gulf region. Turkish society has been more resistant, although ever since the military conflict in Syria and due to extensive funding from the Persian Gulf, there has been growing concern about growing sectarianism in Turkey, not unlike what happened in Pakistan in the 1980s.

Ironically, before the conflict in Syria President Erdogan had a closer personal relationship with President Assad than did the Iranians. They and their families would spend vacations together.

In any case, Turkey has a very strong economic, political, and cultural relationship with Iran, and some of the rising anti-Shia and takfiri sentiments that have been on the rise in Turkey were stunted by the Saudi and Emirati support for the attempted coup in Turkey. Subsequently, their open antagonism towards the Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar, their support for the coup in Egypt, their policies in Sudan and Libya, and of course the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, have all had a beneficial impact on Iranian-Turkish relations. As a result, Turkey has grown much more distant from Iran’s regional antagonists, while Turkish support for the Palestinian cause is another element that brings Iran and Turkey closer together. American support for PKK terrorists in Syria has also angered the Turks adding push to Turkish-Iranian convergence. Even Turkish policy towards Syria is evolving, although it is impossible for the government to make a radical change, because of years of attempts at regime change.

The Saker: Next, turning to Iraq, how would you characterize the “balance of influence” of Iran and the USA in Iraq? Should we view the Iraqi government as allied to Iran, allied to the USA or independent? If the Empire attacks Iran, what will happen in Iraq?

Professor Marandi: The relationship between Iraq and Iran is significantly more important than the relationship between Iraq and the United States. Iran and Iraq are allies, but this alliance does not contradict the notion of Iraqi independence. Iraq’s regional policy is not identical to Iran’s. But the two countries have very similar interests, a very close relationship, many Iraqi leaders have spent years in Iran, and the bulk of the Iraqi population lives close to the shared border of over 1,200 km between the two countries. So trade, pilgrimage, and tourism are key to both countries. The religious similarities and the holy sites that exist in Iran and Iraq are a huge incentive for interaction between the two countries. There are many Iraqi students studying in Iran and many Iranian’s working in Iraq. The fact that Iranians made many sacrifices when fighting ISIS in Iraq and many Iraqis were martyred in the war against ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria is a strong indication of where things stand despite US pressure.

The Arba’een pilgrimage that takes place every year where millions of Iranians and Iraqis make the walk towards Karbala, side by side, with tens of thousands of Iraqi and Iranian volunteers helping pilgrims along the way is, I think, a further sign of the close relationship.

While the U.S presence in Iraq continues to be hegemonic, Iran has not sought to prevent Iraq from having normal relationships with other countries. However, the U.S continues to seek control over Iraq through the world’s largest embassy, its military presence, and its influence over the bureaucracy. The United States continues to have much say over how the country’s oil wealth is spent.

Still, despite the US colonial behavior, its continued theft of Iraqi oil wealth, and its thuggish behavior, the Iraqis have been able to assert a great deal of independence. In the long run, this continued US behavior is only going to create further resentment among Iraqis. The empire rarely takes these realities into account, they seek to accumulate influence and wealth through brute force, but in the long term it creates deep-rooted anger and hostility which, at some point, will create great problems for the empire, especially as this anger and unrest is growing across the region, if not across the globe.

It is highly unlikely that the regime in Washington will attack Iran, if it does it will bring about a regional war, which will drive the United States out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Syria. Saudi Arabia and the Emirates would, swiftly collapse and the price of oil and natural gas would go through the roof, leading to a global economic meltdown even as millions of people will be streaming towards Europe.

The Saker: It is often said that Russia and Iran have fundamentally different goals in Syria and that the two countries regularly have tensions flaring up between them because of these disagreements. Is that true?In your opinion, how are Russian and Iranian goals in Syria different?

Professor Marandi: The news that we sometimes hear about serious tensions existing between the Iranians and the Russians in Syria is often nonsense. There are clear reasons for people to exaggerate small incidents or to fabricate them altogether, but the relationship is quite good. Iran does not intend to have any military bases in Syria, whereas the Russians do feel the need to preserve their military presence in Syria through long-term agreements.

But ultimately, Iran would like to help enable Syria to acquire the military capability to retake the occupied Golan Heights. Iran does not intend to initiate any conflict with the Israeli regime inside Palestine. That is not an objective in Lebanon and that is not an objective in Syria. As in Lebanon, where the Iranians supported Hezbollah to restore the country’s sovereignty and to drive out the Israeli aggressors and occupiers, the Iranians have the same agenda in Syria. They want to support the Syrians so that they will be able to restore full sovereignty. I don’t believe the Golan Heights is a priority for the Russians.

The Saker: For a while, Iran let the Russian Aerospace Forces use an Iranian military airfield, then when this became public knowledge, the Russians were asked to leave. I have heard rumors that while the IRGC was in favor of allowing Russian Aerospace Forces to use an Iranian military airfield, the regular armed forces were opposed to this. Is it true that there are such differences between the IRGC and the regular armed forces and do you think that Iran will ever allow the Russian military to have a permanent presence in Iran?

Professor Marandi: That is a myth. The Russians were not asked to leave. There were no differences between the IRGC and any other part of the armed forces. This was a decision made by the Supreme National Security Council and the President and all the major commanders in the military were involved in this decision. Actually, the airbase does not belong to the guards it belongs to the air force and a part of the base was used for Russian strategic bombers that were flying to Syria to bomb the extremists. This cooperation ended when the Russians were able to station adequate numbers of aircraft in Syria, because the flights over Iran were long and expensive, whereas the air campaign launched from bases inside Syria was much less expensive and much more effective. Iran was very open about its relationship with the Russians, and openly permitted the Russians to fire missiles over Iranian airspace. There were those who were opposed to the Russian presence in the Iranian airbase. A small segment of Iranian society that is pro-Western and pro-American complained about it in their media outlets, but they had absolutely no impact on the decision-making process. According to polls, an overwhelming majority of Iranians supported Iran’s activities in Syria, and the Supreme National Security Council was under no pressure to its decision. However, Iran does not plan to allow any country to have permanent bases in the country and that is in accordance with the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The revolution in Iran was about independence, dignity, sovereignty and indigenous values, and the removal of American hegemony over Iran was very much a part of that. The Iranians will not give any basis to foreign powers in future, and neither the Russians nor the Chinese have ever made such requests. There are absolutely no differences regarding Iran’s regional policies between the IRGC and the rest of the military, both were a part of the decision-making process when the Russians were allowed to fire missiles over Iranian territory and both were part of the process in allowing Russian aircraft to use Iranian airspace. The Russian bombers were providing air support for Iranian troops and Iranian affiliated troops on the ground.

The Saker: Both Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah have made repeated statements that the days of the racist ZioApartheid regime in occupied are numbered. Do you agree with their point of view and, if yes, how do you see such a regime change actually happening? Which of the One State solution or a Two State solution do you believe to be more realistic?

Professor Marandi:  I do not believe the two-state solution is possible because the Israeli regime has colonized too much of the West Bank. Actually, through acts of selfishness and petty short-term gain, the regime has damaged itself enormously. As a result of the colonization of the West Bank, even the European elites and diplomats who would privately admit that the Israeli regime pursues apartheid policies and who would always speak of hope for a two-state solution, admit that the two state solution is dead. All Palestinians are treated as sub humans, whether they reside in the West Bank or not. They are a subjugated nation, whether they are Israeli citizens or not. However, there is no longer any hope that those who live in the occupied West Bank will gain freedom, even though we predicted the Israelis would never voluntarily relinquish the West bank. This is the most important challenge that the regime faces in the future. By colonizing the West Bank and despite official western media and government narratives, it is increasingly seen by the international community as the apartheid regime that it is. It is delegitimizing itself in the eyes of larger numbers of people.

In addition to that, it can no longer behave with impunity. The 2006 war in Lebanon where the Israeli armed forces were defeated by Hizbullah was a turning point. Before then, the Israelis had created an image that they were invincible. But now even in Gaza, they are unable to carry out their objectives when they periodically attack the territory and its civilians. The Israelis are now more easily contained especially since the Syrian government has been able to restore order and expel ISIS and al-Qaeda from areas neighboring Israeli forces on the occupied Golan Heights, despite the Israelis supporting the extremists. The Israelis have been contained regionally, at home they are increasingly seen as an apartheid regime. Its regional allies are also on the decline and regionally. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are the only countries that can be considered as effective allies and they are facing a potential terminal decline. Therefore, regionally the regime is becoming more isolated. I do not believe that under such circumstances, the Israeli regime can last for very long. Just as the apartheid regime in South Africa collapsed under the burden of its own immoral existence, the Israeli regime will not last. There will be no two-state solution, the only realistic and moral solution is for Palestine to be united and for the indigenous population to have its rights restored, whether they are Palestinians, Jews or Christians or anyone else who is indigenous to the land.

The Saker: Iran is an Islamic Republic. It is also a majority Shia country. Some observers accuse Iran of wanting to export its political model to other countries. What do you make of that accusation? Do Iranian Islamic scholars believe that the Iranian Islamic Republic model can be exported to other countries, including Sunni countries?

Professor Marandi: 9-I do not think that there is any validity to that accusation. Iran has a very excellent relationship with Iraq, but it has not imposed its model on the country. In fact, Iran helped create the current constitution of that country. The same is true for Lebanon and Yemen. Iran is constantly accused by its antagonists, but in the most inconsistent ways. Elsewhere they claim that Iran is afraid of their model being exported because they are fearful of rivals. Iran has always been attacked from all sides often using self-contradictory arguments. On the one hand, the so-called regime is allegedly immensely unpopular, it is corrupt, it is falling apart, and it is incapable of proper governance. Yet on the other hand, Iran is a growing threat to the region and even the world. This is paradoxical, how can Iran be incompetent and collapsing on the one hand, yet a growing threat to the whole world on the other hand? This simply does not make sense. Nevertheless, I have seen no evidence that Iran has tried to impose its model on other countries or on movements that are close to it. If it was not for Iran’s support, ISIS and al-Qaeda would have overthrown Syria with its secular government and secular constitution. Iranians firmly believed that the terrorist forces supported by Western intelligence services as well as regional regimes were the worst case scenario for the Syrian people. Did they impose their model?

The Saker: thank you for all your answers!

In Case you missed it

No, Assad Didn’t “Win” The War, He Was Compelled By Putin To “Compromise”  By ANDREW KORYBKO

Don’t miss the comments

NO MR.ANDREW KORYBKO

YOUR ARTICLE IS MISLEADING. ASSAD WAS THE COUNTRY’S DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED AND LEGITIMATE LEADER IN MARCH 2011, TILL THIS VERY MOMENT.

YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT PUTIN INTERFERED IN 2015, 3 THE SO-CALLED SYRIAN “SPRING”. HE WAS THE TARGET, NOT THE REGIME. IF YOU DON’T KNOW, YOU NEED A DOCTOR

LOOK AT SYRIAN REFUGES IN LEBANON MARCHING THO ELECT ASSAD IN 2014 AT THE SYRIAN EMBASSY.

https://postmediacanadadotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/lebanon-syria-conflict-vote-refugee1.jpg?quality=60&strip=all

Related Articles

War Gaming the Persian Gulf Conflict

August 02, 2019

War Gaming the Persian Gulf Conflict

By Blake Archer Williams for The Saker Blog

Greetings from Tehran, the “Capital of the free world” (E. Michael Jones).

A few days ago, Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, had a brief post on Colonel Patrick Lang’s weblog, Sic Semper Tyrannis. Here’s the link:

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/07/will-donald-trump-kill-his-presidency-over-iran-by-larry-c-johnson.html#comments

He gave four possible options, and invited the commenters to add others of their own. The whole post and the comments which followed were absolutely pathetic in terms of the depth of analysis, including this mind-blowing comment by the Turcopolier himself:

“The strait would not stay closed long, but there would be considerable economic damage while it is.”

I mean, are these people nuts?? Let me put it this way:

The [sand] niggers have burned down the plantation, OK? The plantation is no more. It is an ex-Plantation.

And the niggers have built their own supersonic Noor ground to sea and ground to ground missiles; we have built ballistic missiles with ranges of up to 2000 km and winged cruise missiles with a range of 2500, all with high precision (low CEP) impacts. Our latest generation of drones are on the leading edge of the technology. Trust me. (We are always in the 90+ percentile if not actually winning the medals in the Olympics for mathematics, physics, chemistry, electrical engineering, information technology, etc.)

Image result for abraham lincoln ship

If the first ballistic missile or Noor cruise missile fails to take out the control tower of the Abraham Lincoln (and fail they won’t), we will use the multiple warhead option on the ballistic missiles, and “carpet bomb” the runway so that it will be useless. Just a rubber duck sitting in our pond, with its 5,000+ sailors constantly under fire until they raise the white flag of surrender and wait to be taken hostage.

The niggers have exercised strategic patience for a very long time (four decades). It would be nice to have a few more years just to be sure, but we are ready. We are thirsting for relief from the false new worldly order (novus ordo seclorum falsus) as declared in the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican in 1965 and in the Centesimus Annus encyclical issued by Pope John Paul II in 1991, which emphasized the surrender to usury (“capitalism, properly understood”).

Let us game this. Trumpf is talking about the use of nuclear weapons. He is itching for it. But only after he gets re-elected. What are Iran’s options? The Iranian “Samson Option” is simple: Fire a few Noor missiles at the deep-water supertanker docking ports of Ra’s Tanura (Saudi Arabia), Fujairah, and Dubai’s Jebel Ali port, “the largest man-made deep-water harbor in the world that is also the U.S. Navy’s busiest port of call outside of America.” It would take at least six months to rebuild the ruins, IF the sand-niggers allow the reconstruction to take place, during which time no supertankers will be able to dock anywhere in the Persian Gulf to fill their huge bellies with that yummy crude. What that would do to the world economy, you would have to ask my friend, Pepe Escobar, who knows a thing or two about derivatives and over-extension more generally. What is Trumpf going to do now that he has crashed Wall Street worse than 1929? I.e. the final crash which Pax Americana (as wagged by the Pax Judaica tail, of course) will not recover from. I.e. finally putting the Crash of September 2008 precipitated by the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy out of its misery. Take a dive from the top of Trumpf Tower, that’s what. The American equivalent of Seppuku, not having the “guts” for the real thing, or not being able to “make the cut” – you decide.

The pathetic talk on Sic Semper Tyrannis is that we would be able to hit some of the Saudi oil and tank infrastructure. For example, one of the commenters (Jack) says,

“The real question is how badly could they damage Gulf oil production infrastructure and how long would it take to rebuild?”

Why would we want to destroy what is [ultimately] ours??

Why not provide machine guns to the 2 million oppressed Shi’a in Qatif; you know, the niggers who run the Ra’s Tanura refinery and port… Roll in a couple of armored Divisions, given them the Uzi and Kalashnikov high copies (and maybe some magic Houthi sandals with which to wage war), and leave the tanks there for them to defend Qatīf with. (We would have their backs on the Persian Gulf side).

Why not take as many of the 10,000 soldiers at the un-defendable Bagram base in Afghanistan hostage, as well as the 5,000 or so sailors of the Fifth Fleet stationed in Bahrain? (With the fall of Qatīf, Bahrain would also fall back into Iranian suzerainty.)

Why not bomb the control centers and runways of all the airfields the US would want to use to take out our radar installations out in the first few weeks (so that they can then send in their Depends™ -wearing pilots to take out our nuclear sites). And for what? Like that is going to achieve anything other than bring about further national unity and cohesion. But like I said, there would be no “few weeks” once Iran implements the first three days of its gameplan.

Why not take out Dimona and the Haifa Port Chemical Terminal and the Ben-Gurion Airport control tower?

Why not make Israel a no-fly zone, so that the dual passport holders can make their way back to Europe and New York, which is where they came from in the first place? Not for the military aircraft, but for commercial aircraft: Anything taking off or landing in Ben-Gurion will be shot down by domestic analogues of the S-300’s; you know, the same good fireworks brought to you by the same folk who destroyed the so-called “stealth” Triton drone at four o’clock in the morning. (Help me out here… we’re just gaming this, ok?). And as for the Persian Gulf (not “the Gulf”, stupid); someone rightly characterized it as the Hotel California for whatever martial vessel which dares enter it. And for those who are not old enough to know: “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave!”

So these are the options as we see them.

First the Emirates (half of whose keffiyeh wearing “sheiks” are ethnically Iranian and Persian speaking anyway), and Qatīf (and of course Jīzān and the southern parts of Asīr back to the Yemenese, where they have always belonged historically). And then on to the Hejaz and the haramayn: Mecca and Medina, driving the Wahhabeast heretics back under the rocks of Najrān, from under which they crawled with the aid of British arms and financing back in the middle of the 18th century.

Yes, Russia isn’t too happy about the possibility of Iranian control over such a large geopolitical jugular vein, but hey, it’s geographical determinism; they’ll get used to it. They will be getting Germany and France and the European sub-continent’s integration into the Eurasia “world continent” (McKinder?). And better the oil in the hands of the rational Shi’a than the crazy-as-a-loon American cowboys. And the ‘Sea Power’ pirates, Perfidious Albion and Uncle $cam will have to scamper back home with their rat-tails between their rat legs, followed by all their takfiri scum “rats” (Ghaddāfī), who will be deported to London and New York, God grant!

The phase of strategic patience is over.

We are now in the phase of Eye for an Eye Escalation. But do not think that this phase will have the longevity of the last one. It is on a high-sprung spring-loaded trigger, after which all bets are off.

This is the way we see it. How do you see it, Pray tell? Do you see it as we see it? As Colonel Lang sees it? Or somewhere in between? I eagerly await to see your perspectives in your comments.

Blake Archer Williams has asked me to add this article under his analysis because it illustrates the points he just made.  He also added the following important caveat to this translation:

The translation of the subtitles is not the best. Particularly, General Soleimani’s very first sentence, which is very important, has not been rendered well. Where it says, “There is no need for armed forces, I am your foe, the Qods Force is your foe.” It should read as follows:
“There is no need for the [regular] Iranian Armed Forces [to get involved in order to resolve the conflict between us]; I am [a sufficient] adversary for you; the Qods Force is [sufficient enough] of a foe for [the likes of] you.”

Also, at 1:37, where the good general says, “You start this war, but the end of it, we will decide.” Should read:

“You [may] start this war, but [know that in such an event], it is we who will draw (tarsīm) [the political map] of how it will end [literally: “of its end”)].

And as you know, my friend, General Soleimani is not given to hyperbole and lies, as is the unfortunate habit of US politicians and now generals too.

——-
Here is the article in question:

PressTV reports

Iran’s Major General Qassem Soleimani has sharply reacted to the recent “cabaret owner-style” military threat by US President Donald Trump against the Islamic Republic, saying he takes the position to respond “as a soldier” since it is beneath the dignity of Iran’s president to do so.

Addressing Trump, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) said, “You threaten us with an action that is ‘unprecedented’ in the world. This is cabaret-style rhetoric. Only a cabaret owner talks to the world this way.”

He was reacting to Trump’s all-caps tweet addressed to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, in which he threatened the Islamic Republic with actions “the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before.”

The tweet came after President Rouhani warned the US against its hostile approach against Iran, saying Washington should know that peace with Iran will be the mother of all peace while war with the country will be the mother of all wars.

“It is beneath the dignity of our president to respond to you. I, as a soldier, respond to you,” Soleimani further said.

You already did all you could!

The senior general further reminded the United States of its failures in its invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

“What was it that you could do over the past 20 years but you didn’t? You came to Afghanistan with scores of tanks and personnel carriers and hundreds of advanced helicopters and committed crimes there. What the hell could you do between 2001 and 2018 with 110,000 troops? You are today begging Taliban for talks,” Major General Soleimani said.

The Iranian commander added, “Afghanistan was a poor country, what the hell could you do in this country that you are currently threatening us?”

“You arrogantly attacked Iraq with 160,000 troops and multiple times [military equipment] compared to what you used in Afghanistan, but what happened? Ask your then commander who was the person that he sent to me and asked ‘Is is possible for you to give us time [and] use your influence so that our soldiers would not be attacked by the Iraqi fighters in these few months  until we exit this country?’ Have you forgotten that you provided adult diapers for your soldiers in tanks? Despite that you are currently threatening the great country of Iran? With what background do you threaten [us]?”

“We are near you, where you can’t even imagine. We are the nation of martyrdom, we are the nation of Imam Hossein, you better ask. Come; we are ready. We are the man of this arena. You know that this war would mean annihilation of all your means. You may begin the war, but it is us who will end it,” he said.

In Yemen, Soleimani said, the US-backed coalition of Saudi Arabia and its allies has been incapable of making any gains against the country’s Houthi Ansarullah movement, which is both running state affairs and defending the nation against the Riyadh-led aggression.

“A mere organization is standing against you in Yemen, but it has emerged victorious in the face of the most advanced of your military equipment. What have you achieved over the past four years? You stripped the Red Sea – which used to be a safe sea – of security. You brought under fire Saudi Arabia and [its capital] Riyadh – which had not seen a single rocket fired at them for 100 years.”

The senior general further warned Trump against insulting the Iranian nation and president.

“Trump! You must not threaten our nation and must not insult our president… You must know what you are talking about; ask your predecessors and take advantage of their experiences,” General Soleimani emphasized.

The senior military official also censured the US for supporting the most hated anti-Iran terror group, called the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO), saying Washington failed to achieve anything by doing so.

The commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force said,

“the US had some grandeur in the past [and] when its fleet moved out, a nation fell apart. Have you now become attached to the Monafeqeen, who have been thrown in the trash bin of Iran’s history? You have become attached to a vagrant woman, and show her in all [your news] networks; is your hope pinned on this? Is this all your power? You are aware of our power in the region and capability for [launching] asymmetrical war?”

 

إبن سلمان يطيح بالسعودية حتى في الخليج

يوليو 29, 2019

د. وفيق إبراهيم

الدور الخارجي السعودي يواصل رحلة انحداره الجنونية في سورية والعراق واليمن وقطر وإيران وتركيا مسجلاَ أزمات قريبة من الانفجار مع الكويت وعمان والإمارات. فلم يعد لديه من أصدقاء سوى البحرين بالاستتباع ومصر بالتأييد الخطابي الفارغ، أما الأميركيون فهم أصدقاء وهميون لا يفعلون إلا مصالحهم مع العودة الدورية لابتزاز مملكة آل سعود وسط سخرية عالمية يطلقها الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب في كل مرة ينتزع من الملك سلمان أو ولي عهد محمد أموالاً بالمليارات.

فأين هي المشكلة؟

لا ينتمي النظام السعودي إلى دائرة النظم المتعارف عليها عالمياً. فالوطنية بالنسبة إليه تعني دمج الناس فولكلورياً في عشيرة آل سعود إنّما من دون حقهم الاستحصال على سيطرتها الاقتصادية والسياسية.

كما أنه لا ينتسب إلى دائرة دول جزيرة العرب أو الخليج، فلا يقبل إلا باستلحاقها لبيعة آل سعود كزعامة خليجية وعربية وإسلامية، وإلا فإنه ينصب لها الفِخاخ والمكائد ومشاريع الحروب كما يحدث مع اليمن وقطر حالياً والكويت سابقاً وإيران منذ أربعين عاماً.

ولا ينتسب أيضاً إلى معادلة الدول القومية، ألم يسبق له الاحتراب مع أنظمة البعث في العراق وسورية وليبيا القذافي، مقاتلاً مشروع عبد الناصر بشراسة نادرة وفرت لـ»إسرائيل» فرصة الانقضاض على قواته في 1967.

كما أنه ليس نظاماً إسلامياً، لأنه يستخدم الدين لتقوية نظام آل سعود في ما تعمل الدول الدينية على تدعيم نظامها بتحشيد الناس حوله.

هذا هو النظام السعودي الذي يرفض الأدوار الوطنية والخليجية والعربية والإسلامية والأممية، ما يدل على أنه نظام العائلة الواحدة التي تستبيح لأفرادها السياسة والنفط والمال والدين والمواقع والمناصب.

بهذه المعادلة خرجت السياسة السعودية إلى الجوار العربي والإقليمي والدولي، لكن ما ستر عليها هما النفط والدين في حرميه الشريفين وموسم الحج. هذا إلى جانب الرعاية الأميركية، التي استعملت بدورها الدور السعودي لسببين الاقتصاد ومقارعة الاتحاد السوفياتي في مرحلة ما قبل 1990. هذا ما وفّر للسعودية دوراً وازناً في العالمين العربي والإسلامي، قام على أساس قدرتها على شراء الولاءات بنثر أموال النفط في كل اتجاه يريده أولياء الأمور الأميركيون.

إن ما تسبّب تبديل هذه الوضعية السعودية المريحة هي مرحلة ما بعد انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي في 1989 لأن الأميركيين وضعوا مشروعاً لتفتيت المنطقة العربية، وذلك للمزيد من الإمساك بها وإنهاء الصراع العربي ـ الإسرائيلي والقضية الفلسطينية والتأسيس التدريجي البطيء لعصر الاعتماد على الغاز.

فوضع آل سعود كامل إمكاناتهم الاقتصادية والدينية وعلاقاتهم مع تنظيمات الإرهاب المتقاطعة مع حركتهم الوهابية في خدمة تدمير المنطقة العربية والشرق أوسطية داعمين فيها حصراً الملكية في البحرين لإبادة تيارات معارضة ديمقراطية فيها، وذلك بتثبيت قواعد أميركية وبريطانية وفرنسية وسعودية وأخرى لمجلس التعاون الخليجي ودرك أردني وأدوار استشارية إسرائيلية وقوات آل خليفة.. كل هذا الانتشار موجود على مساحة 500 كلم مربع من أصل 700 كيلومتر هي مساحة البحرين، وبعديد سكان لا يتجاوز 50 ألف نسمة.

ماذا كانت النتيجة؟

أدرك المشروع الأميركي درجة عالية من التراجع والانسداد في سورية والعراق، وانكمش معه الدور السعودي ـ الخليجي الذي خسر كل أدواته، مُخلياً الساح لتقدّم الدور التركي بديلاً منه، أما العنصر الآخر فهو نجاح الصمود الإيراني في مجابهة أقوى مشروع أميركي ـ سعودي ـ إسرائيلي مع الإشارة إلى نجاح اليمنيين في ردع الهجوم السعودي ـ الإماراتي على بلادهم وانتقالهم من الدفاع المتواصل حتى الآن في جبهات متعددة إلى الهجوم داخل الأراضي السعودية بقوات برية وطائرات مسيّرة وصواريخ وصلت إلى مشارف الإمارات.

لقد شكّل هذا التراجع تقلصاً «بنيوياً» في الدور الإسلامي والعربي للسعودية فلم يتبق لها إلا البحرين ومصر، مع الكثير من الخطابات غير المجدية لرؤساء من دول إسلامية في آسيا الوسطى وأفريقيا، معبأة بمديح عاجز عن وقف انهيار دورها.

حتى أن الرئيس المصري السيسي اعتاد على القول إن الخليج جزء من الأمنين القومي المصري والعربي، مضيفاً بأن السعودية هي رأس هذا الأمن، أما عملياً فلا يسمع أحد صوت السيسي في أزمات الخليج حتى أنه يختبئ في قصره ملتزماً صمتاً عميقاً.

هذا ما يدفع بآل سعود لتكثيف دورهم في آخر ما تبقى لهم من زوايا وهي البحرين المطلة على ساحلهم الشرقي، حيث يتعاونون مع ملكها على إيقاع أكبر كمية أحكام بإعدام عشرات المعارضين لأسباب تتعلق بتهم حول نقل أسلحة وتنظيم جمعيات إرهابية، وهي تهم حتى ولو كانت صحيحة لا تستأهل أكثر من بضعة أشهر سجن، لكنه الذعر الذي يدفع السعوديين وآل خليفة إلى إنهاء حياة كل من لا يواليهم، وعلى السمع والطاعة المعمول بها في أراضي الحرمين الشريفين.

من جهة أخرى، أدى هذا الضمور السعودي في الدور إلى انتفاضة دول الخليج على هذه المملكة التي تمسك بهم منذ سبعينيات القرن الماضي، فشعروا أنها فرصة نادرة للخروج من العباءة السعودية وكانت عُمان البادئة، فاستقلت عن الموقف الحربي السعودي والتزمت سياسة حياد بين الأطراف المتعادية، ويتطور موقفها إلى حدود أداء دور وساطة فعلية بين إيران وبريطانيا والولايات المتحدة الأميركية، وترفض أي تنسيق مع السعودية.

كذلك الكويت المعتصمة بحياد وازن، والمنفتحة على العراق، أما قطر فتمكنت بدفع أموال للوالي الأميركي من النجاة من خطر الخنق السعودي ـ الإماراتي.

أما الإمارات، فما أن استشعرت اليأس من السيطرة على اليمن وصمود إيران في وجه الأميركيين والسعوديين والإسرائيليين حتى بدأت تحزم حقائب قواتها من اليمن إلى الإمارات، بشكل تدريجي وتحايلي وسط غضب سعودي منها.

وهكذا يتضح أن تراجع الدور السعودي لا يقتصر على البلاد العربية والإسلامية، لأنه أدرك مهد السعودية في جزيرة العرب ومداها الخليجي المباشر، ما يضعها أمام احتمالين: أما التخلي عن مساندتها للإرهاب الأميركي واكتفائها بإدارة المملكة حصرياً أو استرسالها ببناء علاقات عميقة مع الإسرائيليين وحكام البحرين، على قاعدة الانصياع للأميركيين والاستمرار في الضغط النفطي على روسيا وشراء بضائع صينية لا تحتاجها، وصفقات مع أوروبا لا تجيد استعمالها، يبدو أن رحلة الانتحار السعودي متواصلة لاعتقاد حكامها بأن انسحابهم من تأييد الأميركيين والإسرائيليين لا يبقي لهم أحداً في العالم فيخسرون الحكم والدنيا والدين، وأراضٍ في شبه الجزيرة العربية يحتلونها منذ مطلع القرن الفائت، ويستعبدون سكاناً، قابلين للتمرّد عليهم عند توافر الظروف المناسبة، وهي لم تعد بعيدة.

Saudi Arabia on UN’s list of child-killing regimes for 3rd year

Source
A child suffering from malnutrition caused by the Saudi aggression lies on a bed at a treatment center in al-Sabeen Maternal Hospital in the Yemeni capital Sana'a on June 22, 2019. (Photo by AFP)
A child suffering from malnutrition caused by the Saudi aggression lies on a bed at a treatment center in al-Sabeen Maternal Hospital in the Yemeni capital Sana’a on June 22, 2019. (Photo by AFP)

The United Nations has for the third year put Saudi Arabia and its allies in their military campaign against Yemen on the world body’s blacklist of child killers,  

According to a report by United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, in 2018, the Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen killed or injured 729 children, nearly half the total child casualties of the year.

The UN chief’s report, which was presented to the Security Council on Friday, also states that Palestinian casualties caused by the Israeli regime, mainly its military, hit a four-year high in 2018.

The report shows that 59 Palestinian children were killed – 56 by Israeli forces – and another 2,756 were injured last year.

Guterres urged “Israel to immediately put in place preventive and protective measures to end the excessive use of force”.

“I condemn the increasing number of child casualties, which are often a result of attacks in densely populated areas and against civilian objects, including schools and hospitals,” Guterres said in the report, produced by UN Children and Armed Conflict envoy Virginia Gamba and issued in Guterres’ name.

The report does not subject those listed to action; however, it shames parties to conflicts in the hope of pushing them to stop killing children.

Diplomats say Saudi Arabia and Israel both have exerted pressure in recent years in a bid to stay off the list, but no to avail.

In reaction to the Friday report, Saudi Ambassador to the UN Abdadllah Al-Mouallimi claimed that “every child’s life is precious” to Riyadh, and questioned the sourcing and accuracy of the report, describing the numbers as “exaggerated.”

His claims come as over 80,000 Yemeni children under five years have died as a result of severe malnutrition caused by the Saudi-led coalition’s aggression against the people of Yemen, Guterres cited a report as saying earlier this year.

The war that  began in March 2015 has so far killed thousands of Yemeni women and children and destroyed Yemen’s infrastructure.

The Yemeni Health Ministry announced in a report on Friday that one Yemeni child is dying of malnutrition every 10 minutes. The report, cited by al-Mayadeen TV, said malnutrition has affected 2.3 million children in Yemen during the past five years.

It also pointed to the outbreak of cholera as a result of the Saudi-led coalition’s aggression, saying that children account for 40 percent of the 3,700 people diagnosed with the disease in the war-torn country.

Related Videos

Read more:

%d bloggers like this: