Egypt Vs. The Muslim Brotherhood – Preventing the Next Syria

Egypt Vs. The Muslim Brotherhood – Preventing the Next Syria

 

by Tony CARTALUCCI

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

The sentencing of over 500 Muslim Brotherhood members to death in Cairo – many in absentia – for their role in the attack, torture, and murder of an Egyptian policeman is the culmination of an all encompassing security crackdown across Egypt. The move has created a chilling effect that has left the otherwise violent mobs of the Muslim Brotherhood silent and the streets they generally terrorize, peaceful and empty.

The move by the Egyptian courts has attracted the predictable condemnation of the US State Department. The Washington Post’s article, “Egyptian court sentences 529 people to death,” quoted US State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf as claiming the US was “deeply concerned,” and “shocked.” She also claimed that the move “defied logic.”

The move was, however, exceptionally logical.

While the US continues to feign support for the government in Cairo, it was fully behind the so-called “Arab Spring,” the Muslim Brotherhood-led regime of Mohamed Morsi that came to power in its wake, its mobs in the streets, and the networks of NGOs inside Egypt supporting and defending their activities.

How Egypt Got Here 

Egypt’s current turmoil is a direct result of the 2011 so-called “Arab Spring.” While nations like Libya lie in ruins with the “revolution” a “success” and the Libyan people now subjugated by pro-Western proxies, and Syria as it continues to fight on in a costly 3 year conflict that has cost tens of thousands of lives, Egypt has taken a different path.

When violent mobs began inching Egypt toward violence of Libyan and Syrian proportions, the Egyptian military, who has been the primary brokers of power in Egypt for decades, bent with the winds of change. Hosni Mubarak was ousted from power and the military tolerated the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood itself into power. However, before they did so, they laid the groundwork for its eventual undoing.

The military leadership bid its time patiently, waiting for the right moment to unseat the Brotherhood and swiftly shatter its networks politically and militarily. It was a masterstroke that has so far saved Egypt from the same fate suffered by other nations still burning in the chaos unleashed by the “Arab Spring.”

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Resurrection 

The Muslim Brotherhood is a faux-theocratic sectarian extremist movement – a regional movement that transcends national borders. It is guilty sowing decades of violent discord not only in Egypt, but across the Arab World and it has remained a serious threat to secular, nationalist states from Algeria to Syria and back again. It is the factor of chaos of choice by the West and its regional collaborators, who generously fund it, arm it, and provide it with a steady stream of political recognition.

Today, the Western press decries Egyptian and Syrian efforts to curb these sectarian extremists, particularly in Syria where the government was accused of having “massacred” armed Brotherhood militants in Hama in 1982. The constitutions of secular Arab nations across Northern Africa and the Middle East, including the rewritten Syrian Constitution, have attempted to exclude sectarian political parties, especially those with “regional” affiliations to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda affiliated political movements from ever coming into power.

And while specter of sectarian extremists taking power in Egypt or Syria may seem like an imminent threat to Western (including Israeli) interests – it in reality is a tremendous boon.

Despite a long campaign of feigned anti-American, anti-Israeli propaganda during the Egyptian presidential run-up, the Muslim Brotherhood had joined US, European, and Israeli calls for “international” intervention in Syria. Egypt had also broken off diplomatic relations with Syria in an attempt to further isolate the nation – however these ties wererestored almost immediately after Morsi was finally ousted from power.

The Syrian Connection 

To understand the Muslim Brotherhood’s designs in Egypt, one must first understand the Brotherhood’s role in the West’s proxy war against Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Syrian affiliates have been funneling weapons, cash, and foreign fighters into Syria to fight Wall Street, London, Riyadh, Doha, and Tel Aviv’s proxy war since 2011. The Brotherhood had prepared for this role since at least as early as 2007.

In Reuters ‘May 6, 2012 article titled, “Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood rise from the ashes,” it stated:

“Working quietly, the Brotherhood has been financing Free Syrian Army defectors based in Turkey and channeling money and supplies to Syria, reviving their base among small Sunni farmers and middle class Syrians, opposition sources say.”

The Muslim Brotherhood was nearing extinction in Syria before the latest unrest, and while Reuters categorically fails in its report to explain the “how” behind the Brotherhood’s resurrection, it was revealed in a 2007 New Yorker article titled, “The Redirection” by Seymour Hersh.

The Brotherhood was being directly backed by the US and Israel who were funneling support through the Saudis so as to not compromise the “credibility” of the so-called “Islamic” movement. Hersh revealed that members of the Lebanese Saad Hariri clique, then led by Fouad Siniora, had been the go-between for US planners and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

Hersh reports the Lebanese Hariri faction had met Dick Cheney in Washington and relayed personally the importance of using the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria in any move against the ruling government:

“[Walid] Jumblatt then told me that he had met with Vice-President Cheney in Washington last fall to discuss, among other issues, the possibility of undermining Assad. He and his colleagues advised Cheney that, if the United States does try to move against Syria, members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood would be “the ones to talk to,” Jumblatt said.”

The article would continue by explaining how already in 2007, US and Saudi backing had begun benefiting the Brotherhood:

“There is evidence that the Administration’s redirection strategy has already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, “The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.” He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front’s members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents.

Jumblatt said he understood that the issue was a sensitive one for the White House. “I told Cheney that some people in the Arab world, mainly the Egyptians”—whose moderate Sunni leadership has been fighting the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood for decades—“won’t like it if the United States helps the Brotherhood. But if you don’t take on Syria we will be face to face in Lebanon with Hezbollah in a long fight, and one we might not win.”

Syria’s Chaos is a Warning of Egypt’s Possible Future 

While the US decries the recent court decision in Cairo – sentencing over 500 members of the Muslim Brotherhood to death – claiming the move “defies logic,” considering what the Brotherhood laid the groundwork for in Syria, the Egyptian government has made a very logical move.  Appeasement, accommodation, and leniency were already tried both in Libya and Syria.

One must consider Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi and his release of prisoners hailing from Al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) in 2008. Among them was Abdel-Hakim Belhaj who upon his release would simply return to the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, raise an army of Western-armed terrorists, and go on to overthrow Qaddafi, decimate the nation, and plunge Libya into a sectarian bloodbath that is still raging to this day.

The same destabilization, step-by-step that was carried out in 2011 in Syria and Libya is now being carried out in Egypt and once again through sectarian extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Legions of terrorists are waiting in Egypt’s Sinai region for the Brotherhood to lay the groundwork in Egypt’s population centers so that they can be infiltrated and destroyed, just as has been done in Syria and Libya.  And behind it all is the West, desperately trying to dislodge the Egyptian military from power with a combination of unpalatable carrots and broken sticks.

The West has often expressed its desire to see the Egyptian military cut down to size, and removed entirely as a political power broker, just as has been done in Turkey. This is best articulated by Saudi Arabia’s Al Monitor, a clearinghouse for Western political spin, in its article, “Egypt’s Second Revolution a Blow to Turkey,” which states (emphasis added):

The Egyptian army considers Turkey’s Justice and Development Party to be a political rival and an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood. Moreover, the Egyptian military establishment views the Turkish model of limiting the power of Turkey’s military establishment by means of an alliance with Washington as a model that threatens the presence and interests of the Egyptian army.

Other US foreign policy think tanks and editorial columns are awash with comparisons between Egypt and Turkey and how Egypt can be transformed through the elimination of its politically influential military into a proxy state more like Turkey – a NATO member permanently bent to the will of Wall Street, London, and the European Union.

While the West attempts to portray the Egyptian government as “brutal,” it is clear the West’s designs for Egypt are nothing short of absolute brutality – the same absolute brutality that has left Libya and Syria’s cities in ruins, tens of thousands dead, and millions more either maimed, displaced, or otherwise affected by strife that has now lasted over 3 years in both nations.

The Egyptian military’s lightning fast moves to shatter the Muslim Brotherhood’s networks has for now thwarted a foreign-driven, armed, and dangerous attempt to subvert Egypt’s stability. It is a model that had Syria or Libya followed, tens of thousands of lives could have been spared, and the lives of millions more left unscathed by years of bloodshed and war.

For those who understand geopolitical developments with little hindsight and absolutely no foresight, condemning Egypt’s moves are easy. For those that remember Libya, see Syria, and can foresee Egypt with its larger population joining them in protracted armed conflict – today’s seemingly “brutal” efforts to stem the Muslim Brotherhood and the conspiracy they are playing a willful role in, are reasonable steps to prevent a much more brutal and tragic future.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Barack Obama and Saudi Arabia: Behind the Scenes of the Visit

Igor PANKRATENKO |

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

The conversation between the U.S. president and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia did not last very long. The ninety-year-old king walks with the help of a walker; during his meeting with Obama, a respirator was standing by for the monarch in the next room. However, besides the king, the two highest-ranking representatives of the dynasty also took part in the negotiations - Crown Prince Salman and the foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, whose words are sufficient for the making of any decisions in the Kingdom.

Even a brief list of the main points of the agenda speaks of the importance of the meeting: relations with Tehran, changes in the approaches to the civil war and foreign intervention in Syria, future policy with regard to Cairo and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, joint actions in Lebanon, «anti-terrorism» operations in Yemen, the situation in the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC), and, finally, the question of questions: joint plans with regard to diversifying supplies of energy resources to NATO member countries and agreeing on actions for lowering gas and oil prices.

The official commentary on the visit boils down to assurances of the inviolability of the strategic alliance between America and Arabia. In terms of bilateral sales volumes (52 billion for the first three quarters of 2013), the Saudis are among the top ten most important trade partners of the U.S. Military cooperation between Riyadh and Washington under the 338 contracts currently in force is worth 96.8 billion dollars. The U.S. military contingent has been withdrawn from the Kingdom, but American instructor and «consultant» missions continue active operation, especially in the security field, in close cooperation with the Saudi Ministry of Internal Affairs, intelligence and anti-terrorism divisions, conducting joint operations in Yemen. Finally, almost 74,000 Saudi students are studying in the U.S.; these are the future executives, whose talent pool, ideology and value systems are established in America.

With such a level of cooperation and intertwinement of capital (U.S. companies have around 400 joint projects with the Saudi dynasty in the Kingdom with a total volume of approximately $44 billion), there is no question of any serious disagreements between the American establishment and the Saudis. It is more accurate to speak of disagreements between the ruling dynasty and the Obama administration. But here during the visit a serious shift took place, and satisfaction literally oozes between the lines of the official commentaries on the negotiations.

The parties are to maintain the volumes of military and technical cooperation and increase coordination of military intervention in Yemen, the situation in which is a key factor for the security of Saudi Arabia and at the same time a threat to the ruling dynasty. Washington also approved the monarchy's actions in «subduing» Qatar; the mass repressions in Bahrain which, according to the Saudis, is now the front line in resisting Shiite expansion into the countries of the Persian Gulf; and the expansion of Saudi presence in Lebanon for the same «anti-Shiite» (read: anti-Iran) purposes. 

However, these are questions of a mostly tactical nature. The strategy of joint actions is defined in the questions of Egypt, Syria and oil. Each of them is significant not only for the Middle East, but for the rest of the world as well.

American-Saudi disagreements with regard to Egypt came to the surface last year, and the reason for them, according to the official American explanation, was  Obama's non-acceptance of the overthrow of Muhammad Morsi in a military coup. Like most American explanations, this one has little in common with reality. It is well known that on the day of the coup both Morsi and the Egyptian military spent several hours in telephone negotiations with Riyadh and Washington (the same thing happened, incidentally, in Qatar during the dynastic reshuffle), only after which did the military began to take key objects in Cairo, Port Said and Alexandria under its control. Yes, one of the first to congratulate new acting president of Egypt Adli Mansur was King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia. However, the U.S., although it sent no congratulations, also reported a day later that it was prepared to give the new Egyptian leadership «all possible support».

Differences between Washington and Riyadh on the Egyptian question arose from the scale of the repressions which the Egyptian military leaders, who had undergone training in U.S. academies, rained down on the Muslim Brotherhood. Washington was counting on the participation of the Brotherhood in a coalition government and using the organization's capabilities in its other geopolitical configurations, for example, in Turkey or Syria. But Cairo and Riyadh did not plan on leaving such loopholes for their political opponents, preferring to «pull the weed out roots and all», including the recent death sentences pronounced against over five hundred Brotherhood members. 

During Obama's recent visit, the «misunderstandings» on Egypt were resolved. Riyadh promised that the repressions would be scaled down and that the further development of Egypt would follow the path of «building democratic institutions and reforming the economy in accordance with market demands», for which the Saudis, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait have already allocated over 15 billion dollars in aid and loans, and they recently signed an agreement with the Egyptian military leadership on 40 billion dollars for a long-term housing construction program.

The topic of Syria dominated the negotiations between Obama and Abdullah, as here the greatest number of disagreements had accumulated with regard to how to overthrow al-Asad. However, it seems that the main disagreements have now been resolved.  

For the most part, the Saudis only wanted one thing from the U.S. with regard to Syria: approval for supplying the rebels with heavy weaponry, including anti-tank systems and MANPADs. Riyadh believes that expanding the list of deliverables will create the main condition for victory over al-Asad. Indeed, changing the balance of power in favor of the rebels will make it possible to solve the two main problems at once. First, military successes achieved by the «secular opposition» with a new level of armament will seriously weaken the position of the radical Islamists, with whom the «secular» rebels are now fighting just as zealously as with the government troops. Second, those same military successes will enable the rebels to finally establish themselves in one of the regions bordering on Turkey and create a support base for the «new democratic government of Syria» there. This «government», naturally, will be recognized by many countries, and it will be able to obtain any kind of armaments on a legal basis, as it were. But the main thing is that it will be able to just as «legally» create a «no-fly zone» over the territory it controls before an attack on Damascus by the coalition of rebels and «foreign volunteers». 

Official sources report that during the negotiations with King Abdullah, President Obama only rejected the idea of direct U.S. military strikes against Syria.  Obama considered everything else, including the delivery of MANPADs to the rebels, to be possible. White House representatives do not speak plainly about this; they begin to prevaricate, but the question can essentially be considered resolved. After the negotiations, it is clear that this summer Riyadh and Washington, in partnership with other «friends of Syria», will once again try to use weapons to «close the issue» of al-Asad and of the Syrian Arab Republic in its current form…

As a result of Obama's visit to Saudi Arabia there is news for Russia as well. The time when Washington and Riyadh agreed, albeit grudgingly, to Russia's participation in the Middle Eastern process, with Moscow having the indefinite status of «cosponsor of peaceful regulation», has ended, and it ended after the Crimean referendum and the reunification of Crimea and Russia. All regional-level issues discussed in the Royal Garden in Riyadh were discussed as if Russia was no longer a factor in the region, and Moscow was a hindrance which must be removed from the region once and for all. As for the question of Saudi participation in the fight to lower prices on energy resources and the Gulf monarchies substituting their oil and gas for the volume Russia now provides to other strategic partners of the U.S., it was decided to consider that separately. Essentially, the Saudis have given their consent on this. The question will be worked out on the level of informal expert groups, which will be the ones who propose a plan for this fight to lower prices. Russia has approximately a year to develop and implement countermeasures in the field of energy strategy. Later, when the informal agreements are formalized in plans and protocols, Russia could end up in a defensive position, which is clearly worse…

Why Obama paid a visit to Riyadh?

Why Obama paid a visit to Riyadh?

 

by Alexander Orlov

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

The deterioration of the situation in Ukraine made substantial changes in the agenda of talks of U.S. President Obama with Saudi leadership in Riyadh on March 28 this year. The main subject of the discussion included the situation around Ukraine, possible joint steps to decrease energy prices, in order to weaken Russia’s economy, promotion of Iran’s moving to a more pro-Western position, to weaken Tehran’s cooperation with Moscow, and only then about Syria and the situation in the GCC. Obama’s support of the coup in Ukraine and the tough American opposition towards Russia in Ukrainian affairs, led to Washington developing the idea of urgent mobilization of the resources of its rich Arab allies – to oppose Moscow. This is because it turned out that the U.S. and its allies in NATO and the EU had no financial or political leverage, for exerting pressure on Russia.

That is why the White House’s decision, urgently to revive its relations with those major Arab partners, with whom they have not been good recently, seems logical. The more so that, although Riyadh and Washington had differences in the approaches to some international and regional issues, the two countries reduced neither their energy nor military cooperation, as well as intelligence interaction was not stopped in the war being conducted by the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia against Iran and Syria. In addition, the White House decided to try to form a united front with the leading country in the Arab world against Moscow, and to neutralize Tehran at the same time.

As it became known, in the course of the conversation, Obama suggested that the ruling Saudi dynasty “take vengeance” on Russia for Crimea, by making strikes on three fronts. In Syria, in order to take it out of the orbit of influence of Moscow and Tehran, and to put the whole Levant under the U.S. and Saudi control. To provide financial assistance to the new government in Kiev, in order to make Ukraine an outpost of anti-Russian activities in Eastern Europe. To decrease oil and gas prices significantly, which would be a serious blow to Russia’s state treasury, and to achieve substantial reductions in the consumption of Russian oil and gas by the West.

Washington is well aware that Obama cannot act in any of these areas without Riyadh, especially in terms of using the “energy weapon” against Moscow. In exchange, Obama offered to “give a free hand” to the KSA in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. The more so, that Riyadh has been granted the right to build a special relationship with Egypt, after the overthrow of Mursi’s government. In general, the U.S. and the West have turned a blind eye to the harsh crushing of the protests of Shiites in Bahrain and the Eastern Province of the KSA. The Saudis received the right to carry out an operation to “subdue” Qatar and to defeat the Muslim Brotherhood. Moreover, the White House has admitted Riyadh to work on the question that is the most important issue for it and Israel, i.e., the Israeli-Palestinian settlement, by giving the Saudis a “green light” to work with Jordan, which now has a special role in the new scheme to settle the Palestinian issue.

However, the rulers of the KSA want much more, and above all, they want Assad’s regime to be destroyed, and American help in order to stop the growing influence of Iran, as well as to form a “Shiite Arc” in the region. Only then can Riyadh recover from the strongly shaken position of the kingdom in the Islamic world. And the overthrow of Assad and capturing Damascus by the pro-Saudi Islamist opposition in Damascus are the only things that can strengthen the position of Saudi Arabia as a leader among the Arab states. This would allow the implementation of its plans for further regional expansion – from establishing a Jordanian-Palestinian federation to the formation of an anti-Shiite league from the Arabian Peninsula to India.

In addition, the Saudis have their own logic here – since Syria can play a key role in supplying Qatari gas to Europe. In 2009-2011, Damascus was the main obstacle to the implementation of a project for the construction of a pipeline from Qatar’s North Field to the EU, which would have allowed a strike at “Gazprom”, via a sharp increase in supplies of cheap Qatari gas to Europe. For various reasons, Damascus did not consent to laying of a gas pipeline through its territory from Qatar to Turkey and the Mediterranean coast of the SAR for further transit to the EU. Thus, while B. Assad stays in power, the construction of the gas pipeline from Qatar to the Mediterranean coast of Syria is impossible. Energy experts calculated back in 2009-2010, that if Sunnis came to power in Syria, instead of the Alawite regime of Bashar Assad, the gas pipeline ‘Qatar – Saudi Arabia – Jordan – Syria – Turkey’ would be built in two years. This would result in huge financial losses for Russia, whose gas cannot compete with Qatari gas, due to the extremely low cost of the latter. Hence, Saudi Arabia is trying to subdue Qatar, through a conflict within the GCC, in order to cut off another option – the construction of a gas pipeline from Iran (South Pars) through Iraq and Syria, which could be a joint project with Russia. Doha would play only a secondary, supporting role, being dependent on Tehran.

Therefore, in Obama’s negotiations with the Saudi rulers, the latter sought U.S. consent to a large increase in the comprehensive assistance provided to Syrian rebels. In particular, to supply heavy weapons and man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), which would reduce to naught the superiority of the Syrian government forces in terms of firepower, and its complete superiority in the air, and thereby change the military balance in favor of “the anti-Assad opposition”. After that, it would be possible to act under the tested scheme: the creation of no-fly zones near Turkish and Jordanian borders, turning this area into a stronghold of militants, supplying arms and sending large mercenary forces there and the organization of a march on Damascus. In this case, according to the logic of the Saudis, Iran would be forced to move to a strategic defense, which would satisfy Riyadh at this stage, before the next move – arranging a coalition aimed at stifling the Islamic regime in Tehran. Obama asked the Saudis to give $15 billion, in return for all that, in order to support current Ukrainian authorities, explaining that the KSA would be compensated for these financial costs and a temporary drop in oil prices later, by the energy “isolation” of Russia and Iran.

The more so, that there was a precedent for this, when President Reagan and Saudi King caused a sharp decline in oil prices by the dumping of Saudi oil on the world market in the mid-1980s, because Soviet troops were sent into Afghanistan, which ultimately led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union, because of the subsequent economic problems. Today, a much smaller decrease in oil prices – from the current $107 per barrel to around 80-85 dollars – would be enough to make Russia suffer huge financial and economic damages. This would allow the U.S. president not only to get revenge for Crimea, but also to undermine significantly the economy of the Russian Federation, which would be followed by negative domestic political consequences for the current Russian government.

Earlier, American billionaire George Soros said that the U.S. strategic oil reserves are more than twice larger than the required level, and the sale of a part of these reserves would allow exerting pressure on Russia. That is, the blows would hit Moscow from two directions – from the United States and from the Persian Gulf. However, later on, the U.S. Secretary of Energy denied this possibility.

However, there is the question: Did the U.S. President manage to agree with Saudi Arabia to increase oil supplies to the world market to bring down prices? Does the KSA have a possibility to offer significant volumes of oil on the world market, for example up to 3-4 million b/d?

The fact is that the price of $110 per barrel is just the thing that Saudi Arabia needs, because the leadership of the kingdom has extensive socio-economic obligations. And if the standard of living of the Saudis decreases somewhat, due to the fall in oil prices and due to the fall of oil income, the country would be very much at risk to fall into the situation of the “Arab Spring”, like it was the case in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt. And the Saudis are afraid of a repetition of the Arab revolutions. Apparently, the Saudis are not going to offer additional oil on the market in order to bring down the price, just due to the hatred of the United States for the Russian Federation – as this is not profitable for them at all. They could agree on other things, including Qatari gas, Syria and Iran. In addition, the available production capacity of the KSA is not engaged now. This is about 4 million barrels per day. However, it would be impossible to do this quickly. It could take up to one month to increase the production. This is about as much as Iran produced at one time. However, now Iran is going to increase its production, due to lifting a part of the sanctions, and the Saudis are likely not to increase, but to reduce their production to keep oil prices high. And the prices will remain within the range they have been for quite a long time already. They will be in the range from 100 to 110, as this is the most comfortable range for both consumers and producers. Many countries, especially those that can influence the prices, via some manipulations with supply, are extremely interested in having high level of prices. Socio-economic programs are carried out in Venezuela at a price level of about $120 per barrel. In Iran, this figure is 110, and the same in Saudi Arabia. Thus, no one is interested in bringing down prices.

As for Iran, only one thing is clear for the time being: President Barack Obama has reassured Saudi King Abdullah that he would not agree to a “bad deal” with Iran on the nuclear issue. That is, Riyadh did not get what it wanted even on the Iranian issue. After the two leaders discussed their “tactical disagreements”, they both agreed that their strategic interests coincide, said an administration official. The statement of the White House on the results of the two-hour talks reads that Obama reaffirmed the importance for Washington of strong ties with the world’s largest oil exporter. At the same time, the administration official said that the parties had no time to discuss the situation with human rights in Saudi Arabia during their negotiations. In addition, a trusted source in the U.S. State Department said that Washington and Riyadh also discussed the conflict in Syria. According to him, the two countries carried out good joint work aimed at reaching a political transition period, and the support of moderate factions of the Syrian opposition. As for a possible supply of man-portable air defense systems to opposition militants, an informed source in Washington said that the U.S. still was concerned regarding the provision of such weapons to the rebels. However, there is information that Obama’s administration is considering the possibility of lifting the ban on the supply of MANPADS to the Syrian opposition. According to this source, the recent successes of the Syrian Army against the opposition forces may force the U.S. president to change his point of view.

Apparently, Obama and King Abdullah failed to reach clear and specific agreements on all issues on the agenda. There are differences, and the financial and economic interests are more important to Saudi Arabia than helping Washington in implementing its “revenge” on Russia for Crimea. Riyadh is well aware that Moscow and its partners on energy matters have things with which to respond to Saudi Arabia if the kingdom is blindly led on a string by the White House. And it is aware even more that Moscow has levers of political influence in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. The U.S., in turn, is not ready to resume its confrontation with Iran, especially when Tehran is fulfilling agreements to freeze its nuclear uranium enrichment program. In addition, Washington cannot work actively on Syrian affairs now, in the conditions of ongoing tensions in Ukraine. In addition, the chemical arsenal of the SAR has been half destroyed. And, apparently, Obama saw for himself during his, albeit short, stay in the kingdom that great changes are coming there, associated with the upcoming replacement of the current elderly generation of rulers by another one, which might be accompanied by unpredictable internal perturbation in the KSA. Hence, there is almost complete absence of victorious statements about the “historical” success of the U.S. President’s visit to Saudi Arabia.

Alexander Orlov, political scientist, expert in Oriental Studies, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Lavrov alerte les Algériens et met en garde les Tunisiens

Ex: http://www.tunisie-secret.com

La Russie hausse le ton. On ne touchera pas à l'Algérie, avertit Sergueï Lavrov, ministre des Affaires étrangères de la Russie, qui, soit-dit en passant, a été accueilli à Tunis avec le drapeau Serbe, une bourde de la diplomatie tunisienne qui ne sait plus faire la différence entre un drapeau russe et un drapeau serbe. La conspiration contre l’Algérie n’est plus un secret pour personne. Tout est prêt pour déstabiliser ce pays coincé entre une Tunisie sous mandat islamo-atlantiste, un Maroc sous influence israélienne, et une Libye en voie d’afghanisation. A Tunis, les cinq conditions sont réunies pour mener à bien ce plan anti-algérien : la base militaire américaine qui se trouve à un vol d’oiseau des frontières algériennes, le siège de Freedom House qui est la pépinière des cybers-collabos, les rats palestiniens du Hamas qui ont creusé des dizaines de tunnels aux frontières tuniso-algériennes, la mini armée de djihadistes tunisiens, algériens, libyens et tchétchènes disséminés en Tunisie, et les cellules dormantes d’Al-Qaïda. TS.

En visite éclair en Tunisie, il y a quelques jours, le ministre russe des Affaires étrangères, Sergueï Lavrov, a soutenu lors de sa visite, il y a quelques jours à Tunis, que des «parties étrangères» veulent mettre l'Algérie à feu et à sang à travers la commercialisation d'un printemps algérien. Sans les nommer, le diplomate russe a ajouté que ces mêmes parties «ont ouvert plusieurs fronts près des frontières algériennes depuis la Libye, la Tunisie et le Mali». Etant des alliés traditionnels, M.Lavrov a notamment réitéré le soutien de son pays à l'Algérie. Le chef de la diplomatie russe a dévoilé, lors de son passage en Tunisie, que l'Algérie est devenue la cible des instigateurs et autres fomenteurs qui insistent pour y écrire le dernier épisode d'un supposé printemps arabe. Aussi, a-t-il mis en garde les autorités algériennes contre les instigateurs de ce qu'on appelle «printemps arabe».

Le ministre russe des AE incrimine directement ceux qui ont été à l'origine des bouleversements provoqués délibérément en Tunisie, en Libye et au Mali, d'où parvient la plus grande menace contre l'Algérie. Il estime que les conspirateurs du nouvel ordre mondial établissent leurs plans à base d'une politique d'influence en misant sur les minorités populaires et les réseaux terroristes.

Cependant, cette menace soulignée par Moscou n'est pas nouvelle pour les services de renseignements algériens, pas une menace qu'ignorent les services de renseignements algériens. Soumis à une très forte pression depuis le début de la guerre civile en Libye, les forces de sécurité algériennes ont misé sur leur expérience acquise sur le terrain de la lutte antiterroriste. En un temps relativement court, des milliers d'informations et de témoignages de première main ont été analysés et recoupés par les services du DRS engagés dans une course contre la montre contre tous genres de menaces, notamment des groupuscules criminels nés à l'ombre d'une crise libyenne qui aura servi de catalyseur au mouvement jihadiste. Un mouvement relativisé et parfois banalisé par l'ensemble des parties entrées en guerre contre le régime d'El Gueddafi, dont la France, la Grande-Bretagne et les USA. Dans leur banque de renseignements les services de sécurité ont réussi à identifier des réseaux nouvellement constitués composés de Marocains et de Libyens.

L'arrestation de plusieurs agents du Mossad en Algérie en est la preuve tangible. Ne jugeant pas nécessaire de dévoiler le véritable scénario programmé contre l'Algérie, des sources très au fait du contexte confient que l'Algérie constitue «un terreau fertile» pour les grands appétits occidentaux. Le rapport du département d'Etat américain sur les droits de l'homme qui épingle paradoxalement l'Algérie et l'analyse du Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) de l'Académie militaire de West Point qui a mis sous la loupe tout ce qui se passe dans le sud de l'Algérie, prétextant que cette région névralgique de l'économie du pays, serait l'épicentre d'un éclatement populaire à cause de la marginalisation des minorités, ne peuvent être considérés que comme une introduction aux véritables visées des Occidentaux.

Une perception initiatrice de ce qui se prépare. «L'Algérie est-elle dans le collimateur des USA?» s'interrogeait L'Expression dans l'une de ses précédentes éditions! La réponse a été révélée dans les colonnes du Los Angeles Times. Le journal rapporte que «des troupes de forces spéciales américaines se sont installées en Tunisie». Cette présence dont nous avons fait foi, mais démentie par les autorités tunisiennes est justifiée, souligne le même organe de presse par le fait «d'entretenir les forces militaires tunisiennes en matière de lutte contre le terrorisme».

Les marines dont le nombre serait d'une cinquantaine ont pris position au sud de la Tunisie à un vol d'oiseau des frontières algériennes depuis le mois de janvier 2014. «Un avion de type hélicoptère s'y est installé aussi», précise encore le Los Angeles Times. Ce n'est que l'aspect visible de l'iceberg et de l'énorme stratégie de guerre annoncée contre l'Algérie.

En effet, depuis la fin de l'année précédente, des informations vérifiées font état d'une forte présence d'agents des services de renseignement américains et d'agents de l'Africom dans le Sud tunisien. Jalouse de sa souveraineté, l'Algérie avait agi en un temps record pour libérer plus de 600 otages tout en sécurisant le périmètre. L'Unité spéciale appelée à mener l'opération avait impressionné le monde entier par son professionnalisme! Même si les USA prétextent leur mobilisation en Afrique pour une coordination de lutte contre le terrorisme et pour préserver leurs intérêts, il est tout de même difficile de ne pas croire que les USA n'ont pas un intérêt pour une partie de l'Algérie dont les réserves de gaz de schiste, de gaz conventionnel et d'autres minéraux comme l'uranium. Des clans complaisants sont déjà sur le terrain pour la mise en marche de la locomotive de déstabilisation.

L’Expression algérien, du 12 mars 2014. 

«Printemps algérien» en vue, une catastrophe pour la France?

par Gabriel Robin

Ex: http://www.bvoltaire.fr

 

Si un conflit civil grave émergeait outre-Méditerranée, on peut sans peine imaginer que de nombreux Algériens fuiraient leur pays pour tenter de s’installer en France.

Abdelaziz Bouteflika brigue un quatrième mandat consécutif de président algérien. Âgé de 77 ans, l’homme est usé, une véritable momie qui ne se déplace plus qu’en fauteuil roulant suite à un accident vasculaire cérébral en 2013. Il bénéficie de l’appui des deux principaux partis politiques algériens, le FLN historique (Front de libération national) et le RND (Rassemblement national démocratique, représentant la majorité au Sénat). Cette oligarchie gérontocratique, dans laquelle les richesses et le pouvoir sont détenus par une caste dirigeante et consanguine, semble secouée à son tour par les convulsions qui ont agité son voisin tunisien et, bien sûr, l’Égypte. L’Algérie n’est pas une dictature au sens propre, la presse bénéficie d’une liberté relative, mais il s’agit bien d’un régime autoritaire.

L’Algérie a, pour l’instant, été « épargnée » par les mouvements des « printemps arabes ». Le directeur de la campagne d’Abdelaziz Bouteflika, le Premier ministre Abelmalek Sellal, déclarait même que « le printemps arabe est un moustique. Nous avons pu fermer la porte pour qu’il n’entre pas » ; alors que, dans le même temps, des affrontements communautaires opposaient ethnies berbères et arabes dans la ville de Ghardaïa, provoquant le décès de trois personnes. La situation est donc particulièrement tendue, et on peut avancer, sans trop se mouiller, que la configuration présente peut conduire à des troubles majeurs, voire à des conflits violents. Trois partis politiques ont d’ailleurs appelé à boycotter l’élection présidentielle et à manifester, estimant que celle-ci est une parodie d’élection libre.

Ces événements concernent au plus haut point la France : en effet, notre pays est historiquement lié à l’Algérie et nombre de personnes légalement françaises possèdent la double nationalité algérienne ou de la famille toujours « au pays ». Si un conflit civil grave émergeait outre-Méditerranée, on peut sans peine imaginer que de nombreux Algériens fuiraient leur pays pour tenter de s’installer en France. Chaque année, des milliers de ressortissants algériens souhaitent entrer en France et obtenir des « papiers » français. Mais avec une déstabilisation politique, le phénomène n’irait qu’en s’intensifiant lourdement. Nous nous retrouverions alors confrontés à un véritable exode, avec une arrivée massive de réfugiés politiques et de clandestins opportunistes, ainsi qu’une multiplication des mariages gris ou blancs.

Disons le tout net, la France n’est pas en mesure d’accueillir un nouveau flux d’immigration maghrébine, quand nous ne parvenons déjà pas à correctement intégrer ou assimiler ceux qui se trouvent ici. Nous avons pourtant toutes les raisons de craindre que le gouvernement ne sera pas capable de l’empêcher. Tant pour des raisons idéologiques que pratiques.

Pour les Français, un « printemps algérien » serait catastrophique…

L'Arabie Saoudite fait interdire 50 prénoms

Auteur : brujitaf.fr 

Ex: http://www.zejournal.mobi

L'Arabie Saoudite vient de publier une liste de 50 prénoms qui seront désormais interdits dans le royaume car jugés "blasphématoires" ou "inappropriés".

Cette liste diffusée par le ministère de l'Intérieur répertorie des prénoms assez répandus dans le pays, aussi bien d'origine étrangère comme Alice ou Lauren ou plus locale mais jugés inadéquats.

Ainsi, Amir (prince), Malika (reine), Benyamin (en référence au Premier Ministre israélien Netanyahou) ou encore Jibril (Gabriel, l'archange) ne sont plus en odeur de sainteté dans le royaume wahhabite.

La liste des 50 prénoms bannis:

Malaak, Abdoul Aati, Abdoul Naser, Abdoul Musleh, Nabi, Nabiyya, Amir, Sumuw, Al Mamlaka, Malika, Mamlaka, Tabarak, Nardin, Maya, Linda, Randa, Basmala, Taline, Aram, Narij, Rital, Alice, Sandy, Rama, Maline, Elaine, Inar, Maliktina, Lareen, Kibrial, Lauren, Benyamin, Naris, Yara, Sitav, Loland, Tilaj, Barrah, Abdoul Nabi, Abdoul Rasoul, Jibril, Abdul Mu'in, Abrar, Iman, Bayan, Basil, Wirilam.

- Source : brujitaf.fr

Algérie : ça va mal finir

par Guillaume Faye

 

http://www.gfaye.com

Tout le monde ne parle que de la crise Ukraine-Russie, mais il faut se pencher sur ce qui se passe en Algérie. On critique beaucoup M. Poutine, figure emblématique du tyran pour un Occident auto satisfait, mais on semble négliger le régime algérien, ubuesque, incompétent, oligarchique. Avec lequel pourtant la France entretient les meilleures relations, à la limite de la servilité, n’osant pas émettre contre lui la moindre critique (1).

Le 17 avril, le président Bouteflika, 77 ans, rendu impotent par un AVC, se présente pour un 4^e mandat, après 15 ans de pouvoir. Évidemment, il ne pourra pas gouverner, mais il est la marionnette d’un clan, ou plutôt de plusieurs. L’Algérie danse sur une poudrière. Le 15 avril, une manifestation a eu lieu à Alger, avec le mouvement ”Barakat” (”Ça suffit !”), dénonçant une mascarade électorale. Dans le même temps, éclataient à Ghardaïa, à 600 km au sud de la capitale, des affrontements interethniques très violents. Ils opposaient les Mozabites (Berbères) et les Châambas (Arabes). Il y eut plus de 100 blessés graves et des pillages ou incendies de commerces et de maisons berbères. Ce n’est qu’un début.  L’Algérie se dirige vers une très grave crise.

Une nouvelle guerre civile couve, avec trois types d’antagonisme : 1) Islamistes contre laïcs ; 2) Berbères contre Arabes ; 3) luttes de pouvoir au sein de l’appareil d’État, impliquant le FLN, le RND et l’Armée. Depuis son indépendance, l’Algérie, qui aurait pu être la Californie de l’Afrique du Nord, est un pays de malheur. En dépit de ses ressources primaires pétro-gazières qui sont techniquement gérées par des Occidentaux et qui amènent à l’Algérie la majorité de ses devises, ce pays n’a su développer aucun secteur économique national performant. Le chômage y est endémique, la pauvreté persistante, la bureaucratie pachydermique. À l’inverse des pays d’Asie. Il y a donc bien un problème intrinsèque à ces populations. 

 Tout le monde le sait et le murmure mais personne n’ose le dire : du temps de la présence française, les populations d’Algérie vivaient bien mieux qu’aujourd’hui. D’ailleurs, l’importance de l’immigration des Algériens en France témoigne de leur fuite hors de leur propre pays pour venir vivre chez l’ancienne puissance coloniale. C’est à la fois une schizophrénie (ils restent nationalistes algériens tout en détestant le régime de leur pays) et un terrible aveu d’impuissance.

En Algérie, ça va éclater. Une guerre civile, extrêmement compliquée (comme dans tous les pays arabo-musulmans et de l’arc proche-oriental), se prépare. La raison profonde en est une instabilité psycho-ethnique de ces populations, incapables de vivre dans l’harmonie. L’islam ne fait qu’aggraver les choses. La même chose se remarque en Amérique du Sud, zone d’intenses mélanges  ethniques : mais elle est géopolitiquement décentrée, donc  de bien moindre importance que le Maghreb et le Proche Orient.

Pour ne rien arranger, la Libye voisine sombre dans le chaos : effondrement de la production pétrolière, délitement de l’État, éclatement du pays en zones néo-tribales, montée des affrontements, installation de bases armées islamistes. Bravo à ceux qui ont aidé à renverser le régime de Kadhafi. Quant à la Tunisie, les suites du ”printemps arabe”, véritable duperie, s’annoncent sous de très mauvaises augures. (2)

La prédiction que l’on peut faire, c’est que l’Algérie présente de grands risques de s’embraser, encore plus violemment que dans les années 90. Avec, à ses portes la Tunisie et la Libye, elles aussi menacées d’incendie. Et, partout en embuscade, l’islamisme. Pour la France, qui comporte de très nombreuses communautés originaires de l’Algérie et du Maghreb, la nouvelle est inquiétante et les conséquences peuvent être gravissimes. 

Notes:

(1) Deux causes : la mauvaise conscience coloniale de la repentance, fabriquée par les idéologies de gauche, et la présence en France de populations d’origine algérienne qu’il faut ménager.

(2) Pour l’instant, à part le Maroc et les monarchies du Golfe (qui sont toutes des autocraties héréditaires), tous les pays arabo-musulmans, Algérie, Tunisie, Libye, Égypte, Syrie, Liban, Irak sont dans une situation explosive. À l’échelle du monde, 80 % des pays où l’islam est majoritaire ou très présent connaissent un état endémique d’instabilité pouvant dégénérer à tout moment. 

UN says Libya is Fueling Wars: Gulf and Western Powers Should be Held Accountable

UN says Libya is Fueling Wars: Gulf and Western Powers Should be Held Accountable

Murad Makhmudov and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

European Union powers and America are currently lambasting the Russian Federation over actions taken in Crimea while people are dying daily in Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Syria – and other nations – based on the destabilization policies of major Gulf and Western powers (Pakistan destabilized itself). Serbians and Africans of course are sent to criminal courts while the nations that have killed in the millions based on destabilization policies literally get away with murder. Even the United Nations can’t cover-up the mess of America, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Therefore, Libya is free of Colonel Gaddafi but to hell with the collapse of the nation state just like in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Reuters reports: “U.N. experts say Libya has become a primary source of illicit weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles, which have been trafficked to at least 14 countries and are fueling conflicts on several continents, Rwanda’s U.N. envoy said on Monday.”

However, does the report go deep enough? After all, it is clear that Gulf and Western powers have utilized Libya in order to send military arms to various terrorist and sectarian forces against the government of Syria. Indeed, NATO Turkey along the border with Syria is a Takfiri and al-Qaeda paradise while weapons pour in via Libya and other sources. Of course, Gulf and Western covert operatives continue to play their part in helping various terrorist and sectarian forces in Syria. Therefore, while Libya may be at the centerpiece of the UN report it is clear that other sinister forces are also at play.

Eugene Gasana, chairperson of the findings by the United Nations Security Council’s Libya sanctions committee, says “The panel noted that the control of non-state armed actors over the majority of stockpiles in Libya as well as ineffective border control systems remained primary obstacles to countering proliferation and that Libya had become a primary source of illicit weapons, including MANPADs.”

“The panel furthermore noted that investigations relating to transfers to 14 countries reflected a highly diversified range of trafficking dynamics; and that trafficking from Libya was fueling conflict and insecurity – including terrorism – on several continents.”

In other words, powerful Gulf and Western powers have enabled various terrorist and anti-government forces to flourish in at least 14 nations based on their destabilization policies in Libya. Therefore, vast numbers of people have perished because of the policies of America, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Kingdom. These nations not only helped to destroy Libya whereby various militias cleansed black Africans and slaughtered individuals deemed to be pro-Gaddafi; but the same nations also used ratlines in Croatia, Kosovo (Albanian led Kosovo) and in Libya (and other nations) in order to destabilize Syria.

If the Russian Federation is serious about standing up to nations that are meddling throughout the world; then why not use several UN findings to charge past and current leaders in major Gulf and Western nations? Of course, this may sound idealistic but until powerful nations are held accountable for the deaths of untold numbers then nothing will change. In other words, after Syria it will be another nation – and then after the next nation, it will be another nation.

The pattern is now abundantly clear and this applies to collective chaos; destabilization; the reduction in the rights of women; religious minorities fleeing; terrorism; and often sectarianism.  In modern day Kosovo it is clear that Orthodox Christians can’t travel freely without armed protection; in Iraq this nation is a failed state whereby sectarianism and terrorism is an ongoing nightmare; Afghanistan is in turmoil and women have been put into the shadows; Libya is now a land based on various militias and increasingly religious minorities are being attacked and alienated; while Syria is now a free area for Takfiri terrorists, al-Qaeda groups and barbaric sectarian forces.

All the above means that vast numbers of people have been killed because of Gulf and Western meddling – Turkey and Pakistan are also involved when it comes to Syria and Afghanistan respectively. Indeed, Turkey, Gulf and Western powers have now started the second destabilization of Iraq based on destabilizing Syria and Lebanon is now extremely fragile. However, where are the war crimes against the usual players that utilize the mass media, slick private propaganda marketing agencies, so-called humanitarian agencies, manipulating the United Nations – and other sinister means that are available.

Gaddafi was brutally killed and his death sums up the inhumanity of nations that will use any means available to them. It matters not if people agreed with Gaddafi or not. Yet his death said much about what would happen to Libya based on the brutality unleashed against him. In time, the same chaos  would ultimately be unleashed throughout Libya whereby law is rendered redundant. Many years later and not only is Libya a failed state but now according to the UN it is a nation that is being manipulated in order to fund international conflicts. This is a million miles away from the mantra of democracy after the demise of Gaddafi.

Business Insider reports: “The administration has said that the previously hidden CIA operation in Benghazi involved finding, repurchasing and destroying heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, but in October we reported evidence indicating that U.S. agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.” 

“There have been several possible SA-7 spottings in Syria dating as far back as early summer 2012, and there are indications that at least some of Gaddafi’s 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles were shipped before now.”

“On Sept. 6 a Libyan ship carrying 400 tons of weapons for Syrian rebels docked in southern Turkey. The ship’s captain was “a Libyan from Benghazi” who worked for the new Libyan government. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head Abdelhakim Belhadj, worked directly with Stevens during the Libyan revolution.”

The above applies to 2012 and clearly since this period many deals are being done in shadows. Of course, the UN is fully aware of this but nothing is being done to hold nations accountable for their destabilization policies. Similarly, international criminal courts are just a witch-hunt against nations outside of the loop and to be held against individuals fighting on the wrong side. Therefore, vast numbers of people are dying every day in countless conflicts because of the collective policies of powerful Gulf and Western powers – alongside the respective deeds of Pakistan and Turkey.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-admin-admits-to-covertly-sending-heavy-weapons-to-syrian-rebels-2012-12#ixzz2vg72D8Rl

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/10/us-libya-crisis-un-idUSBREA291OV20140310

[e-mail]

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Iraq Blames Qatar and Saudi Arabia for Terrorism

Iraq Blames Qatar and Saudi Arabia for Terrorism: Re-run of Afghanistan and Pakistan

Salma Sribi and Michiyo Tanabe

Modern Tokyo Times

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki of Iraq denounces Qatar and Saudi Arabia for supporting terrorism and sectarianism against Iraq. Maliki made it abundantly clear that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are involved in the destabilization of Iraq based on Gulf petrodollars, their geopolitical ambitions, sectarian factors and other negative realities. Of course, this highlights the sham of Saudi Arabia that often claims it is fighting terrorism but in reality this nation turns this clock on and off when it suits the elites in Riyadh.

Indeed, the only real fear for Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states is to keep internal terrorism at bay. Therefore, exporting terrorism and spreading sectarianism is the mantra. Of course, major Western powers also conveniently use terrorism and sectarianism when the time suits. This reality applies to fighting on the same side in Afghanistan (1980s/1990s); Bosnia; Libya and currently in Syria. However, it is Gulf petrodollars, Salafi ideology, exporting militancy and funding sectarian ventures based on the intrigues of feudal kingdoms, where all the barbaric synergy comes together.

Maliki spoke frankly to France 24 about Qatar and Saudi Arabia supporting the brutal terrorist and sectarian insurgency in Iraq. Maliki says: “I accuse them of inciting and encouraging the terrorist movements. I accuse them of supporting them politically and in the media, of supporting them with money and by buying weapons for them…I accuse them of leading an open war against the Iraqi government.”

Lee Jay Walker at Modern Tokyo Times says: “This reality is like a re-run because in Afghanistan it is clear that Pakistan is involved in many murky terrorist and sectarian dealings against this nation. In other words, the allies of America and the United Kingdom are the same nations assisting terrorism against governments and nations they are meant to be supporting. Of course, this equally entails that many British and American soldiers have been killed and maimed because of the collective intrigues of so called allies. Despite this, what is the comeback against Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia?”

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan is saying the same with regards to Pakistan destabilizing his country. The New York Times reports “Mr. Karzai charged that elements of the Pakistani government were still supporting Islamic militants, as they had in the past, and that if such sources of terrorism were not defeated, Afghans and international soldiers would continue to die.”

The above was stated in 2006 yet in 2011 Karzai made it clear that nothing had changed. In the Washington Post they quote Karzai saying: “Pakistan has pursued a double game toward Afghanistan, and using terrorism as a means continues.” Of course, in 2014 this same opinion is held by many in Afghanistan but at no time is Pakistan worried about becoming a pariah – just like Qatar and Saudi Arabia don’t have to worry. Therefore, what is going on in the corridors of power in Washington and London?

While Maliki was accusing Qatar and Saudi Arabia yet another barbaric terrorist attack killed over 30 Iraqi nationals. The latest terrorist attack took place at a checkpoint in Hilla. Like usual, Sunni Islamic jihadists attacked Hilla because this area is predominantly Shia and Takfiri hatred towards this community knows no boundaries.

France 24 reports: “Maliki went on to say that not only did Saudi Arabia support terrorism in countries such as Iraq and Syria, but around the world.”

Lee Jay Walker says: “Afghanistan and Iraq are paying a heavy price because of the respective intrigues of Qatar, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. India knows full well that being the largest democracy in the world doesn’t appear to resonate in London and Washington. After all, for decades Pakistan is exporting terrorism to Kashmir and many brutal terrorist attacks in India can be traced back to Pakistan. Yet, despite this reality, and the obvious connection linking Pakistan with many terrorist and sectarian factions in Afghanistan, this still doesn’t prevent America and the United Kingdom from supporting Pakistan in the field of economic and military support. Indeed, it appears that just like American and British soldiers are expendable to political elites in Washington and London; the same can clearly be said about Pakistan soldiers being killed based on the intrigues of Pakistan.”

In 2013 just below 9,000 people were killed in Iraq because of sectarian and terrorist forces. This figure is the highest since 2007 and says much about the bankruptcy of President Obama in America. Indeed, France 24 should be asking why France is involving itself along with Turkey against the government of Syria. After all, like Maliki says about Qatar and Saudi Arabia: “They are attacking Iraq through Syria, and in a direct way.”

Until Gulf and Western powers are held accountable then sadly the destabilization of nations will continue whereby terrorism is a useful tool. Obviously, this reality is being ignored by the United Nations therefore the same methodology will continue to be utilized by the same Gulf and Western powers – along with Turkey and Pakistan that continue to switch the terrorist clock on.

Lee Jay Walker gave guidance to both writers

http://www.france24.com/en/20140308-france24-exclusive-interview-iraq-maliki/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26501610

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/world/asia/13afghan.html?_r=0

[e-mail]

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Lavia mediterranea

Interview with Ruben Rosiers

"We support Syria!"

Interview with Ruben Rosiers

Ex: http://manuelochsenreiter.com

Ruben Rosiers (27) is a Belgian citizen and activist of the "European Solidarity Front for Syria". Rosiers studied Public Relations and works for a Flemish company.

Mr. Rosiers, you just came back from your trip to Syria on behalf of the “European Solidarity Front for Syria” (ESFS). Your organization was criticized in the past for supporting the “Syrian regime” by the mainstream media. What is the ESFS doing?

Rosiers: The ESFS are volunteers from whole Europe. We support the Syrians in their war to keep their independence, unity and sovereignty and against the western backed terrorism.

How do you “support the Syrians”?

Rosiers: In Europe we inform the public about the reality on the Syrian battleground. We are present in all the European countries; organize demonstrations together with the Syrians here. We cooperate with some alternative media as well. We also collect money to provide humanitarian help in Syria. As we are a pure independent volunteer organization we can guarantee that 100 percent of the donated money really arrives in Syria. We don´t have any bureaucratic infrastructure.

Your trip to Syria had the character of a “fact finding mission”...

Rosiers: Indeed.

One would say: “fact finding is not the job of volunteers but of journalists and politicians.”

Rosiers: This is not so wrong. But neither European journalists nor politicians do their job in a proper way. Of course there are exceptions. But generally, the information policy in whole Europe is a disaster. That makes the work of the ESFS so important!

What facts did you find in Syria?

Rosiers: I had many meetings in the capital Damascus; I spoke to politicians, clerics, soldiers, journalists and civilians. I had the opportunity to visit the Palestinian Yarmouk Camp in Damascus; I was in the city of Al-Nabk – where the people celebrated the Syrian Arab Army which liberated them from the terrorist gangs. I also visited the city Latakia.

You were in the Yarmouk camp? European mainstream media report it is besieged by the Syrian Army...

Rosiers: And here we are. I don´t think that any European mainstream journalist who writes such stories was recently there. The Yarmouk camp is like a little city in the city. Terrorist gangs were occupying parts of the camp, the Syrian government supported the Palestinian armed groups fighting against the terrorist forces. There is no “siege”. You can enter and leave the camp in the safe areas – and safety means always: controlled by the government and loyal Palestinian militias like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). In the terrorist controlled areas the situation is really dangerous. Terrorist snipers shoot at everybody crossing the streets, a large part of the population left already the terrorist controlled sectors of the camp. By the way: We had also to leave the camp very quick again because of hostile sniper activities. The vast majority people in the camp stand with the Syrian government by the way – there is no doubt in that.

European media report about starvation in the camp...

Rosiers: The problem is that the terrorists tried to isolate the parts of the camps they controlled. The Syrian government provides food and medical help, but this is dangerous. Terrorist snipers shoot at them as well.

Ruben Rosiers and minister Ali Haidar (right)

You met the Minister of State for National Reconciliation Affairs in Damascus. What did you talk about with Mr. Ali Haidar?

Rosiers: Mr. Haidar has maybe one of the most challenging jobs in Syria. National reconciliation is as important as difficult. His own son was killed by terrorist gangs in 2012. Mr. Haidar coordinates reconciliation talks between the different factions in Syria to find a peaceful solution. By the way, Mr. Haidar is not a Baath party member, he is oppositional himself. His SSNP party was banned for many years in Syria before it was legalized again. He knows about what he is talking. We discussed the reconciliation process, the next solidarity mission of the ESFS, the current political situation and the desire of the Syrian people for fast ending of the war. He also talked about the many kidnapped people and I had the chance to meet people who were looking for their kidnapped family members. You know that in Syria the terrorists even consider you a legal target if you are a postman? They consider you a “collaborator of the regime” and just kill, torture or kidnap you…

In Western media Ali Haidar doesn´t play any role...

Rosiers: Because he cooperates with the real opposition inside Syria and not with the foreign backed terrorists who destroy the country. This is a huge difference. Ali Haidar excludes extremists from the talks – this is why Western politics and media don´t give him any publicity.

In Al-Nabk you visited an Army celebration...

Rosiers: The people of Al-Nabk were celebrating the liberation of their city.

Mainstream media claim that those celebrations are propaganda acts by the Syrian government. They claim: The Syrians are forced to participate at those rallies.

Rosiers: Nobody was “forced” to participate. This was pure happiness that the horrible times of the terrorist control are over. The people wanted to thank the army that liberated Al-Nabk. Important to notice is that during the occupation of parts of the city by FSA and Al-Nusra, the residents of Al-Nabk didn’t flee but organized themselves to fight against the terrorists. Not a single person left the city! Nice detail, the majority of the city is Sunni Muslim - so there goes another myth the western media wants to keep alive…

You were also delivering a speech – what about?

Celebration in Al-Nabk: Liberation of the city

Rosiers: This was really a spontaneous thing: I asked if I can give a message of solidarity – and some seconds later I spoke into the microphone. I told the Syrians that they shouldn´t confuse the European governments with the European peoples. I told the Syrians that we are with them despite of the wrong politics of our governments. The people were very happy about this unexpected message of solidarity.

Some critics claim that you are an “agent of the Syrian government” and that you are paid for the “solidarity”...

Manuel Ochsenreiter and Ruben Rosiers during a geopolitical conference in Bielefeld (2013)

Rosiers: This is complete nonsense. Nobody pays us. We are a volunteer organization. My trip was paid completely by myself. Those rumors are spread to harm our credibility. And do you really think I would risk my life for some green paper in my pocket? Maybe this is hard to understand for capitalist and materialist people, but I just fight for what I believe in. Just like all the volunteers of the ESFS. If the Syrian government would ever offer me one dollar I would stop supporting them. They should use their money just to help the Syrian people!

If somebody wants to show solidarity with Syria and support the ESFS is it enough to press the “like”-button on Facebook?

Rosiers: This is a good start! But of course we are happy about any activist. As I said: We are all volunteers. We do our solidarity work because we really believe in our aims and not because we get paid or supported by state institutions or any NGOs. We are happy about every new volunteer in our rows! So please donate money, join our Facebook page, join our manifestations, spread the message and make the ESFS grow every day! Long live Syria!

Contact:

European Solidarity Front for Syria on Facebook

European Solidarity Front for Syria

De la guerre civile en Irak

Bernhard Tomaschitz:

De la guerre civile en Irak

L’année 2014 sera terrible pour l’Irak

Comme en Syrie, l’Arabie saoudite attise le conflit

Près de onze années se sont écoulées depuis l’agression délibérée, contraire aux principes du droit des gens, que les Etats-Unis ont perpétrée contre l’Irak en 2003. Aujourd’hui, ce malheureux pays risque bien de sombrer dans le chaos et l’anarchie. Les combattants de l’ISIL (“Pour un Etat islamique en Irak et au Levant”), une organisation terroriste qui, dit-on, serait étroitement liée à Al Qaeda, ont pris le contrôle de vastes portions de la province occidentale d’Al-Anbar. Les attentats ponctuent chaque journée qui passe. Pourtant le premier ministre irakien Nuri al-Maliki reste serein. Il a confiance en ses troupes: “Nous vaincrons Al Qaeda”, affirme-t-il.

A Washington, on analyse la situation avec un oeil plus réaliste. Les Etats-Unis livrent des armes légères à l’armée irakienne, dans l’espoir qu’avec cet arsenal réduit cette armée, théoriquement alliée, va pouvoir à terme empêcher qu’un territoire assez vaste et cohérent de l’Irak et de la Syrie soit soustrait à l’influence des islamistes. Mais ce qu’il faut surtout rappeler c’est que des voix se font entendre à Washington qui critiquent le retrait des troupes américaines en 2011 et réclament dès lors un nouvel engagement combattant dans le pays ravagé par la guerre civile. Récemment donc deux sénateurs influents, John McCain et Lindsey Graham, ont déclaré: “Que les choses soient claires: la position du gouvernement, qui voulait aller dans le sens du gouvernement irakien et ne voulait pas maintenir les forces armées américaines au-delà de l’année 2011, était manifestement erronée”. Al-Maliki voit les choses autrement, bien sûr, et défend sa décision d’hier de faire partir le plus vite possible les soldats américains.

Al-Maliki n’est toutefois par entièrement innocent: il est partiellement coupable de la détérioration de la situation. Chef du gouvernement, il appartient à la majorité chiite de la population, que le régime de Saddam Hussein avait réduit à l’insignifiance politique. Al-Maliki s’est ensuite efforcé de marginaliser les sunnites. Par voie de conséquence, la loyauté de ces derniers envers le nouvel Etat irakien post-baathiste, pour autant qu’elle ait jamais existé, s’est évanouie comme neige au soleil. Cette disparition de toute loyauté sunnite a favorisé le développement de groupes comme Al Qaeda ou l’ISIL.

La politique actuelle d’Al-Maliki vise à amener les Américains à livrer davantage d’armes. Il a transmis à Washington une liste d’armements jugés nécessaires pour chasser les islamistes de la province d’Al-Anbar. Pourtant les armes arrivent depuis assez longtemps. En décembre 2013, le “New York Times” rapportait qu’une cargaison de 75 missiles anti-chars Hellfire était arrivée en Irak. Ensuite, le Pentagone s’est déclaré prêt à livrer en 2014 au gouvernement de Bagdad des chasseurs F-16, des hélicoptères Apache et, surtout, des dizaines de drones d’observation. Mais les experts militaires cités par le “New York Times” sont très sceptiques: même dotés de ces armements sophistiqués, ils doutent que l’armée irakienne soit capable de vaincre les insurgés sunnites.

Le ministre irakien des affaires étrangères, Hoshyar Zebar, quant à lui, a avoué qu’une intervention américaine directe, par le biais de drones, était de plus en plus envisageable “depuis quelques mois”. Si le conflit gagne en intensité, l’engagement de troupes américaines n’est pas une option à exclure, même si Kerry affirme encore aujourd’hui que “les godillots des GI’s” ne fouleront plus le sol irakien.

Cependant, il faut bien constater que les islamistes irakiens ne seraient pas aussi forts, comme leurs homologues syriens d’ailleurs, s’ils ne bénéficiaient pas d’un soutien massif des Saoudiens. Le royaume wahhabite du désert arabique joue effectivement un rôle clef dans ces conflits d’Irak et de Syrie. On sait qu’il est riche de sa rente pétrolière, que sa religion d’Etat est le wahhabisme, forme la plus rigide de l’islam, qu’il soutient partout dans le monde les tenants de ce rigorisme. Le 4 janvier 2014, l’agence iranienne de presse “Fars News Agency” écrivait: “Tandis que la Turquie a fermé de large portions de sa frontière aux terroristes et tandis que la Jordanie songe à restreindre le droit d’entrer et de circuler sur son territoire aux ressortissants saoudiens qui cherchent à entrer en Irak via le royaume hachémite de Jordanie, les frontières de l’Irak en plein désert sont à peine contrôlées par les militaires irakiens et les pistes de ce désert constituent dès lors les voies de pénétration pour le soutien logistique et militaire que l’Arabie saoudite apporte aux terroristes syriens”.

La question se pose quant au rôle douteux que joue ce grand allié des Etats-Unis au Proche Orient —le deuxième après Israël— souligne Andreï Akoulov du centre d’études stratégiques russe “Strategic Culture Foundation”: “L’Arabie saoudite constitue la principale menace pour la paix au Proche Orient. Les guerres régionales et les conflits religieux dans cette région du monde sont financées et armées par Ryad”. La tragédie syrienne, pour l’expert russe, est une “conséquence directe” de l’immixtion saoudienne, appuyée par les Etats-Unis. L’Irak, dès lors, devra faire face à “une nouvelle vague d’attentats à la bombe”, parce que les Saoudiens tentent de créer un équilibre régional à leur seul profit et au détriment de l’Iran.

L’Arabie saoudite est en mesure de pratiquer cette politique belligène tout simplement parce que celle-ci est la suite logique des guerres fomentées et déclenchées par les bellicistes néo-conservateurs qui ont tenu le haut du pavé à Washington sous la présidence de George W. Bush. Un autre expert russe, actif dans la même fondation, Nikolaï Bobkin, souligne la responsabilité des Etats-Unis dans l’éclosion du conflit. En effet, les interventions américaines, en Afghanistan d’abord, en Irak ensuite, “ont bouleversé l’équilibre fragile des forces et enclenché un processus de concurrence entre Iraniens et Saoudiens pour la maîtrise du Proche Orient”.

Une question cruciale demeure cependant ouverte: pendant combien de temps les Etats-Unis miseront-ils encore sur un allié qui contrecarre leurs intérêts au Proche Orient, bien plus intensément que ne le firent jamais les Iraniens? Voilà sans doute pourquoi, à court ou moyen terme, on voit se profiler un rapprochement entre Washington et Téhéran.

Bernhard TOMASCHITZ.

(article paru dans “zur Zeit”, Vienne, n°4/2014; http://www.zurzeit.at ).

Europäische Dschihadisten in Syrien!

Eine Folge der europäischen Einmischung?

von Prof. Dr. Albert A. Stahel, Institut für Strategische Studien, Wädenswil

Ex: http://www.zeit-fragen.ch

Gemäss europäischer Nachrichtendienste reisen immer mehr junge Moslems aus Europa nach Syrien und beteiligen sich am Krieg der Dschihadisten (Jabhat Nusra und Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)) gegen das Assad-Regime. Gemäss offizieller Informationen aus London kämpfen bereits mehrere hundert Moslems aus Grossbritannien im syrischen Bürgerkrieg. Die Organisation, die in Grossbritannien junge Moslems für diesen Krieg anwirbt, nennt sich «the Lions of Britain».¹ Vermutet wird, dass die Finsbury Park Mosque in London dabei eine aktive Rolle spielt. Die Rekruten fliegen anschliessend in die Türkei und infiltrieren von dort aus auf dem Landweg Syrien. Zahlenmässig übertrifft dieser Zustrom die Anzahl Dschihadisten, die früher nach Afghanistan und den Irak reisten. Dutzende von ihnen sollen bereits im syrischen Bürgerkrieg getötet worden sein.

Aus Frankreich sollen 700 junge Moslems nach Syrien gereist sein; sie kämpfen dort auf der Seite der Dschihadisten. Im Dezember 2013 erreichten insgesamt 2 000 Moslems aus dem westlichen Europa Syrien. Letzten Monat erklärte James R. Clapper Jr., der Chef der US-Nachrichtendienste, bei einer Anhörung vor dem Kongress, dass zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt 7 000 fremde Kämpfer aus 50 Staaten im Krieg der syrischen Dschihadisten kämpfen würden.²

Scotland Yard beurteilt die Rückkehr dieser kampferprobten Kämpfer als eine Bedrohung für die Sicherheit Europas. 2013 wurden in Grossbritannien 24 «syrische Heimkehrer» verhaftet. Im Januar 2014 wurden bereits 24 Heimkehrer in Gewahrsam genommen. Das Counterterrorism Command von Scotland Yard befürchtet, dass diese Heimkehrer auf Grund ihrer Radikalisierung in Syrien für Anschläge in Grossbritannien rekrutiert werden könnten.
Durch die Parteinahme für die Gegner des Assad-Regimes und die Einmischung in den syrischen Bürgerkrieg haben sowohl Grossbritannien als auch Frankreich eine Büchse der Pandora geöffnet, ohne die Folgen ihrer Politik zu bedenken. Damit fördern sie möglicherweise die terroristische Bedrohung ihrer Staaten.    •

_{1    Witte, G.: Europeans are flocking to the war in Syria. What happens when they come home? In: Washington Post vom 30. Januar 2014
2    Witte, G.}

Quelle: www.strategische-studien.com vom 17.2.2014

The Partitioning of Iraq

The Partitioning of Iraq: Will the Country Remain on the Map?

Anton VESELOV

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

Recently news from Iraq has all but disappeared from the reports of world news agencies. As if on command, the largest Western media outlets have begun to strictly measure out coverage of events in this country. The multistage Iraqi scheme, which has required colossal expenses and huge casualties, is failing, and the situation is threatening to go completely out of control and progress in an entirely different direction than that which was scripted.

The occupation of Iraq in 2003 and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath party marked the beginning of massive repressions of those who had held more or less significant posts in the previous regime. However, soon minor functionaries began to be subject to persecution, and then ordinary citizens, mostly from among Sunnites. The ruling Shiite bloc of Nouri al-Maliki has conducted an openly discriminatory policy toward Sunnites throughout the years of its governance. More than once the state bureaucracy, the armed forces, the police and intelligence agencies have been purged of people who confess Sunni Islam. All attempts by various political forces, including on the parliamentary level, to start a dialog for the purpose of national harmony have been left unanswered by the authorities, and peaceful demonstrations all end the same way: with crackdowns and numerous casualties. Purges, raids and «preventative arrests» took on such proportions that a backlash was inevitable.

Over 9,000 people were killed in Iraq in 2013, and over 1000 in January 2014 alone. Propagandistic attempts to blame everything on the machinations of outside forces and hosts of foreign al-Qaeda insurgents are no longer working: it is becoming obvious that the country is in the grip of a civil war. It is becoming increasingly more violent and is sweeping over more and more regions of the country, increasing casualties and limiting possibilities to choose a future. 

Iraq is experiencing a very dramatic period in its history, when the disintegration of the country could become a reality at any moment. Iraqi Kurdistan is already essentially no longer under Baghdad's control and is self-sufficient, with almost all of the agencies, symbols and attributes of an independent state. The situation with regard to security in the provinces of Baghdad, Salah ad-Din, Ninawa, Diyala and several others is extremely tense; the armed conflicts and terrorist attacks which take place each month number in the triple digits. The situation has become most acute in the country's largest province by area, al-Anbar. Since December of last year fierce battles have been being fought there between the government forces, which in Iraq are called the «Shiite Militia of al-Maliki» and local Sunnite tribes who have despaired of gaining equal rights through peaceful means. 

On December 28, commando and army forces conducted yet another operation to wipe out the tent camps of protesters by force. Casualties were numerous. The next day a member of parliament from the al-Anbar province who tried to act as a mediator in negotiations with Baghdad was arrested, despite his parliamentary immunity; the legislator received gunshot wounds when his house was stormed, and his brother and four bodyguards were killed. Local sheikhs issued a call to arms. Support arrived from other provinces to aid their brothers in faith. A day later the army and police had been driven from many districts and the armed opposition had taken control of almost all of the al-Anbar province, including the provincial capital Ramadi and the large city of Fallujah, which in Iraq is glorified as «the stronghold of the spirit and the symbol of resistance» - American troops were only able to enter the city a year and a half after their «declaration of victory», having lost over 400 men in battle.

Despite the arrival of reinforcements (according to some reports, another 90,000 troops and policemen were deployed to the province), the many attempts by government forces, commando troops and the police to enter the cities did not meet with success, and in mid-January a siege began: the suburbs are completely blocked off, and residential neighborhoods are coming under intensive fire from artillery, tanks and helicopters. There have been numerous civilian casualties, but those who attempt to leave the battle zone cannot do so, as the bridges on the main highways which connect the cities with neighboring provinces have been blown up, and the back roads have been blocked by the army under the pretext of «preventing the spread of terrorism». The province is on the brink of a humanitarian disaster; On February 6 the head of the UN Mission in Iraq, Nikolai Mladenov, stated that international funds have started sending urgent deliveries of essential commodities to al-Anbar (the first delivery is to be enough for 45,000 people). On February 9 Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq appealed to the European Union to immediately send humanitarian aid to al-Anbar… 

On April 30 there are to be parliamentary elections in Iraq, after which there will probably be some changes. The country has come to a dead end. The parliament is dysfunctional; many members do not participate in sessions as a sign of protest against the government's policies, and the lack of a quorum makes it impossible to make decisions. The draft of the country's 2014 budget has not yet been discussed, and many other important bills are in limbo as well. A huge number of vitally important projects which have not been confirmed and have not received funding remain on paper, while the giant revenues from oil and gas go into accounts opened in the U.S. 

Many in Iraq have a good idea of where this money goes after that; that is why the Ministry of Finance's refusal to observe a law passed in 2013 which was to increase the amount allocated to provincial budgets for oil extracted there from $1 to $5 per barrel for 2014 caused a storm of protest among local authorities. Governors and provincial councils started actively developing coordinated measures for influencing the government. Judging by official statements, provincial leaders are determined and intend to get the draft budget for 2014 revised by any means available. 

On January 11 in al-Diwaniyah, al-Qadisiyyah province, the «Middle Euphrates Convention» was convened with the participation of the governors of five provinces; the convention demanded «the fair distribution of revenues in proportion to the population». On January 25 in Basra, the capital of Iraq's oil extraction, a conference was held with the participation of official representatives of eight oil and gas producing provinces, as well as the parliament's petroleum committee. The next day the governor of Basra, Majid al-Nasrawi, announced that he had filed suit against the Ministry of Finance for its violation of the 2013 law. It is worth noting that the Basra provincial council gave official permission to hold meetings and demonstrations condemning the actions of the country's government and urged everyone to work toward securing «the lawful rights of the residents of the province, which has the richest resources in the country but is at the bottom of the list with regard to prosperity».

According to many analysts, the personal authority, influence and political weight of Nouri al-Maliki and the State of Law Coalition he leads have dropped noticeably. Accusations of authoritarianism, wholesale corruption, inability to maintain security even in the center of the capital (the average number of terrorist attacks with human casualties in Baghdad has grown over the past three years from 70 to 110 per week), and a lack of desire to seek compromise, along with unceasing attempts to physically eliminate his opponents, all seriously reduce Nouri al-Maliki's chances to occupy the post of prime minister and supreme commander in chief for a third time.

Iraqi leaders over the past 10 years have behaved like favored minions. Many former functionaries of the «new democratic government» have already found refuge in prestigious areas of London, starting with the first Minister of Defense, Hazim al-Shaalan (who was once accused of stealing one and a half billion dollars in just the first year in his post). Many current officials have also foresightedly acquired real estate there. According to data from the parliamentary anti-corruption committee, the amount of money embezzled from the treasury and sent abroad is approaching 200 billion dollars.

Foreseeing developments which could be dangerous for them, the current authorities are seriously concerned about preserving the status quo (this is called «continuity of reforms») in order to prevent power from shifting into the hands of their opponents. Recently feverish attempts have been being made to get out of the crisis, including by generating rather unexpected initiatives.

For example, in Baghdad they have officially began talking about redrawing the administrative map of the country, increasing the number of provinces from 18 to 30. Their willingness to do this is supported by a number of official statements, one of which (dated January 21, on the formation of 4 new provinces) was unexpected even for the residents of the municipal district of Fallujah itself, to say nothing of the leadership of the al-Anbar province. The cunning of the idea of fragmentation is that it simultaneously accomplishes several aims, namely:

- dismembering «rebellious» provinces with mostly Sunnite populations while at the same time attempting to bring representatives of the tribes which have joined the Sahwa («Awakening») movement to power; in particular, it has already been decided to turn a number of municipal districts in the provinces of al-Anbar, Salah ad-Din and Ninawa into provinces;

- knocking some of the trumps out of the hands of the leaders of Iraqi Kurdistan by turning 4-5 municipal districts into separate provinces, which would lead to a reduction in the territory and population of the current autonomous region and a diminishing of its weight and influence on the country's political arena. And this regards not only the disputed territories in the provinces of Wasit, Diyala, Ninawa and Kirkuk, but also the «traditionally Kurdish» Dohuk and as-Sulaymaniyyah;

- changing the overall alignment of forces in the country by putting loyal people into the leadership of the newly formed provinces. At the municipal elections in 2013 the ruling coalition lost gubernatorial posts even in such strategically important provinces as Baghdad and Basra, retaining fewer than half of the gubernatorial seats, and that with restrictions.

However, considering the weakness of the state machinery and the growing centrifugal tendencies of the local authorities, the process could get out of control, and the repartitioning of territories could bring about the opposite effect, causing entire regions to split off and create autonomous regions (following the example of Kurdistan). For example, the governor of the Ninawa province has already stated that if practical steps are taken to split municipal districts off from the province as has been announced, all efforts will be made to turn the province into an autonomous territory. This statement received widespread support, including from the oil-rich South. In the provinces of Basra and Maysan there have already been demonstrations in support of giving the status of provinces to several municipal districts, including those located in oil-producing regions, with the subsequent formation of a «Southern Confederacy» on the model of Kurdistan.

Today practically all the conditions have been created for the transformation of Iraq into a federative state with dozens of provinces grouped into 3-4 autonomous territories (tentatively Shiite, Kurdish and Sunnite ones) on the basis of tribal connections, religious affinity and economic interests, with severe restriction of the powers of the Center.

Outwardly such a program seems difficult to implement; in order to legislatively formalize such decisions there will need to be parliamentary conciliatory commissions, committees, secondary legislation, etc., to say nothing of amendments to the country's constitution. However, if one looks at the matter more attentively, the thought arises that perhaps that is the common interest of the key players who are influencing developments.

The West, headed by the United States, as well as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and obviously Israel, have an interest in keeping Iraq from ever again rising to the position of a powerful regional state; they need it to remain a manageable supplier of high-quality petroleum with minimal costs for extraction and export, and also to serve as a bargaining chip in resolving problems of another order.

Most likely the future state structure of Iraq and the country's fate are being decided now not in Baghdad, but in back room negotiations between «very interested parties»... There have been many examples in the history of the Middle East where states appeared or disappeared from the political map during a game of bridge, and the borders between them were drawn with an ordinary ruler. In spite of all the technological achievements of the past decades, in geopolitics and geo-economics little has changed since then.

_________________________________ 

* The Sahwa movement was created by the U.S. in the beginning of the occupation by paying off tribal sheikhs in exchange for their non-resistance. Many Iraqis to this day see the members of Sahwa as traitors and collaborators, and they are one of the main targets of armed attacks.

»Bei freien Wahlen befürchten USA und UN Assad-Sieg in Syrien«

»Bei freien Wahlen befürchten USA und UN Assad-Sieg in Syrien«

Ex: http://sachedesvolkes.wordpress.com

Unter diesem Titel erschien am Freitag auf der Seite des Internetportals http://www.globalresearch.ca ein Artikel von Daniel McAdams, der zuvor vom konservativen Ron-Paul-Institute des gleichnamigen früheren republikanischen US-Präsidentschaftskandidaten veröffentlicht wurde:

Einen (…) Blick hinter die Vorhänge erlaubte das Interview des iranischen Botschafters im Libanon, Ghazanfar Roknabadi, Mitte der Woche in der angesehenen libanesischen Zeitung Daily Star. Darin ging es unter anderem um den jüngsten Bombenanschlag auf die iranische Botschaft in Beirut und die wachsende Bedrohung der Region durch die zunehmende Zahl dschihadistischer Gruppen in Syrien.

Dann ließ Roknabadi die diplomatische Bombe platzen. Er erzählte dem Daily Star, daß der Westen die iranische Regierung unter erheblichen Druck gesetzt hatte, den syrischen Präsidenten Baschar Al-Assad davon abzuhalten, bei den nächsten Präsidentschaftswahlen wieder zu kandidieren. Als Syriens einziger regionaler Verbündeter hat Iran vermutlich ziemlich viel Einfluß auf die Assad-Regierung. Wörtlich sagte Botschafter Roknabadi: »Bei seinem Besuch in Iran im letzten Sommer hat Feltman (UN-Untergeneralsekretär für politische Angelegenheiten) die iranische Regierung gebeten, Assad davon zu überzeugen, nicht zu den nächsten Präsidentschaftswahlen anzutreten. Die iranischen Beamten fragten ihn: ›Wo liegt das Problem, wenn er antritt?‹ Feltman antwortete: ›Wenn er antritt, wird er die Wahlen gewinnen‹«.

Feltman ist nicht irgendein UN-Bürokrat, sondern ein Beispiel für die Drehtür zwischen der US-Regierung und der UNO. Von August 2009 bis Juni 2012 war er US Staatsekretär für den Nahen Osten im US-Außenministerium. Von Juli 2004 bis Januar 2008 war er als Botschafter der Vereinigten Staaten im Libanon gewesen, und davor hatte er Washingtons Politik im »befreiten« Irak umgesetzt.

Auch in dem (…) skandalösen Telefonat zum Umsturz in der Ukraine zwischen US-Unterstaatssekretärin Victoria Nuland und dem US-Botschafter in der Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt spielte Feltman eine wichtige Rolle. In dem Ukraine-Drama sprachen sich Feltmans ehemalige Kollegen vom US-Außenministerium dafür aus, daß man ihm bei der Auswahl eines verläßlichen UN-Beamten vertrauen könnte, der (als Sonderbeauftragter der UNO für die Ukraine) den von Nuland und Pyatt mit der ukrainischen »Opposition« ausgeheckten Deal zusammenkleben soll.

Wenn Botschafter Roknabadis Aussagen stimmen, dann bestätigen sie den zynischen Syrien-Regimewechsel-Trick der US-Regierung. (…) Von Gaza bis Ägypten, von Afghanistan bis Libyen und Irak: Was die US-Demokratisierungsbemühungen am meisten zu fürchten scheinen, ist echte Demokratie. Da ist es kein Wunder, daß US-Außenminister Kerry verzweifelt an seiner absichtlichen Fehlinterpretation des Syrien-Kommuniqués von »Genf I« festhält und ohne jegliche Beweise behauptete, daß es sich dabei um ein Vereinbarung zwischen den Unterzeichnerstaaten für einen Regimewechsel in Damaskus handelt. Assad muß von der Bildfläche verschwinden, weil die USA Angst vor seiner Popularität in Syrien haben.

Übersetzung: Rainer Rupp

Lebanonization Strategy

Israel and Saudi Arabia’s Priorities in Syria. Covert Militarism and the “Lebanonization Strategy”

By Phil Greaves

Ex: http://www.globalresearch.ca

Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-and-saudi-arabias-priorities-in-syria-covert-militarism-and-the-lebanonization-strategy/5369324

Current developments both inside and outside of Syria have shown that the primary sponsors of the extremist-dominated insurgency – namely, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Israel and Turkey – aren’t quite ready to throw in the towel.

One may be forgiven for thinking the Obama administration had decided to abandon the policy of regime change following the failed attempt to incite intervention, through the chemical weapons casus belli in August. But the harsh reality remains that the above mentioned alliance is indeed continuing its covert military support of the insurgency, in one form or another, in the full knowledge the vast majority of rebels are religious fundamentalists with a sectarian agenda, and vehemently opposed to any form of democracy or political pluralism.

 Primarily, the continued support is a product of the American Empires’ overarching strategy of Full Spectrum Dominance over resource-rich and strategically placed regions of the globe, via subversion, economic and military aggression; a policy imposed to varying degrees upon any state unwilling to accept full US subordination. This aggressive US stance is by no means exclusive to periods of heightened tension or crises; it is a permanent one, brought forward to its violent climax purely through Machiavellian opportunism. In Syria’s case, the Arab uprisings provided the United States and its allies the perfect opening to set in motion the subversive plans they had been working on since at least 2006. The possibility of removing an opposing government that refuses to abide by American/Israeli diktat was simply too good a chance to be missed. Accordingly, and from a very early stage, the US made attempts to facilitate and support the violent elements in Syria, while its media arms were busy conflating them with localised legitimate protesters.

Since the US took the typically reckless decision to support, widen and exacerbate the militant elements, the policy has been an abject failure. Clearly, from the tone espoused by Western diplomats and propagandists, and the oft-repeated slogan of “Assad’s days are numbered”, they expected swift regime change. These desires were largely based on American hubris and the hope that the Libya No Fly Zone scenario would gain traction in the UN security council.

Contrary to such desires, Russia and China’s anger regarding NATO’s destruction of Libya and Gaddafi’s assassination, meant that any similar resolutions put forward on Syria would face immediate veto. In turn this has proven to be a turning point in the modern relationship between the permanent members of the security council, the full ramifications of which are yet to materialise. Moreover, it proved to be a turning point in the Syrian crisis itself; knowing Russia and China would block any attempts to give NATO its second outing as Al Qaeda’s airforce, the US once again chose the policy of further covert militarism, drastically increasing funds and weapons deliveries to the rebels – parallel to the sectarian incitement campaigns espoused by Salafi-Wahhabi clerics across the Gulf – in the hope they could overturn the Syrian army through terrorism and a brutal sectarian war of attrition.

As a consequence of the failure to remove Assad or destroy the Syrian government and its apparatus, the Obama administration, reluctant and politically incapable of engaging in overt acts of aggression, is employing a realpolitik strategy; using primarily covert militarism to appease the desires of NeoConservative hawks in Congress, and its more zealous regional influences emanating from Riyadh and Tel Aviv, while avoiding the possibility of being dragged into another overt military intervention.

In turn, this double-edged strategy feeds the false public perception of the American Empire, which the pseudo-pragmatists and neoliberal propagandists are so eager to uphold and is so fundamental to US Empire-building; that of an inherently altruistic force, acting as global arbiter, grudgingly subverting, invading, bombing, and intervening in sovereign nations affairs for the good of all mankind. As long as this false perception is upheld, the sharp-edge to the grotesque charade of US realpolitik – that of covert militarism and state-sponsored terrorism – continues unabated. Clearly, the US Empire is in no rush to end the bloodshed in Syria, its priorities, as they have been since the start of 2011, are to remove, or at least severely disable and weaken the Syrian government and state, regardless of the consequences to the civilian population.

By using its control of state-funding, the arms flow, and therefore the strength and capabilities of the insurgency as a whole, the Obama administration has employed futile carrot and stick tactics in attempts to pressure the Syrian government during the current negotiations phase into acceding to US demands and giving up its sovereignty – with both the US-led alliance, and Syria and its international allies, primarily Russia and Iran, in the full knowledge the rebels lack both the domestic support, and manpower necessary, to oust Assad or defeat the Syrian army alone. Recent reports allude to the stick of US Democracy having its most recent outing in the form of “new”  and improved weapons supplies to the rebels, allegedly including MANPADS. This comes immediately off the back of the designed-to-fail Geneva “peace” talks and can be interpreted as a direct result of Washington’s failure to enforce their objectives: the stick is an endless supply of state-sponsored terrorism, the carrot is turning off the tap.

Whether the “new” arms shipments actually increase the rebels ability to inflict damage on the Syrian government remains to be seen, and is highly improbable at this stage as the Syrian army moves into the Qalamoun mountains to liberate the rebel-held town of Yabroud, in turn securing vital transit and logistical routes from Lebanon. The likely outcome of an increased arms flow to the rebels in the south, as evidenced at every interval of US-instigated militarization, will be a repeat of the same devastating results: more civilian displacement, adding to the already critical refugee crisis; more rebel destruction of civilian infrastructure, adding to further food and utility shortages; and many more lives lost.

“Lebanonization” a substitute for regime change?

As is proving to be the case, if the United States and its allies are incapable of removing the Syrian government via proxy forces without an increasingly unpopular Western military intervention, and Assad’s position and domestic support remain steadfast, then a Lebanonization strategy may well be the substitute “optimal scenario” the US and its allies are now working toward.

 Encouraging, exacerbating, and inciting division between Arabs has been the long-term strategy for the Zionist establishment since the colonialists first usurped Palestinian land in 1948 – with specific effort made toward fomenting conflict along sectarian lines. The strategy of division is directed toward any Arab state or government that refuses to abide by Zionist demands. Israeli strategist Oded Yinon’s now infamous “A strategy for Israel in the 1980′s” – dubbed the Yinon Plan – provides perhaps the clearest account of Israel’s intentions toward its Arab neighbours:

The total disintegration of Lebanon into five regional local governments is the precedent for the entire Arab world … The dissolution of Syria, and later Iraq, into districts of ethnic and religious minorities following the example of Lebanon is Israel’s main long-range objective on the Eastern front. The present military weakening of these states is the short-range objective. Syria will disintegrate into several states along the lines of its ethnic and religious structure … As a result, there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state, the district of Aleppo will be a Sunni state, and the district of Damascus another state which is hostile to the northern one. The Druze – even those of the Golan – should forma state in Hauran and in northern Jordan … the oil-rich but very divided and internally strife-ridden Iraq is certainly a candidate to fill Israel’s goals … Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation … will hasten the achievement of the supreme goal, namely breaking up Iraq into elements like Syria and Lebanon.

When viewed in this context, it can be no coincidence that US Secretary of State John Kerry is desperately pursuing a fait accompli with the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Contrary to the sickening media portrayal of the US as impartial peacebroker, Kerry’s eagerness to pursue a “deal” at this moment in time is a direct result of the Syrian conflict, and the divisions within the resistance camp it has created. The US and Israel are now attempting to force through an Israeli-oriented “peace deal” with the corrupt PA that will inevitably be both a failure, and against the Palestinians interests. Staunch allies of Palestinian resistance, currently bogged down fighting Al Qaeda ideologues in Syria and defusing car-bombs bound for Dahiyeh, are in no position to support the Palestinians against Israel in their hour of need, the US and Israel fully grasp the importance of isolating genuine Palestinian resistance from the few Arab states and actors it receives support. In his latest speech, Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah reminded his listeners of this very crucial issue:

“the US Administration is seeking, along with the Zionist Administration to put an end to the Palestinian cause, and it considers that this is the best time for that because the Arab and Islamic worlds are absent today, and every country is occupied with its own problems.”

In a similar fashion, the US has used the Syrian conflict as a lever against Iran in the nuclear negotiations, Washington’s longstanding attempts to pacify and subordinate an independent Iran has undoubtedly played a major role in US policy on Syria – perhaps the defining role. Consequently, both the Palestinian and Iranian conflicts with Israel and the United States are now, as they have always been intended to some extent in US calculations, inextricably linked to resolving the Syrian crisis.

True to form, Israel’s evident glee at the destruction in Syria and overt preference for the removal of Assad and the Syrian government, with the devastation that would entail, has proven at times hard for them to conceal. Furthering the point, just one of many examples of Israeli-rebel collusion came in a recent report from the National (falsely portraying the rebels Israel is “reaching out” to as ostensibly “moderate”) which relayed that hundreds of rebels have received treatment in Israeli hospitals and been sent back into Syria with up to a $1000 in cash. Israel have made further efforts to consolidate contacts with the rebels in the south, regardless of the level of fundamentalism, and cooperated with rebel factions during the Israeli bombings on Latakia and Damascus.

 In a feeble attempt to whitewash this collusion, Israeli propagandists are busily spreading the misinformation that Israel is facilitating the Druze community in the south of Syria; yet the Druze community are firmly allied with the Syrian government. In reality, Israeli attempts to cultivate relations with the communities and rebels in the south should be correctly viewed as attempts to create enforced “safe-zones” around the occupied Golan Heights, in furtherance of the Zionists land-grabbing expansionist aspirations. Accordingly, Israel’s fraudulent neutrality is completely exposed by their collusion with the rebels to meet their own interests, and overt acts of aggression against the Syrian army.

There are many other indications that allude to prominent factions of the US alliance being preferable of, and encouraging an outcome of division, most notably Israel, but simple logic determines that Saudi Arabia, Israel’s most vital strategic partner in the region, and the actor from within the US alliance that possesses the most material influence and political will to support fundamentalists and terrorism, would also approve of the disintegration of the Syrian state, primarily viewing it as a blow to “Shi’a expansion”. The Saudi and Gulf fixation on sectarian themes, to mask what are essentially politically oriented conflicts, is also intentionally built to intensify the strategy of division in multi-ethnic, religiously plural societies – as evidenced in virtually every country fundamentalist Gulf proxies have been unleashed upon, most recently in Libya.

Yet even the Saudi’s have limits to their own capabilities and decisions, ultimately they rely on the military largesse and protection of the United States, and will therefore reign in the terrorist networks if push comes to shove. Hence, the recent Saudi attempts to dissociate from Al Qaeda and the various extremists fighting in Syria can be seen as largely cosmetic and for public consumption. In reality, the Saudi leadership see Al Qaeda and its extremist confrères as malleable proxies of no real threat to themselves, while constituting a critical component of Saudi foreign policy and covert aggression.

 Of far higher importance to both Israel and Saudi Arabia’s confluent interests in the region, which in turn play a critical role in US calculations, are the very states the fundamentalist proxies are currently being sponsored to wage war upon; namely, Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah. The disintegration of the resistance axis is the utmost priority for the states that drive US policy in the Middle East, the supposed “threat” faced by militant fundamentalist ideologues, originally created, and intermittently sponsored by the US and its allies, is merely an afterthought.

 The US Empire, in its efforts to contain, and therefore dominate and control such a strategic and resource-rich region, is more than content to allow its reactionary and sectarian clients to incite the conflict necessary to subvert, fracture and divide the inevitable power a unified Middle East could claim: if only their progressive aspirations and unity were not repeatedly “set back” by Zionist occupation and manufactured antagonism.

Phil Greaves is a UK based writer on UK/US Foreign Policy, with a focus on the Arab World, post WWII. http://notthemsmdotcom.wordpress.com/

Copyright © 2014 Global Research

Hezbollah leader Nasrallah rebukes Takfiri Jihadists

Afghanistan to Syria: Hezbollah leader Nasrallah rebukes Takfiri Jihadists

Murad Makhmudov and Lee Jay Walker

Ex: http://moderntokyotimes.com

The Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, is one of the most powerful individuals within the entire Middle East despite his power base being firmly entrenched in the Levant. Indeed, the continuing evolution of Hezbollah under Nasrallah highlights the firm reality that this political movement can co-exist easily within the mosaic of the Levant and within secular structures. It is this pragmatism that irks America, Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. France, while pandering to the destabilization policies of the above named nations aimed at overthrowing the government of Syria, is the one enigma because political elites in France know the organic nature of Hezbollah and how this movement is a firm reality within the political process of Lebanon.

Michel Aoun, a very influential leader within the Christian political community in Lebanon, knows full well that nations destabilizing Syria also have ill intentions against the people of Lebanon. Of course, Aoun and Nasrallah have vested interests within their own respective religious communities and further afield within the power mechanisms of Lebanon. However, unlike the growing menace of Takfiri jihadists to the entire Levant and the other “Gulf/Western cancer” that seeks to pull the strings; both Aoun and Nasrallah put Lebanon first and this applies to preserving the mosaic and unity of Lebanon.

Nasrallah and Aoun know full well that if sectarian Takfiri jihadists win in Syria then Lebanon will be next. Indeed, even if Takfiri jihadists obtain a major foothold then these fanatics will firstly be the stooges of Gulf and NATO powers that manipulate them. However, in time they will morphine and devour all and sundry. Of course, Gulf and Western powers know full well what they are doing because Afghanistan is witness to the unity of the above with primitive sectarian Takfiri jihadists. In time jihadist forces would enslave women, slaughter the Shia, destroy what is left of Buddhist architecture and then usurp traditional indigenous Sunni Islam based on Salafi thought patterns. In other words, Gulf and Western powers – along with the estranged Pakistan that destabilized itself – all helped to usher in “the Islamist year zero.” Today the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan are still suffering based on this barbaric policy that was enacted by America, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, and several feudal Gulf powers.

Hezbollah therefore continues to denounce the brutal policies of traditional Gulf and Western powers. Also, in recent times both France and Turkey have joined the sectarian Takfiri and mercenary bandwagon. This can especially be viewed with events in Libya and Syria. Indeed, Turkey under Erdogan also joined the pro-Muslim Brotherhood camp alongside America and the United Kingdom in relation to Egypt and Tunisia. However, France is difficult to pin down because in Mali and Tunisia the elites in France didn’t want Islamists and jihadists to succeed.

Nasrallah warned about the threat of Takfiris by stating: “If these (Takfiri groups) win in Syria, and God willing they will not, Syria will become worse than Afghanistan.”

“If these armed groups win, will there be a future for the Future Movement in Lebanon? Will there be a chance for anyone other than (Takfiris) in the country?”

Nasrallah stated http://youtube.com/user/EretzZen about Afghanistan: “Consider the experience in Afghanistan. The jihadi Afghani factions fought one of the two most powerful armies in the world, the Soviet army, and it served it with defeat in Afghanistan.

However, Nasrallah continues: “Because there were some factions in Afghanistan that held this Takfiri, exclusionary, eliminatory, bloody, murderous thought (pattern)…the jihadi Afghani factions entered into a bloody conflict between each other…(jihadists) then destroyed neighborhoods, cities, and villages…such things were not even carried out by the Soviet army…And now, where is Afghanistan?”

“From the day that the Soviets withdrew from till today, bring me one day from Afghanistan where there isn’t killings, wounds (inflicted), displacement, destruction, and where there isn’t difficulty in living. Bring me one day in which there is peace, and happiness in life, because of these (groups)…”

Nasrallah similarly stated what are Takfiris doing in Syria against each other – never mind against the Syrian government? He says “…suicide bombings against each other, killing of detainees and prisoners without any mercy, mass graves, and mass executions.”

“Over what? What have they disagreed over? You both follow (Nusra and ISIL) the same methodology, same ideology, same doctrine, same direction, and same Emir (leader). What did they disagree over?

In other words Takfiris and jihadists in Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, – and now in Syria – are killing, persecuting and destroying because all they know is hatred and “year zero.”

Nasrallah says: “This shows you the mentality that controls the leaders and members of these groups.”

This begs the question – why are political elites in America, France, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, supporting feudal Gulf states in Saudi Arabia and Qatar that seek to destroy various religious groups and cultures in the Levant?

INFORMATION SOURCE 

Please visit Eretz Zen youtube channel at the following:

http://youtube.com/user/EretzZen – please search videos about Hezbollah

[e-mail]

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Bernhard Tomaschitz:

La farce de Montreux

 

Conférence pour la paix en Syrie: les Etats-Unis et l’Arabie saoudite ne veulent pas la fin de la guerre civile

 

A Montreux, en Suisse, la “communauté internationale” (ou ce qui en tient lieu...) tente de trouver une paix acceptable qui mettrait fin à la guerre civile qui fait rage depuis trois ans en Syrie et qui a détruit le pays. Ce que l’on met en scène sur les bords du Lac Léman n’est rien d’autre qu’une farce. Dès le départ, ni les puissances occidentales, surtout les Etats-Unis, qui soutiennent les rebelles dits “modérés”, ni l’Arabie saoudite, qui protège les combattants radicaux islamistes, n’ont intérêt à conduire des négociations sérieuses.

 

Ainsi, le ministre américain des affaires étrangères, John Kerry, exige, en méconnaissant ainsi la situation réelle dans le pays, que le Président syrien Bechar El-Assad renonce au pouvoir. D’après Kerry, il serait impensable que l’homme “qui a oppirmé son peuple de manière si brutale” puisse encore continuer à diriger la Syrie. Et comme par miracle, juste avant que ne commencent les négociations de Genève II, les médias ont diffusé des images prouvant soi-disant les massacres d’opposants au régime, perpétrés par les forces de sécurité loyalistes syriennes. Quant à la puissance régionale que constitue l’Iran, elle a d’abord été invitée, puis, sous pression américaine, “dés-invitée” par le secrétaire général de l’ONU, Ban Ki-Moon. Le ministre russe des affaires étrangères, Sergueï Lavrov définit cette exclusion de l’Iran comme “une faute impardonnable”.

 

De cette façon, les deux alliés, inégaux entre eux que sont les Etats-Unis et l’Arabie saoudite, ont constitué une sorte d’Axe dirigé directement contre l’Iran. En effet, les deux Etats poursuivent —pour des motifs certes divergents— un but commun, celui de contenir et d’encercler l’Iran. L’élément-clef de cette stratégie américano-saoudienne est de briser un maillon fort de “l’arc chiite”, espace géographique en forme de croissant qui part de l’Iran, s’étend à l’Irak et à la Syrie pour aboutir finalement aux zones contrôlées par le Hizbollah au Liban. Pour faire tomber Assad, Washington accepte délibérément que l’Arabie saoudite soutienne les combattants djihadistes de Syrie.

 

Nikolaï Bobkin, qui appartient à la “Strategic Culture Foundation”, une boîte à penser russe, met bien la situation en évidence: “Ryad ne met plus de gants quand il s’agit de faire face aux initiatives internationales pour contrôler le programme nucléaire iranien. Les Saoudiens prônent sans fard le changement de régime en Syrie et ne cessent plus de verser des fonds pour armer l’opposition syrienne. Le royaume d’Arabie saoudite entretient des liens avec les adversaires les plus rabiques de Bechar El-Assad et est ainsi le principal soutien du terrorisme en Syrie”. A juste titre, Bobkin pose la question: l’Arabie saoudite ne mériterait-elle pas de subir les mêmes sanctions que l’Iran?

 

L’Occident laisse faire le royaume islamo-fondamentaliste saoudien —dont la religion d’Etat est le wahhabisme (une secte sunnite)— qui peut ainsi intervenir non seulement en Syrie mais aussi dans l’Irak voisin. Ce laxisme est facile à comprendre: les Saoudiens, disposant à profusion de pétrodollars, sont de bons clients, surtout pour acheter du matériel militaire. Bobkin poursuit son raisonnement: rien que pour cette raison, la famille royale saoudienne peut demeurer sûre que “Washington et ses alliés européens continueront à fermer les yeux, quoi que fasse l’Arabie saoudite dans la région”.

 

Fin 2011, Washington et Ryad ont signé un accord d’achat de matériels militaires pour une somme de 60 milliards de dollars. Bobkin démontre que, grâce à cet accord, les Saoudiens peuvent prendre sous leur aile protectrice les Etats qui leur sont loyaux dans la région, en soutenant financièrement leur programme d’armement: “Par exemple, l’Arabie saoudite a promis aux militaires libanais de financer à raison de trois millions de dollars un achat d’armes en France”. Les forces libanaises seront alors en mesure d’agir efficacement contre le Hizbollah, bien armé par l’Iran. Les membres de cette milice chiite libanaise se battent en Syrie aux côtés des troupes d’Assad.

 

Pourtant l’Arabie saoudite ne constitue pas un sujet de conversation dans les milieux influents aux Etats-Unis. On se contente d’y réclamer un “changement de régime” à Damas et d’exercer à cette fin une pression constante sur le Président Obama. Elliott Abrams, conseiller de l’ex-Président George W. Bush, rappelle à Obama, dans une contribution au “Weekly Standard”, que le premier président afro-américain des Etats-Unis avait, il y a deux ans et demi, réclamé la chute d’Assad. Ensuite, Abrams dresse une longue liste de “péchés” commis par le gouvernement syrien. Celui-ci serait un “régime ennemi”, lié à l’Iran et au Hizbollah, qui opprimerait brutalement toute opinion divergente émise dans le pays. L’idéologue néo-conservateur utilise ensuite l’arme propagandiste de l’exagération en affirmant tout de go que le régime de Damas “a du sang américain sur les mains”, parce qu’il y a une dizaine d’années, il aurait favorisé le transit de djihadistes vers l’Irak, où ces derniers auraient tué des Américains. Abrams est aveugle quelque part: il refuse de voir que le régime d’Assad excite la haine des islamistes parce qu’il est séculier et laïque. Abrams ne constate pas cet état de choses, pourtant évident: il se borne à faire feu de tous bois pour attiser la haine anti-syrienne.

 

Genève II n’apportera donc aucun résultat. L’invitation de représentants de la “Syrian National Coalition” (SNC), regroupement d’opposants à Assad, n’y changera rien. Cette SNC n’est rien d’autre qu’un spectre inconsistant qui donne l’illusion qu’existerait une opposition pro-occidentale. Car il ne faut pas se voiler la face: la plupart des rebelles sont des islamistes, dont beaucoup cultivent des liens à peine dissimulés avec le réseau Al-Qaeda. Le “Washington Post” commentait les préparatifs à Genève II comme suit: “L’incapacité de la coalition lui a coûté la sympathie de la plupart des Syriens normaux et de la majorité des groupes rebelles armés. Pour cette raison, on ne sait pas très bien qui cette coalition représente, ce qui pose problème si elle a l’intention de participer aux négociations”.

 

Bernhard TOMASCHITZ.

(article paru dans “zur Zeit”, Vienne, n°5/2014, http://www.zurzeit.at ).

Syrie: guerre par procuration vers la paix ou bien vers le chaos

par Eberhard Hamer, Mittelstandsinstitut Niedersachsen e.V.

Ex: http://www.horizons-et-debats.ch

Tous les grands médias au monde se sont réjouis des insurrections en Afrique du Nord, en Syrie et en Ukraine présentés comme des mouvements de libération. Cependant, il s’est avéré, entre temps que ces soulèvements ne provenaient pas de l’intérieur de ces pays mais qu’ils étaient fomentés, dirigés et financés de l’extérieur et qu’il s’agissait d’intérêts économiques ou financiers étrangers ou – à l’instar de la Syrie ou de l’Ukraine – de politique de puissance géostratégique.

Quels sont les intérêts qui ont provoqué la tragédie syrienne?
–    Sans la déstabilisation de la Syrie, Israël et les Anglo-Saxons n’auraient pas osé s’attaquer à l’Iran, ou n’auraient pas pu atteindre en toute sécurité ce pays avec leurs missiles et leurs avions – bien qu’il semble que pour le moment le gouvernement américain ait abandonné ce plan. Cette période d’avant-guerre était nécessaire pour la lutte des Américains et les dictatures sunnites (Arabie saoudite et Qatar) contre la Syrie chiite et son allié de Téhéran. Cette Syrie relie l’Iran chiite avec d’autres groupes chiites du monde arabe. Sans cet intermédiaire, l’influence de l’Iran dans le monde arabe serait affaiblie.
–    C’est aussi une question liée aux ressources de gaz. Jusqu’à présent, un oléoduc venant de l’Iran traversait la Syrie. Entretemps on a trouvé des gisements de gaz naturel dans le sud de l’espace méditerranéen – non seulement en zone maritime mais également sous le territoire syrien (Kara). Jusqu’à présent, le Qatar exportait du pétrole liquéfié au moyen d’une flotte de pétroliers. Si le gouvernement Assad disparaissait, le Qatar aurait la possibilité de transporter le «combustible bleu» directement par le territoire syrien vers la côte de la Méditerranée et pourrait ainsi doubler son volume d’exportation et en même temps empêcher l’exportation de l’Iran. C’est la raison pour laquelle le Qatar finance l’insurrection en Syrie.
–    Le contrôle des livraisons du pétrole et du gaz en provenance du Proche-Orient signifie pour les Etats-Unis en même temps le contrôle de l’Europe occidentale et l’affaiblissement de la Russie. Outre les raisons géostratégiques, ce sont donc des raisons économiques qui sont décisives pour les «corrections par des soulèvements» en Libye, Tunisie, Egypte et Syrie. Il s’agit du monopole (et des prix de monopole) pour le pétrole et le gaz.
–    La participation d’Israël en Syrie correspond également au principe du gouvernement Netanyahu, et de tous les anciens gouvernements, de déstabiliser tous les pays voisins afin de sécuriser Israël.
–    Le principal financier de l’insurrection populaire présumée en Syrie sont les Etats-Unis et les dirigeants en sont la CIA qui veille à ce que la propagande de masse dans le monde soit en faveur des «rebelles syriens», en leur fournissant des armes de précision, des missiles antichars, des lunettes de vision thermique, des fusils de précision et dirige, avec l’aide de la marine américaine, la gestion logistique de l’insurrection depuis la mer. Par leur engagement en Syrie, les Etats-Unis et leur industrie tente de lutter contre l’influence de la Russie (politique de l’encerclement) et de la Chine alliée de l’Iran.
–    La Russie possède une base marine et militaire sur la côte méditerranéenne de la Syrie. Après avoir été évincés de la Libye, les Russes ne veulent pas se faire chassés, également, de la Syrie.
–    Parallèlement, la croisade occidentale en Syrie a atteint la Grande Muraille chinoise. La Chine s’intéresse aussi vivement aux ressources du Moyen-Orient. Le Pakistan est déjà sous son influence. Les Chinois entretiennent des relations de longue date avec les talibans afghans. L’Iran est aussi leur allié. Le sud de l’Irak est de facto contrôlé par les alliés chiites de l’Iran. A l’aide de la Syrie, la Chine cherche également à obtenir de l’influence sur la côte méditerranéenne.
–    De même que le but des Etats Unis est d’encercler la Russie et la Chine afin de les repousser à l’intérieur de leurs frontières (par exemple à l’aide de l’insurrection fomentée par les Etats-Unis en Ukraine et la nouvelle offensive dans le Pacifique), ces deux pays veulent, dans le cas de la Syrie, stopper la politique d’encerclement américaine pour des raisons économiques, militaires et géopolitiques.

Lors de la conférence sur la Syrie, les Syriens eux-mêmes n’ont été que des participants passifs. Les commanditaires de la guerre syrienne doivent se mettre d’accord. Mais ils sont confrontés à des obstacles insurmontables:
1.    Les troupes ayant été infiltrées en Syrie par les Etats-Unis (CIA), à savoir les talibans, les combattants de la révolution et les fanatiques islamiques, auparavant engagés dans les pays d’Afrique du Nord ainsi que les troupes de mercenaires (tel Black­water etc.), ne peuvent pratiquement pas être éloignés sans faire de ravages ailleurs. Plus personne ne les veut. On doit donc les laisser s’entretuer et détruire la Syrie. Cela plaide en faveur de la continuation de la guerre.
2.    Les dictatures pétrolières sunnites (Qatar, Arabie saoudite) n’ont pas uniquement leurs propres intérêts à promouvoir concernant le pétrole et le gaz en Syrie, mais également des intérêts de suprématie idéologique islamique qu’ils ne vont guère abandonner.
3.    Israël ne veut pas la paix avant d’avoir atteint la déstabilisation totale de la Syrie afin d’avoir la voie libre en direction de l’Iran.
4.    La Russie se bat pour son influence en Syrie et soutient donc le président Assad (langage occidental: «le régime Assad») en tant qu’allié garantissant ses intérêts.
5.    La Chine est intéressée à la paix en Syrie à condition que son influence soit assurée ou élargie par Assad.

La paix, est-elle possible dans ces conditions?
Quelques objectifs de guerre initiaux des intervenants étrangers se sont entre temps réalisés ou ont changés:
–    Israël ayant atteint son but de déstabiliser la Syrie et le Liban à long terme n’est donc plus partenaire de la conférence de paix.
–    Les Etats-Unis s’épouvantent désormais face à leurs propres mercenaires. Ils craignent, qu’en cas de victoire, un nouveau système islamique, encore plus dangereux que le précédant, puisse se développer en Syrie. Ils cherchent donc une voie de sortie sans trop perdre la face.
–    Jusqu’à présent, la Turquie s’est tenue un peu à l’écart, mais elle a aidé les insurgés de manière subversive au moyen d’armes et d’aide militaire et logistique. Elle veut certes augmenter sa sphère d’influence en Syrie, mais n’est nullement intéressée à avoir un Etat islamique radical comme voisin.
Sont en faveur d’une solution pacifique, avec le maintien du gouvernement Assad:
–    la Russie, car elle garderait ainsi sa base navale et ses alliés en Syrie,
–    l’Iran, car l’axe chiite serait ainsi maintenu et Assad resterait le rempart contre les attaques provenant d’Israël,
–    la Chine, car elle aurait, par l’intermédiaire de l’Iran et de l’axe chiite, plus d’influence sur Assad que sur des terroristes islamistes.

Les terroristes islamistes sont contre une solution pacifique. Les autres buts qu’ils poursuivent – à l’exception de la conquête du pouvoir sunnite en combattant les chiites – sont, selon les groupements très divers, sans doute pas toujours facile à définir et dépendent en partie également de leurs bailleurs de fonds et de leurs dirigeants (Mossad, CIA, Qatar, Arabie saoudite).

Une armistice suffirait déjà à neutraliser les combattants infiltrés. Cela ne peut donc pas être dans leur intérêt, d’autant plus que la résistance de la population dans les territoires qu’ils occupent se renforcerait. S’ils n’étaient plus payés par les Etats-Unis et les monarchies sunnites, ils ne pourraient plus faire face à la pression de l’armée syrienne. Ils devraient donc quitter le pays et semer la pagaille autre part.

Le président Assad et l’armée syrienne pourraient également ne pas encore être intéressés à un cessez-le-feu, car ils sont en train de gagner et de libérer de plus en plus le pays des terroristes. D’autre part, des négociations de paix avec un groupe de citoyens syriens présenterait l’avantage que les 30 000 soldats mercenaires étrangers seraient ainsi isolés, de sorte qu’Assad pourrait risquer de négocier la paix avec une représentation de groupes syriens.

Il faut s’attendre à ce que la tactique utilisée à Genève soit la suivante: des négociations de paix, oui, mais pas encore de cessez-le-feu – et plus tard: la paix, oui, mais uniquement entre Syriens et sans les terroristes étrangers.

Si l’on se demande, si la fomentation de cette guerre par les puissances étrangères, a valu la peine pour eux, il ne reste en réalité que l’avantage israélien (déstabilisation). Les Américains, la CIA, le Qatar et l’Arabie saoudite vont probablement perdre. Pour eux, cette guerre n’a certainement pas amené les résultats escomptés.

Après que les Américains ont, avec l’aide des Russes, empêché l’attaque israélienne contre l’Iran et terminé avec succès les négociations nucléaires avec ce pays, une reprise pacifique pourrait se produire dans cette région, si l’on parvient à éliminer les combattants étrangers de la Syrie et réinstaurer la paix entre les Syriens.    

(Traduction Horizons et débats)

[top]

Is Israel Getting Ready to Rethink its Strategy in Syria?

Dmitry MININ

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

On 24 January, a senior officer in the Israeli military intelligence held a special briefing, at which it was reported that there is «the possibility» of Israel rethinking its strategy in the Syrian conflict. The reason? The sharp rise in the number of militants in Syria linked to al-Qaeda who are uncompromising when it comes to Israel. Just two years ago they numbered 2,000, but today this number has increased to 30,000. They have travelled to Syria from countries in the Middle East, Europe, America... Israel is starting to come to the conclusion that if Bashar Assad is overthrown and the militants’ immediate goal realised – the creation of a large Islamic state from Syria and parts of Iraq – then these forces are going to come down on them hard. Hence the need for Israel to look at the possibility of carrying out its own large-scale operations in Syria, apparently.

According to the Israelis, the Islamist groups in Syria that pose a threat to their country include:

1. Jabhat al-Nusra. On 22 January, the Israeli security agency Shin Bet reported that it had foiled three planned terrorist attacks by this organisation, including blowing up the US Embassy in Tel-Aviv and the Convention Centre in Jerusalem. The alleged perpetrators included immigrants from Turkey and the North Caucasus republics. 

2. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

3. Ahrar ash-Sham. This group serves as the basis for the recently established Islamic Front (IF), which America has declared to be a «moderate» group. Israeli intelligence sources are disputing this assessment, pointing out that Ahrar ash-Sham’s leader, Abu Khalid al-Suri (real name Mohamed Bahaiah), admitted that he is a member of al-Qaeda. Experts in France are also in agreement with this, observing that Muhamed Bahaiah acts as al-Qaeda’s chief coordinator in Syria, used to have links with Bin Laden and remains a close acquaintance of al-Zawahiri.

4. Jaysh al-Islam. This organisation dominates the Damascus region and is known to have close ties with Saudi and Pakistani intelligence agencies.

The Israeli army (the IDF) is considering several options for how it could tackle these groups:

a) creating buffer zones on the Syrian side of the border;

b) air and ground strikes against jihadist border concentrations;

c) deep thrusts into Syria and Iraq to block the advance of al-Qaeda forces into Jordan;

d) the targeted assassinations of top al-Qaeda commanders; and

e) preventing jihadist forces from seizing areas in Syria that could subsequently be used as springboards from which to advance into Israel.

At the same time, however, Israeli strategists are stipulating the need for all the «pros and cons» of fighting al-Qaeda in Syria to be considered carefully, bearing in mind that such a military campaign would ease the pressure on Assad’s regime and his allies, Iran and Hezbollah, which Israel, of course, does not really want to do. But at some point, they are going to have to choose which is more important – real security or the myths of their own propaganda.

Speaking at the annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies, «Security Challenges of the 21st Century», Israel’s Defence Minister, Moshe Ya’alon, stated that the US has encountered many challenges in the region and is trying to reduce its presence and intervention. At the same time, he believes that Syria’s partition into several parts is a looming reality, which means that Israel needs to be prepared for the situation when its «red lines» are crossed. This would be «an attack on Israel or the transfer/use of chemical weapons» which, according to Ya’alon, could alter Israel’s position regarding its «non-intervention» in what is currently happening in Syria.

Israel’s significant military build-up on its border with Syria has already been declared. The IDF’s press office announced the official commissioning of a new territorial division known as the Bashan Division after the ancient name of the Golan Heights region, in which the division will be stationed. The division will be led by Brigadier General Ofek Buchris, a former commander of the Golani Brigade and then commander of the 366th Reserve Division, known as the «Netiv Ha-Esh» Division.

The IDF’s 36th «Ga’ash» Armor Division, which as well as carrying out combat missions served as the territorial division in the Golan Heights region, will remain in the same place, but will move into the reserves of the General Staff. This division includes the «Golani» Infantry Brigade, the «Saar me-Golan» and «Barak» Armor Brigades, and the «Golan» Artillery Regiment.

On 28 January, commenting on a report about the renewal of US arms supplies to Syrian rebels, the Israeli military intelligence website DEBKAfile reported that, this time around, they are going to carry out the plan agreed with Tel-Aviv for the creation of two buffer zones on the border between Israel and Jordan. The US is also supposedly convinced of the futility of trying to alter the balance of forces in the Syrian conflict in its favour, and is ready to restrict itself to protecting its last reliable allies in the region. The plan is for both zones to be created in Syria, sufficiently close to Damascus.

According to reports by Reuters, high-ranking officials in American and European intelligence agencies have confirmed that a plan approved by the US Congress for the financing of arms supplies to rebel groups in Syria contains secret articles that not all members of Congress are aware of.

Weapons and ammunition, including anti-tank missiles and grenades, will be delivered to Syria through Jordan. In addition, the US is also intending to provide the so-called moderate opposition with a variety of equipment, including modern communication equipment and night vision equipment.

Even on the face of it, however, there are serious doubts about the potential of America and Israel’s «new strategy». To begin with, it is mistaken in the false hope that there are forces loyal to the West that can be placed along the border between Israel and Jordan, similar to the Maronite Army of South Lebanon that existed in the 20th century. Finding «border guards» like that in Syria is extremely difficult. The entire region of the Golan Heights on the Syrian side is dominated by anti-Israeli minded jihadists from Jabhat al-Nusra. In many respects, these were nurtured by Israel itself, which was once obsessed with the idea of overthrowing Bashar Assad no matter what. It should be noted that since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, more than 800 militants, including 28 leaders, have received medical help in Israeli hospitals, including the Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, where top-level officials are treated. How exactly «democrats» are to emerge in place of these al-Qaeda-ists, however, is unclear. 

The picture is more varied in the sector adjacent to Jordan, but it is also unlikely that local rebels want to turn into eternal «military settlers». Everyone remembers the fate of the puppet South Lebanese Army, whose soldiers were eventually forced to abandon their homeland with their families and sit and vegetate in Israel, deprived of all rights. In fact, if the Islamists conquer the rest of Syria, pockets like these will be crushed in a matter of hours.

 It is about time people understood that none of the various strategic equations in Syria can be solved without the involvement of Bashar Assad as both the most important figure in Damasus and the country’s president. The Syrian government does not need any kind of external intrusion against its enemies, enemies that were nurtured by the «suddenly enlightened» Western and Israeli strategists themselves. Something different is required, namely that the US and its allies stop all inference in Syria’s affairs. Damascus will deal with the rebellion itself single-handed. That way it will be cheaper, and result in fewer victims.

EGYPTE : QUAND LA DICTATURE N'EST PAS LA DICTATURE

L'Occident perd son argumentaire

Michel Lhomme
Ex: http://metamag.fr

 

Le commandement de l'armée égyptienne a donné lundi 27 janvier mandat à son chef, le maréchal Abdel Fattah Al-Sissi, pour se présenter à l'élection présidentielle en Egypte. Le vice-premier ministre, homme fort du pays depuis qu'il a destitué en juillet, par la force, le président islamiste Mohamed Morsi, avait peu auparavant été élevé au rang de maréchal, le plus haut grade de l'armée égyptienne, par le président Adly Mansour.

 

Ce dernier a confirmé que le scrutin présidentiel serait organisé avant les législatives. Pour tous les observateurs, cette inversion judicieuse du calendrier électoral devrait servir les intérêts du maréchal Abdel Fattah Al-Sissi qui sera donc probablement élu. 

Mohamed Morsi, déposé le 3 juillet 2013, était le seul président élu démocratiquement en Egypte, et le premier non issu des rangs de l'armée, à diriger le plus peuplé des pays arabes. Tout le week-end, des manifestations et des heurts ont agité le Caire laissant à l'anniversaire des trois ans de la révolution un goût plutôt amer. Le général Mohamed Saïd, chef du bureau technique du ministère de l'intérieur égyptien, a été tué mardi 28 janvier dans la capitale égyptienne par des inconnus qui ont ouvert le feu sur lui, selon les services de sécurité du pays. Cet assassinat survient en pleine vague de répression sanglante de toute manifestation des partisans des frères musulmans et de toute une série d'attentats djihadistes visant les forces de l'ordre.

Un pays gênant pour les Occidentaux

Pourtant, dans les médias, l'Egypte est oublié. On tait, on camoufle l'Egypte. En somme, nous avons eu début juillet un coup de force, un coup d'état militaire en bonne et due forme mais pour les Occidentaux, ce n'était pas un coup d'Etat ! C'est ainsi que depuis quelques mois, on sent dans les relations internationales une sorte de distanciation polie sur tout ce qui se passe que ce soit à Gaza, au Liban, en Syrie ou en Afrique noire. On ne croit plus en rien et surtout plus au modèle démocratique et aux bons sentiments humanitaires tant vantés dans les années 90.

 

L'incapacité d'Obama à utiliser en juillet 2013 le terme de ''coup d'Etat'' pour désigner la situation égyptienne fut rédhibitoire et augure d'une certaine incapacité de l'Amérique à se repositionner idéologiquement, à posséder et maîtriser un argumentaire crédible. Barak Obama ne pouvait en effet utiliser officiellement le terme de ''coup d'état militaire'' car il aurait alors été mis dans l'obligation légale de couper l'aide financière si vitale à l’Egypte. Les Etats-Unis étaient ainsi la victime collatérale de leurs propres textes. Mais si un coup d'Etat n'est plus un coup d'état, qu'est-ce alors que la démocratie et qu'est-ce qui justifiera demain l'interventionnisme américain ?

Avec la destitution violente de Morsi, l'Occident est entré dans une nouvelle confusion politique car les Occidentaux aiment les concepts clivants, aiment négocier à l'intérieur de paramètres clairs et surtout veulent en permanence moraliser le politique pour ne pas culpabiliser leurs turpitudes. 

C'était donc des insurgés contre des dictateurs, des fanatiques contre des démocrates, des bons contre des méchants, des laïcs contre des religieux. C'est pour eux une manière de mieux comprendre et d'appréhender la politique extérieure et de l'expliquer à leurs électeurs. On s'était habitué, avant l'Egypte, qu'un coup d'état militaire était nécessairement ''mauvais'' et qu'un président élu serait forcément le ''bon'', le seul légitime. Mais il y eut Morsi après, mais qui s'en souvient, l'Algérie des années 91-92. Et si l'éviction de Morsi justifiait demain, même dans un pays comme la France, le refus de certains résultats électoraux. Quel que soit ce que l'on pense des Frères Musulmans, ce sont eux qui remportèrent les élections présidentielles. Leur formation était alors le parti le plus important du Parlement égyptien et le second parti de ce Parlement n'était pas celui des libéraux mais celui des salafistes, encore plus fondamentalistes et radicaux que les Frères Musulmans.

Une démocratie à géométrie variable

Cette confusion de l'attitude occidentale à l'égard des élections égyptiennes s'est multipliée dans tout le Proche-Orient et en particulier en Syrie où la France comme les Etats-Unis ont soutenu les rebelles les plus fanatiques au nom de la ''démocratie''. S’agissant de l'Egypte, certains commentateurs ont prétendu que l'Egypte, après tout, n'était pas mûre pour la démocratie ou pire que finalement, la démocratie n'était pas une bonne solution pour l'Egypte, qu'elle n'y était pas préparée ! Mais quel pays est-il donc prêt pour la démocratie ? En somme, le discours de la paix démocratique, le discours de l'idéologue Christopher Layne n'était que du vent. Pourtant tout le conflit afghan fut justifié par le discours démocratique. Toutes les interventions africaines ont été, jusqu'à aujourd'hui, des interventions pro-démocratiques. C'est donc le coup d'état militaire de Sissi qui a stoppé ce grand élan de générosité démocratique car pour une fois, un coup d'état n'était pas un coup d'état mais une affaire démocratique!

L'écho des évènements égyptiens qui nous parvient est comme brouillé par la sensation incommode d'une belle duperie. Avec l'Egypte, avec la Syrie, avec les pressions sur Gaza, l'Occident se dirige petit à petit vers le chaos moral de l'intervention sans une once de justification. On se retrouve exactement comme au temps de la Guerre froide lorsque les Etats-Unis et ses alliés justifiaient les coups de force d'Asie ou les dictatures d'Amérique latine, les préférant à toute autre alternative sociale sauf qu'à cette époque, les progressistes chantaient la révolution sur des vers de Neruda et dénonçaient les dictateurs et les tyrans dans les films de Godard ? Or qui, aujourd'hui, lève le petit doigt contre Sissi, le dictateur-maréchal égyptien ? En tout cas, les événements égyptiens nous enseignent ce sur quoi nous insistons toujours ici : on ne peut en politique internationale éviter la complexité, le confus et les compromissions de toutes sortes. La politique internationale n'est pas morale et ne le sera jamais.

Syrie, CentrAfrique, Ukraine : la stratégie des bons sentiments

Halte à l’impérialisme démocratique!

Syrie, CentrAfrique, Ukraine : la stratégie des bons sentiments

Jean Bonnevey
Ex: http://metamag.fr

Il n’y a pas de révolution spontanée. La conférence de Genève prouve que la guerre civile syrienne est bien une guerre internationale. La reprise des émeutes en Ukraine montre l’extrémisme des manifestants sans nier la répression du régime. L’élection d’une femme à la présidence à Bangui ne gomme pas les  racines religieuses et ethniques d’un bourbier africain.

Dans chacun  de ces conflits, l’occident atlantique a décrété le bien et le mal par rapport au dogme démocratique. Il se condamne à être partial et à n’avoir qu’une compréhension partielle des problèmes. Partout on reproduit les erreurs inexpiables du Rwanda ou de l’Irak et on ne tire leçon de rien. Il aura fallu des mois à la communauté internationale pour convaincre la Coalition nationale syrienne (CNS), principal conglomérat de l'opposition syrienne à l'étranger, de se retrouver dans la même pièce que le régime syrien.

Genève 2 est avant tout une tentative pour l'ONU et les grandes puissances de masquer leur incapacité à enrayer la descente aux enfers de la Syrie depuis près de trois ans. L’opposition très divisée au régime d'Assad veut obtenir un départ du pouvoir qu’il refuse et l'un des participants régional majeur du conflit, l’Iran, est exclu, ce qui est objectivement une erreur.

Si les débats entre le régime syrien et l'opposition se dérouleront à huis clos à partir de vendredi, la séance d'ouverture de la conférence de paix sur la Syrie, baptisée Genève II, a permis de donner une idée plus précise de l'empoignade à venir. Et ceux qui spéculaient sur la bonne volonté de Damas pour négocier un transfert du pouvoir à une autorité de transition sont désormais fixés.

En position de force sur le terrain face à une rébellion en proie à de graves querelles intestines, 1400 morts dans une guerre interne en un mois, le chef de la diplomatie syrienne a rejeté tout départ de Bachar el-Assad. En réponse au secrétaire d'État américain John Kerry, qui venait de rappeler que le président syrien ne ferait pas partie d'un gouvernement de transition, Walid Mouallem a répondu vertement : «Monsieur Kerry, personne au monde n'a le droit de conférer ou de retirer la légitimité à un président [...], sauf les Syriens eux-mêmes». Qui peut dire le contraire.

En Ukraine, le gouvernement qui pensait avoir repris la main a commis une erreur. En promulguant la loi contre les rassemblements, il n'a fait que provoquer une radicalisation. Aujourd'hui, il est beaucoup plus difficile de maîtriser cette contestation du régime.

 

De son côté, l'opposition est dépassée par la radicalisation du mouvement. Ils pensaient passer par la voie légale pour trouver une issue à la crise, mais ils se demandent s'ils ne vont pas être obligés de suivre les manifestants dans leur mouvement. C'est la légitimité du pouvoir qui est mise en cause, alors que Viktor Ianoukovitch vise clairement la réélection, notamment avec la signature des accords avec la Russie. La Russie est en fait l'objectif des occidentaux avec une volonté de diaboliser Poutine avant les Jeux Olympiques de Sotchi.

Quand au Centrafrique, une femme est élue à la présidence pour la joie des journalistes femmes et féministes, dont acte, mais cela ne résoudra pas le fond du problème. Il est ailleurs. Dans ce pays, où la France est intervenue le 5 décembre, «nous avons sous-estimé l'état de haine et l'esprit revanchard, l'esprit de représailles», a admis le ministre français Le Drian. «Il y a un mandat des Nations unies qui prévoit en particulier que les forces africaines de la Misca se renforcent pour arriver à 6.000 militaires», a rappelé M. Le Drian. «Elles sont en train de se constituer, même si ça a pris un peu de temps, et je pense qu'avec l'arrivée des soldats rwandais et des soldats du Burundi, on aura là une force significative», a dit le ministre.

Dans chaque cas les forces auto-proclamées du bien sous-estiment la haine des autres et font donc des analyses fausses aux conséquences terrifiantes pour les populations concernées. L'impérialisme démocratique est peut-être démocratique, mais c’est avant tout un impérialisme et le pire qui soit, celui de l idéologie au mépris des réalités.

 

CHI MANOVRA I “MODERNISTI ISLAMICI”?

CHI MANOVRA I “MODERNISTI ISLAMICI”?

Enrico Galoppini

Ex: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org

Per gentile concessione della rivista di studi afro-asiatici “Africana”, mettiamo a disposizione l’articolo di Enrico Galoppini Chi manovra i “modernisti islamici”? (XVII, 2012, pp. 141-148: http://www.giovanniarmillotta.it/africana/africana12.html ^[1]).

“Timbuctu è in mano agli integralisti islamici”: così titolavano giornali ed agenzie ai primi di luglio 2012, che riferivano di distruzioni di moschee e santuari da parte dei militanti di Ansâr ed-Dîn, i quali avevano preso il controllo della città santa del Mali.[1]

Qui non c’interessa entrare nel merito dello scontro tra questi e il governo, e tra i medesimi e i tuareg “laici”, fino a pochissimo tempo prima loro alleati. Ma una cosa va detta: senza l’eliminazione di Gheddafi, che non era affatto un “ateo”, questo pandemonio in Mali – che segue quello in atto in Libia, con protagonisti vittoriosi dalle analoghe ristrette vedute – non sarebbe stato possibile. Quindi se lo segnino bene tutti quelli che adesso piangono lacrime di coccodrillo, perché chi più chi meno hanno tutti lavorato per produrre questo capolavoro. E lasciamo pure perdere il fatto che Timbuctu è considerata “patrimonio mondiale dell’umanità” dall’Unesco, poiché l’importanza, il valore di una città, di un sito, e tanto meno di un luogo sacro, non viene certo data, come si vorrebbe far credere, dalla “certificazione” da parte di un’agenzia delle Nazioni Unite, che sappiamo per quali motivi sono state istituite: preparare il “governo unico mondiale” senza Dio, con tutte le conseguenze che ne derivano.

Detto questo, passiamo ad esaminare perché questi “fondamentalisti” infieriscono con particolare veemenza e furore su quei luoghi di culto islamici, e sottolineiamo islamici, che ospitano le spoglie di personaggi considerati “santi”, modelli di pietà e virtù dalla locale popolazione (e non solo), la quale – dopo averli seguiti finché erano in questo mondo – vi si reca in “visita” [2] per beneficiare della baraka che ne promana, delle sue “influenze spirituali” ed ottenere così una “intercessione” presso il Signore, e non certo per adorarli quali “dei”. [3]

Per prima cosa, al riguardo del “culto dei santi”, degli awliyâ’ [4] in Islam, vi è da dire che esso è completamente “islamico”, mentre tutti questi “modernisti”, “salafiti”, “wahhabiti” e chi più ne ha più ne metta lo ritengono “blasfemo”, da “idolatri”. La loro argomentazione principale è che per salvaguardare il principio del tawhîd (Unità ed Unicità divine: il Principio non può che essere uno e unico) bisogna evitare assolutamente tutto ciò che fa incorrere il musulmano nell’errore di “associazionismo” (shirk), ovvero quello di attribuire a Dio dei “pari”.

Ora, fin qui (la concezione “non duale”) siamo tutti d’accordo, tuttavia per ‘eccesso di zelo’ accade che questi calvinisti d’Arabia, a furia di togliere legittimità a tutto quel che può risultare un supporto, un sostegno intermedio, una ‘rampa di lancio’ per facilitare l’elevazione del credente sino al grado più alto,  quello della Realizzazione spirituale appannaggio solo degli “eletti”, finiscono per fare completamente “terra bruciata” lasciando le persone, ancorché animate da buone intenzioni, alla mercé della cosa più pericolosa che esista: il proprio metro di giudizio [5].

I “modernisti”, infatti, da cui derivano i “salafiti”, i “takfiri” eccetera, ritengono che ciascuno, nel proprio cammino di “conoscenza” (realizzare intimamente, con “certezza assoluta”, che tutto è Dio e che Dio è ovunque) debba fare affidamento solo sul proprio sforzo; che ogni essere umano in fondo sia “il maestro di  se stesso”. Tutt’al più riconoscono l’autorità di “sapienti” usciti da determinate scuole, tutti invariabilmente della loro ideologia. Ma guai a parlare di “santi”, di “realizzati”, di “maestri”: per loro non ne esistono, salvo poi prendersene di virtuali, “di carta”, televisivi, o peggio ancora su internet, e qui cade a pennello la selva di canali satellitari che rincitrulliscono chi crede che basti spaparanzarsi in poltrona a casa e sorbirsi il predicozzo di qualcheduno che “buca lo schermo” da uno studio televisivo per ritenere di avere una guida autorevole e, soprattutto, in contatto con le “entità” benefiche che abitano il “mondo dell’invisibile” (‘âlam al-ghayb).
Ora chiunque può comprendere che se si nega che vi possano essere uomini in grado di stabilire in vita, da quaggiù, una “connessione” di questo tipo, si nega implicitamente l’esistenza del “mondo dell’invisibile”, menzionato a chiare lettere dal Corano [6].

Per questi Savonarola dell’Islam, da dottrina completa e quindi vera nella misura in cui traduce in linguaggio intelligibile per gli uomini di un’epoca (quella del Kali Yuga) [7] i dati della metafisica (che per sua essenza è una), l’Islam si trasforma in “Islamismo”, in una “ideologia religiosa”. Un po’ come il Sionismo, che lungi dal rappresentare l’Ebraismo è nient’altro che una sua interpretazione ideologica che grazie all’azione concomitante di vari fattori ha preso completamente la scena al punto che sia i suoi fautori sia i suoi
detrattori lo identificano tout court con la tradizione ebraica. Con il moderno “fondamentalismo islamico” il discorso è analogo: si tratta né più né meno che di un’interpretazione ideologica dell’Islam, che ipso facto produce un’esiziale incomprensione di cosa sia davvero l’Islam, il quale diventa, agli occhi di chi non ne sa nulla (gli “occidentali”), comprensibilmente odioso e “barbaro” [8].

Siamo dunque di fronte ad una manifestazione di “riduzionismo”, ad una semplificazione risultante da una fondamentale incomprensione che, com’è tipico di chi ha compreso ben poco, si vuole imporre a tutti quanti. In pratica si riconosce che esiste la vetta della montagna e che bisogna arrivarci, ma sul percorso e, soprattutto, sul fatto che esistano delle “guide esperte”, si glissa allegramente. Si pensi un po’ a che fine farebbe uno sprovveduto ed improvvisato alpinista qualora decidesse di salire sulla vetta dell’Everest armato solo di cartine, diari di famosi scalatori e tutto il meglio dell’attrezzatura disponibile! Certo, alla fine  ciascuno fa le ‘sue’ esperienze, ed in questo il suo viaggio è ‘unico’, diverso da quello degli altri, mentre lo sforzo profuso non è invano (non è la stessa cosa farsi portare lassù con un elicottero!), ma la meta è la stessa per tutti e da lassù si vede lo stesso panorama: si domina il mondo e si comprende che cosa è il “reale”. Questi “modernisti”, invece, convintisi che non è possibile raggiungere la vetta della montagna preferiscono divorare biblioteche intere di saggi ed enciclopedie sull’alpinismo e l’arrampicata, gareggiando a chi ne sa di più, ma guardiamoci bene dal prenderli come “guide” perché al primo crepaccio, senza alcuna  esperienza, vi finirebbero dentro trascinandovi gli incauti compagni di cordata.

La ‘montagna’, poi, bisogna amarla, e non farne un argomento da “record”, come ha spiegato un’infinità di volte Reinhold Messner. L’analogia funziona anche qui: non si può sperare di ottenere “virtude e conoscenza” solo con la “testa”… Cosa resta dunque a chi fa della “conoscenza” solo una questione d’erudizione? Per di più brandendola come una scure all’indirizzo di “apostati” (kuffâr) di cui si ha bisogno come l’aria per fortificarsi nella convinzione d’avere sempre ragione? L’affidamento alle facoltà razionali.

Ne abbiamo una plastica rappresentazione nella questione della distruzione di una porta di un celebre mausoleo a Timbuctu, tenuta chiusa per decenni, o forse ancor di più. La tradizione locale riporta che l’apertura di quella porta sarebbe avvenuta solo “alla fine dei tempi”… Allora, gli aderenti a Ansâr ed-Dîn, in segno di sfida alla “creduloneria” locale, hanno abbattuto quella porta, e naturalmente non è successo “niente”… Al che avranno certamente gongolato pavoneggiandosi per questa vittoria sulla “superstizione”!

Essi, poveretti, non si rendono conto che il punto importante non che “non è successo nulla”. L’importante è invece che hanno sfondato quella porta, che hanno superato “il limite”. Così hanno, senza rendersene conto, “inverato la profezia”. Ma facendo affidamento sulle mere facoltà razionali dell’uomo – il che li rende indifesi di fronte allo psichismo inferiore – essi agiscono credendo di operare in un senso quando in realtà lavorano per forze intente a realizzare l’esatto contrario di ciò in cui credono. In pratica, essi ritengono di agire per “sfatare la profezia”, mentre sono proprio loro che la “realizzano”! Tutto ciò è terribilmente
perfetto ed inesorabile.

Fra l’altro la distruzione della porta di Timbuctu e di vari altri santuari in tutto il mondo islamico, significativi anche perché radicano l’Islam in un tessuto locale, esattamente come i santuari cattolici (e guarda caso i protestanti non ne hanno), è analoga alla demolizione dei “buddha di Bamyan” in Afghanistan ad opera dei Talebani. Come in quell’occasione, si parla di “scempio verso la cultura”, di intolleranza religiosa” e via discorrendo, senza cogliere il punto essenziale, ancor più semplice da individuare quando a cadere sotto la  furia dei “puritani islamici” sono santuari e luoghi di culto dell’Islam stesso.

Si tratta forse di ‘sigilli’, di opere di ‘protezione’ che finché sussistono impediscono la penetrazione (o la fuoriuscita) d’influenze dissolutrici? Lo sviluppo degli eventi, in tutto il mondo islamico, non tarderà a mostrarci se ci siamo sbagliati o meno…

Ma non è finita qui. Perché l’altra grande domanda che a questo punto dobbiamo porci è: chi manovra i “modernisti islamici”?

Segnaliamo subito un fatto curioso: da quando è cominciata la cosiddetta “Primavera araba” [9], i “militanti islamici” sono ridiventati improvvisamente “simpatici” [10], da che erano dipinti – fino ad un paio d’anni fa, quando Obama, novello Kennedy, “tese la mano all’Islam” col suo discorso del Cairo – come degli autentici mostri che minacciavano i cosiddetti “Paesi arabi moderati”.
Abbiamo spiegato nella prima parte di quest’articolo qual è la mentalità di questi “modernisti” e da che ‘pulpito’ – forse sarebbe meglio dire da che ‘abisso’ – giunge la loro ‘predica’. Abbiamo anche indicato in ogni forma di “modernismo” un fenomeno di riduzionismo, quindi di fondamentale incomprensione di che cosa siano le realtà spirituali, che sono per l’appunto “realtà”, di una concretezza diversa da quella delle cose ordinarie, ma non bei discorsi e né la sopravvalutata “erudizione” di cui si vantano troppi musulmani
odierni.

D’altra parte, se il buongiorno si vede dal mattino, sono da attendersi queste ed altre ‘imprese’, ben poco…‘edificanti’: quando i wahhabiti (che non sono sunniti!) [11] conquistarono per la prima volta Medina, nel XVIII secolo, non esitarono a distruggere persino la tomba del Profeta dell’Islam, e ancora oggi di fatto impediscono il regolare svolgimento degli atti di devozione, al suo cospetto, che milioni di fedeli anelano a compiere quando si recano in Arabia per il Pellegrinaggio (o la “visita”, la ‘umra) presso “la Casa di Allâh”.

La furia ‘iconoclasta’ di questi “puritani dell’Islam” (motivo per cui van d’accordo alla perfezione con l’Angloamerica) non accenna a placarsi, dall’Egitto alla Tunisia: nel primo, addirittura, in un delirio che non teme di sfociare nella buffoneria, vi è chi propone di demolire le piramidi, simboli del “paganesimo” [12]! E non poteva mancare la Libia, vittima predestinata dopo la destabilizzazione dei due Stati vicini, sempre in nome della “lotta alla superstizione” e di un “Islam autentico” dai tratti razionalistici che si sta diffondendo
purtroppo a macchia d’olio anche in Europa grazie all’azione di organizzazioni che, commettendo un pasticcio inescusabile, cercano, un po’ perché ci credono e un po’ perché sono dei furbacchioni, di presentarsi presso “istituzioni” compiacenti come i portabandiera di un assurdo ed improponibile connubio tra “Islam e democrazia”, peraltro sostenuto a livello accademico da una sfilza di “sociologi dell’Islam” uno più incompetente e in malafede dell’altro. E tutti uniti appassionatamente – gli uni protagonisti della “primavera”, gli altri incanalando il sapere universitario in un alveo rassicurante – al servizio della loro vera ‘madrepatria’: il “mondo moderno”, nel quale si trovano entrambi a loro agio e di cui la “democrazia” è il totem indiscutibile, tanto che – senza spiegare bene da dove ciò trarrebbe legittimità dottrinale – appena una “rivolta” va a buon segno i Freedom Fighters sotterrano l’ascia di guerra ed inaugurano la stagione dei ludi elettorali, mostrando felici ai media delle stesse cricche usurocratiche che hanno finanziato le “ribellioni” il pollice intriso d’inchiostro di chi finalmente s’è messo al collo il giogo della partitocrazia e del relativo governo dei peggiori.

In Libia, quelli che ‘qualcuno’ ha denominato “drogati” e “ratti della Nato”, dopo aver servito da truppe cammellate dei “liberatori”, si sono dunque dati alla loro attività preferita [13], che è quella di profanare ciò che è completamente fuori dalla loro portata intellettuale [14]. Essi si dedicano a maledire e distruggere ciò che non capiscono, perché come tutti gli ignoranti, adusi a semplificare, vanno fuori di testa al pensiero che esista qualche cosa in grado di sfuggirgli, che gli è completamente precluso. E, colmo del ridicolo, si pavoneggiano delle loro nefande azioni, facendo a gara a chi grida più a perdifiato Allâhu akbar (“Iddio è più grande”), come per dimostrare che siccome l’ira del santo di turno, dell’intimo di Dio (il walî), non s’è scaricata sugli autori del gesto, ciò significherebbe che tutta la devozione nei suoi confronti era decisamente mal riposta poiché il Signore non ha fatto nulla per difenderne il mausoleo, né ha ‘folgorato’ gli autori della distruzione. Sembra di vedere all’opera dei positivisti ottocenteschi, tanto queste ‘dimostrazioni’ sono puerili e demenziali [15]. Questo punto non verrà mai sottolineato abbastanza per comprendere la “decadenza islamica” rappresentata da queste tendenze “moderne”, che solo qualcuno a digiuno di che cosa sia la Tradizione può scambiare per “rinascita”.

Una delle ultime bravate di questo tipo nella “Libia liberata” (quella per intendersi, ripiombata sotto il tallone dell’usura e dei suoi “prestiti”, quella del nuovo sottosviluppo camuffato da “tradizione”, quella della svendita di tutti i settori strategici che configurano la sovranità di una nazione, quella di un tribalismo inconcludente) è stata la distruzione, da parte di una massa di pecoroni aizzati dal peggior tipo di ‘pretaglia’ che esista [16], della moschea-mausoleo di ‘abd as-Salâm al-Asmar [17], di cui esiste anche una sconcertante testimonianza filmata [18].

Questo luogo di culto e di devozione, che conteneva circa 5.000 volumi finiti in cenere (avranno controllato che non ci fossero opere di Ibn Taymiyya, il loro preferito!), non è l’unico finito sotto le grinfie di questa ciurmaglia fanatizzata. A Tripoli, come scimmie ammaestrate, hanno demolito a colpi di bulldozer [19] un altro importante luogo di devozione (islamico, sottolineiamolo ancora per chi avesse cominciato a pensare che questi “musulmani” ce l’hanno con dei non musulmani) [20]. Ma al santuario di Sîdî Ahmed az-Zarrûq [21], gli stessi invasati hanno superato se stessi, svignandosela con la salma del sant’uomo lì sepolto [22].

Le “autorità” sedicenti tali, giunte a Tripoli sul ‘tappeto volante’ della British Airways, prendono le distanze, ma è un film già visto, poiché anche in Italia nei primissimi anni post-“Liberazione” erano all’opera, con licenza di uccidere e devastare, bande di “puri dell’Idea resistenziale”, evidentemente lasciate fare su ordine del vero padrone, che non era certo il governicchio degli ex di “Radio Londra” e dei ‘villeggianti’ al “confino”, ma quello che aveva stabilito la subitanea eliminazione del capo del Fascismo e la sparizione della sua famosa cartella con documenti “compromettenti”.
A proposito di bulldozer, è interessante notare che quando Israele distrugge le proprietà palestinesi coi medesimi sbrigativi mezzi, si scatena giustamente un’unanime esecrazione da parte islamica, ma in questo caso, specialmente da parte dei ‘primaverandi’, felici delle loro ‘moschee dell’Ikea’ [23], non si erge la benché minima critica.
I leader religiosi di questi ultimi, inoltre, sono perennemente imbufaliti, lanciano anatemi a destra e a manca, puntano il dito sempre contro qualcuno, ma poi, quando arrivano le palanche di qualche “emiro”, come per incanto diventano mansueti come agnellini e disposti a tollerarne ogni marachella: pecunia non olet, specialmente se sa di petrolio.

Mi chiedo come ci si possa prendere a “guida spirituale” individui che non promanano alcun senso di pace, di fratellanza, di amore [24] nel vero senso della parola, pur nelle necessarie intransigenza ed adesione allo spirito vivificatore della lettera del Messaggio (Risâla), pena lo scadimento nello “spiritualismo” e nell’irrazionale, l’altro polo dello sfaldamento dell’autentica spiritualità (e con essa dell’uomo al quale è destinata), assieme al letteralismo razionalista di cui questi “duri e puri” sono la più recente manifestazione.

Mi chiedo anche dove vogliono arrivare quando avranno consegnato tutte le sponde meridionale ed orientale del Mediterraneo a costoro. Ci metteranno il terrore mediatico addosso per imbarcarci così in una nuova stagione dello “scontro di civiltà” a beneficio del divide et impera nel Mediterraneo? La Nato li aiuterà ad attaccarci e a colonizzarci qualora tentassimo di sbarazzarci dei nostri pluridecennali occupanti?
Eh sì, perché questi signori – a parte il pulcherrimo attentato dell’11/9 attribuito ad Osama bin Mossad – non sembrano affatto interessati a nuocere all’America e all’Inghilterra, che anzi ammirano in cuor loro e poi odiano perché l’ammirazione non è ricambiata, ma sono costantemente disposti a seminare morte e distruzione in tutti quei paesi che periodicamente l’Occidente individua come “il nemico” da distruggere: prima l’Afghanistan con la scusa del “comunismo ateo” (perché, l’Occidente non è “ateo”?), poi la Jugoslavia con la scusa della “pulizia etnica” (a senso unico), poi l’Algeria con la scusa del “pericolo fondamentalista” (da essi stessi alimentato per rovesciare un governo inviso!), poi la Cecenia con la scusa che comunque i russi sono sempre “comunisti” ed “ubriachi”, poi la “primavera araba” con la scusa delle “tirannie” (a geometria variabile)… E il prossimo obiettivo su commissione chi sarà? L’India perché
“adorano le vacche”? La Cina perché mangiano maiale con funghi e bambù? La Chiesa cattolica perché la Trinità è “pagana”? L’Iran e gli sciiti perché sono “eretici”? Insomma, la lista dei “cattivi” consegnata da qualche James Bond assieme alla valigetta coi dobloni è ancora lunga, e nemmeno alla fine si scorge il nome dell’Angloamerica. No, per loro, alla prova dei fatti, e non di qualche fanfaronata plateale che non costa nulla, il problema non sussiste.

Qualcuno piuttosto famoso tra i musulmani, l’Imam Khomeyni, certamente consapevole che l’Avversario è ben altro che un accidente del mondo, ebbe a definire l’America “il Grande Satana” e una certa concezione della sua medesima religione “l’Islam americano”. Si dice anche che l’astuzia più abile del Demonio sia quella di far credere che non esiste. Ecco, questi “modernisti islamici” non saranno arrivati a tanto, ma di sicuro lo scambiano di continuo con qualcun altro.

http://www.cese-m.eu/cesem/2014/01/chi-manovra-i-modernisti-islamici/^[2]

 

NOTE

 

1. ROSSELLA BENEVENIA, Mali: integralisti distruggono entrata moschea a Timbuctu, “Ansa.it” 3 luglio 2012.

 

2. Il termine arabo per “visita” è ziyâra, dal verbo zâra/yazûru, che significa appunto “visitare”, utilizzato anche in senso più generale e meno “tecnico”.

 

3. Su tale importantissima pratica, riscontrabile in moltissime tradizioni, cfr. NELLY AMRI, Le corps du saint dans
l’hagiographie du Magherb médiéval, pubblicato il 5 settembre 2012 sul sito “al-Simsimah” (http://alsimsimah.blogspot.be/2012/09/le-corps-du-saint-dans-lhagiographie-du.html).

 

4. Sing. walî, da una radice che veicola il significato di “vicinanza”, “amicizia”, quindi di “governo per conto di” (in questo specifico caso, “per conto del Signore”).

 

5.Sulla questione della “liceità”, dal punto di vista islamico, della pratica della “visita” alle tombe dei santi e di tutto quel che vi attiene, un testo di riferimento è Rudûd wa munâqashât ‘alà mâ warada fî kutayyibât “ash-shirk wa
wasâ’iluhu ‘inda fuqahâ’ al-madhâhib al-arba‘a” [Repliche e discussioni riguardo ai libelli (della serie) su “L’associazionismo e i suoi strumenti presso i giurisperiti delle quattro scuole di diritto”], quello pubblicato dalla Idârat al-iftâ’ wa al-buhûth – Qism al-buhûth [Direzione delle fatwa e delle ricerche – Dipartimento per le ricerche] (senza riferimenti di luogo e data). Qui, per “associazionismo” s’intende quel che talvolta è tradotto malamente con
“politeismo”: tecnicamente, lo shirk consiste nell’associare, nella pratica e nel pensiero, altri “dei” all’Unico Dio; si tratta, in altre parole, della sanzione dell’errore in cui cade chi professa in qualsiasi modo una concezione dualista.

 

6. A partire dalla sûra II, v. 3.

 

7. Sulla dottrina dei “cicli cosmici”, una delle migliori opere disponibili è quella di GASTON GEORGEL, Le quattro età
dell’umanità, (trad. it.) Il Cerchio, Rimini 1982 (ed. orig. In francese Archè, Milano, 1975).

 

8. Qui per “occidentali” non s’intende coloro che abitano una determinata area del pianeta, bensì tutti quelli che
condividono, adeguandovi il loro modo di vita, la visione del mondo “moderna”, caratterizzata essenzialmente all’ateismo (che può camuffarsi in vari modi, tra i quali vi è il cosiddetto “laicismo”). “Occidentale”, pertanto, è
sinonimo di “moderno”.

 

9. Rimandiamo al nostro “Primavera araba” o “fine dei tempi”?, pubblicato su “Europeanphoenix.it” il 6 aprile 2011.

 

10. Lo sono stati già molte volte, all’epoca della guerra contro l’Urss in Afghanistan, durante lo smembramento della ex Jugoslavia, di nuovo in funzione anti-russa in teatri come la Cecenia, l’Ossezia, il Daghestan ecc.

 

11. MOHAMED OMAR, I sunniti sono oppressi in Arabia saudita, non in Siria, “Eurasia-rivista.org”, 13 agosto 2012.

 

12. Cfr. I salafiti: “Le piramidi vanno distrutte. Sono simboli pagani”, “Il Messaggero”, 13 luglio 2012  (http://www.ilmessaggero.it/primopiano/esteri/i_salafiti_le_piramidi_vanno_distrutte_sono_simboli_pagani/notizie/208009.shtml).

 

13. Cfr. Libia: attacchi ai mausolei, dal sito di “Euronews”, 26 agosto 2012.

 

14. Qui adottiamo la definizione di “intelletto” secondo la quale si tratta della conoscenza intuitiva, del cuore, non della mente.

 

15. Si potrebbe proporre un ardito accostamento. Quelli che si radunano sotto la croce e chiedono al Cristo, per tentarlo, perché, se è “veramente il Figlio di Dio”, non chiama una legione di angeli a salvarlo, è come se insinuassero: “Siccome non è stato mandato nessuno a salvarti, sei un ciarlatano! Non sei quello che affermi di essere!”.

 

16. Quella di casa a Londra che – tanto per citare un esempio della sua mostruosità – incita all’omicidio di altri musulmani (“deviati”, of course) per il solo fatto che non belano all’unisono secondo i dettami dell’“ideologia islamica” che intendono gabellare per Islam. Si veda quel che afferma lo “shaykh” libanese Omar Bakri, di stanza per lungo tempo proprio a Londra: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIgnUuOC4RE&feature=youtu.be.

 

17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_As-Salam_Al-Asmar.

 

18. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnlRVKVuo7M&feature=youtu.be.

 

19. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnlRVKVuo7M&feature=youtu.be.

 

20. Cfr. GINETTE HESS SKANDRANI, La nouvelle Libye démocratique, tribaliste, takfiriste, otanesque, oscurantiste…, “La voix de la Libye”, 26 agosto 2012 (http://lavoixdelalibye.com/?p=5574).

 

21.  Qui una biografia: http://alsimsimah.blogspot.it/search/label/Biographie%20de%20Sidi%20Ahmed%20Zarrouqq.

 

22. Shaykh Ahmad Zarroq’s grave has been desecrated in Libya, articolo del 26 agosto 2012, che segnala anche un filmato in cui un’autorità islamica residente in Canada denuncia in maniera molto chiara l’azione dei salafiti: http://www.youtube.com/user/ShaykhFaisalVideoBlo?feature=watch). Per giudicare il livello “intellettuale” di questi ‘picconatori islamici’, si veda quest’intervista, nella quale il custode della moschea-mausoleo di ‘Uthmân Bâshâ, in Libia, racconta alcuni aneddoti relativi al raid distruttivo di cui è stata oggetto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzwskvKyWqY.

 

23. Il riferimento è a luoghi di culto standardizzati, costruiti secondo uno stile inconfondibile, alieno rispetto alla storia e alle tradizioni del luogo, dai quali naturalmente sono banditi tutti gli elementi cosiddetti “superstiziosi”. I Balcani si sono riempiti, da una decina d’anni a questa parte, di moschee di questo tipo.

 

24 Cfr. ENRICO GALOPPINI, Solo un santo ci può salvare dalla “crisi”, “Europeanphoenix.it”, 22 dicembre 2011,  http://europeanphoenix.it/component/content/article/3-societa/206-solo-un-santo-ci-puo-salvare-dalla-crisi.

Naar nieuwe coalities in het Midden-Oosten?

Naar nieuwe coalities in het Midden-Oosten?

 

Peter Logghe

 

Ex: Nieuwsbrief - Deltapers, nr. 79, Januari 2014

 

Als (bepaalde) commentatoren en onderzoekers het juist voorhebben, lijken in het Midden-Oosten nieuwe coalities in de maak, en vooral een zogenaamde ‘Veiligheids-as’ zou er wel eens voor seismische golven kunnen zorgen, na de schokken van de voorbije maanden en jaren (de vernietiging van de Syrische wapens onder controle van Rusland, de toenadering tussen de VS en Iran, de verminderde geostrategische en geopolitieke invloed van Saoedi-Arabië en Israël, en de terugtrekking van Amerikaanse troepen uit Afghanistan).

Een nieuwe coalitie, een nieuwe richting, men zou bijna kunnen schrijven: een nieuwe lente! Waarom een ‘Veiligheids-as’? De grote hoeveelheden extremistische en salafistische jihadstrijders in Afghanistan en Irak, maar nu ook in Syrië en andere landen, hebben in elk geval als effect dat een aantal staten, van wie men het niet onmiddellijk zou verwachten, de handen in elkaar slaat om iets aan ‘het probleem’ te doen. Opmerkelijk is de stap wel, omdat het lijkt dat voor de eerste keer sinds decennia de oplossing, de organisatie en de structuur van de aanpak van ‘het probleem’ van binnen de regio zelf zal komen.

Twee vaststellingen tonen aan dat de politieke realiteit een aantal staten tot inzichten brengt. Stilaan komt men er in het Midden-Oosten ten eerste tot het besef dat niemand anders de regio zal komen redden. Ten tweede heeft men kunnen vaststellen dat grote groepen gewapende salafisten zich van geen grenzen wat aantrekken en gewoon overal – van Azië tot in Afrika – desintegrerend op de bestaande staatsstructuren inwerken.

Vier landen willen het militantisme te vuur en te wapen bestrijden, en willen hun staatsgrenzen zo veilig mogelijk houden – de ‘Veiligheids-as’ zou, aldus de waarnemers, kunnen bestaan uit Libanon, Syrië, Irak en Iran. Inderdaad landen met een totaal andere achtergrond, geschiedenis, samenstelling van de bevolking, staten die tot gisteren elkaars vijand waren. Enkele doelstellingen werden intussen geformuleerd: het intact houden van de territoriale integriteit en soevereiniteit, het opzetten van een rigoureuze militaire en veiligheidssamenwerking tegen alle rechtstreekse en onrechtstreekse dreigingen van deze extremisten. En tot slot willen de verschillende leden van de coalitie een gemeenschappelijk politiek wereldbeeld uittekenen dat kan leiden tot samenwerking ook op andere gebieden. Ambitieus? Dat in elk geval.

Nu al lijkt het dat deze coalitie niet anders dan succes kan hebben. De Jordaanse koning Abdoellah heeft vrij sterk bemiddeld in het tot stand komen van de nieuwe eenheid, en ook Egypte zou naar verluidt interesse hebben in de verdere ontplooiing van het project.

Uit de vaststelling dat een nieuwe coalitie in het Midden-Oosten zich aan het vormen is, moet in elk geval ook de conclusie worden getrokken dat de strategie van de VS – eerst Assad doen vallen, en dan pas Al Qaida aanpakken – op een mislukking is uitgedraaid: Assad is niet gevallen, Iran is niet geplooid, Hezbollah blijft zijn ding doen, en Rusland en China stappen ook niet opzij. Syrië zou wel eens het omslagmoment kunnen zijn, omdat een lokaal conflict er uitgroeide tot een regionaal conflict met sterke geopolitieke consequenties. Een conflict ook dat allerlei gewapende groepen Salafistische militanten een unieke opportuniteit bood om met zware wapens in een conflict in te grijpen. De zeer doorlaatbare grenzen in Syrië zorgden voor de rest.

De verliezers van het conflict zouden wel eens de Saoedi’s kunnen zijn. Voor hen ging het erom (aldus toch CIA-directeur Michael Hayden) een Soennitische machtsovername in Syrië te bewerkstelligen, en dit plan dreigt in de vernieling te worden gereden. Voor de Saoedische emirs ging het erom de sharia-rechtspraak in te voeren, en dat zal dus even moeten wachten. En mocht deze nieuwe ‘Veiligheids-as’ succesrijk zijn, en er bijvoorbeeld in slaagt de religieuze extremisten buiten spel te zetten, dat ziet het er helemaal nog minder goed uit voor het politieke gewicht van Saoedi-Arabië.

Om het geopolitieke plaatje van het Midden-Oosten begin 2014 volledig te maken: volgens bepaalde weblogs staat de wereld voor een politieke ommekeer die zijn gelijke nog niet heeft gezien. In een nieuw rapport van het Amerikaanse energieagentschap EIA staat te lezen dat Amerika binnen 3 jaar een recordhoeveelheid olie zal produceren van 9,5 miljoen vaten per jaar. De energieafhankelijkheid van het Midden-Oosten, en met naam van Saoedi-Arabië, die jarenlang het beleid van de VS bepaalde en domineerde, staat op het punt fundamenteel te worden doorbroken. De olie-import naar de VS zou van 40% nu dalen tot 25% in 2016.

Peter Logghe

Hacia el panarabismo nasserista en Egipto

por Germán Gorraiz López

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

La inesperada victoria de Mursi en las elecciones egipcias del 2012 trastocó la estrategia geopolítica de EEUU en Oriente Próximo, consistente en la pervivencia endémica en Egipto de gobiernos militares autocráticos pro-occidentales para mantener el tratado de paz de Egipto con Israel, (acuerdo Camp David, 1979), para continuar la lucha contra las milicias yihadistas en el Sinaí y en especial para asegurar el acceso la Marina de EEUU al Canal de Suez, un atajo crucial para el acceso directo a los Emiratos Árabes, Irak y Afganistán.

La ingenuidad política de Morsi quedó plasmada en el nombramiento del general Al-Sisi comandante general de las Fuerzas Armadas y ministro de Defensa (CSFA) con la esperanza de poder desinfectar el establishment militar egipcio de los virus patógenos inoculados durante la autocracia de Mubarak , ya que en su etapa anterior Al Sisi era el jefe de la temida inteligencia militar y era considerado como el miembro más “reformista” de la Junta Militar.

Sin embargo, el Consejo Supremo de las Fuerzas Armadas (CSFA), antes de transferir el poder, aprobó una declaración constitucional complementaria en la que se preservaban las principales prerrogativas del Ejército, como detentar el poder legislativo durante la Transición, una amplia autonomía para gestionar su presupuesto y la capacidad de decidir sobre la declaración de guerra, por lo que su anulación por el Presidente Morsi encendió la luz verde para la asonada militar contra el Gobierno de los Hermanos Musulmanes.

Morsi nunca controló las palancas del poder en el país y sólo tenía un control nominal sobre el ejército, las fuerzas de seguridad o los servicios de inteligencia del estado, por lo que negoció con Al Sisi la lealtad del Ejército a su persona enrocado en la defensa de su legitimidad presidencial, pero el CSFA ejecutó un golpe de mano virtual contra Morsi al no encajar su proyecto islamista en la estrategia de EEUU en Oriente Próximo, golpe que contaba con el visto bueno de EEUU al haber dejado Mursi de ser un peón útil para la estrategia geopolítica de EEUU en Oriente Próximo, formando parte de la nueva estrategia de EEUU para la zona tras el evidente fracaso del experimento de exportación del otrora régimen islamista moderado y pro-occidental de Erdogan a todos los países que componen el tablero gigante del mundo árabe-mediterráneo.

Recordar que según el periódico Al Tharir, el general Sisi tendría “fuertes lazos con funcionarios de Estados Unidos tanto a nivel diplomático como militar, pues estudió en Washington, asistió a varias conferencias militares en la ciudad y participó en ejercicios conjuntos de guerra y operaciones de inteligencia en años recientes”, pero las medidas de presión de la Administración Obama provocaron el desapego afectivo de al-Sisi tras reprochar a Obama que “Ud. abandonó a los egipcios, Ud. le dio la espalda a los egipcios y ellos no lo olvidarán”.

Recordar que el apoyo de la Junta Militar egipcia sería crucial para mantener el tratado de paz de Egipto con Israel, (acuerdo Camp David, 1979), para continuar la lucha contra las milicias yihadistas en el Sinaí y en especial para asegurar el acceso al Canal de Suez , pues Egipto otorgaba a la Marina de EE.UU. paso expedito a través del Canal de Suez para la docena de buques de guerra que atraviesan mensualmente dicho canal. Así, Israel, Arabia Saudí, Qatar y demás aliados árabes de EEUU en el Próximo Oriente (con la excepción de Erdogan), habrían presionado a Obama y a la UE a no condenar el golpe de mano contra Morsi, optando por un nuevo Mubarak como mal menor ante la amenaza del islamismo surgido de las urnas.

Sin embargo, tras la cruenta represión del ejército egipcio contra los Hermanos Musulmanes, la Administración Obama anunció la cancelación del ejercicio bienal militar conjunto con Egipto como medida de presión al gobierno interino militar para ceñirse al acuerdo del plan de transición democrático así como la posible revisión de la ayuda militar que concede a Egipto, estimada en 1.500 millones de doláres anuales, provocando un vacío occidental que fue aprovechado por Arabia Saudí y Putin para recuperar la influencia perdida en Egipto.

Así, tras el golpe de mano contra Morsi, Egipto podría recibir una inyección económica de Arabia Saudita, Kuwait y los Emiratos Árabes Unidos por un monto total de 15.000 millones de doláres como parte de la estrategia de las monarquías árabes del Golfo para anular la creciente influencia de Qatar como principal benefactor de Egipto tras la donación de 5.000 millones de doláres al régimen de Morsi.

Por otra parte, la retirada por EEUU del portaaviones USS Nimitz y el destructor USS Graveley del Mediterráneo tras cancelar “in extemis” Obama el ataque contra Siria (Operación Free Syria) fue aprovechado por Putin para reforzar su flota en el Mediterráneo con 18 buques de guerra. Así,según la agencia Itar Tass, Rusia reforzará su base naval en el puerto sirio de Tartus con el objetivo de resucitar la extinta Flota del Mediterráneo, (disuelta en 1992 tras la extinción de la URSS), cuya columna vertebral estará formada por la Flota del Mar Negro , la del Norte y la del Báltico (con el Varyag como buque insignia) y podría estar operativa en el 2.015, pero la inestabilidad del conflicto sirio, obligaría a Rusia a buscar una nueva alternativa para su base naval en suelo egipcio, (Damietta o Port Said).

Egipto sería un país lastrado por su excesivo déficit energético y por las elevadas tasas de importación de cereales en una sociedad inmersa en la cultura del subsidio (alrededor del 30 % del presupuesto del país está destinado a subvenciones), por lo que en el nuevo escenario que se dibuja, las necesidades de grano y de tecnología de Egipto podrían ser satisfechas en exclusividad por Rusia. Durante el mandato de Mursi, Egipto solicitó la ayuda técnica de Rusia para construir la central nuclear de Dabaa cerca de la costa mediterránea y desarrollar el reactor nuclear experimental de Inshas, a las afueras de El Cairo, así como la tecnología necesaria para explotar las minas de uranio del país, situadas entre el Nilo y la costa del Mar Rojo, puesto que Rusia a través de las empresas Lukoil y Avatec ya tendría una importante presencia en los campos de petróleo y gas egipcio.

Por otra parte, según la agencia Cairo Press Review, los ministros de Exteriores y de Defensa de Rusia viajarán a El Cairo la próxima semana para conversaciones con sus homólogos egipcios sobre la venta de armas y las relaciones entre ambas naciones, preludio de la posible visita del presidente ruso Vladimir Putin a Egipto para logar de al-Sisi la concesión para instalar una base naval permanente en Damietta o en Port Said, base militar que otorgaría a Rusia el papel de gendarme del Canal de Suez y que siempre le fue negada a EEUU.

Recordar que el paso del Canal de Suéz está considerado como uno de los puntos más importantes para el comercio mundial ya que transporta 2,6 millones de barriles de crudo al día (lo que representa casi 3% de la demanda mundial diaria de petróleo) y asimismo es una ruta imprescindible para la Marina de EEUU, pues hasta ahora Egipto otorgaba a la Marina de EE.UU. paso expedito a través del Canal de Suéz para los cerca de 40 de buques de guerra que atraviesan mensualmente dicho canal y que les aseguraba un atajo crucial para el acceso directo a los Emiratos Árabes, Irak y Afganistán.

En el supuesto de que su control pase a manos rusas, la geopolítica de EEUU en Oriente Próximo y Medio (Oriente PROME) quedaría totalmente hipotecada y supondría un cambio geopolítico total en el complicado puzzle de Oriente Próximo, pasando Rusia a ser elemento referente y socio estratégico de Egipto y convirtiendo a Egipto en el portaaviones continental de Rusia, rememorando la política de Jruschov cuando Egipto era el principal socio de la URSS en la región y su Presidente Nasser fue condecorado con la Estrella de Héroe de la Unión Soviética.

Por su parte, al-Sisi sería partidario de restablecer el tradicional status del ejército en la vida socio-política de Egipto pero necesita implementar cambios democráticos que le otorguen un poder presidencialista con claros tintes autocráticos, siempre bajo el lema de defender “los intereses de todos los egipcios y no solo de un grupo social o religioso” por lo que según DEBKAfile, “se espera que al-Sisi se postule como candidato a la Presidencia para las próximas elecciones Presidenciales del 2014”.

Caso de ser elegido nuevo Presidente de Egipto, el mencionado desapego de Sisi respecto a los países occidentales aunado con el previsible fracaso de la enésima ronda de conversaciones de paz palestino-israelíes y la delicada situación económica en que se encuentra Egipto ( país empobrecido de iure y subsidiado de facto), podría hacer que Sisi enarbolara la bandera de un nuevo movimiento panarabista de filiación nasserista que tras extender su efecto mimético al resto de países árabes del arco mediterráneo (Túnez, Libia, Siria, Líbano) además de Jordania e Irak, podría terminar por reeditar la Guerra de los Seis Días en el horizonte del próximo quinquenio.

Dicho enfrentamiento será aprovechada por Estados Unidos, Gran Bretaña e Israel para proceder a rediseñar la cartografía del puzzle inconexo formado por dichos países y así lograr unas fronteras estratégicamente ventajosas para Israel, siguiendo el plan orquestado hace 60 años de forma conjunta por los gobiernos de Gran Bretaña, Estados Unidos e Israel y que contaría con el respaldo de los principales aliados occidentales (Gran Israel). Hay que recordar que el Proyecto del Gran Israel (Eretz Israel), sería hijo del atavismo bíblico y bebería de las fuentes de Génesis 15:18, que señala que “hace 4.000 años, el título de propiedad de toda la tierra existente entre el Río Nilo de Egipto y el Río Eúfrates fue legado al patriarca hebreo Abraham y trasferida posteriormente a sus descendientes”, lo que supondría la restauración de la Declaración Balfour (1917), que dibujaba un Estado de Israel dotado de una vasta extensión cercana a las 46.000 millas cuadradas y que se extendía desde el Mediteráneo al este del Éufrates abarcando Siria, Líbano, parte noriental de Irak, parte norte de Arabia Saudí , la franja costera del Mar Rojo y la Península del Sinaí en Egipto así como Jordania, que pasaría a denominarse Palesjordán tras ser obligado a acoger a toda la población palestina de las actuales Cisjordania y Gaza tras ser obligados a una diáspora masiva (nueva nakba).

Fuente: Los restos del naufragio