Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

samedi, 07 juin 2014

Turkije blokkeert Eufraat, drinkwater miljoenen Syriërs en Irakezen in gevaar

Bassin_Tigre_Euphrate.jpg

Turkije blokkeert Eufraat, drinkwater miljoenen Syriërs en Irakezen in gevaar

Als het waterniveau in het Assad-stuwmeer nog verder daalt, valt ook de productie van electriciteit stil en zou de dam uiteindelijk zelfs compleet kunnen instorten.

De Turkse regering van premier Erdogan heeft twee weken geleden de watertoevoer van de rivier de Eufraat compleet stopgezet. Hierdoor is het waterniveau in de cruciale Tishrin stuwdam al 6 meter gedaald. Als er niets gebeurt dan komen miljoenen Syriërs en Irakezen zonder drinkwater te zitten en dreigt er een enorme humanitaire catastrofe – een regelrechte oorlogsmisdaad van het islamistische regime in Ankara.

Ongeveer anderhalve maand geleden begonnen de Turken het water van de Eufraat geleidelijk weg te pompen, om het twee weken geleden geheel te stoppen. Het Assad-stuwmeer bij de in de Eufraat gelegen Tishrin dam, die wordt gecontroleerd door de aan Al-Qaeda verbonden terreurbeweging ISIS, is hierdoor al 6 meter gedaald en heeft zo al miljoenen kubieke meters water verloren. Als het waterniveau nog verder zakt, dan moet de dam buiten bedrijf worden genomen.

In al-Khafsa, het gebied ten oosten van de zwaar bevochten Syrische stad Aleppo, is het waterniveau reeds gevaarlijk gedaald. Vandaag of morgen zullen de hulpreservoirs in al-Khafsa droogvallen, waardoor 7 miljoen Syriërs van drinkwater zullen worden afgesneden.

Dam kan compleet instorten

Als het stuwmeer droogvalt zal het achtergebleven slib het bouwwerk onder grote druk zetten, waardoor de dam uiteindelijk zelfs compleet zou kunnen instorten. De waterdoorvoer door de dam moet dus noodgedwongen worden stopgezet, waardoor er ook geen elektriciteit meer kan worden geleverd. (1)

Enkele voorgestelde noodmaatregelen, zoals het weer in gebruik nemen van de centrale bij al-Safira, zullen niet kunnen voorkomen dat de drinkwatervoorziening geheel stil zal vallen. De enige partij die een ramp nog kan voorkomen is de Turkse regering.

Al-Qaeda blokkeert drinkwater Aleppo

Eerder deze maand blokkeerden de door het Westen en Turkije gesteunde Al-Nusra/Al-Qaeda rebellen de watertoevoer naar grote delen van Aleppo, waardoor 1,5 miljoen mensen zonder zuiver drinkwater kwamen te zitten. Het Rode Kruis doet er alles aan om een ‘humanitaire en gezondheidsramp in de stad te voorkomen.’ (2)

Turkije is samen met China en Burundi het enige land ter wereld dat in 1997 tegen de VN-Conventie over het gebruik van internationale waterstromen stemde. Ankara erkent de Eufraat enkel als ‘grensoverschrijdende rivier’, niet als ‘internationale rivier’, waardoor de internationale regelgeving niet van toepassing zou zijn. In 1994 garandeerde Turkije de doorvoer van een minimale hoeveelheid water naar Syrië en Irak.

Xander

(1) Al-Akhbar
(2) Volkskrant

jeudi, 15 mai 2014

Syrië: Regering Obama wil alle macht overdragen aan Moslim Broederschap

muslim-brotherhood-obama.jpg

Syrië: Regering Obama wil alle macht overdragen aan Moslim Broederschap

Rechtstreekse steun Obama en Erdogan aan promotors Al-Qaeda en Sharia-islam

Er is nieuw bewijs geleverd van de nauwe banden tussen de Moslim Broederschap, de Syrische oppositie, Turkije en de Amerikaanse regering. De Syrische imam Bassam Estwani, de voormalige leider van de Dar al-Hijrah moskee -een notoire broedplaats voor terroristen- die in februari 2001 in het Huis van Afgevaardigden een gebed tot Allah mocht uitspreken, krijgt de volle politieke steun van machtige politici zoals voormalig president Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, oud voorzitter van het Huis van Afgevaardigden Dennis Hasters en Nancy Pelosi. Zij steunen Estwani, ondanks zijn vriendschap met Moslim-Broederschapleider annex Al-Qaeda- en Shariapromotor Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib Alhassani, die door de regering Obama is uitgekozen om Syrië te leiden na de beoogde val van president Assad.

Obama’s steun aan al-Khatib –die meerdere malen werd gearresteerd wegens opruiing- is des te schokkender, omdat de president daar slechts 2 maanden na de terreuraanval op het Amerikaanse consulaat in Benghazi (Libië, 11 september 2012) mee begon. Bij die aanval kwam onder andere ambassadeur Christopher Stevens om het leven. Al-Khatib werd expliciet naar voren geschoven door Robert Ford, de Amerikaanse ambassadeur in Syrië.

Westerse regeringen en massamedia (o.a. de Britse BBC, het Franse AFP) gaven Al-Khatib vervolgens een ‘softer’ en aanvaardbaarder gezicht. Groot Brittannië, Frankrijk, de VS en Turkije zijn allen NAVO-landen. Met de steun voor Al-Khatib en de opkomst van de Moslim Broederschap is echter slechts één lid gebaat: Turkije.

Muruna

Turkije ziet in Al-Khatib een belangrijke pion, omdat hij een Soefistische moslim is. Het Westen wordt de grote leugen voorgehouden dat de Soefi’s de kloof tussen de Soenitische en Shi’itische moslims kunnen overbruggen. Voor de Westerse microfoons en camera’s heeft Al-Khatib het over multiculturalisme, intergeloof-dialoog en het bouwen van bruggen.

Dit is echter allemaal onderdeel van zijn muruna, wat feitelijk hetzelfde is als taqiyya, namelijk liegen tegen de vijand om de islam te bevorderen. Voor zijn eigen publiek promoot Al-Khatib namelijk de racistische en onderdrukkende Sharia-islam. Al in 1981 veroordeelde hij de Syrische regering omdat die de verplichte hijab (hoofddoek) voor vrouwen afschafte.

Stealth Jihad voor herstel Ottomaans Rijk

De Soefistische moslims zien de Moslim Broederschap als instrument om het Ottomaanse Rijk te herstellen. Ook Al-Khatib en Estwani streven hiernaar. Hier een foto van beide heren in Caïro, toen Moslim Broederschap president Mohamed Mursi daar nog de scepter zwaaide (links), met daarnaast Estwani, jaren eerder in zijn eigen Dar al-Hijrah moskee, met naast hem niemand minder dan de extreem antisemitische Egyptische Broederschapleider Yusuf al-Qaradawi: 

Net als Qaradawi is Al-Khatib een virulente Jodenhater, die volgens hem de ‘vijanden van Allah’ zijn. De Shi’itische moslims noemde hij ‘afvalligen’, wat zijn in het Westen gecreëerde beeld als bruggenbouwer tegenspreekt. Op zijn Facebook prees hij de dood van 10.000 vrouwelijke martelaren, en tevens de arrestatie van net zoveel moslima-jihadisten, die na de val van Mursi dood en verderf zaaien in Egypte.

Op dezelfde Facebook pagina staat een link naar een Arabisch artikel waarin de geschiedenis van de Moslim Broederschap wordt besproken, de komst van de organisatie naar Syrië, en het gebruik van ‘moderne’ technieken -zoals de ‘stealth jihad’ die ook door Qaradawi en Estwani wordt toegepast- om de fundamentalistische islam over de hele wereld te verspreiden.

Erdogan en Al-Khatib delen zelfde droom

De Turkse premier Erdogan deelt dezelfde islamistische droom als Al-Khatib. Nadat president Mursi was afgezet huilde Erdogan openlijk op de nationale TV. In deze video is te zien hoe de Turken een propagandacampagne startten om de Egyptische Broederschap-terroristen af te schilderen als onschuldige moslims die enkel vanwege hun geloof worden geëxecuteerd, een verhaaltje dat door het links-liberale Westerse establishment maar al te graag werd overgenomen.

Hoewel Al-Khatib in maart 2013 terugtrad, wordt hij door zowel Amerikaanse politici als inlichtingendiensten nog steeds als een ideale kandidaat gezien om na de beoogde val van Assad Syrië (mede) te gaan leiden.

‘Liefdadige’ steun aan terreur

Al-Khatibs partner-in-crime Estwani zit bovendien in het bestuur van zowel de Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF) als Mercy Without Borders (MWB), van belasting vrijgestelde organisaties die onder het mom van ‘liefdadigheid’ fondsen werven voor islamitische terreurgroepen. In datzelfde bestuur zit ook zijn goede vriend Rateb al-Nabulsi, eveneens een antisemiet die de jihad en zelfmoordaanslagen promoot. Desondanks kreeg hij van de regering Obama een visum om in heel de VS geld op te halen voor zijn extremistische doelstellingen.

Estwani en Al-Nablusi waren slechts enkele dagen voor de aanval in Benghazi aanwezig op de ‘Moslim- en Christelijke Perspectieven’ intergeloof-conferentie in Istanbul, waar ze een wandelingetje maakten met de Turkse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Ahmet Davutoglu.

Ankara en Washington achter jihadisten

In maart 2013 hadden Estwani, Al-Khatib en SETF-directeur Mouaz Moustafa in Caïro een ontmoeting met wederom Davutoglu. De Turkse regering had Al-Khatib als de leider van de Syrische jihadisten (de ‘Syrische Nationale Coalitie’) naar voren hadden geschoven. Davutoglu ontkende echter dat hij daarover in november 2012 een geheime deal met de Syrische oppositie had gesloten (2).

Al-Khatib legde in maart 2013 zijn functie neer uit onvrede over de ontwikkelingen. Dat doet echter niets af van het feit dat de regering Obama en de regering Erdogan zowel politieke, diplomatieke als militaire steun verlenen aan radicale islamisten, die verklaarde vijanden zijn van het Westen – precies zoals de Broederschap, die zoals bekend ook door de EU wordt gesteund, al in 1991 in dit document expliciet stelde:

‘De Ikwhan (Moslim Broederschap) moet begrijpen dat hun werk in Amerika een vorm van grootste jihad is om de Westerse beschaving van binnenuit te elimineren en vernietigen, en hun miserabele systeem door hun eigen hand en de hand van de gelovigen te ‘saboteren’, zodat het uit de weg wordt geruimd, en Allahs religie alle andere religies overwint.’

Xander

(1) Shoebat
(2) Hurriyet
(3) Clinton Library

mardi, 06 mai 2014

The Iran/Iraq War: Mutual Assured Destruction

Children_In_iraq-iran_war4.jpg

The Iran/Iraq War: Mutual Assured Destruction

(Excerpted from Chapter 10: The Iran/Iraq War: Big Oil & Their Bankers…)

In 1979, as Iranian revolutionaries were taking charge in Tehran, Carter National Security Adviser, Afghan Frankenstein godfather and Trilateral Commission co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski was in Kuwait City meeting with Kuwaiti Emir Sheik Jaber Ahmed al Sabah, House of Saud envoys and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.  The group decided that Saddam’s Republican Guard would seize the oil-rich Iranian province of Khuzistan.

In 1980 Iraq invaded Iran.  That same year Kuwait’s Ambassador to the UN shed light on the forces which used Brzezinski to goad Hussein into his attempt to partition Iran’s oilfields.  He informed the UN General Assembly of, “a cabal which controls, manipulates and exploits the rest of humanity by controlling the money and wealth of the world”.

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

The cabal which Kuwait’s UN Ambassador was referring to controls the JASON Society which, according to author William Cooper’s book Behold a Pale Horse, emerged from a 1952 alliance between Europe’s Black Nobility, the Illuminati and the Vatican.  The JASON Society is also known as The Order of the Quest, the exact name of the Afghan Roshaniya “all-seeing ones”.  The power structure for JASON is recruited from Skull & Bones, Scroll & Key, Britain’s Group of Oxford and the German Thule Society.  JASON has close ties to the Trilateral Commission and the CFR. [1]  Its name comes from the story of Jason and the Golden Fleece, which denotes a search for truth.

President Eisenhower commissioned JASON to investigate the UFO question. Many of the group’s top scientists came from the Manhattan Project which developed the atomic bomb.  The group was behind the advent of submarine warfare and President Reagan’s Star Wars initiative.  JASON is the driving force behind secret US military technology being developed at places like Area 51 near Groom Lake, Nevada.

Cooper, a former Naval Intelligence officer, states that JASON scientists have come to the conclusion that the greenhouse affect may actually lead to a new Ice Age.  The Pentagon Papers revealed that JASON was behind an electromagnetic barrier placed over the DMZ (demilitarized zone) during the Vietnam War. [2]  JASON, through the Black Nobility, serves the Bilderberger Group, whose Policy Committee, at its first known meeting in 1954, endorsed a JASON document titled Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars.  Research for the document was done at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Harvard Economic Research Project.  What follows are excerpts of the document, which Cooper claims to have had in his possession:

“This publication marks the 25th anniversary of the Third World War, called the ‘Quiet War’, being conducted using subjective biological warfare…implying extensive objectives of social control and destruction of human life, i.e., slavery and genocide…dominance revolved around the subject of energy sciences…bookkeeping can be made king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology…it was agreed that a nation or world of people who will not use their intelligence are no better than animals…Such people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent…consequently …it was decided to privately wage a quiet war…shifting the natural and social energy of the undisciplined and irresponsible many into the hands of the self-disciplined, responsible and worthy few.

In order to achieve a totally predictable economy, the low-class elements of the society must be brought under total control, i.e., must be housebroken, trained and assigned a yoke…the lower class family unit must be disintegrated by the process of increasing preoccupation of the parents…The quality of education given to the lower class must be of the poorest sort…with such an initial handicap, even the bright lower class individuals have little hope of extricating themselves from their assigned lot in life.  This form of slavery is essential to maintaining some measure of social order, peace and tranquility for the ruling upper class.

The public cannot comprehend this weapon, and therefore cannot believe they are being attacked and subdued.  The general public…has become a herd of proliferating barbarians…a blight upon the face of the earth…it is possible to program computers…(to) bring about the complete control and subjugation of the public…the simplest form of economic amplifier is advertising.  If a person is spoken to by a TV advertiser as if he were a 12-year-old, then…he will reach into his economic reservoir to buy that product…achieved by disengaging their minds…engaging their emotions…the more confusion, the more profit.  Create problems, then offer solutions…keep the public entertainment below the 6th grade level…keep the public busy…back on the farm with the other animals…silent weapons technology is an outgrowth of a simple idea discovered, succinctly expressed and effectively applied by…

Mr. Mayer Amschel Rothschild…Rothschild discovered the missing passive component of economic theory known as economic inductance…That principle is ‘when you assume the appearance of power, people soon give it to you’…Rothschild discovered that currency or deposit loan accounts had the required appearance of power that could be used to induce people into surrendering their real wealth in exchange for a loan of promissory notes (paper money).

Mr. Rothschild loaned his promissory notes to individuals and governments.  Then he would make money scarce, tighten control of the system, and collect collateral through the obligation of contracts (debt)…The pressures could be used to ignite war.  Then he would control the availability of currency to determine who would win the war.  That government which gave him control of its economic system got his support…balanced by the negation of population (genocide)…war is therefore the balancing of the system by killing the true creditors…the politicians are publicly hired hit men that justify the act (of war)…take control of the world by the use of economic silent weapons in the form of ‘quiet warfare’ and reduce economic inductance of the world to a safe level by the process of benevolent slavery and genocide…if the lower classes can be postponed long enough, the elite can achieve energy dominance…the ‘Presidential’ level of commander-in-chief is shared by the international bankers.”

Arming the Iranians

While Brzezinski gave Saddam the green light to invade Iran, CIA Director Bill Casey met Iranian Shah loyalist Cyrus Hashemi in Madrid, ostensibly to plan a new round of “energy domination” and “economic inductance”.  The US would now arm both Iran and Iraq then send them to war, hoping to decimate both oil price-hawk nations.

In 1981 while Hashemi was panhandling Princess Ashraf, the Shah of Iran’s sister, for $20 million to launch Hardy Boy John Shaheen’s Hong Kong mujahadeen fronts, brother Jamshid bought a Greek freighter and made four trips between the Israeli Port of Eliat and the Port of Bandar Abbas on Iran’s Arabian Sea coast.  His cargo was $150 million in weapons and ammunition produced by Israeli Defense Industries under US license.

Arif Durfani, a Pakistani arms dealer, ran another Enterprise cell that delivered hundreds of millions of dollars in weaponry to the Iranians.  Durfani was a close friend of BCCI-founder Aga Hasan Abedi, whose bank financed the operation.  He was also tight with the Saudi Gokal brothers, who shipped the weapons from Israel to Iran. [3]  While the Iranian port at Bandar Abbas was humming with activity, other shipments of TOW missiles were entering Iran from the north at Tabriz.

Overseeing the arming of Iran was Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Armitage, the Far East Trading Company godfather and Valerie Plame leaker.  Armitage was assured a steady supply of weapons by Chief White House Liaison to Saudi Arabia Richard Secord.  In 1985 Ted Shackley met with Cyrus Hashemi in Hamburg, where Hashemi introduced him to Manucher Gorbanifar, another former SAVAK agent who now worked for Israeli Mossad.  Gorbanifar was a friend of Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani, whose family owned pistachio groves in Iran.  He worked with BCCI’s Black Network and often procured financing for his weapons deals from Saudi billionaire Adnan Khashoggi.  Gorbanifar became the key Iranian contact to Secord’s Enterprise.

BCCI paid Southern Air Transport pilots like Eugene Hasenfus to fly Enterprise weapons to both the Nicaraguan contras and the Iranian mullahs.  In 1978 42% of Southern Air’s CIA contracts were for flights to Iran.  In 1997 the Mobile Register reported an incident in that Alabama city involving a Southern Air Transport plane.  The aircraft landed at Mobile Aerospace Technologies.  Mechanics working on the plane popped off a fiberglass panel and found hundreds of kilos of cocaine.  The Southern Air flight had originated in Latin America and was en route to Miami, but had taken a rather circuitous detour to Germany along the way. [4]

The US sent Hawk and Phoenix missiles to protect Iran’s oil installations, especially the vast Kharg Island facility which includes the massive Abadan refinery at the strategic mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway on the Persian Gulf.  Mansur Rafizadeh, former SAVAK intelligence officer and CIA liaison, said the US had thrown its support behind Ayatollah Khomeini, thinking Islamic fundamentalism the best defense against communism in the Middle East.  This strategy was certainly playing out in Afghanistan, where the CIA was funding the most fanatical faction of mujahadeen Assassins.

Despite releasing the US hostages the day Reagan was inaugurated, the Iranians had saved a powerful trump card.  Iran is the main supporter of Hezbollah, the militia group battling Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon.  The Israelis continually thumb their noses at UN Resolution 3236, which calls for a Palestinian state. They have seized additional Arab lands in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon through invasions in 1956, 1967 and 1973.  In 1978 Israeli troops marched into southern Lebanon where they remained until 2001.  In 1984 the US vetoed a unanimous UN resolution calling on Israel to respect international law and pull out of Lebanon.  In June 2006 Israel bombed Beirut and sent troops into Lebanon after two of its soldiers were allegedly kidnapped.  Over 500 Lebanese civilians were killed.

Lebanon was for decades an offshore banking haven utilized by the CIA via Edmund Safra’s Republic Bank and a web of Beirut drug and gold smugglers. Henry Kissinger is a friend of Safra. Both sat on the board of American Express.  When Syrian-backed Arab nationalists took control of Lebanon they cracked down on drug money laundering.  Republic moved its headquarters to New York where it continued to be a major player in the gold market.  In 1999 Republic was bought by a bigger goldfish- HSBC.

British, Israeli and American bankers were forced to move their operations to Dubai and Bahrain, while their MI6, Mossad and CIA goons harassed the new Lebanese government.  In 1982 the USS New Jersey shelled Beirut in its backing of pro-Israeli Lebanese militia leader Amin Gemayel. That same year Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, now the country’s prime minister, oversaw the massacre of hundreds of Lebanese at Sabra and Shatila.  In January 2002 Gemayel, who took part in the massacre under Sharon’s command, was gunned down as he was about to testify on the ordeal before a Belgian court. [5]  The court indicted Sharon for war crimes anyway.

Hezbollah retaliated to the massacres by kidnapping CIA Chief of Middle East Operations William Buckley.  Buckley had been the CIA contact to the mid-1970’s Argentine fascists, who tossed 30,000 suspected leftists into the Atlantic Ocean. [6]  Buckley was tortured and left for dead, but not until Hezbollah made videotapes of Buckley singing about CIA black operations in the region.  Hezbollah was still holding five other CIA agents as hostages.

In 1983 Hezbollah bombed a US Marine barracks in Beirut killing 283 American soldiers and precipitating a US withdrawal from Lebanon.  The CIA countered with a March 1985 car bomb in a crowded Shi’ite suburb of Beirut, killing 80 civilians and injuring 200.  Few people will ever know what Buckley confessed to his Hezbollah interrogators, but apparently the CIA thought the tapes embarrassing enough to cut a deal with Hezbollah’s Iranian backers.

Former SAVAK agent and CIA liaison Mansur Rafizadeh said the CIA was pursuing a two-track strategy in Iran.  On the one hand they were arming the Ayatollah and helping him crush the Iranian left.  On the other hand they were working to destabilize the Khomeini regime in a variety of ways.  The CIA was funding Iranian exile groups like the Paris-based Front for the Liberation of Iran and the Cairo-based Radio Nejat.

In 1986 the CIA recruited the Shah’s exiled son to deliver an 11-minute derision of the mullahs which was piped into Iran with CIA help and shown on the nation’s television networks.  Robert Sensi, a CIA agent who worked with BCCI money launderer Faisal Saud al Fulaij’s Kuwaiti Airways, set up CIA front companies in Iran with the help of Habib Moallem.  Through these fronts, they recruited Iranian agents who would spy on the mullahs and help destabilize the government.

Arming the Iraqis

The Saudis and Kuwaitis agreed to fund Saddam Hussein’s attack into Iran’s oil-rich Khuzistan Province at Brzezinski’s request.  The idea was to sever Khuzistan from the rest of Iran, then install a pliable government with which the Four Horsemen could do business.  Khuzistan contains the strategic Shatt al-Arab Waterway, which flows into the Persian Gulf and forms the Iran/Iraq border.  Kharg Island, in the waterway’s delta, is home to the bulk of Iran’s oil processing facilities, including the Abadan and Ahwaz refineries.

Saddam-Hussein-during-Ira-006.jpg

Khuzistan is also home to 90% of Iranian oil reserves and most of Iran’s significant natural gas reserves, which are surpassed only by those in Russia and Turkmenistan.  Khuzistan is the stronghold of the Tudeh and People’s Mujahadeen Parties, thorns in the side of the Ayatollah, the Shah and Big Oil alike.  The population of the province is largely Arab and Kurdish, while Persians predominate elsewhere in Iran.  The CIA hoped to exploit these ethnic differences as it so often does.

Brzezinski told Saddam that his Revolutionary Guard would be seen entering Khuzistan as, “great Arab liberators”.  Hussein was also assured control of the Shatt al-Arab, which former Iraqi President al-Bakr had ceded to Iran under the 1973 Algiers Agreement in return for a cessation of Shah and CIA backing of Iraqi Patriotic Union of Kurdistan rebels.  In 1980 Hussein’s troops invaded Iran.  Iraq gained control of the prized Shatt al-Arab only briefly. Its troops were seen by the Khuzistanis for what they really were- tools of US imperialism.  The real US goals were quite different from what Brzezinski had told Saddam Hussein.

While the CIA was funneling information to the Ayatollah and his goons on Iranian nationalists, Saddam Hussein’s troops now pounded the leftists as a rear guard.  Iranian dissidents, who had backed Mohammed Mossadegh’s calls to nationalize Iran’s oil in the 1950’s, and who later launched the oilfield strikes against the Iranian Consortium that brought the Shah to his knees, were now caught in a crossfire of the CIA’s making.

Iraqi forces also targeted Iran’s oil infrastructure.  MIG-27 fighters strafed the refineries at Abadan and Ahwaz on Kharg Island, while Revolutionary Guard troops laid waste to facilities at Iran’s largest port of Khorramshahr on the Persian Gulf. [7]  By disrupting Iranian oil exports, the CIA hoped to starve the mullahs of foreign exchange, a situation which would lead to a devaluation of the Iranian rial and subsequent hyperinflation.  The CIA could then exploit the economic decay to turn the country against the Khomeini government.  Iran, which had become a modern nation state, saw decades of progress destroyed during the war with Iraq.  The nation was literally de-modernized.

The CIA’s goals toward Iraq were no different.  Throughout the war GCC members Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE provided Saddam with interest-free loans.  The Saudis and Kuwaitis sent Iraq over $120 billion. [8]  Kuwait, the UAE and Jordan all made their ports available to the Iraqi Navy.  Saudi Arabia and Oman provided landing rights for Iraqi MIG-27 fighters.  The US was joined by Israel, Russia, Italy, France, Egypt and Brazil in sending Iraq weapons through the Jordanian Port of Aqaba.  US corporations such as Honeywell, Rockwell, Unisys and Hewlett Packard sent over $40 million in dual-use items to both Iran and Iraq during the war.

The CIA took a shine to Saddam Hussein for the same reason they worked with Ayatollah Khomeini.  In 1974, as Revolution Command Council Internal Security Chief, Hussein attacked leftist political parties in Iraq. Jalal Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan worked for CIA and the Shah of Iran in attacking the al-Bakr government in Baghdad.  Al-Bakr was an influential OPEC price hawk leader who railed against Big Oil dominance over Arab oil.

Saddam was doing everything he could to suppress these voices.  From 1974-75 250,000 Iraqi Kurds fled to Iran.  In April 1979, while his Ba’ath Party thugs were brutalizing Shi’ite Muslims, leftists and renegade Kurd factions, Saddam signed a security agreement with Saudi Arabia.  By 1980 Saddam, a Sunni Muslim, banned two major Shi’ite political parties in Iraq- al-Dawah al Islamiyya and al-Mujahidin.  Iranian-born Shi’ites were deported, along with 3,000 leftists.  Twenty-two Ba’ath leaders accused of collaborating with Syria were executed. [9]

Hussein’s purges looked so similar to the ones being conducted by the Ayatollah that one had to wonder if Saddam had not also received a Company hit list.  Thrilled with Saddam’s fascist killing spree, Western multinationals flocked to Iraq where a massive agricultural privatization was under way.  Cooperative land that had grown staple foods for Iraqi peasants for decades was now for sale to the highest bidder.  A handful of wealthy Iraqis got most of the land and their diras (estates) began cultivating crops for export.

Iraq was forced to import basic foods like wheat and rice to feed its suddenly landless people.  Western grain giants Cargill and Continental Grain (now merged), Louis Dreyfus, Andre and Bunge & Born moved in to fill the void.  In 1982 Iraq imported 820,000 tons of US grain. [10]

Other segments of Iraq’s economy were ceded to multinationals as well.  Had Saddam cut a deal with the West, whereby US corporations got greater access to Iraq’s economic spoils in return for US support in his war with Iran?

Until 1984 the US publicly favored Iran in the war with Iraq.  Then Iran reclaimed the Shatt al-Arab Waterway and Khuzistan Province.  The tide of the war was turning in Iran’s favor.  In 1984 the US began re-flagging Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf which, it claimed, came under attack by Iranian gunboats.  Actually it had been the Iraqis who started the tanker war that year.  By 1987 the Iraqi Navy had damaged 219 oil tankers. [11]

The shift was on. In 1984 Reagan removed Iraq from the State Department list of nations that support terrorism.  That year marked the beginning of the War of Cities, when numerous major cities in both countries were reduced to rubble, including the capitals Tehran and Baghdad.  Both countries targeted the economic infrastructure of the other.  A 1985 CIA memo to Director Casey stated, “Our tilt to Iraq was timely when Iraq was against the ropes and the Islamic Revolution was on a roll”.

Picture.jpgIn 1987 85,000 Iranian troops overran Fao, Iraq’s main oil terminal for its vast Rumaila oilfields near the Kuwaiti border.  Under the pretext of a US Navy re-flagging operation, forty-two US Naval vessels arrived in the Persian Gulf.  US gunboats shelled Iranian oil installations at the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab and shot down an Iranian passenger jumbo jet, killing everyone on board.  When Iraq used mustard gas against its own Kurdish people in 1987, the US looked the other way and began to arm Saddam Hussein.

The House of Saud, which had been bankrolling the Iraqi war effort all along, now began to work through BCCI to arm the Iraqis.  In addition to the $1 billion/month they were sending Saddam, the Saudis now provided intelligence, logistics and weapons, including NK-84 helicopters.  The Saudis entered a joint venture to help strengthen Baghdad’s nuclear capabilities, which the Israelis had wiped out in a 1981 bombing raid commanded by Ariel Sharon. [12]

Saudi Arabia and Iraq set up Gulf International Banks to supplement the BCCI channel.  A 1989 Defense Department study showed US military aid to the Saudis landing in Iraqi accounts in Switzerland.  US AWAC surveillance planes flew from Saudi bases and gathered intelligence for Iraq.  The US/Saudi collaboration was so blatant that many believed the Americans were directing Saudi security agencies. [13]

Mutual Assured Destruction

The US continued to play both sides in the Iran/Iraq War, backing one country until it had a military advantage, before switching sides to back the other.  The US resisted any moves to negotiate a peace treaty. Both countries saw their infrastructure leveled, their economies crippled and their people decimated.  In Iraq 750,000 people were killed.  A 1979 memo to President Carter from NSA Brzezinski, explains the US policy, “the Iran-Iraq conflict is a unique opportunity to consolidate our security position”.

The Export Import Bank provided $200 million in taxpayer insured loans to Iraq, most of which were funneled through Banco Nacionale de Lavoro.  The Commodity Credit Corporation provided a similar amount of taxpayer-insured loans so Iraq could buy grain from Cargill and Continental Grain.  As much as 20% of the US rice crop was sold to Iraq. By the first quarter of 1990 Iraq was the United States’ third largest trading partner. [14]  Iraq owed $241 billion to global creditors: $120 billion to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, $9 billion to Russia and $3 billion to Japan.  In 1989 Japan cut Iraq off.

iran_iraq_stalemate.jpgCarter NSA Gary Sick, said later that, “the US has resisted all moves in the United Nations toward a negotiated settlement of the tanker war”. [15]  The US Navy’s re-flagging operation established a permanent US presence in the Persian Gulf.  Reagan Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, who was later Knighted by Queen Elizabeth II for his genocidal efforts, characterized the re-flagging as a “trade-off for basing rights”, in GCC countries.  The monarchs had been slow to cooperate with US security plans in the region.  The Iran/Iraq War had the effect of scaring the daylights out of the emirates and getting them on board with US plans to modernize bases in Saudi Arabia and to build new ones in the other GCC emirates.

Saudi/US relations became very cozy during this time, especially on the military front.  The Saudis became the biggest annual recipient of US military aid.  In 1983 the Saudis received $17 billion in US military hardware.  In 1984 that jumped to $22.7 billion.  Richard Secord was in the thick of it- brokering the sale of five AWACs to the Saudis the night Reagan was sworn into office.  Hidden in the $8.5 billion package was a provision that beefed up the Kingdom’s C3 system at bases, some of which contain underground nuclear command centers that only US personnel can control.

By 1993 the Saudis had spent $156 billion on the joint Saudi/US military buildup within the Kingdom.  The US now effectively occupied Saudi Arabia, guarding the 261 billion barrels of Four Horsemen oil.  Many members of Congress were not even aware of what was going on.  As Rep. Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) said, “The US/Saudi relationship is different because only a tiny White House club is in the know”. [16]

Iran and Iraq are the only two OPEC nations with large enough oil reserves to challenge Saudi/GCC control over oil prices.  Iraq is second only to the Saudis with 112 billion barrels of oil reserves and much of the country remains unexplored.  Iran has close to 100 billion barrels of crude.  Both are firmly in the camp of the OPEC price hawks.  By disrupting oil flows from these two nations, Big Oil eliminated competition and kept the price hawks busy rebuilding their shattered economies instead of rallying for OPEC unity.

Both Iran and Iraq’s primary oil exporting facilities- Khorramshahr and Fao respectively- were demolished during the war.  Iran’s entire Kharg Island facilities were leveled.  Iraq was now deeply in debt to the Saudis and Kuwaitis.  Many of both nations’ oil tankers were damaged in the tanker war.  The cities of both countries required billions of dollars and a decade to be rebuilt as a result of the war of the cities.  It was a war of attrition with each side suffering untold loss of life and $25-35 billion worth of damage.

In CIA-think, a decisive victory by either Iran or Iraq would have left the winner in a position to take on the Saudis militarily.  A staggering defeat by either might breed internal revolutionary forces who would challenge the Ayatollahs or Saddam, who had been quite useful to the CIA in wiping out nationalistic elements and in providing a pretext for the US military buildup in the Persian Gulf.  But a long war of attrition would leave both nations crippled and focused on rebuilding.  Neither would have the luxury of mounting any sort of challenge to Four Horsemen control over Persian Gulf oil.

Big Oil used the war as another excuse to hike gas prices in the US.  The GCC sheiks filled the oil shortfall which the war created, pumping out more than enough crude to move wholesale prices lower on world markets.  The Four Horsemen pocketed the difference, while stockpiling crude oil.  A memo uncovered by Edwin Rothschild, energy adviser for the group Public Citizen, sums up US policy towards Saudi/GCC overproduction and the misery it brings the poor countries of OPEC.  The memo, sent by Undersecretary of State Richard Murphy to the Saudi government, said simply, “Let the market rule”.

Lower wholesale prices made it more difficult for Iraq and Iran to rebuild. In 1988 Iran earned 90% of its hard currency through oil exports. Iraq gained 99% of its foreign exchange from oil.  Both the Iraqi dinar and the Iranian rial plummeted.  In 1994 the rial lost 100% of its value.  Before the war Iraq had $40 billion in hard currency reserves. Afterwards, it had zero and huge debts to pay.

The Israelis worked hand-in-hand with the US to destroy both nations.  While supplying Mustafa Barzani’s Kurds in their attacks on Iraq, the Israelis duplicitously provided missile targeting to Saddam Hussein for his attacks on Iranian cities via US spy satellites.  In 1988 Mossad launched Operation Brush Fire, a psychological warfare campaign designed to draw the US military further into the Middle East conflagration.  Their ultimate goal was to have the US destroy Iraq’s powerful military, while leaving their “perfect villain” Saddam in power.

The campaign was launched when Israeli commandos bombed an Iraqi weapons plant at Al-Iskandariah in at attempt to make “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction” a global household phrase.  Mossad set up a London Observer freelance journalist named Farzad Bazroft to take the story international.  Bazroft had been investigating the death of Shah-loyalist tuned Mossad arms dealer Cyrus Hashemi and had gotten too close to the truth, which was that Mossad had eliminated Hashemi.  Knowing Bazroft would be seen as a foreign spy by Baghdad after the Mossad terrorism at the weapons plant, they sent him into Iraq.  Saddam took the bait and Bazroft was hung as a spy creating an even bigger international incident.  To speed things along, Mossad leaked secret documents on Iraqi weapons programs to ABC News.

US and Israeli arms merchants made a killing during the war.  The US refused to supply spare parts to either side, so when a weapons system broke Iran or Iraq would be expected to buy a whole new system.  This policy bolstered the bottom lines of US defense contractors and assured that battlefield weapons malfunctions could not be fixed on the spot, thus negating the momentum which the side on the offensive had attained. This helped keep the war in a constant state of stalemate.

Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon used the conflict as an opportunity to bomb Baghdad’s nuclear facilities in 1981.  In 1982 Sharon declared that Israel was siding with Iran, but his exact words were more revealing.  Sharon declared at a conference in Paris that, “Israel has a vital interest in the continuing war in the Persian Gulf and in Iran’s victory.”  In 1986 retired Mossad Chief General Aharon Yariv declared the US and Israeli position more succinctly when he stated bluntly, “It would be good if the Iran/Iraq War ended in a tie, but it would be better if it continued”.

[1] Behold a Pale Horse. William Cooper. Light Technology Press. Sedona, AZ. 1991. p.81

[2] Ibid. p.83

[3] The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride into the Secret Heart of BCCI. Jonathan Beaty and S.C. Gwynne. Random House. New York. 1993. p.268

[4] The Spotlight. June 1997

[5] BBC World News. January 2002

[6] The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence and International Fascism. Henrik Kruger. South End Press. Boston. 1980. p.217

[7] The Reign of the Ayatollahs: Iran and the Islamic Revolution. Shaul Bakhash. Basic Books, Inc. New York. 1984. p.193

[8] Iraq and Kuwait: A History Suppressed. Ralph Schoenman. Veritas Press. Santa Barbara, CA. 1990. p.21

[9] Beyond the Storm: A Gulf Crisis Reader. Phyllis Bennis and Michel Monshabeck. Olive Branch Press. Brooklyn, NY. 1991. p.31

[10] Iraq Since 1958: From Revolution to Dictatorship. Marion Farouk-Sluglett and Peter Sluglett. I.B. Tauris & Company, Inc. 1990. p.260

[11] “The Gulf Between Pretense and Reality”. Larry Everest. In These Times. 7-20-88. p.9

[12] “The Arming of Saudi Arabia”. Frontline. PBS. 2-16-93

[13] The Gulf: Scramble for Security. Raj Choudry. Sreedhar Press. New Dehli. 1983. p.108

[14] March to War. James Ridgeway. Four Walls Four Windows. New York. 1991. p.13

[15] Everest. p.9

[16] Frontline

Dean Henderson is the author of five books: Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network, The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries, Das Kartell der Federal Reserve, Stickin’ it to the Matrix & The Federal Reserve Cartel.  You can subscribe free to his weekly Left Hook column @ www.deanhenderson.wordpress.com

samedi, 03 mai 2014

Le Mafiastan

RobertFisk460.jpg

Le Mafiastan

Jean-Paul Baquiast
Ex: http://www.europesolidaire.eu
 
Robert Fisk, dans le journal britannique The Independent, confirme ce que chacun devinait intuitivement. Le Moyen Orient est devenu non pas un califat islamique global, comme le craignaient certains, mais le califat global des mafias.

Il s'agit évidemment en premier lieu de mafias arabo-islamiques, mais ce n'est pas le combat pour Allah qui les motive en priorité. C'est le combat pour mettre la main sur les centaines de milliards de pétro-dollars payés sans hésiter par les Occidentaux aux Etats producteurs de pétrole. Ces dollars alimentent une corruption généralisée, sans frontières et sans idéologies, sauf la prise en mains par elle de toutes les structures sociales.

Un flot toujours renforcé de corruption et de trafics a englouti le Moyen-Orient, sans exceptions. Il n'est plus rien qui ne s'achète, tant par la violence des armes que par l'argent. Aucun pays n'est indemne. Aucune valeur ne résiste. Les Occidentaux, en premier lieu les Américains, sont évidemment les premiers responsables.

Non seulement ils achètent le pétrole sans compter et sans se préoccuper de ce que deviennent les pétro-dollars. Ceci d'autant plus qu'une partie de ceux-ci alimentent les commandes passées à leurs entreprises, lesquelles ne s'imposent que par mafias interposées. Combien d'argent mafieux a-t-il ainsi été versé pour la construction de tours comme la Burj-Dubai ? Que sera le budget maffieux consacré à la future tour de 1km de haut annoncée par l'Arabie saoudite?

 

great-war-for-civilisation.jpg

Les Occidentaux, Américains en tête, ont à l'origine, en déclenchant des guerres pour le contrôle du Moyen-Orient et de son pétrole, détruit sans hésiter les Etats et sociétés traditionnelles. L'Irak, l'Afghanistan, la Libye, indirectement la Syrie, ont été livrées à des seigneurs de la guerre. Ceux-ci avaient été initialement financés par l'Amérique, avant qu'ils ne prennent leur indépendance grâce aux comportements mafieux imités de ceux régnant dans certains pays d'Amérique latine et d'Europe.

Le Pakistan et sans doute aussi l'Égypte, avec leurs mafias militaires, prennent le même chemin. Ne parlons pas du cas bien connu des Etats du golfe Persique et de l'Arabie saoudite, qui par la corruption achètent une partie des pays européens. L'Arabie saoudite, on le sait, finance les Etats et les banlieues européennes, soit disant pour le plus grand bien de l'islamisation, mais aussi pour mettre la main, grâce à la corruption, sur ce qui demeure de richesses en Europe.

L'argent mafieux génère évidemment une partie du terrorisme. Les jeunes européens musulmans allant mener le djihad en Syrie, avant de revenir en Europe y reprendre ce grand jeu, sont financés, ainsi que leurs armements, par les profits dus à la drogue, aux enlèvements et trafics divers menés par les Etats de la région, ainsi que par des intérêts européens eux-mêmes mafieux.

Certains esprits optimistes, en Europe, se rassurent en pensant que tout cela aura une fin, dans quelques décennies, avec la fin du pétrole. Mais les mauvaises habitudes, une fois prises, demeurent. Aucun Etat, aucune administration se voulant répressive ne résiste aux bakchichs assortis de menaces. L'Europe, dans sa grande vertu, dénonce la corruption régnant en Russie. Au contact du mafiastan moyen-oriental, elle en prendra rapidement elle-même le chemin.

Que dirait Lawrence d'Arabie s'il revenait ? Les antiques rezzous feraient bien pâle figure devant les mafias modernes.

* Lire Robert Fisk The Middle East we must confront in the future will be a Mafiastan ruled by money

Jean Paul Baquiast

mercredi, 30 avril 2014

Bye Bye Bandar

bandar.jpg

Eric Draitser:

Bye Bye Bandar

The recent dismissal of Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan is a significant development in the region, but not one that signals a fundamental change. Although the sacking of the man long known as “Bandar Bush” represents the departure of an infamous regime figure with close ties to the US political elite, the House of Saud remains the unchallenged authority in one of Washington’s principal client states.

That being said, Bandar’s unceremonious exit could be a sign that certain policies of the Saudi monarchy, primarily the use of Wahhabi extremist networks to achieve political goals in Syria and beyond, could undergo a strategic shift. Additionally, this development might also be an indication that the nature of Riyadh’s relations with Washington could be changing, if only at least superficially and gradually.

Bandar, Syria, and the Geopolitical Chessboard

It is an open secret that Prince Bandar bin Sultan is the architect and principal manager of Saudi Arabia’s strategy in Syria, and to varying extents depending on who one asks, the central figure in Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical strategy in the Middle East more broadly. With his illustrious (infamous) resumé as Saudi Arabia’s top negotiator when it comes to the West and Saudi geopolitical strategy, it came as little surprise to many observers when in 2012 Bandar was appointed intelligence chief by the Saudi king, with the specific task of handling Riyadh’s destabilization and subversion of Syria.

Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent Saudi commentator with ties to the royal family noted at the time that, “There was a feeling that we needed stronger intelligence and Bandar has a history of this sort…We are witnessing the start of a new Middle East with the collapse of the Syrian President (Bashar al-Assad’s) regime. We are worried about Jordan and Lebanon.” Statements such as these merely confirm the widespread understanding that Bandar’s appointment signaled more than just a change of leadership, rather it was part of a broad initiative by the Saudis to use their intelligence apparatus as a means of influencing the development of the region and, in so doing, maintaining and strengthening Saudi dominance in the greater Middle East. Seen in this way, Bandar, and indeed the entire Saudi policy vis-à-vis Syria, can be understood as a move to consolidate Saudi power through destabilization.

In fact, for a time at least, it seemed that Bandar would be successful in the goal of toppling Assad and buttressing Saudi influence. The Israeli publication Haaretz published an article in July 2012, just a few weeks after Bandar’s appointment, in which the author explained that:

The main reason for his [Bandar’s] appointment now is that Saudi Arabia is preparing for the next stage in Syria, after President Bashar Assad leaves the political stage one way or another and Syria becomes a battleground for influence…Bandar is considered the CIA’s man in Riyadh…he’s known as a can-do person who makes quick decisions and doesn’t spare resources to achieve his objectives…Saudi commentators say Bandar was the one behind the decision to give money to the Syrian rebels, and even to buy weapons for them. They say the Saudi demand that Assad step down is part of Bandar’s strategy…The Saudi policy on Syria is being closely coordinated with the United States.

Essentially then, Bandar should be understood as the critical linchpin in Riyadh’s geopolitical and strategic posture throughout the region; at once the bridge between Riyadh and Washington, and the manager who “gets his hands dirty” with the hard work of organizing the arming and financing of the jihadis in Syria, many of whom were funneled into the country through the kingdom’s own Wahhabi networks. However, it is his coziness with US intelligence that makes his influence particularly significant considering the political distance the Obama administration has attempted to maintain from the destabilization campaign in Syria.

In this way, Bandar acted as a surrogate for Washington, dutifully carrying out policy in line with US interests while providing “plausible deniability” for the administration with regard to the subversion of Syria. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “They [Saudi officials] believed that Prince Bandar, a veteran of the diplomatic intrigues of Washington and the Arab world, could deliver what the CIA couldn’t: planeloads of money and arms, and, as one U.S. diplomat put it, wasta, Arabic for under-the-table clout.”

Bandar’s influence on the Syria issue did not stop with his management of the crisis and relations with the US. In fact, Bandar became the principal emissary for the House of Saud, the de facto voice of the king, attempting to influence all sides in the crisis and affect an outcome desirable to Riyadh. It is to this end that Bandar visited with Russian President Putin in summer of 2013, at the height of the US drumbeat for war on Syria, looking to coax Moscow into making a deal and abandoning its support for Syrian President Assad.

According to leaked documents from the meeting, Bandar reportedly offered cooperation with Russia on a number of critical issues, including the prevention of terrorism at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, in exchange for Russia’s acquiescence on the issue of Syria. The leaked report described the meeting as stormy, with Russian President Putin deeply outraged at the brazenness of Bandar’s threats, which he undoubtedly framed as “assurances.” Though the actual tenor and specifics of the meeting might be up for interpretation, what is clear is that Bandar failed to secure any significant change from Moscow regarding Syria. In fact, it could be argued that his bombastic style of realpolitik backfired, hardening Russia’s resolve and commitment to Assad.

Additionally, there was much speculation in the international press that Bandar was directly involved in funneling chemical weapons into the hands of jihadi fighters inside Syria, specifically that Bandar facilitated the exchange of sarin gas used in the chemical attack on Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital of Damascus. The accounts of Bandar’s involvement, which came both from intelligence experts and Syrian rebels on the ground, coincide with the fact that it was the Saudis themselves, undoubtedly organized by Bandar, who initially brought the allegations of the use of sarin by Assad’s government. So, it would seem that, from the very beginning, Bandar’s strategy to topple the Assad regime involved the funneling of weapons, including chemical weapons, into the hands of Saudi-sponsored jihadis, and then using the attacks they themselves perpetrated to blame the government in Damascus. Bandar’s patrons and poker buddies in Langley were undoubtedly proud.

Today, nearly two years after Bandar was appointed intelligence chief and “Master of Ceremonies” for the assault on Syria, the Assad government is still in place, significantly more entrenched and stable than it was in 2012, and it is instead Bandar who has been removed. Despite his well laid plans and deep connections throughout the region, Bandar failed in his quest to overthrow Assad and destabilize Syria to the point of its conflagration. Perhaps more than anything else, it was this failure that lead to his ouster.

Riyadh’s Man in Washington, Washington’s Man in Riyadh

saudi_bush.JPGWhat makes Bandar such a key piece of the geopolitical puzzle is his intimate relations with the US political, diplomatic, and intelligence establishment. Having spent the majority of his career as the Saudi envoy to Washington, Bandar became an indispensible figure in the decades-old “special relationship” between the two countries. David Ottaway, author of The King’s Messenger: Prince Bandar bin Sultan and America’s Tangled Relationship with Saudi Arabia, noted in his important biography that Bandar dealt with “five US presidents, ten secretaries of state, eleven national security advisers, sixteen sessions of Congress, an obstreperous American media, and hundreds of greedy politicians…[he was] at once the king’s exclusive messenger and the White House’s errand boy.”

The above excerpt illustrates quite clearly the fact that Bandar was far more than a Saudi diplomat in the US. Rather, that he was a representative of the US-NATO-GCC imperial system, one who could maneuver seamlessly between the circles of power in Washington and in the Middle East, a man who represented more than simply his country, a man who spoke for, and dealt with, the political establishment in both countries. Bandar’s list of accomplishments alone demonstrates this quite clearly.

Bandar boasted an extensive resumé including the securing of AWACS aircraft for Riyadh over objections from Tel Aviv in the 1980s, the funneling of money and weapons, as well as the recruitment of fighters, to the mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, funding the contras of Nicaragua, and financing to the tune of $10 million anti-communist politicians in Italy. Bandar is also credited with brokering the all-important deal regarding US basing rights in Saudi Arabia for the first Gulf War. His close relationship with George H.W. Bush, including the vast CIA network that Bush headed, was infamous. In fact, Bandar and George Bush (both elder and younger) were so close that the Prince earned himself the nickname “Bandar Bush”, a moniker he still holds today.

The fact that Bandar moved mostly seamlessly between administrations, always maintaining the all-important close ties necessary for a man in his position, shows him to be far more than a deft politician and diplomat. Rather, Bandar was a true representative of the military-industrial-imperial system of which the US is the dominant player and within which Saudi Arabia is comfortably situated. Bandar represented a bridge between different cogs within that system. It is for this reason that his dismissal is so significant. Not only does Bandar’s exit signal a change in Saudi policy in Syria, it is an indication that the one-dimensional relationship between Washington and Riyadh may be undergoing a critical shift.

One should be cautious however not to conflate Bandar’s departure with a departure from the alliance that has held for decades. Instead, one should see this as merely a geopolitical and strategic evolution with regard to Syria and, indeed, the whole region. As Saudi Arabia comes to terms with a failure of its policy in Syria, and it recognizes the changing nature of the region with a new, friendly government in Egypt, Riyadh is revamping its policy. In so doing, Bandar, a symbol of Saudi power for decades, became the sacrificial lamb.

Unfortunately, the power and money that Bandar faithfully represented for all these years remain. So too do the Wahhabi fighters and the ideology of extremism that Saudi Arabia exports as a means to further its political agenda. Until such time as these are delegitimized and dismantled, no individual’s exit from the stage, not even one as “larger than life” as Prince Bandar, will fundamentally change Saudi policy or the region.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder of StopImperialism.org and OP-ed columnist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook

lundi, 07 avril 2014

Nieuwe wet Saudi Arabië: Alle niet-moslims zijn terroristen

Nieuwe wet Saudi Arabië: Alle niet-moslims zijn terroristen

Twijfelen aan islam als terreurdaad bestempeld


De Saudische koning Abdullah duldt geen enkele tegenspraak.

Saudi Arabië heeft een aantal nieuwe wetten ingevoerd waarmee ‘atheïsten’ - in de islamitische wereld alle niet-moslims- automatisch als terroristen worden beschouwd. Hetzelfde geldt voor alle vormen van politieke tegenstand, inclusief deelnemers aan demonstraties.

De nieuwe wetten werden opgesteld vanwege het groeiende aantal Saudi’s dat terugkeert uit de burgeroorlog in Syrië, en dat de monarchie omver zou willen werpen. Koning Abdullah vaardigde daarom ‘Koninklijk Decreet 44’ uit, waarmee deelname aan ‘vijandelijkheden’ buiten het koninkrijk bestraft kan worden met een gevangenisstraf van 3 tot 20 jaar.

Ook het aantal groepen dat als terreurorganisatie wordt gekenmerkt, werd uitgebreid. Net als in Egypte werd de Moslim Broederschap in deze lijst opgenomen.

Twijfel aan islam = terreurdaad

In artikel 1 van de nieuwe regels wordt terrorisme omschreven als ‘het aanhangen van de atheïstische gedachte in iedere vorm, of het betwijfelen van de fundamenten van de islamitische religie waar het land op is gebaseerd.’ Buiten de islam zijn in Saudi Arabië alle andere religies verboden.

Joe Stork, vicedirecteur van Human Rights Watch afdeling Midden Oosten en Noord Afrika, wees erop dat de Saudische autoriteiten nog nooit kritiek op hun beleid hebben geaccepteerd, maar dat de nieuwe wetten nu bijna iedere vorm van kritiek of onafhankelijk denken als een terreurdaad bestempen.

Human Rights Watch probeert meestal tevergeefs om gevangen zittende Saudiërs vrij te krijgen. Twee mannen verloren onlangs hun beroepzaak, en zullen respectievelijk 3 maanden en 5 jaar de cel in moeten vanwege hun kritiek op de Saudische autoriteiten.

Xander

(1) Independent

dimanche, 06 avril 2014

De la rivalité entre l’Arabie saoudite et le Qatar

qatar14.jpg

Bernhard TOMASCHITZ:

De la rivalité entre l’Arabie saoudite et le Qatar

Cette rivalité dans la région du Golfe Persique a pour objet l’influence à gagner dans le monde arabe

Depuis le début de ce mois de mars 2014, une fracture divise nettement le “Conseil de Coopération des Etats du Golfe”: l’Arabie saoudite, Bahrein et les Emirats Arabes Unis ont rappelé leurs ambassadeurs en poste au Qatar. Le motif officiel et apparent de cette rupture est dû au soutien que le Qatar apporte aux Frères Musulmans dans la région. Mais il y a plus: Ryad voit d’un très mauvais oeil ce petit émirat du Qatar qui tente de devenir une puissance régionale, alors qu’il n’a qu’une superficie de 11.000 km2 et n’a que 1,7 million d’habitants (dont seulement 250.000 Qataris). Le “New York Times” écrit: “Ce sont surtout les monarques saoudiens qui manifestent leur mauvaise humeur depuis des années parce que le petit Qatar se donne les allures d’un poids lourd. Il utilise ses immenses richesses et la chaîne Al-Jazeera, qui lui appartient, pour asseoir sa puissance dans la région”.

En effet, le petit émirat du Golfe ne passe plus inaperçu sur la scène internationale. En mai 2011, Doha parvient à intercéder en faveur d’un processus de paix au Darfour, réunissant autour de la table de négociations le gouvernement soudanais et les insurgés. En mai 2008 déjà, le Qatar avait oeuvré pour débloquer la situation au Liban et pour permettre que se tiennent des élections présidentielles. Ensuite, Doha favorise les processus de pacification dans les conflits civils qui ravagent le Yémen ou la Somalie et offre ses services diplomatiques pour calmer le jeu dans le conflit frontalier qui oppose l’Ethiopie à l’Erythrée. Dans la guerre civiles syrienne, le Qatar soutient une partie des rebelles islamistes opposés au régime baathiste de Bachar El-Assad.

Le déploiement de la puissance diplomatique qatarie a été rendu possible par trois facteurs, selon l’analyste russe Roman Kot, lié au centre d’études “Strategic Culture Foundation”. D’abord 1), le Qatar table sur ses exportations de gaz naturel qui ont quintuplé depuis le début des années 1990. En 2011, selon les rapports de la CIA, le Qatar était le deuxième fournisseur de gaz naturel dans le monde, avec une capacité de 113,7 milliards de m3. Le Cheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani peut voir l’avenir avec confiance: ses réserves de gaz s’élèvent à 25,2 billions de m3, ce qui le place au rang trois dans le monde.

q2_deb5d11-300x225.jpgEnsuite 2) la chaîne Al Jazeera, d’après Kot, permet de déployer un instrument très performant pour diffuser une propagande appuyant systématiquement, dans tout le monde arabe, la politique étrangère poursuivie par Doha. En effet, Al Jazeera est considérée “comme un gros calibre dans la guerre de l’information qui a précédé et accompagné les printemps arabes”. Enfin 3) le Qatar abrite deux bases américaines et se réjouit d’être ainsi un partenaire important des Etats-Unis. [NDT: La  présence de ces bases rend le territoire qatari inviolable].

Roman Kot décrit la politique extérieure du Qatar comme “un nouveau modèle d’expansion, par lequel une orientation générale pro-occidentale fusionne avec un traditionalisme rigoriste ce qui a pour résultat que les puissances occidentales et surtout les Etats-Unis font désormais confiance à des groupes fondamentalistes voire à des organisations terroristes [soutenues par l’argent qatari]”. Le Qatar représente donc un mixte idéologique alliant l’islam wahhabite au panarabisme, ce qui lui confère un “potentiel agressif”.

Mais lorsque le Qatar perçoit un avantage géostratégique différent de ceux des Occidentaux, il n’hésite pas à agir contre les intérêts directs de Washington. Exemple: en 2011, les Qataris ont certes apporté leur soutien aux attaques aériennes occidentales contre la Libye, afin de provoquer en bout de course la chute de Khadafi. Ce soutien à l’agression occidentale contre la Libye n’a toutefois pas empêché Doha de soutenir les Frères Musulmans et d’autres mouvements islamistes analogues dans les pays arabes en crise ou dans la guerre civile syrienne. Le journaliste américain Anthony Shadid, aujourd’hui décédé et détenteur du Prix Pulitzer, écrivait fin 2011: “Contrairement à l’Arabie saoudite et aux Emirats Arabes Unis, le Qatar entretient des liens étroits avec les Frères Musulmans et leurs émanations en Libye, en Syrie et en Egypte”.

Le conflit larvé qui vient d’éclater début mars 2014 au sein du “Conseil de Coopération du Golfe” a pour motif principal la rivalité qui oppose Saoudiens et Qataris dans leur volonté de gagner en influence en Egypte. Le Qatar a soutenu le Président Mohammed Morsi, renversé en juillet 2013, à coups de milliards de dollars. L’Arabie saoudite et les EAU tentent aujourd’hui de soutenir le régime militaire du Caire, également à coups de milliards de dollars.

Le Qatar, par suite, tente d’inverser la vapeur et de torpiller les visées saoudiennes. Le “Washington Post” écrit à ce propos: “Au cours des huit derniers mois, le Qatar a accueilli un nombre croissant d’islamistes égyptiens contraints à l’exil et leur a permis d’utiliser Al Jazeera comme porte-voix pour lancer leur rhétorique hostile au régime militaire égyptien, ce qui a rendu furieux celui-ci et ses alliés du Golfe”. La rivalité entre les deux Etats islamistes rigoristes de la péninsule arabique a fait que l’Arabie soudite soutient dorénavant un régime séculier au Caire!

A tout cela s’ajoute que les deux protagonistes de ce nouveau conflit cultivent des opinions divergentes quant à l’Iran. Tandis que Doha perçoit l’Iran comme une menace gérable, les Saoudiens le perçoivent comme un danger existentiel. Cela mène Washington à une position inconfortable. Le “New York Times” l’explique: “...les tensions internes (au Golfe) amèneront Washington dans une position toujours plus difficile quand il s’agira de calmer les gouvernement nerveux d’Arabie Saoudite et des EAU pour qu’ils ne sabotent pas les négociations entamées par les Etats-Unis avec Téhéran sur le programme nucléaire iranien”. Qui plus est, l’incident diplomatique imprévu qu’est le retrait des ambassadeurs en poste à Doha n’autorise plus l’espoir de coordonner les efforts contradictoires des uns et des autres, notamment quand il s’agit de renforcer les rebelles syriens. Voilà encore un “projet occidental” qui ne pourra plus se concrétiser.

Bernhard TOMASCHITZ.

(article paru dans “zur Zeit”, Vienne, n°12/2014, http://www.zurzeit.at ).

samedi, 05 avril 2014

Obama tells Saudi Arabia that US values Riyadh

saudi-arabia-obama-with-king-abdullah-1.jpg

Obama tells Saudi Arabia that US values Riyadh: Sharia law and Exporting Hatred

Ramazan Khalidov and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

Ex: http://www.moderntokyotimes.com

If you want to visit a nation state that supports apartheid law to the absolute, then welcome to Saudi Arabia. Yes, in the land of Saudi Arabia not one single Buddhist temple, Christian church, Hindu temple, and other non-Muslim faiths, are tolerated. However, while America, France, the United Kingdom, and other Western states, support multi-cultural values at home; they don’t mind doing business with a nation that bans all non-Muslim faiths, supports apartheid Islamic Sharia laws and child marriage to the tilt.

Of course, Saudi Arabia is not alone in supporting apartheid Islamic Sharia law but to make matters worse, this nation is exporting terrorism, Islamist Salafi indoctrination and funding educational institutions that sprout hatred. Despite this, with the West being in self-destruct mode then Gulf petrodollars are allowed to spread indoctrination and a fifth column in many societies. Therefore, Saudi Arabia spends vast sums on spreading Salafi Islam and buying powerful Western institutions with money in order to make up a false history.  This blatant hypocrisy is tolerated because of the power of energy and the ineptness of major Christian churches and international politicians that are too silent.

In the twenty first century, just like in the late seventh century, apostates in the land of Arabia face death. Meanwhile, in nations like Saudi Arabia and Somalia, if non-Muslim males desire to marry a Muslim female based on “genuine love,” then this may lead to either prison or death. However, white anti-racists, the trendy left and rampant capitalists don’t appear to worry too much about this – in other words, Islamic Sharia law states are allowed to treat non-Muslims with utter contempt when it comes to law.

Can you imagine what would happen if one modern European nation introduced a law whereby Muslim males faced prison or death for marrying non-Muslims? Yes, this would be on the news night and day but of course the West is intent on silencing all critics of this reality by playing the “Islamophobia card.” Strange, because in Somalia the al-Shabaab is beheading all apostates to Christianity that they can find. In other words, this isn’t a phobia because it is a reality in many parts of the world irrespective if by terrorist forces or by state institutions like Saudi Arabia.

Discrimination is a reality in all nations, of course the degrees will vary, but in nation states that support Islamic Sharia law then non-Muslims and minority Muslim sects are deemed second-class citizens based on law. Indeed, when certain nations support killing apostates then obviously the term second-class citizen is too polite. After all, Islamic Sharia law is saying that non-Muslim males are subhuman and worthy of killing based on a legal code that maintains power mechanisms in order enforce dhimmitude and conversions based on fear.

Not all nations enforce the draconian reality of Islamic Sharia law to the full – after all stoning to death for adultery, killing apostates, allowing little girls to marry old men, and so forth, isn’t progressive.  Therefore, some Muslim majority nations adopt Islamic Sharia piecemeal in order to appease clerics at home, while trying to transform society at the same time. Leaders like Ataturk, Nasser and many others have tried to transform society based on modernism. However, with Gulf petrodollars fueling radical Islamic conservatism then even Turkey is under threat. This counter-Islamist revolution is threatening progressive forces in Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, and other nations – and shockingly, major Western powers are often siding with the Saudi Arabia and Gulf agenda against secular forces in nations like Syria.

Internationally you have many convulsions whereby Muslims face enormous discrimination along with Christians in Myanmar (Burma). It should be remembered that more Christians in Myanmar have been killed over many decades because of central forces in Myanmar fighting the mainly Christian ethnic groups of the Karen, Shan, and Chin. Despite this, some radical Buddhists in Myanmar are singling out Muslims based on the eradication and persecution of Buddhists in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh and in Southern Thailand. In other words, Buddhist radicals fear the Saudi Arabian and Gulf venture of funding forces that seek to eradicate non-Muslims and minority Shia Muslims in the long run. Despite this, militant Buddhists in Myanmar must not follow the Islamic Sharia law mode of thinking by replicating this with equal laws based on anti-Muslim discrimination.

However, while Myanmar may be an anomaly it is clear that Saudi Arabia and other Sharia Islamic law states that support apartheid laws are numerous. Internally, this is a huge threat to non-Muslims, women that seek equal rights and minority Muslim sects that suffer from open discrimination. However, externally Saudi Arabia and other nations like Qatar and Pakistan are openly exporting terrorist and Takfiri Islamist forces to an array of different nations. In other words, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Qatar, and a few others, are dangerous because they are undermining many nation states alongside destroying indigenous Islam in Libya, Indonesia, Syria and in other nations like Bangladesh.

President Obama and other American presidents before him have all sold their collective souls by turning a blind eye to the brutal reality of Saudi Arabia. Of course, other leading Western nations have done the same and in Japan this reality also persists. Yet it is clear that Saudi Arabia and Gulf petrodollars are spreading a dangerous ideology far and wide therefore silence is tainting democracy and multi cultural values at home.

It is time to put real pressure on Saudi Arabia for supporting apartheid laws and exporting radical Salafi Islam. At the same time, it is time to differentiate between the indigenous Islam of Syria and the Levant – progressive Islam in Indonesia – the Alevis and so forth. Indeed, it is progressive Muslim forces that are on the frontline of Gulf petrodollars that seek to crush all moderate forces within “the diverse Muslim world.” Therefore, radical Takfiris are destroying Sufi shrines, Shia mosques, Ahmadiyya mosques, killing indigenous Sunni Muslim clerics in Syria and espousing hatred towards Alawites – and other brutal realities. If this Islam is lost then all hope of co-existence will disappear and wider gulfs will emerge internationally. This reality needs to be acknowledged and then tackled but currently America and other major Western nations are siding with the forces of Gulf petrodollars. Until this ends, then nothing will change therefore a new order needs to emerge in order to break the chains. If not, then democratic nations are sowing the seeds of more hatred, destabilization, and growing sectarianism, based on the whims of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf powers.

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

vendredi, 04 avril 2014

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

obama-saudi-arabia.jpg

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?

obryad.jpg

Why Obama paid a visit to Riyadh?

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”.

lundi, 17 mars 2014

Iraq Blames Qatar and Saudi Arabia for Terrorism

irak-al-qaida-m_0.jpg

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

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

jeudi, 06 mars 2014

De la guerre civile en Irak

irak-soldat-explosion-at.jpg

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 ).

lundi, 03 mars 2014

The Partitioning of Iraq

iraq-partition.gif

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.

vendredi, 21 février 2014

Soviet-Afghan War Lesson

Moore[Main].jpg

Soviet-Afghan War Lesson: Political Problems Never Settled by Force

By Sergey Duz
The Voice of Russia

Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

25 years ago, the almost 10-year long deployment of the limited contingent of Soviet forces in Afghanistan drew to a close. Experts have since been at variance about the assessment of the Afghan campaign, but they invariably agree that it was the biggest-scale (and actually quite ambiguous, obviously for that reason) foreign policy action throughout the post-war history of the Soviet Union.

The last Soviet soldier left Afghanistan on February 15th 1989 as part of the Soviet 40th Army, which was the backbone of the limited contingent. The Soviet troops withdrew under the command of the 40th Army legendary commander, Lieutenant-General Boris Gromov. He managed to brilliantly carry out the withdrawal, with the US now trying to use his experience to more or less decently pull out of Afghanistan following the more than 20 years of actually useless occupation of that country. This is what an expert with the Centre for Modern Afghan Studies, Nikita Mendkovich, says about it in a comment.

“The Americans will have to rely heavily on intercontinental delivery means, because the troops are being evacuated to another region, to another continent. Back in 1989, it was largely a ground-force operation. The Soviet troops pulled out by land via Central Asia. The basic problem of any operation of this kind is security. Huge masses of troops and a great number of military vehicles are moving along the roads, so they should be guaranteed against likely attacks. To attain the objective, one can either reinforce local garrisons that will remain deployed in Afghanistan after the pull-out of the bulk of the troops and will cover the withdrawal, or reach agreement with the enemy not to attack the leaving troops, because this is not in the enemy’s interests”.

There are both similarities and numerous differences between the Soviet and American campaigns in Afghanistan. The main difference is that the Soviet Union did manage to achieve its goal, whereas with the United States it is no go. The Soviet troops were to render assistance to the Afghan government in settling the home policy situation. Secondly, the Soviet troops were to prevent external aggression. Both objectives were fully attained.

The Soviet political leadership felt that the revolution of April 1978 had no right to lose. Ideological reasoning was reinforced by geopolitical considerations. This predetermined Moscow’s decision to send troops, says editor-in-chief of the National Defence magazine, Igor Korotchenko, and elaborates.

“The Afghan campaign was inevitable if seen from the perspective of defending the Soviet Union’s national interests. It may seem odd, but Afghans are still nostalgic about the times when Soviet troops were deployed in their country. Even former field commanders can’t help but show some sort of liking for the Soviet Union, for the Soviet Army. We were no invaders; we helped build a new Afghanistan. The Soviet troops built tunnels, ensured the operation of water-supply systems, planted trees, built schools and hospitals, and also production facilities. The Soviet troops were indeed performing their international duty, they accomplished quite a feat. When the Soviet troops pulled out, Najibullah had a strong Afghan Army under his command. He remained in control of the situation in Afghanistan for 12 or 18 months. His regime fell when the Soviet Union cut short its material supply for Kabul. The current Afghan regime of Karzai will certainly prove short-lived; it’s no more than a phantom. The US troops will hardly pull out with their heads held high, the way the Soviet soldiers did”.

But then, some people disagree that all Afghans were happy about the Soviet military presence. The Soviet Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin pointed out the danger of the Soviet troops getting drawn into guerrilla warfare. He said in late 1979 that the invasion of Afghanistan “would trigger drastically negative many-sided consequences”. “This would essentially become a conflict not only with imperialist countries, but a conflict with the proper Afghan people. Now, people never forgive things like that”, Kosygin warned, and proved correct. This is what the chairman of the Common Afghan Centre in St. Petersburg, Naim Gol Mohammed, says about it in a comment.

“The people of Afghanistan have their own traditions, mentality and culture. The belligerent Pashtun tribes have never taken orders from anyone. These tribes never take to foreign troops. The locals revolted against the Soviet troops. The Soviet troop withdrawal in 1989 was followed by a period of anarchy. Government agencies were non-operational. The Soviet Union supplied Afghanistan with whatever was required quite well. But once the Soviet troops were out, the supplies were brought to a halt. That was bad. But the Soviet Union made the right decision, for it is impossible to defeat Afghans on their own soil”.

Quite a few experts insist that however tragic or pointless the Soviet military campaign in Afghanistan may seem, it had largely influenced the shaping of the new Russia’s optimal foreign policy. Moscow is perfectly aware today that no use of force can help resolve political problems, that these can only have a negotiated settlement. Moscow is trying to put the idea across to the main geopolitical players today. This is the most important lesson that should be learned from what experience the Soviet Union gained in Afghanistan.

Reprinted from The voice of Russia.

dimanche, 16 février 2014

Pakistani Province of Baluchistan at Cross-Roads of Geo-Political games

 

This aspect is related to the geographical location of Baluchistan at the maritime interface of the Western, Southern and Eastern segments of Asia alongside the Indian Ocean that further enhances its importance in facilitating global trade and energy shipments. Baluchistan thus provides a number of shortest possible land and sea route to and from the East and the West. For this very reason Baluchistan has become a ‘geo-strategic’ fulcrum of this arena of extremely heightened geo-political competition. The US sponsored idea of “Greater Baluchistan” has done Baluchistan no good. On top of all Baluchistan’s territorial link with Afghanistan and use of its territory for the facilitation of NATO supplies has made it even more vulnerable to the geo-political maneuvering of the US and its allies in the region.

The idea of “greater Baluchistan” includes not merely territorial disintegration of Pakistan alone; it also includes that of both Iran and Afghanistan. In introducing a resolution on ‘independent Baluchistan’ in the US House of Representative in 2012, the US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said that the people of Baluchistan, “currently divided between Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan, have the right to self-determination and to their own sovereign country,” adding that they should be afforded full opportunity to choose their own status among the community of nations. This ‘moral support’ is being followed by the supply of ample foreign fundings, arms deliveries and military training. In 2001, Jane’s information group, one of the leading sources on intelligence information, reported that the RAW and MOSSAD have created five new agencies to penetrate Pakistan to target important religious figures, civil and military personnel, journalists, judges etc, and the current situation and information provided by Pakistan’s various security agencies also verifies the fact of foreign involvement in Baluchistan. Even the government of Afghanistan has been abetting the disruptive forces in igniting conflict in the region by providing territorial sanctuaries to the so-called insurgents.

The continuing Baluch struggle against “deprivation”, properly supplied by the Western fighter for the greater good have successfully spread the conflict into many zones of Baluchistan, making them virtually independent. By repeatedly highlighting and emphasizing the state of deprivation of the Baluch people, the US and its allies have been exploiting the Baluch youth that is dying out with foreign arms in its hands in an attempt to attain the much yearned after ‘national’ independence from the ‘dictatorial’ domination of the Punjab. In this context, the US Congress bill on Baluch’s right to separation and self determination, tabled in 2012, is one of the manifest examples of the deliberately designed geo-political maneuvering. That bill was and is not only a violation of the internationally recognized principle of non-intervention, but also a sort of window dressing of the US’ and its Western allies’ global agendas. In essence, it was nothing else but an attempt to give a ‘legitimate’ cover to pursue, on part of the US, the twentieth century grand objectives which include domination of the region extending from Baluchistan to Central Asia and Eurasia and to Eastern Asia by way of segmenting the entire region, thereby controlling and dominating the flow of energy to and from the Eastern, Central and Western segments of Asia through the Indian Ocean.

It is for this reason that many US policy makers have, from time to time, been emphasizing the geo-strategic significance of Baluchistan in terms of serving the “grand objectives” of the US. For example a prominent US expert on South Asian affairs, Selig Harrison, urged the White House in 2011 to contain the fast spreading influence of China in the India Ocean, “by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar.” Similarly, the evidence of such an interest in disintegrating Pakistan can also be found in an article, “Blood Borders” written by a military analyst of the US, Lt. Col. Ralph Peter, who presented the idea of revision of the boundaries of the entire Middle East as per the wished of the people of locale, and further suggested the placement of the US forces in the region to “continue to fight for security from terrorism, for the prospect of democracy and for access to oil supplies in a region that is destined to fight itself.”

The US has thus been using its presence in Afghanistan, which is by default linked to the attainment of the US’ grand objectives, to play dirty game in Baluchistan too. In 2012, during a briefing to the upper house of Pakistan’s parliament, the then interior minister of Pakistan, Mr. Rehman Malik, presented a number of letters written by the Afghan government to provide funds, visas, weapons and ammunition to Brahamdagh Bugti’s followers inside Baluchistan. Only in Kandhar there were reported 24 CIA sponsored training camps which train insurgents for carrying out their militant missions inside Baluchistan; and moreover, since 2002, the CIA has been running training camps inside Baluchistan for the Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA) and it has considerably assisted it in establishing a ‘state within a state.’

Needless to say, the CIA’s use of mercenaries to fight covert wars is an escapable feature of the US foreign policy. The arrest of such a mercenary, Raymond Davis, in Lahore blew the lid off the extensive role CIA covert operations are playing in creating the climate of violence and instability throughout Pakistan, and more specifically in Baluchistan. The underlying purpose of such covert operations is to manipulate in favour of supporting the Baluch peoples’ right to self-determination through secession.

That is how the neo-imperial forces of the West, led by the US, have been applying the policy of divide and rule—the classic political stratagem that has not escaped the interest of the neo-colonial states. While the truth is that the location of Baluchistan at the interface of three major segments of Asia, its maritime significance because of Gwadar port, its capacity to provide the shortest possible route to the landlocked states of Afghanistan and Central Asia, its capacity to serve as an international energy transit corridor, and its own untapped numerous reservoirs of energy sources add to its significance in the current era of extremely heightened competition in and around the Indian Ocean. As such, by disintegrating Pakistan, leading to an extended redrawing of regional boundaries, the US can significantly alter regional balance of power, and can place its own military in the region in the name of ‘maintaining peace and security.’

The US, in its quest for dominating the world is showing little to no respect for human rights Despite the fact that Pakistan is a non-NATO ally of the US,  is standing in the way of the U.S. and pays a handsome price for it.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs. Exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

vendredi, 07 février 2014

Zum Führungswechsel im Iran

Karl Heinz Hoffmann:

Zum Führungswechsel im Iran

Ex: http://sachedesvolkes.wordpress.com

elections-legislatives-iran.jpgIm Iran hat ein großartiger Staatsmann die politische Bühne verlassen. Ahmadi Nedjad hat sich während seiner Amtszeit, für alle Zeiten einen würdigen Platz in der Geschichte gesichert. Seine Größe besteht nicht nur darin, besonderes diplomatisches Geschick bewiesen zu haben, sondern auch darin, dass er sich nicht nur für die sozialen Belange seines eigenen Volkes, sondern auch stets warmherzig für die Rechte der unterdrückten und ausgegrenzten Völker engagiert hat.

Für uns Deutsche bleibt sein, an die Bundeskanzlerin gerichteter offener Brief ein unvergessliches Zeichen der Verbundenheit mit den Deutschen.
Wird ein fremder Staatsmann vom bundesdeutschen Establishment geschmäht, kann man sicher sein, dass er ein echter Freund des deutschen Volkes ist.

Nun haben die iranischen Wähler Hassan Rohani, der dem geistlichen Stand angehört, die Staatsführung anvertraut. Damit stellt sich die Frage, ob in naher Zukunft bedeutende politische, gesellschaftliche und wirtschaftliche Veränderungen zu erwarten sind?


Die Iraner werden wohl von ihrem neuen Präsidenten mehr erwarten als er zu leisten im Stande sein wird. Vor allem wird die erhoffte Aufhebung der Wirtschaftssanktionen, von der man sich Erleichterungen verspricht, schwerlich zu erreichen sein.

Hingegen werden sich die von den Intellektuellen geforderten Lockerungen der auf die Kontrolle der öffentlichen Moral abzielenden Maßnahmen weitgehend verwirklichen lassen. Man wird der freien Entfaltung der Persönlichkeit mehr Raum geben. Damit wird eine gewisse Ruhe unter den Vertretern der Moderne in den iranischen Großstädten einkehren. Das wäre schon mal ein sehr positives Ergebnis.

Die Aufhebung der gegen die Wirtschaft des Iran gerichteten Sanktionen wird auch Hassan Rohani nicht erreichen können.

Der Westen hat das Atomprogramm der Iraner zum Anlass genommen, die Sanktionen zu verhängen. Damit sind aber die wahren Gründe nicht genannt.

Hassan Rohani könnte das iranische Atomprogramm nicht stoppen, er wird das auch gar nicht wollen, aber selbst wenn der Iran vollkommen auf die Nutzung der Kernenergie verzichten würde, könnte das nicht bewirken, dass die Sanktionen aufgehoben werden.
Und zwar deshalb nicht, weil es den Westmächten gar nicht primär um das Atomprogramm geht, sondern um verdeckte Zielstellungen, die nicht offen ausgesprochen werden können.
Den US-Amerikanern und Briten geht es um nichts anderes als um die Erlangung der Kontrolle über die iranischen Ölfelder; und den Israelis geht es darum, ihre militärische Vormachtstellung im mittleren Osten mit deutlichem Vorsprung gegenüber dem Iran zu festigen – wenn sie diesen Vorsprung überhaupt noch haben.

Soweit es die militärische Leistungsfähigkeit angeht, arbeitet die Zeit für den Iran.
Mit moderaten diplomatischen Gesprächen wird sich die gespannte Gesamtlage zwischen Mittelmeer und Hindukusch nicht entspannen lassen.

Es wird viele Gespräche geben, aber die Spannungen werden anhalten und die problematische wirtschaftliche Situation im Iran wird sich auch nicht durch einen Führungswechsel im Regierungsapparat schlagartig verbessern lassen. Die wirtschaftlichen Probleme sind die Folge der Sanktionen.

Der Boykott wird bleiben, also wird der Iran auch weiterhin mit den Auswirkungen der Sanktionen auf die iranische Wirtschaft zu kämpfen haben.

Fazit: Die Veränderungen im Iran werden mittelfristig nur von marginaler Bedeutung sein.

Karl-Heinz Hoffmann

00:02 Publié dans Actualité | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : politique internationale, actualité, iran, moyen orient | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

dimanche, 02 février 2014

¿Por qué se opone Washington al acuerdo petrolífero ruso-iraní?

src_adapt_480_low.jpg

Según este acuerdo, Irán intercambiará medio millón de barriles de petróleo por equipos y productos rusos de muy diversa índole de los que tiene necesidad.

El periódico libanés As Safir ha analizado esta “cólera estadounidense” y busca desvelar las razones de la misma.

Paralelamente a la visita del ministro iraní de Exteriores a Rusia, EEUU intentar ejercer presiones sobre Moscú para que cambie de opinión y dé marcha atrás en su decisión de suscribir este acuerdo.

Los 500.000 barriles de petróleo poseen un valor de 1.500 millones de dólares que servirán a Irán para adquirir equipos y productos rusos.

Este dinero también servirá para crear fábricas y empresas rusas en Irán.

Para justificar su oposición, EEUU se remite al compromiso nuclear interino firmado por el Grupo 5+1 con Irán, que el acuerdo petrolero ruso-iraní supuestamente violaría.

Sin embargo, la preocupación de Washington tiene otras causas.

Una primera razón sería el margen de maniobra que este acuerdo concede a Irán en las negociaciones nucleares para un arreglo definitivo de la cuestión nuclear iraní.

Además este acuerdo energético, si es concluido, llevaría  a que el régimen de sanciones contra Irán se debilite más rápidamente de lo previsto.

Existe otra tercera razón por la que Washington se opone a este acuerdo. Los norteamericanos creen que, con él, Rusia se posiciona con ventaja en el mercado iraní de cara al futuro levantamiento de las sanciones antiiraníes.

Dicho acuerdo serviría para impulsar el crecimiento económico de Rusia y permitiría a este país incrementar sus exportaciones petrolíferas y revertir la tendencia, que quedó reflejada en 2013, a la bajada de las mismas.

En cuarto lugar, el acuerdo entre Rusia e Irán tendrá también un importante efecto en la cooperación militar ruso-iraní.

El periódico As Safir señala que “a pesar de la cólera de la Casa Blanca, el Kremlin no va a renunciar a este acuerdo con Irán”.

Moscú ha hecho saber, de esta forma, a su rival estadounidense que no concede ninguna importancia a las sanciones unilaterales aprobadas por EEUU o sus aliados europeos, y que lo único que importa son las sanciones votadas por la ONU.

Este acuerdo y otros aspectos de la cooperación ruso-iraní serán abordados durante la próxima visita del presidente ruso, Vladimir Putin, a Teherán, que tendrá lugar dentro de unas semanas.

vendredi, 31 janvier 2014

Turkey and Iran: The Ties That Bind

Turkey and Iran: The Ties That Bind
Turkey and Iran

As Turkey works for harmonization with Iran and Russia, an internal struggle has developed between the PM and the Gulenists that may threaten the process. If the leadership of the AKP is to be believed, it’s part of a foreign conspiracy to remove them.

Regarding the conflict in Syria, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP (Justice and Development Party) government in Ankara might be on the opposite side of the fence from both Tehran and Moscow, but the depth of Turkish ties with Iran and Russia go beyond this.

Turkey is not only tied to both Iran and Russia through geography and centuries of common history, it also shares the bonds of mutual trade, culture, linguistics, and ethnic composition. Although Turkish policies and political relations with Iran and Russia are subject to fluctuation, the many links tying Turkish society to both cannot be undone, including the economic reality of their ties.

Tehran and Moscow are two of Turkey’s most important trading partners and sources of energy. Aside from Germany, in terms of Turkish exports and imports, the combined volume of Turkish trade with both Iran and Russia outflanks, by way of comparison, any bilateral trade relations Ankara has with other countries.

Realizing the importance of Turkish economic ties to Iran, it is important to note that the unilateral US and European Union sanctions set up against Iran have hurt the Turkish economy. The Turks need Iranian energy in the form of natural gas and oil. When the US government asked Ankara to cut back on Iranian energy imports, it basically expected the Turkish government to knowingly handicap the Turkish economy in order to serve Washington’s agenda.

Even under the US-led sanctions regime directed against Iran as a form of economic manipulation and warfare, Turkish businesses and the AKP government have tried their best to maintain their economic and energy ties with Iran. This has been done both openly and covertly. Turkey has even acted as a covert channel for Iran to evade the US and EU sanctions.

Among other things, the corruption scandal involving the head of the state-owned Halk Bankasi (People’s Bank), or Halkbank for short, that emerged on December 17, 2013, is a reflection of the continuation of business and trade between Turkey and Iran. Sales from Iran were silently facilitated by the Turkish bank through the purchasing of gold that was given to Tehran as payment, instead of a currency, after Tehran was blocked from using the SWIFT international money-transfer system in March 2012. Halkbank maintains that the transactions were legal and that no rules prevented trading precious metals with Iran until July 2013 and that it ceased doing so on June 10, 2013.

An internal power struggle has emerged in Turkey. The Halkbank scandal is really a sub-plot and symptom of this. Not only do the recent graft probes reflect widespread government corruption in Turkey, but it puts the spotlight on an inner tussle within the AKP and, more broadly, within the Turkish elite managing the affairs of the Republic of Turkey.

Neo-Ottomanism: Winter in Turkish foreign politics

Since 2011, the economic damage on Turkey caused by the sanctions regime against Iran has been aggravated through an aggregate of Turkish miscalculations and domestic incidents. In large part, these miscalculations are the result of the metamorphosis of Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s business-friendly ‘zero problems’ foreign policy into the much more aggressive ‘neo-Ottoman’ foreign policy.

Senior Turkish politicians believed that the so-called Arab Spring would elevate Ankara as an indisputable regional powerhouse from the borders of Morocco to Iraq. These Turkish views were also encouraged by the US and from inside the EU, with the promotion of the so-called ‘Turkish model’ for the Arabs, which buoyed the AKP government to diverge from its ‘zero problems’ policy in pursuit of neo-Ottoman dreams of unchallenged Turkish economic and political supremacy in the Arab World.

Through its neo-Ottoman enterprise, Ankara walked away from the Ankara-Damascus-Tehran axis that appeared to be forming and all the advances it had made with Libya, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. A winter of sorts had arrived for Ankara in the field of foreign affairs. Turkish relations eventually soured, with almost all the countries on its borders and a chilling of relations began to emerge with Tehran and the Kremlin.

Neo-Ottoman foreign policy was initiated through the Turkish government’s support for the NATO war and regime change operations in Tripoli that ultimately disrupted Turkish trade with the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Although the Turkish government pretended it was against the war, Ankara did not veto any of NATO’s war plans at the North Atlantic Council in Brussels. Instead Turkey supported the NATO-imposed no-fly zone, actively took part in the naval embargo around the Libyan coast, manned the airport in Benghazi as the NATO provisional authority there, and facilitated the Libyan anti-government forces in multiple ways.

As a result of the Turkish government’s own actions, the intensity of Turkish business ties and trade with Libya has not recovered since the NATO war in 2011 due to the damage and instability inflected on the Libyan economy.

Gulf of Izmir, formerly known as the Gulf of Smyrna, on the Aegean Sea in the Turkish city of Izmir (AFP Photo)
 
Gulf of Izmir, formerly known as the Gulf of Smyrna, on the Aegean Sea in the Turkish city of Izmir (AFP Photo)

The events in Libya were followed by the eventual suspension of Turkish trade with Syria, another important Turkish trading partner. The discontinuation of legal trade with Syria resulted as a consequence of Erdogan’s reckless support for regime change in Damascus.

All the while, Turkey’s relations with Iraq, another major Turkish trading partner, were degenerating due to the arrogance and hubris of Erdogan and the AKP. Ankara believed that Iranian influence in the Levant and Mesopotamia would be replaced with Turkish influence and kept pushing for its affiliates to supplant the governments in Damascus and Baghdad.

Even when the AKP government saw that a formidable Eurasian alliance formed by Russia, Iran and China would not let Damascus collapse to the anti-government insurgency supported by Turkey and its NATO and GCC allies, Erdogan opted to stay the course against Damascus instead of trying to reverse Ankara’s disastrous Syria policy.

Aside from the economic damage the AKP was inflicting on Turkey, the instability that Ankara was helping support in Syria through the training, arming, and financing of insurgents in Syria began to have political and security consequences on Turkish soil too.

As the Turkish economy began to hurt, domestic political tensions began to build, the disparity caused by the AKP’s neoliberal economic policies began to hurt more, and the AKP began to act more authoritarian so as to protect its authority.

To an extent, the Gezi Park protests that spread from Istanbul across Turkey in 2013 are a reflection of the ignition of these domestic tensions.

This article was originally published by Russia Today on January 20, 2014.


A worker walks past the pumping station on the border between Iran and Turkey (Reuters)

A worker walks past the pumping station on the border between Iran and Turkey (Reuters)

 

 

Articles by: Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

About the author:

An award-winning author and geopolitical analyst, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is the author of The Globalization of NATO (Clarity Press) and a forthcoming book The War on Libya and the Re-Colonization of Africa. He has also contributed to several other books ranging from cultural critique to international relations. He is a Sociologist and Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), a contributor at the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF), Moscow, and a member of the Scientific Committee of Geopolitica, Italy.

 

Related content:

 

mercredi, 29 janvier 2014

Visita próxima de Putin a Irán causa insomnio a EEUU

Al parecer, Moscú está a punto de terminar los preparativos para la visita del presidente ruso Vladímir Putin a Irán. En cualquier caso, según fuentes bien informadas rusas e iraníes, el viaje se realizará próximamente. Lo más probable es que tenga lugar una vez terminados los JJOO de invierno en Sochi, que se disputarán del 7 al 23 de febrero.

El “vector iraní” de la política rusa inquieta cada vez más a EEUU. Es evidente que Washington no desea que Rusia restablezca plenamente las relaciones económicas con Teherán y entre en competencia con las compañías norteamericanas. Irán comenzó, a partir del 20 de enero, a cumplir los acuerdos sobre la restricción de su programa nuclear. Y la Unión Europea y EEUU atenuaron, parcialmente, el régimen de sanciones contra Teherán.

En la víspera del comienzo de la Conferencia de Ginebra sobre Siria llegó a Moscú el titular de Exteriores de Irán, Javad Zarif, quien se reunió con su colega ruso Serguéi Lavrov y luego con el presidente Vladímir Putin.

Entonces debatieron no solo la solución siria, sino también los preparativos de la visita del dirigente ruso a Teherán. “Confiamos en verlo a Usted próximamente en Irán, expresó Zarif a Putin. En diciembre de 2013, en Teherán estuvo de visita el canciller Serguéi Lavrov.

Ya en el pasado, Rusia se “chamuscó” con las artimañas de Occidente que lo convenció a que apoyara las sanciones, ventajosas para la UE y EEUU, contra algunos países de la región. Así fue, por ejemplo, con Libia. Ahora, a todas luces, Moscú se propone actuar de forma preventiva, e intensificar el comercio con Irán mucho antes de que sean levantadas las sanciones occidentales.

En enero trascendió que Rusia está dispuesta a comenzar a comprar a Irán hasta quinientos mil barriles de petróleo al día. Es muy probable que se planee la firma de tal acuerdo durante la próxima visita. Los diplomáticos rusos, en respuesta a los reproches de parte de EEUU han señalado ya más de una vez que Moscú solo reconoce las sanciones del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU contra Irán. Mientras que las sanciones unilaterales de EEUU por las compras de petróleo y las transacciones financieras con Irán no las considera vinculantes jurídicamente. Hace cerca de treinta y cuatro años que EEUU no tiene relaciones con Irán, desde el tiempo que fue ocupada su embajada en Teherán, en noviembre de 1979.

Moscú, como vecino y por el aporte hecho en la solución del “problema nuclear iraní”, tiene todas las razones para actuar con respecto a Irán sin fijarse en quien sea y de conformidad plena con sus intereses nacionales, señala Vladímir Nóvikov, analista del Instituto ruso de investigaciones estratégicas:

—En primer lugar, la mayor parte deltrabajo pesado del expediente nuclear iraní lo hizo Rusia. Además, en toda la última década de búsqueda de una solución, Rusia ha desempeñado el papel de mediador y “tranquilizador” principal para una y otra parte, léase Occidente e Irán. Porque nosotros no estamos interesados en el agravamiento de la situación junto a nuestras fronteras meridionales, no lejos del Cáucaso. Entendemos el papel de Irán en la región del Cáucaso y en Asia Central, en la región del Oriente Próximo. Las relaciones de buena vecindad con Irán son para nosotros de suma importancia.

La transacción petrolera prevista entre Moscú y Teherán ha originado una reacción no del todo adecuada de EEUU. El secretario del Tesoro, Jack Lew, sin nombrar a Moscú amenazó con medidas punitivas de su país contra toda compañía que intente obviar el embargo norteamericano contra Irán:

—Para las compañías líderes del mundo sería un error garrafal sobrevalorar el grado de apertura de Irán para los negocios. El plan unificado de medidas (del Sexteto de mediadores e Irán) prevé la atenuación de sanciones bien determinadas y limitadas. Toda la arquitectura de las sanciones petroleras y financieras se mantiene invariable. Toda compañía que sobrepase la raya y emprenda acciones que violen esas sanciones puede ser víctima de medidas punitivas y nosotros nos proponemos velar atentamente por el cumplimiento del régimen de las sanciones.

Pero, en Moscú están seguros de que si Rusia va a esperar, mientras EEUU y la UE levantan las sanciones iraníes, los socios occidentales alcanzarán a repartirse el mercado iraní. Teherán necesita finanzas, bienes y tecnologías. Y Moscú tiene justamente el dinero y las posibilidades de saciar el hambre tecnológica y de bienes de su vecino.

Toda la marcha de la Cumbre Económica de Davos revela que los cálculos de Rusia fueron acertados. Pues en la cita de Davos, que continúa ahora en Suiza, la exposición del presidente iraní Hasán Rouhaní fue seguida en una sala colmada de delegados de los grandes negocios de Europa y de EEUU. El mandatario iraní señaló que, con la atenuación de las sanciones, Teherán estaba dispuesto a entablar relaciones de cooperación con países occidentales. La agencia alemana DPA expresó que los empresarios europeos “habían empezado ya a sobarse las manos”, ilusionados con la apertura del mercado iraní.

Rouhaní se reunió incluso en Suiza no con políticos sino con jefes de corporaciones mundiales líderes del sector energético. Y los invitó a regresar a Irán e invertir capitales en su país. Poco menos que hicieron fila los titulares de la ENI, de Italia, de TOTAL, de Francia, y de la BP y Shell de Gran Bretaña.

El componente económico del levantamiento de las sanciones no es menos importante para Europa que para Irán. Según los cálculos más modestos de la cartera de Hacienda de EEUU, la “reapertura” de Irán abre un mercado para bienes y servicios, como mínimo, de sesenta a setenta mil millones de dólares, lo que significa a su vez decenas de miles de nuevas vacantes.

Alemania solamente, el socio comercial principal de Irán antes de las sanciones, confía en lograr en dos años, con su atenuación, elevar las exportaciones a Irán a los diez mil millones de euros, como el volumen de antes de las sanciones. Alemania exporta ya ahora a Irán mercancías no prohibidas por las sanciones. Pero, debido a que los bancos europeos no realizan operaciones con Teherán, por culpa de las sanciones, todo el comercio se lleva a cabo en dinero contante y sonante. Y con tales cuentas, los volúmenes del comercio no pueden superar un nivel determinado.

Incluso compañías estadounidenses, antes de los acuerdos de Ginebra, habían comenzado ya a enviar emisarios a Irán para sondear dónde era posible desplazar a los competidores europeos. Las compañías de EEUU se aprestan a exportar a Irán automóviles, equipos para la industria extractora de gas y petróleo, maquinarias, equipos para la construcción, artículos químicos y otros.

mardi, 28 janvier 2014

France – Arabie saoudite: liaison dangereuse

Arabie-Saoudite-roi-Abdallah.jpg

Aymeric Chauprade
 
inv

France – Arabie saoudite: liaison dangereuse

Ex: http://www.toutsaufsarkozy.com

inv

Au moment où les États-Unis et la Russie démontrent qu’une sortie de crise pacifique est possible à propos de l’Iran, Paris choisit de s’aligner sur les positions bellicistes de l’Arabie saoudite face à la Syrie et l’Iran.


Comment expliquer que la France qui, du général de Gaulle jusqu’à Jacques Chirac, avait maintenu séculairement notre tradition d’équilibre en politique étrangère, puisse aujourd’hui autant s’en écarter ?


L’Arabie saoudite est certes le premier producteur et exportateur de pétrole mais elle est, avant tout, le cœur « nucléaire » d’un islam rigoriste, conquérant et même terroriste. Longtemps allié des États-Unis aux côtés d’Israël pour détruire les régimes arabes modernisateurs, le royaume wahhabite est, partout dans le monde, la source première de la radicalisation de l’islam. Tant que l’État profond saoudien et ses services secrets séviront, aucun islam apaisé ne pourra l’emporter dans le monde musulman, aucune tradition locale ne pourra tempérer le Coran et aucune paix véritable ne sera possible entre le monde islamique et les autres civilisations. L’État saoudien est responsable de l’implosion syrienne et des 130 000 morts qui en résultent, des décapitations de chrétiens par les hordes salafistes, comme il est sans doute derrière l’attentat de Volgograd en Russie.


Est-ce donc avec ce pays qui coupe des mains d’enfants, réprime physiquement les homosexuels et réduit les femmes et les travailleurs immigrés à l’esclavage, que le « pays des droits de l’homme » entend refonder sa politique arabe au Moyen-Orient? J’ai toujours défendu la realpolitik et je ne ne suis pas un partisan de l’idéalisme en politique étrangère, mais il y a des limites au cynisme et au « court-termisme ». Or, avec l’Arabie saoudite, nous, Français, entrons en contradiction avec ce que nous sommes !


Nous avons, au minimum, 6 millions de musulmans qui vivent sur le territoire français, dont l’immense majorité est sunnite. Voulons-nous que l’enchevêtrement économique de la France et de l’Arabie saoudite favorise la radicalisation des Français musulmans ? On ne peut pas faire la guerre contre le fondamentalisme islamique, soutenu par l’Arabie saoudite et le Qatar, au Mali et jusqu’en Centrafrique, et prétendre, en même temps, faire de Riyad notre meilleur allié au Moyen-Orient. Notre politique étrangère ne peut s’asseoir sur ce paradoxe intenable alors que bien d’autres choix sont possibles, à commencer par un retour en Iran, un pays bien plus prometteur sur le plan économique et humain.


L’Iran a autant de pétrole (2e réserve mondiale) et bien plus de gaz (2e réserve mondiale) que l’Arabie saoudite ; c’est surtout un État multimillénaire solide qui se réformera quand l’Arabie saoudite, wahhabite dans ses fondements, ne pourra le faire. Avec la Russie, l’Iran est sans doute l’allié stratégique et énergétique naturel de l’Europe, sur le continent eurasiatique où la Chine de demain pèsera lourd.


Les États-Unis sont en train de se dégager en douceur de l’alliance avec l’Arabie saoudite et ce n’est pas un hasard si, au même moment, des voix (Congrès, justice) s’élèvent à Washington pour réexaminer les liens troubles entre Al-Qaïda et l’Arabie saoudite à propos du 11 septembre. Il n’est pas impossible que les Américains « gardent au chaud » quelques révélations qui pourraient s’avérer bien embarrassantes pour la France lorsque celle-ci se sera enfoncée plus profondément et imprudemment encore dans l’alliance saoudienne…

dimanche, 26 janvier 2014

Hoe een aanslag in Sochi het Midden Oosten in brand kan steken

sochi_2014_mountains.jpg

Hoe een aanslag in Sochi het Midden Oosten in brand kan steken

Ex: http://xandernieuws.punt.nl

'Aanslag' bij het Olympisch Stadion in Sochi. Bedenk dat er tijdens de O.S. in Londen en het WK-Vrouwenvoetbal in Berlijn vergelijkbare plaatjes verschenen. Toen gebeurde er gelukkig niets.

Achter de berichten in de reguliere media over mogelijke aanslagen door islamitische terroristen op de Olympische Winterspelen in het Russische Sochi gaat een veel groter en belangrijker geopolitiek steekspel schuil, waarbij de kans dat dit plotseling uitmondt in een nieuwe, massale oorlog in het Midden Oosten veel groter is dan door de meeste mensen wordt gedacht.

'Echte' of 'false-flag' aanslag

Diverse inlichtingendiensten houden serieus rekening mee met een aanslag op de Olympische Winterspelen in Sochi. Dit zou zowel een 'echte' aanslag als een 'false-flag' aanslag kunnen zijn, waarbij het bewust de andere kant op kijken door de autoriteiten en daardoor terroristen vrij baan geven, ook als 'false-flag' kan worden aangemerkt.

Een aanslag tijdens Sochi hoeft niet eens van het kaliber '9/11' te zijn om te worden opgevat als een aanslag op de hele wereld, en niet enkel op Rusland. De gevolgen van zo'n aanslag zouden daarom minstens zo verstrekkend kunnen zijn als na 9/11, en in het slechtste geval zelfs kunnen uitlopen op een nieuwe Wereldoorlog.

De Russische president Vladimir Putin, die na de recente aanslagen in Volgograd woedend zwoer het islamitische terrorisme in zijn land totaal te vernietigen, zal een aanslag in Sochi kunnen aangrijpen om daar de onverkorte steun van het Russische volk voor te krijgen, en waarschijnlijk ook van veel andere landen.

Saudiërs dreigen impliciet met aanslagen

In de aanloop naar de Winterspelen gebeurde er iets heel belangrijks. Prins Bandar bin Sultan, de minister van Inlichtingen van Saudi Arabië, bezocht in augustus vorig jaar Putin, en gaf hem de boodschap dat zijn land weliswaar geen terreuraanvallen op Sochi zal steunen, maar dat de Saudi's wel in staat zijn om onder bepaalde voorwaarden de plannen van terroristen te stoppen.

Dit was niets anders dan indirecte chantage. De Saudi's zijn namelijk mordicus tegen de Russische steun voor de Syrische president Bashar Assad, en hoopten met het impliciete dreigement eventuele geplande terreuraanslagen op Sochi niet te zullen stoppen, Putin zover te krijgen zijn politieke en militaire steun voor Assad op te geven.

Aan de ene kant zal Putin bepaald niet blij zijn geweest met het Saudische dreigement. Aan de andere kant biedt het hem een uitstekende gelegenheid en een perfect alibi om een eventuele aanslag tijdens Sochi ten volle uit te buiten, om zo de strategische positie van Rusland in het Midden Oosten fors te versterken.

Arabische Lente door Westen gepland

Zoals we al vaak hebben schreven is Syrië van groot strategisch belang voor Rusland. Het Westen probeert onder leiding van president Obama het regime Assad ten val te brengen, zodat er net als destijds in Egypte een Moslim-Broederschapregering kan worden opgezet. De wereld heeft tegelijkertijd kunnen zien hoe de doelbewust door het Witte Huis veroorzaakte Arabische Lente diverse moslimlanden in chaos heeft gestort, iets dat Putin in Syrië ten koste van alles wil voorkomen, omdat hij dan een belangrijke bondgenoot kwijtraakt.

Dat de Arabische Lente geen spontane volksopstand was, maar ruim van tevoren door het Westen was gepland, bleek onder andere uit een gelekte email van 1300 woorden, die op 8 juni 2008 door de voormalige Britse ambassadeur in Libië aan premier Tony Blair werd verzonden. Hierin werd reeds het later uitgevoerde plan besproken om de Libische leider Muammar Gadaffi af te zetten, en te vervangen door een islamistisch marionettenregime.

Na het verwijderen en laten vermoorden van Gadaffi werd het Amerikaanse consulaat in Benghazi gebruikt als CIA-basis voor het doorsluizen van grote hoeveelheden wapens naar de Syrische rebellen. Dat was de reden dat de regering Obama weigerde toe te geven dat de aanval op het consulaat op 9/11/13, waarbij onder andere de Amerikaanse ambassadeur om het leven kwam, een terreuraanslag was, die hoogstwaarschijnlijk door de Russen werd gesteund.

Net geen Derde Wereldoorlog in september 2013

Wat eveneens niet in het nieuws kwam, was dat de wereld in september 2013 slechts op een haartje na aan de Derde Wereldoorlog is ontsnapt. Destijds hebben we uitgebreid bericht over de toen zeker lijkende Amerikaanse aanval op Syrië, en ook over de grote Russische vloot die naar het oosten van de Middellandse Zee werd gestuurd. Later bleek uit betrouwbare bronnen dat Putin zijn vloot tussen de Amerikaanse vloot en Syrië posteerde, en letterlijk dreigde alles wat op Syrië zou afvliegen neer te schieten. Hierop besloot Obama om de Amerikaanse vloot terug te trekken en de aanval af te blazen.

Daarnaast speelt ook de invloedrijke terreurgroep ISIS (Al-Qaeda op het Arabische Schiereiland) een steeds grotere rol. Putin weet dat ISIS door het Westen wordt gesteund, en nieuwe aanvallen op het regime van Assad voorbereidt. De VS laat dit doelbewust gebeuren en heeft bij monde van minister John Kerry aangekondigd niet militair te zullen optreden tegen ISIS.

Russisch ingrijpen in Midden Oosten?

Het Saudische dreigement aan het adres van Moskou kan daarom voor Putin een uitgelezen, misschien zelfs wel onweerstaanbare mogelijkheid zijn om in het geval van een aanslag de Saudiërs, en daardoor ook het Westen en specifiek Obama, de schuld te geven. Obama zal in de ogen van de wereld opnieuw zwak en besluiteloos overkomen, niet bereid om daadwerkelijk op te treden tegen islamitische terroristen.

Putin is een erkende meester in het inspelen op en uitbuiten van geopolitieke veranderingen, en zal bij een aanslag -'echt' of 'false-flag'- dan ook geen enkele moeite hebben zich te presenteren als de enige sterke wereldleider die bereid en in staat is het kwaadaardige islamisme te bestrijden. Het strategische overwicht dat Rusland door ingrijpen in het Midden Oosten zou kunnen bereiken, zou wel eens te aanlokkelijk kunnen zijn voor Putin om aan zich voorbij te laten gaan.

Hoe dat ingrijpen eruit zal zien, is giswerk. Komt er een Russische interventie in Syrië? Een aanval (al dan niet met of via Iran) op Saudi Arabië en/of Israël? Bij een eventuele escalatie in Syrië kan namelijk ook Israël betrokken raken, dat zoals bekend stilzwijgend met Saudi Arabië samenwerkt. Beide landen hebben namelijk het eveneens door Rusland gesteunde Iran, tevens bondgenoot van Assad, als aartsvijand.

Schaakspel Oost - West

Terrorisme is niets anders dan een tactiek die door alle belangrijke wereldspelers wordt aangewend, of dat nu door directe steun met wapens is, of indirect door terreurgroepen ongehinderd hun gang te laten gaan. Achter een eventuele aanslag in Sochi zal dan ook veel meer dan enkel een groepje islamistische fanatici zitten. Zij zullen slechts pionnen zijn in het geopolitieke schaakspel, dat Oost en West ook na de val van de communisme tegen elkaar zijn blijven spelen.

2014 buitengewoon kritiek

Een schaakspel, dat steeds gevaarlijker wordt. Mede gezien de spanningen in en rond Syrië, Iran, Libanon (Hezbollah), Egypte en Israël / de Palestijnen heeft het er namelijk veel van weg dat we in 2014 een buitengewoon kritieke fase ingaan. De kaarten in het Midden Oosten zullen mogelijk al binnenkort opnieuw worden geschud. Daarbij zal er niet veel voor nodig zijn om de huidige, toch al zeer ontvlambare situatie te laten exploderen in een grote regionale oorlog, die misschien wel een op een nieuwe Wereldoorlog kan uitlopen.

Xander

(1) Northeast Intelligence Network

Zie ook o.a.:

19-01: 'Putin dreigt met kernbom op Mekka'
18-01: Atlantische Raad:
Buitengewone crisis nodig om Nieuwe Wereld Orde te redden

12-01: Cauldron (1): Midden Oosten op rand van profetische explosie

2013:
26-11: Zwakke Obama brengt Derde Wereldoorlog dichterbij
14-09: Inlichtingen-insider: Mogelijk alsnog oorlog tegen Syrië door enorme false-flag aanslag
06-09: VS, Rusland en China bereid tot oorlog over Syrië om controle over gas en olie
06-09: Senator Graham waarschuwt voor aanslag met kernbom
31-08: 'Binnenkort mega false-flag om publiek van oorlog te overtuigen'
27-08: Inlichtingen insider: Derde Wereldoorlog begint in Syrië
21-06: DHS-insider (vervolg): Deze herfst chaos in VS en oorlog met Syrië
11-06: DHS-insider: Obama start totalitaire internetcensuur en wereldoorlog

jeudi, 23 janvier 2014

Naar nieuwe coalities in het Midden-Oosten?

SYRI_I~1.JPG

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

dimanche, 19 janvier 2014

Western and Gulf barbarity

anti-government-armed-rebels-in-syria.jpg

Western and Gulf barbarity: Iraq and Lebanon can go to Hell providing Syria falls

Jibril Khoury and Walter Sebastian

Modern Tokyo Times - http://moderntokyotimes.com

The political leaders of America, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Kingdom should be held accountable for helping to spread terrorism, Salafi indoctrination and boosting the cause of Takfiri Islamist who rejoice in killing fellow Muslims and non-Muslims. It is also abundantly clear that in order to destroy Syria that major Gulf and Western powers care little about destabilizing Iraq and Lebanon because violence and tensions are on the rise in both nations. Of course, you have other players like Jordan implementing anti-Syrian policies alongside Kuwait and other Gulf states which are involved in the venture to crush the Syrian government. Likewise, Libya is a go-between in the Levant for sending military hardware and untold numbers of terrorists have entered Syria from this country and other regional nations like Tunisia in North Africa.

Lee Jay Walker at Modern Tokyo Times says: “Ironically, the Obama administration believes that it is fine to enter talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan via the terrorist sponsoring nation of Qatar. Therefore, the Obama administration which supports homosexual and female rights in America now wants open dialogue with the Taliban which supports killing apostates to Christianity, killing homosexuals, stoning women to death for adultery – and so forth. This isn’t so surprising because the Taliban is the real mirror of Saudi Arabia but of course Gulf nations are much more dangerous because they export Salafi hatred all over the world based on their petrodollars. However, it is strange that open talks with the secular government of Syria is shunned by America but being allies with Islamist apartheid forces in Saudi Arabia and talking to “year zero Islamists” in Afghanistan is fine.”

Turning back to the crisis in Syria then it is clear that outside nations care little about the consequences engulfing Iraq and Lebanon. After all, by funneling more military arms to various groups of terrorists within the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA) and other al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist groups; then clearly the consequences of this were bound to reverberate into Iraq and Lebanon. Despite this, and with the deaths of thousands of American, British and other allied troops in Iraq, it now seems that these troops were mere fodder. This is based on the reality that al-Qaeda affiliated groups have not only gone back into areas they were forced out of in Iraq but now they are also stretching their dangerous tentacles to Lebanon and Syria.

Indeed, under the current Obama administration and the governments of France and the United Kingdom, a whole array of terrorist groups have more space to move because of the collective policies of the above troika of destabilizing powers. Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups are now moving easily from Iraq to the Levant and have greater freedom in many parts of North Africa and West Africa. At the same time, Salafi Islam is spreading because of nations like Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia therefore Sufi shrines are being destroyed by Islamists which hate religious diversity in Libya, Mali and Somalia. Alongside this you have state sponsored indoctrination being spread to the Middle East and parts of Africa – and much further afield – whereby Christians can be hunted down like wild animals in Somalia by the al-Shabaab because of Gulf petrodollars and religious channels emanating from the Gulf region. In this sense, America and the United Kingdom are openly siding with the Islamist Salafi objectives of major Gulf powers. Not surprisingly, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda are keeping a watchful eye on events.

All major regional powers and Western nations understand that Iraq and Lebanon are very fragile therefore events in Syria will spiral out of control. Yet this reality doesn’t enter the agenda at the moment because the only goal is to destroy Syria at all costs providing the government is overthrown. The elites in the Gulf and West care little about the reality of what happened to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya because they are not blind to reality. Therefore, their collective actions against Syria are not only barbaric against this nation but they are also notifying Iraq and Lebanon that they can go to hell.

Currently Lebanon isn’t anywhere near like Iraq and Syria but the omens are not looking good because dangerous Takfiri forces backed by outside nations are intent on spreading sectarianism in this country. Recent history in this nation points to a very delicate balance because you have many different religious sects. It is therefore extremely barbaric that outside nations are flooding Syria with terrorists, mercenaries, military weapons and are enabling Salafists to spread sectarianism. Not surprisingly, the monthly death rate is once more in the thousands in Iraq because al-Qaeda affiliated groups, military weapons and enormous indoctrination is mirroring what is happening in Syria. This collective chaos is being backed by Ankara, Doha, London, Paris, Riyadh and Washington – and others within the Gulf.

Hatred towards the Shia within the Takfiri and other Sunni Islamist camps is extremely hostile.  Abu Muhammad al Adnani in early 2012 (Al Qaeda in Iraq) stated “So, Iraq, Iraq, O people of the Sunnah. Stop the black extension that is coming towards you. Cut off the head of the [Shi'ite] snake, the tail of which is amongst you. Know that the coming stage is a stage of real confrontation and war against the despicable [Shi'ites], whether you like it or not, and that the war of the Sunnis with the [Shi'ites] is not a sectarian war, like people are braying about. A sect is part of something, and the [Shi'ites] don’t have anything to do with Islam; they have their own religion and we have our own. The war of the Sunnis with the [Shi'ites] is a religious war, a holy war of faith, a war of faith and unbelief, a war of idolatry and monotheism. There is no way out of it and there is no swerving from it. The [Shi'ites] know this well.”

The above mindset is being openly supported by leading Gulf powers and the CIA, MI6 and other covert agencies are linking many terrorist ratlines in order to send military arms to religious fanatics and terrorists in Syria. Libya is a powerful nation for manipulation because central forces have been destroyed and the NATO, mercenary and terrorist chain is strong. Meanwhile, Turkey is a major conduit whereby weapons from a host of nations are openly manipulating the border area and likewise Lebanon is of strategic importance for nations supporting terrorism, sectarianism and sedition.

Iraqi nationals must be wondering what they did because minorities like the Christians and Mandaeans have been cleansed in many areas under the watch of America, the United Kingdom and other allied forces; untold numbers of Muslims have been killed because of terrorism and sectarianism; and other powerful brutal realities. Now, once more, Iraq is being undermined by the policies of Ankara, Doha, London, Paris, Riyadh and Washington – and other Gulf nations. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the lives of Iraqi and Syrian nationals are cheap to the above ruling elites in their respective nations. Given this reality, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria fear the worse because Takfiri Islamists – combined with Western intrigues and the support of international terrorism – is without doubt the most dangerous unified force for any nation and region to face.

Over forty years ago major Gulf powers, Western nations and Pakistan supported the same Islamist thought patterns many decades ago in Afghanistan. The legacy of this reality is still causing mayhem in Afghanistan today while Pakistan managed to destabilize itself. Women are now in the shadows, terrorism is rampant in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Shia are slaughtered in Pakistan on a regular basis, non-Muslims have no rights in Afghanistan and apostates face persecution – and religious bigotry is part and parcel of modern day Pakistan. In other words, it is a nightmare because Sunni Islamist terrorist groups in Pakistan kill Shia Muslims in mosques, kill girls for studying, attack hospitals and even kill people during funeral processions.

The above madness in Afghanistan and Pakistan was created by the combined forces of major Western and Gulf powers alongside Pakistan playing a very dangerous game. Secret services including the CIA, MI6 and the ISI therefore spread untold mayhem and of course this also laid the foundations for September 11. Therefore, major powers understand what they are doing in Syria and they know the repercussions of Afghanistan; this reality means that Iraq and Lebanon can go to hell providing they remove the Syrian government. Sadly, the same barbaric nations escape international criminal courts because they play by the rules they created.

Lee Jay Walker gave guidance to both main writers

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Complicated situation around Iran and the KSA

 

Complicated situation around Iran and the KSA

The situation around Iran continues to be quite difficult, despite significant progress in the normalization of relations between the West and Iran and the achievement of an interim agreement on the Iranian nuclear program in Geneva on November 24 at a working meeting of the “six” international negotiators and a Tehran delegation. President Rouhani failed to gain the immediate trust of the USA and its allies with his major changes to the accents of Iran’s foreign policy, although the process proceeded in the right direction relatively quickly.

The fact is that much of the negative role, being played in Washington, comes from the Republicans and other conservative forces sitting in the US Congress. First, they approved a list of 19 individuals and entities that fell under sanctions for involvement in Iran’s nuclear program, which forced the Iranian delegation to leave the conference room in Geneva on December 13, since the interim agreement of November 24 provides for the non-imposition of any additional sanctions against Tehran. Then, a group of senators prepared a list of new sanctions against Iran in late December, if negotiations on the nuclear issue reached a deadlock. In response, Iranian parliamentarians prepared their list of appropriate measures that could be applied in case the U.S. toughened its position and the negotiations were derailed. Although it is clear that President Obama himself is interested in the successful completion of the Geneva process, since this would contribute to significant freezing of the Iranian nuclear program, the normalization of relations with Tehran, and allow Washington to continue on a course aimed at reformatting its policy in the Middle East, which started in October 2013.

That is when the U.S. Administration finally realized the fatality of placing its stakes on supporting those forces in the Arab world that assisted radical Islam, extremism and even terrorism, by financing and providing military assistance to organizations and groups affiliated with al-Qaeda or currents even more radical in their ideologies. Their goal is to transform the Arab world into a radical Wahhabi Caliphate. Moreover, it was only this example of a bloody war in Syria that made American strategists realize this fact, and they started developing new approaches to their policy in the region. This explains the change of attitude towards Iran, which can become a real counterweight to the aggressive policy of Saudi Arabia, even more so, since the oil dependence of the U.S. economy has been substantially reduced after the “shale revolution”, and the importance of the Wahhabi Kingdom has decreased as well, in terms of the world’s energy supplies.

At the same time, American and European companies are interested in participating in the modernization of the Iranian economy and the development of large oil and gas projects that were frozen because of the sanctions. In addition, Iran is a very large market, given its 70 million people and solvency thanks to vast oil and gas resources of this country. Their development, especially the South Pars Gas Field, will require tens of billions in investments and the latest technologies, including for the creation of facilities for liquefying gas for export. Iran’s power industry, industrial sector, telecommunications, and transport infrastructure have huge investment opportunities. In other words, this is a very tasty area for Western business, which is much more promising than the economies of the GCC countries, where labor resources are limited.

Thus, Saudi Arabia became nervous as it realized that its place as the main strategic ally of the USA in the Persian Gulf might soon be taken over by Iran. The more so, knowing that Tehran played this role in the 1970s under the Shah’s regime. Moreover, if one considers Iran’s powerful armed forces, which will surely be modernized, one can understand what Riyadh is afraid of – a complete change in the regional balance of forces, where Saudi Arabia will fall into the shadows of Iran and Iraq.

Nevertheless, instead of making steps towards Tehran, the stubborn and conservative aging leaders of the KSA started, simply saying, to “play dirty tricks” through the development of an entire network of anti-Iran intrigues. At first, the Saudis tried to push Israel into joint strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Then, when this idea had failed, Riyadh decided to put together an anti-Iran military bloc by transforming the GCC from an economic and political union of Arabian monarchies into a military alliance. At the last summit of the organization in December in Kuwait, the Saudis put forward a proposal to create a sort of a “Gulf” NATO to deter Iran. Although, as it is well known, Iran never attacked its neighbors during its modern history after the Khomeini Revolution, but only fought to repel the aggression of Iraq, started in 1980 at the instigation of Saudi Arabia, the GCC countries and the United States.

So far other members of the Council – with the exception of Bahrain, whose royal regime entirely depends on Saudi bayonets (Saudi troops were brought to the island in February 2011 to suppress actions of the Shiite majority population) – are reacting coolly to all this. Only a kind of military command was established, but there are no common armed forces. Moreover, small Arab principalities of the Gulf will hardly wish to worsen their relations with Iran, at the time when this country is coming out of Western isolation.

Moreover, Riyadh revived talks of a regional missile defense system called “ParsPRO” to repel possible missile and air strikes on the GCC from Iran. Its components, based on the purchase of the “Patriot” systems, would be placed virtually everywhere – from Kuwait to Qatar and the UAE. At that, they planned to spend up to $20 billion for just the first phase. Moreover, this was done despite the fact that in early December, the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif visited four Gulf countries and put forward a number of interesting initiatives to strengthen stability and security in the Gulf, which received positive feedback from Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and Oman.

In any case, we can be sure that Tehran can overcome the remaining difficulties in the coming period and make a leap forward, despite the machinations of Saudi Arabia and the pressure of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington. Russia understands this, and is getting ready to expand its cooperation with Iran – a country that is a friend of the Russian Federation. It is no mere chance that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made an official visit to Tehran in mid-December, and that the capital of Iran hosted a meeting of the Joint Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation.

Viktor Titov, PhD in History, a political observer on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook.

Ruzie met Israël bewijst dat Obama Iran als nieuwe bondgenoot ziet

Ruzie met Israël bewijst dat Obama Iran als nieuwe bondgenoot ziet

Oud brigadier-generaal Chen noemt Kerry's plan voor Palestijnse staat 'absurd' en 'krankzinnig'


Moshe Yaalon en John Kerry. Israëlische leiders worden onmiddellijk terecht gewezen als ze kritiek hebben, maar Iraanse leiders kunnen zeggen wat ze willen, zonder ook maar enige tegenspraak van het Witte Huis.

De ruzie die de afgelopen dagen ontstond tussen de VS en Israël, nadat de Israëlische minister van Defensie Moshe Yaalon zware kritiek had geuit op zowel de Amerikaanse minister van Defensie John Kerry als diens vredesplan, laat eens te meer zien dat president Barack Hussein Obama niet langer de Joodse staat, maar Iran als belangrijkste bondgenoot in het Midden Oosten beschouwt. De Iraanse leiders kunnen immers zonder enige veroordeling van het Witte Huis de VS blijven verketteren, zoals ook deze week weer gebeurde.

'De minister van Defensie verontschuldigt zich als de minister (Kerry) beledigd was door diens woorden,' aldus de verklaring gisterenavond van het kantoor van minister Yaalon. Die had Kerry eerder 'obsessief' en 'messiaans' genoemd, en het vredesplan wat hij heeft gepresenteerd 'het papier waarop het is geschreven niet waard'.

Zowel het Amerikaanse ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken als het Witte Huis reageerden woedend, en eisten een excuus, dat er na enkele uren ook kwam. Dat gebeurde echter pas nadat premier Netanyahu twee uur lang met minister Yaalon had gepraat. Tenslotte zag die geen andere uitweg dan zich te verontschuldigen.

Netanyahu vergeleek toenadering tot Iran rechtstreeks met Hitler

Eigenlijk was de ruzie al eerder begonnen, namelijk tijdens de begrafenis van de afgelopen weekend overleden oud-premier Ariel Sharon. In het bijzijn van vicepresident Joe Biden citeerde Netanyahu Sharons belofte dat hij nooit meer zou toestaan dat Israël en de Joden moeten betalen voor de fout van het Westen, dat in 1938 toenadering zocht tot Adolf Hitler, die ondertussen druk bezig was met de voorbereidingen voor de Holocaust tegen het Joodse volk.

De regering Obama beschouwde dit als een steek onder water naar de toenadering tot Iran, en het accepteren van de nucleaire aspiraties van dit land. In die zin was Netanyahu's kritiek zelfs directer als die van Yaalon.

De ontstane ruzie onderstreept dat Obama Israël geleidelijk aan heeft afgewaardeerd als belangrijke bondgenoot in het Midden Oosten, en de Joodse staat aan het inruilen is voor de islamitische republiek Iran. Dat blijkt overduidelijk uit het feit dat de leiders en andere officials in Teheran de VS in nog veel hardere bewoordingen kunnen blijven verketteren, zonder dat er ook maar één woord van kritiek uit Washington op komt.

Geen reactie op beledigingen en beschuldigingen door Rouhani

In september 2013 zette de Iraanse president Rouhani Obama publiekelijk op zijn nummer, door een uitnodiging voor een persoonlijk gesprek af te wijzen. Sindsdien gaat Rouhani op de Iraanse TV regelmatig tekeer tegen het Witte Huis, beschuldigt hij Obama van misleiding, en beweert hij dat Amerika en het Westen hebben gebogen voor de wil van Iran.

Deze week nog sprak viceminister van Buitenlandse Zaken Abbas Araghchi het Witte Huis rechtstreeks tegen, door te zeggen dat Obama niet de waarheid had gesproken toen hij zei dat Iran erin had toegestemd om delen van zijn uraniumverrijking te ontmantelen.

Iran mag zeggen wat het wil, Israël niet

Het Witte Huis reageerde hier enkel op door te zeggen dat het 'niet uitmaakt wat de Iraniërs zeggen, maar wat ze doen.' Die regel geldt duidelijk niet voor Israëlische leiders en officials. Zij worden bij veel minder hevig kritiek op Obama en zijn regering onmiddellijk keihard terecht gewezen. Een woordvoerder van het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken zei dat 'Kerry en zijn team dag en nacht werken om een veilige vrede voor Israël te waarborgen.'

Dat Kerry en zijn team hard werken is niet iets wat in Israël wordt betwijfeld. Wat men in de Joodse staat niet kan accepteren, is dat Amerika wil bepalen wat voor Israël 'veilig' is, en hoe het zich moet opstellen tegenover een nucleair Iran en de Palestijnen. De mening van Israël zelf doet daarbij nauwelijks ter zake.

Yaalon nam inhoud kritiek niet terug

Yaalon luchtte hier zijn hart over door te zeggen dat 'Kerry mij niets hoeft te vertellen over de Palestijnen. Ik leef en adem het conflict met de Palestijnen. Ik weet wat ze denken, wat ze willen en wat ze echt bedoelen. Het Amerikaanse veiligheidsplan dat ons werd voorgelegd is het papier waarop het geschreven werd niet waard.'

Met grote tegenzin moest de minister uiteindelijk zijn excuses aanbieden. Merk echter de terminologie op: '... verontschuldigt zich als de minister (Kerry) beledigd was door diens woorden.' Feitelijk bood Yaalon enkel zijn excuses aan voor het beledigen van Kerry, maar nam hij niets van de inhoud van zijn kritiek terug.

'Absurd spelletje'; Palestijnse staat 'krankzinnig'

Yaalon kreeg vandaag steun van oud brigadier-generaal Amatzia Chen, ooit lid van Sharons legendarische 101e eenheid. 'Yaalon zei duidelijk dingen. Er is hier een absurd spelletje gaande dat op een mislukking zal uitlopen. De media staan bol van politieke standpunten die zelfs niet een klein beetje overeenkomen met de realiteit.'

Chen vond het dan ook een goede zaak dat Yaalon zich heeft uitgesproken. 'Het is namelijk volkomen duidelijk dat wij geen (vredes)partner hebben. Ze proberen een land te fabriceren met een Palestijns volk - dat is een in de geschiedenis nog nooit vertoonde krankzinnigheid.'

Chen wees op de mislukking van Sharons eenzijdige terugtrekking uit Gaza in 2005. Dat leverde niet de door de Palestijnen beloofde vrede op, maar juist nog veel meer terreur. 'Zo zal het ook gaan als we Judea en Samaria evacueren. Dat moeten we zelfs niet eens overwegen.' (2)


Xander

(1) DEBKA
(2) Arutz 7

Zie ook o.a.:

14-01: Ruzie VS-Israël na zware kritiek minister Defensie op Kerry's vredesplan
14-01: VS weigert Israël details over deal Iran, dat onmanteling kernsites ontkent
13-01: Hamas: Israël volgens islamitische profetieën over 8 jaar vernietigd
09-01: Iran negeert alle afspraken Genève, bevestigt streven naar kernwapens (/ Opperleider Khamenei noemt Verenigde Staten 'satanisch')
09-01: Oude islamitische tekst bewijst dat imam Mahdi reeds aanwezig en actief is
07-01: Abbas' Fatahpartij: Vernietiging heel Israël einddoel van vredesverdrag

2013:
20-12: Hoge Palestijnse official: Ja, wij steunden volmondig de Nazi's
18-12: Iran: Genève-akkoord betekenisloos, mogelijk nog 20 jaar onderhandelen
13-12: Geen bezwaar VS en EU tegen Iraanse (kern)raketten die Israël kunnen raken
02-12: Deal met Iran: Vervult Obama islamitische profetie over wegbereider Mahdi?
26-11: 'Obama belooft Iran status als 7e wereldmacht'