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.

dimanche, 30 septembre 2018

Entretien avec Elias Moutran: Le plan Jared Kushner et le national-sionisme pan-arabe


Le plan Jared Kushner et le national-sionisme pan-arabe

Entretien avec Elias Moutran

Analyste et spécialiste de l'histoire politique du Moyen-Orient, Elias Moutran fait le point pour nous sur la situation générale au Moyen-Orient et en Syrie. Il expose ici les grandes lignes du plan Kushner pour la Palestine. Un plan qui prévoit l'établissement d'une série de bantoustans palestiniens en remplacement d'un projet d'Etat palestinien viable voire même du simple droit au retour des populations palestiniennes dans leurs foyers d'origine. Ce plan de redécoupage territorial de grande ampleur s’accompagne aussi de la tentative de faire émerger dans le monde arabe un nationalisme panarabe anti-Iran. Ceci afin de rapprocher les populations arabes des intérêts israéliens et saoudiens dans la région et de les détourner de "l'Axe de la résistance" Russie-Iran-Syrie.
Ce pan-arabisme de substitution sera bien entendu hyper libéral et anti-social, à rebours du nationalisme arabe historique. Dans cette perspective, des théories autour d'un complot "séfévide" voire même d'une alliance persane-orthodoxe contre le sunnisme sont des thématiques largement véhiculées par certains mass-médias de langue arabe parmi les plus suivis dans le monde. Un complotisme autorisé qui diffuse aussi l'idée que l'Iran et la Russie aurait comme projet le "grand remplacement" de la population sunnite de Syrie par de nouvelles populations importées. Autant d'éléments de propagande et de "fake news" qu’Élias Moutran dévoile et déconstruit pour nous.
Elias Moutran nous rappelle aussi comment l'islamisme politique s'est propagé à partir du Caire dans les années 70 lorsque le président égyptien Anouar el-Sadate décida de contrer l'influence du nationalisme arabe au sein de la jeunesse en appuyant l'islamisme dans les universités. C'est aussi à cette période que l'Egypte se rapprochera d'Israël et tournera le dos à son héritage nassérien. Dans la dernière partie de son intervention, Elias Moutran évoque aussi les similitudes qui existent entre la politique de séduction opérée par Benyamin Netanyahou envers les populistes européens et sa politique de rapprochement avec l'Arabie Saoudite qui vise à contrer l'Iran dans la région. Une stratégie d'influence qui se déploie simultanément en direction des opinions publiques européennes et arabes. Entretien réalisé début septembre 2018.
Retrouvez ou contactez les non-alignés pour nous aider ou participer à nos productions : https://www.facebook.com/LesNonAlignes/ contact@les-non-alignes.fr

vendredi, 25 décembre 2015

The Hundred Years’ War


The Hundred Years’ War


Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

When the British armed forces occupied the Middle East at the end of the war, the region was passive.

From chapter 43: “The Troubles Begin: 1919 – 1921”; A Peace to End All Peace, David Fromkin

With this sentence, Fromkin begins his examination of the troubles for western imperialists throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia.  Of course, there were interventions before this time (Britain already had significant presence in Egypt and India, for example), yet – corresponding with the overall theme of Fromkin’s book – his examination centers on the aftermath of the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Fromkin summarizes the situation and conflict in nine different regions (many of which were not “countries” as we understand the term).  He suggests that the British did not see a connection in these difficulties, one region to the other:

In retrospect, one sees Britain undergoing a time of troubles everywhere in the Middle East between 1919 and 1921; but it was not experienced that way, at least not in the beginning.

As I have found repeatedly throughout this book, while history might not repeat, it rhymes so obviously that one could suggest plagiarism.

This is a long post – 3500 words; for those who want the summary, I offer the following: Egypt, Afghanistan, Arabia, Turkey, Syria and Lebanon, Eastern Palestine (Transjordan), Palestine – Arabs and Jews, Mesopotamia (Iraq), Persia (Iran).

Promises made during war, promises broken during the peace; local factions at odds with each other; most factions at odds with the imperialists; intrigue and double-dealing; fear of the Bolshevik menace; costly wars and occupations; the best laid plans of mice….

There you have it – you can skip the details if you like.  Alternatively, just pick up a copy of today’s paper.



…Britain had repeatedly promised Egypt her independence and it was not unreasonable for Egyptian politicians to have believed the pledges…

These were useful promises to make during the war; they became a source of conflict after:

Neither negotiations nor independence were what British officials had in mind at the time.

Britain allowed no delegation from Egypt to go to either London or Paris during 1918. When Egyptian officials protested their exclusion from the Paris peace conferences of 1919, the British deported the lead delegate, Saad Zaghlul, and three of his colleagues to Malta.

A wave of demonstrations and strikes swept the country.  The British authorities were taken by surprise.

Telegraph communications cut, attacks on British military personnel ensued – culminating, on March 18, with the murder of eight of them on a train from Aswan to Cairo.  Christian Copts demonstrated alongside Moslems; theological students alongside students from secular schools; women (only from the upper classes) alongside men. Most unnerving to the British: the peasantry in the countryside, the class upon whom British hopes rested.

Britain returned Zaghlul from Malta, and negotiated throughout the period 1920 – 1922. The process yielded little, and Zaghlul once again was deported.

The principal British fantasy about the Middle East – that it wanted to be governed by Britain, or with her assistance – ran up against a stone wall of reality.  The Sultan and Egypt’s other leaders refused to accept mere autonomy or even nominal independence; they demanded full and complete independence, which Britain – dependent on the Suez Canal – would not grant.

British (continuing with American) domination has been maintained more or less ever since.


The concern was (and presumably remains) containing and surrounding Russia – the Pivot Area of Mackinder’s world island:

The issue was believed by British statesmen to have been resolved satisfactorily in 1907, when Russia agreed that the [Afghan] kingdom should become a British protectorate.

Apparently no one asked the locals: after the Emir of Afghanistan was assassinated on 19 February 1919, his third son – 26-year-old Amanullah Khan – wrote to the Governor-General of India…

…announcing his accession to the “free and independent Government of Afghanistan.”

What came next could be written of more recent times: Afghan attacks through the Khyber Pass, the beginning of the Third Afghan War.  Further:

For the British, the unreliability of their native contingents proved only one of several unsettling discoveries…

…the British Government of India was obliged to increase its budget by an enormous sum of 14,750,000 pounds to cover the cost of the one-month campaign.

…the British forces were inadequate to the task of invading, subduing, and occupying the Afghan kingdom.

What won the day for them was the use of airplanes…it was the bombing of Afghan cities by the Royal Air Force that unnerved Amanullah and led him to ask for peace.

In the ensuing treaty, Afghanistan secured its independence – including control of its foreign policy.  Amanullah made quick use of this authority by entering into a treaty with the Bolsheviks.  Britain attempted to persuade Amanullah to alter the terms of the treaty…

But years of British tutelage had fostered not friendship but resentment.



Of all the Middle Eastern lands, Arabia seemed to be Britain’s most natural preserve.  Its long coastlines could be controlled easily by the Royal Navy.  Two of its principal lords, Hussein in the west and Saud in the center and east, were British protégés supported by regular subsidies from the British government.

No European rival to Britain came close to holding these advantages.

Yet, these two “protégés” were “at daggers drawn” – and Britain was financially supporting both sides in this fight.  A decision by the British government was required, yet none was forthcoming – different factions in the government had different opinions; each side in Arabia had its supporters in London; decisions were made in one department, and cancelled in another.

Ibn Saud was the hereditary champion of Muhammed ibn Abdul Wahhab; in the eighteenth century, Wahhab allied with the house of Saud, reinforced through regular intermarriage between members of the two families.

The Wahhabis (as their opponents called them) were severely puritanical reformers who were seen by their adversaries as fanatics.  It was Ibn Saud’s genius to discern how their energies could be harnessed for political ends.

Beginning in 1912, tribesmen began selling their possessions in order to settle into cooperative agricultural communities and live a strict Wahhabi religious life

The movement became known as the Ikhwan: the Brethren.  Ibn Saud immediately put himself at the head of it, which gave him an army of true Bedouins – the greatest warriors in Arabia.

It was the spread of this “uncompromising puritanical faith into the neighboring Hejaz” that threated Hussein’s authority.  The military conflict came to an end when a Brethren force of 1,100 camel riders – armed with swords, spears, and antique rifles – came upon the sleeping camp of Hussein’s army of 5,000 men – armed with modern British equipment – and destroyed it.

Britain intervened on Hussein’s behalf.  Ibn Saud, ever the diplomat, made a show of deferring to the British and “claimed to be trying his best to restrain the hotheaded Brethren.”  Meanwhile, Saud and his Wahhabi Brethren went on to further victories in Arabia.  Ultimately, Ibn Saud captured the Hejaz and drove Hussein into exile.

Yet the British could do nothing about it.  As in Afghanistan, the physical character of the country was forbidding.

There was nothing on the coast worth bombing; Britain’s Royal Navy – its only strength in this region – was helpless.


Lloyd George changed his mind several times about what to do with Turkey.  Ultimately decisions were taken out of his hands via the work of Mustapha Kemal – the 38-year-old nationalist general and hero.  He began by moving the effective seat of government power inland and away from the might of the Royal Navy – to Angora (now Ankara).

In January 1920, the Turkish Chamber of Deputies convened in secret and adopted the National Pact, calling for creation of an independent Turkish Moslem nation-state.  In February, this was announced publicly.  While Britain and France were meeting in Europe to discuss the conditions they would impose on Turkey, the Chamber of Deputies – without being asked – defined the minimum terms they were willing to accept.

It was estimated that twenty-seven army divisions would need to be provided by the British and French to impose upon the terms which were acceptable in London and Paris.  This was well beyond any commitment that could be made.  Still, Lloyd George would not concede.

France attempted to come to terms with the Turks.  Britain would not, leading an army of occupation into Constantinople.  France and Italy made clear to the Turks that Britain was acting alone.

Britain’s occupation of Constantinople did not damage Kemal – 100 members of the Chamber of Deputies who remained free reconvened in Angora, and with 190 others elected from various resistance groups, formed a new Parliament.


Treaties with Russia ensued – misread by Britain as an alliance.  Instead, Kemal – an enemy of Russian Bolshevism – suppressed the Turkish Communist Party and killed its leaders.  Stalin, recognizing that Kemal could inflict damage to the British, put Russian nationalism ahead of Bolshevik ideology and therefore made peace.  Soviet money and supplies poured over the Russo-Turkish frontier to the anti-Bolshevik Nationalists for use against the British.

Britain – acting at least in part on their misreading of the Russo-Turkish actions – threw in with the Greeks, a willing party desiring to recover former Greek territory populated throughout by a Greek minority.

Kemal attacked British troops in Constantinople.  London recognized that the only troops available to assist were the Greeks.  Venizelos agreed to supply the troops as long as Britain would allow him to advance inland.  Lloyd George was more than willing to agree.

The Greeks found early success, advancing to the Anatolian plateau:

“Turkey is no more,” and exultant Lloyd George announced triumphantly.  On 10 August 1920 the Treaty of Sèvres was signed by representatives of the virtually captive Turkish Sultan and his helpless government.

Helpless because it was Mustapha Kemal in charge, not the Sultan.

The treaty granted to both Greece and London all that each was seeking.  Yet, how to keep the terms from being overthrown by the reality on the ground?  Without a continued Allied presence, Kemal might well descend from the Anatolian plateau and retake the coast.

Meanwhile, the pro-British Venizelos lost an election to the pro-German Constantine I (there is a deadly monkey bite involved in this intrigue).  This turnabout opened the possibility for those who desired to abandon this quagmire to do so.  Italy and France took advantage of this; Lloyd George did not.  Again, incorrectly viewing Kemal as a Bolshevist ally, Lloyd George could not compromise on his anti-Russian stand.

The Greeks went for total victory and lost, ending in Smyrna.  Mustafa Kemal Atatürk – “Father of the Turks” – is revered to this day for securing the ethnically- and religiously-cleansed Turkish portion of the former Ottoman Empire.


Feisal – who led the Arab strike force on the right flank of the Allied armies in the Palestine and Syria campaigns – was the nominal ruler of Syria.  Feisal – a foreigner in Damascus – spent much of 1919 in Europe negotiating with the Allies.  In the meantime, intrigue was the order of the day in Damascus.

The old-guard traditional ruling families in Syria were among those whose loyalty to the Ottoman Empire had remained unshaken throughout the war.  They had remained hostile to Feisal, the Allies, and the militant Arab nationalist clubs…

In mid-1919, the General Syrian Congress called for a completely independent Syria – to include all of the area today made up of Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan.  Matters seemed to be passing out of Feisal’s control.  France was willing to grant some autonomy to Syria, but many Syrians saw no role for the French.

Intrigue followed intrigue; factions formed and dissolved.  Eventually France issued an ultimatum to Feisal – one considered too onerous for Feisal to accept, yet he did.  The mobs of Damascus rioted against him.  By this time, the French marched on Damascus – supported by French air power.

The French General Gouraud began to divide Greater Syria into sub-units – including the Great Lebanon and its cosmopolitan mix of Christians and Moslems – Sunni and Shi’ite.


Eastern Palestine (Transjordan)

France was opposed to a Zionist Palestine; Britain, of course, was a sponsor.  France opposed a Jewish Palestine more than it was opposed to a British Palestine.  France had commercial and clerical interests to protect, and felt these would be endangered by a British sponsored Zionism.

The dividing lines between places such as Syria-Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan were vague at best.  Where lines were drawn would make or break French interests.  In British support for Zionism, France saw British desires to control ever-larger portions of this as-of-yet undefined region.

[France] also claimed to discern a Jewish world conspiracy behind both Zionism and Bolshevism “seeking by all means at its disposal the destruction of the Christian world.” …Thus the French saw their position in Syria and Lebanon as being threatened by a movement that they believed to be at once British, Jewish, Zionist, and Bolshevik….”It is inadmissible,” [Robert de Caix, who managed France’s political interests in Syria] said, “that the ‘County of Christ’ should become the prey of Jewry and of Anglo-Saxon heresy.  It must remain the inviolable inheritance of France and the Church.”

Britain was not in a position to militarily defend Transjordan from a French invasion; therefore it worked to avoid provoking France.  Yet, there was still the concern of the French propaganda campaign – designed to draw Arab support for a Greater Syria to include Transjordan and Palestine via an anti-Zionist platform.

Palestine – Arabs and Jews

Beginning in 1917-1918, when General Allenby took Palestine from the Turks, there was established a British military administration for the country:

Ever since then, throughout the military administration there had been a strong streak of resentment at having been burdened by London with an unpopular and difficult-to-achieve policy: the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine pursuant to the Balfour Declaration.

The Zionists emphasized their desire to cooperate with the local Arab communities; the Jewish immigrants would not be taking anything away but would buy, colonize and cultivate land that was not then being used.  This desire was made more difficult given the rivalries between great Arab urban families.

As an aside, during this time – the late 19th / early 20th century – there was a movement that took root in Britain known as British Israelism:

British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism) is a doctrine based on the hypothesis that people of Western European and Northern European descent, particularly those in Great Britain, are the direct lineal descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of the ancient Israelites. The doctrine often includes the tenet that the British Royal Family is directly descended from the line of King David.

At the end of the 19th century Edward Hine, Edward Wheeler Bird and Herbert Aldersmith developed the British Israelite movement. The extent to which the clergy in Britain became aware of the movement may be gauged from the comment made by Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1890); when asked why in 1845 he had left the Church of England to join the Roman Catholic Church, he said that there was a very real danger that the movement “would take over the Church of England.” (emphasis added)

The extent to which this effort in Britain influenced British policies toward Palestine are beyond the scope of this post, yet clearly the connection cannot be ignored.

Returning to Fromkin, from a note written by Churchill to Lloyd George on 13 June 1920:

“Palestine is costing us 6 millions a year to hold.  The Zionist movement will cause continued friction with the Arabs.  The French…are opposed to the Zionist movement & will try to cushion the Arabs off on us as the real enemy.  The Palestine venture…will never yield any profit of a material kind.”


Mesopotamia (Iraq)

At the close of the war, the temporary administration of the provinces was in the hands of Captain (later Colonel) Arnold Wilson of British India, who became civil commissioner.

While he was prepared to administer the provinces of Basra and Baghdad, and also the province of Mosul…he did not believe that they formed a coherent entity.

Kurds of Mosul would likely not easily accept rule by Arabs of other provinces; the two million Shi’ite Moslems would not easily accept rule by the minority Sunni Moslem community, yet “no form of Government has yet been envisaged, which does not involved Sunni domination.”  There were also large Jewish and Christian communities to be considered.  Seventy-five percent of the population of Iraq was tribal.

Cautioned an American missionary to Gertrude Bell, an advocate of this new “Iraq”:

“You are flying in the face of four millenniums of history if you try to draw a line around Iraq and call it a political entity!  Assyria always looked to the west and east and north, and Babylonia to the south.  They have never been an independent unit.  You’ve got to take time to get them integrated, it must be done gradually.  They have no conception of nationhood yet.”

Arnold Wilson was concerned about an uprising:

In the summer of 1919 three young British captains were murdered in Kurdistan. The Government of India sent out an experienced official to take their place in October 1919; a month later he, too, was killed.

There were further murdered officers, hostage rescues, and the like.  According to Colonel Gerald Leachman, the only way to deal with the disaffected tribes was “wholesale slaughter.”

In June the tribes suddenly rose in full revolt – a revolt that seems to have been triggered by the government’s efforts to levy taxes.  By 14 June the formerly complacent Gertrude Bell, going from one extreme to another, claimed to be living through a nationalist reign of terror.

According to Arnold Wilson, the tribesmen were “out against all government as such…” yet this was not a satisfactory explanation, as every region of the British Middle East was in some state of chaos and revolt.

For one reason or another – the revolt had a number of causes and the various rebels pursued different goals – virtually the whole area rose against Britain, and revolt then spread to the Lower Euphrates as well.

On 11 August, Leachman, the advocate of “wholesale slaughter,” was murdered on order of his tribal host while attending a meeting with tribal allies – blowback of a most personal nature.  Before putting down the revolt, Britain suffered 2,000 casualties with 450 dead.

Persia (Iran)

“The integrity of Persia,” [Lord Curzon] had written two decades earlier, “must be registered as a cardinal precept of our Imperial creed.”

The principal object of his policy was to safeguard against future Russian encroachments.  Unfortunately, the means to secure this “integrity” were limited, and hindered further by mutinies and desertions in the native forces recruited by Britain.  The solution was thought to be a British-supervised regime in Persia:

Flabby young Ahmed Shah, last of the fading Kadjar dynasty to sit upon the throne of Persia, posed no problem; he was fearful for his life and, in any event, received a regular subsidy from the British government in return for maintaining a pro-British Prime Minister in office.

Under the supervision of Lord Curzon, the Persians signed a treaty.  The Persian Prime Minister and two colleagues demanded – and received – 130,000 pounds from the British in exchange.  What was worth this payment?  British railroads, reorganization of Persian finances along British lines, British loans, and British officials supervising customs duties to ensure repayment of the loans.

With the collapse of the Russian Empire, fear of the Russians faded in Persia; therefore Britain represented the only threat to the autonomy of various groups in Persia.  Public opinion weighed strongly against the Anglo-Persian agreement.

Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks were courting the Persians – forgiveness of debts, renouncing of prior political a military claims, cancelling all Russian concessions and surrendering all Russian property in Persia.  Of course, the Soviet government was too weak to enforce any of these claims anyway; still these gestures were seen in great contrast to the measures taken by Britain.

Nationalist opinion hardened; in the spring of 1920, events took a new turn.  The Bolsheviks launched a surprise naval attack on the British position on Enzeli; Soviet troops landed and cut off the British garrison at the tip of the peninsula.  The commanding general had little choice but to accept the Soviet surrender terms, surrendering its military supplies and a fleet of a formerly British flotilla – previously handed by the British to the White Russians and held by the Persians upon collapse of the Russian Empire.

Within weeks, a Persian Socialist Republic was proclaimed in the local province.  Britain, having entered into the Anglo-Persian Agreement in significant measure to contain Soviet expansion, was clearly failing at this task.  The War Office demanded that the remaining British forces in Persia should be withdrawn.

This was not yet to occur.  In February 1921, Reza Khan marched into Tehran at the head of 3,000 Cossacks, seizing power.  In a manner, this entire escapade was instigated by the British General Ironside, who had approached Reza Khan about ruling once Britain departed.  Reza Khan did not wait, it seems.

Within five days, the new Persian government repudiated the Anglo-Persian Agreement. On the same day, a treaty was signed with Moscow – now looking for Russian protection from Britain instead of the other way around.


I don’t know – it isn’t over yet.

Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.

mardi, 10 février 2015

Whose Job Is It to Kill ISIS?


Whose Job Is It to Kill ISIS?


Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

Seeing clips of that 22-minute video of the immolation of the Jordanian pilot, one wonders: Who would be drawn to the cause of these barbarians who perpetrated such an atrocity?

While the video might firm up the faith of fanatics, would it not evoke rage and revulsion across the Islamic world? After all, this was a Sunni Muslim, in a cage, being burned alive.

As of now, this cruel killing seems to have backfired. Jordan is uniting behind King Abdullah’s determination to exact “earth-shattering” retribution.

Which raises again the questions: Why did ISIS do it? What did they hope to gain? Evil though they may be, they are not stupid.

Surely, they knew the reaction they would get?

Several explanations come to mind.

First, ISIS is hurting. It lost the battle for Kobane on the Turkish border to the Kurds; it is bleeding under U.S. air attacks; and it is stymied in Iraq. It wanted to lash out in the most dramatic and horrific way.

Second, ISIS wants to retain the title of the most resolute and ruthless of the Islamist radicals, a title temporarily lost to al-Qaida, which carried out the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. This horror has put ISIS back in the headlines and on global television.

Third, ISIS wants to pay back King Abdullah, a Sunni and descendant of the Prophet, for joining America in bombing them.

Fourth, this may have been a provocation to cause the king to put his monarchy on the line and plunge Jordan into all out war against the Islamic State.

For history teaches that wars often prove fatal to monarchies. In the Great War of 1914-1918, the Hapsburgs and Hohenzollerns, the Romanovs and Ottomans, all went down.

The terrorists of ISIS may believe that stampeding Abdullah into fighting on the side of the “Crusaders” may prove destabilizing to his country and imperil the Hashemite throne.

For, though Jordanians may be united today, will they support sending their sons into battle as allies of the Americans and de facto allies of Bashar Assad, Hezbollah, and Iran?

There are reasons why Sunni nations like Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have not committed more openly and decisively to the war on ISIS, and instead prod the Americans to send their troops to eradicate the Islamic State.

To many Sunni nations, Assad and the Shia Crescent of Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut are the greater threat.

Indeed, until recently, as Joe Biden pointed out last October, the Turks, Saudis and United Arab Emirates were providing clandestine aid to ISIS.

Biden was forced to apologize, but he had told the truth.

Which bring us back to the crucial issue here. While King Abdullah is a trusted friend, Jordan has been best able to serve its own and America’s interests by staying out of wars.

Lest we forget, Abdullah’s father, King Hussein, refused to join the coalition of Desert Storm that drove the Iraqi army out of Kuwait.

In February 1991, President Bush charged that King Hussein seems “to have moved over, way over, into the Saddam Hussein camp.” In March of 1991, the Senate voted to end all military and economic aid to Jordan. But the king was looking out for his own survival, and rightly so.

Hence, is it wise for Jordan to become a front-line fighting state in a war, which, if it prevails, will mean a new lease on life for the Assad regime and a victory for Iran, the Shia militias in Iraq, and Hezbollah?

Critics argue that after making his commitment to “degrade and defeat” the Islamic State, President Obama has provided neither a war strategy nor the military resources to carry it out. And they are right.

But this is just another case of the president drawing a red line he should never have drawn. While U.S. air power can hold back the advance of ISIS and “degrade,” i.e., contain, ISIS, the destruction of ISIS is going to require scores of thousands of troops.

Though the Iraqi army, Shia militias and Kurds may be able to provide those troops to retake Mosul, neither the Turks nor any other Arab nation has volunteered the troops to defeat ISIS in Syria.

And if the Turks and Sunni Arabs are unwilling to put boots on the ground in Syria, why should we? Why should America, half a world away, have to provide those troops rather than nations that are more immediately threatened and have armies near at hand?

Why is defeating 30,000 ISIS jihadists our job, and not theirs?

With this outrage, ISIS has thrown down the gauntlet to the Sunni Arabs. The new Saudi king calls the burning of Lt. Muath al-Kasasbeh an “odious crime” that is “inhuman and contrary to Islam.” The UAE foreign minister calls it a “brutal escalation by the terrorist group.”

Let us see if action follows outrage.

Patrick J. Buchanan [send him mail] is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. His latest book is Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? See his website.

Copyright © 2015 Creators.com

Previous article by Patrick J. Buchanan:

00:05 Publié dans Actualité | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : isis, eiil, djihadisme, irak, jordanie, syrie, levant, proche orient, terrorisme | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

Jordanie contre État islamique… le « grand jeu » des États-Unis


Jordanie contre État islamique… le « grand jeu » des États-Unis
Il ne fait que peu de doutes que Washington instrumentalise le terrorisme islamique.
Docteur en droit, journaliste et essayiste
Ex: http://www.bvoltaire.fr

En réplique à l’assassinat d’un pilote jordanien brûlé vif, Amman avait aussitôt ordonné l’exécution de deux terroristes croupissant dans les geôles du régime. Les récents propos du roi Abdallah II de Jordanie de vouloir prendre, lui-même, la tête des attaques aériennes menées par son armée contre l’organisation de l’État Islamique, avec l’onction de Barack Obama, ne doivent, cependant, pas être surestimés.

Monarchie constitutionnelle, la Jordanie, État d’Asie occidentale du Moyen-Orient, est encerclée par l’Égypte, la Cisjordanie, Israël, la Syrie, l’Irak et l’Arabie saoudite. Autant dire, eu égard aux conflictualités de très haute intensité qui secouent la région, que ce pays majoritairement sunnite (92 %) est, en permanence, à la merci de toute entreprise de déstabilisation. Le royaume est objectivement menacé par le wahhabisme saoudien, l’arc irano-syrien chiite, sans oublier les tensions au sein d’Israël (la bande de Gaza et l’irrédentisme du Hamas et le Sud-Liban avec un Hezbollah intransigeant).

Activement soutenu par les États-Unis et par l’Union européenne, le royaume hachémite n’échappe pas aux forces centrifuges de ce que le démographe Gérard-François Dumont dénomme le « paradigme religieux », lequel s’est progressivement substitué au « paradigme panarabe » dont l’acmé fut la création, en 1945, de la Ligue des pays arabes (comprenant originellement l’Arabie saoudite, l’Égypte, l’Irak, la Syrie, le Liban, la Jordanie et le Yémen du Nord). Cette dernière coalition, ayant en commun une certaine conception de l’arabité, a rapidement fait long feu. Le développement économique, grâce à l’exploitation de la manne pétrolière, comme un règlement durable de la question palestinienne ont été les pierres d’achoppement d’une organisation politique incapable de surmonter les tropismes nationalistes et autoritaires de ses membres.

Aujourd’hui, la promesse de frappe aérienne de la Jordanie ne doit pas être l’arbre arabo-occidental devant servir à cacher la forêt islamo-terroriste. Il ne fait que peu de doutes que Washington instrumentalise le terrorisme islamique. Pourquoi, aux dires des milieux islamistes « autorisés », l’un des doctrinaires les plus virulents de l’État islamique, l’ex-lieutenant de Ben Laden, Abou Moussab al-Souri (auteur, en 2004, du monumental Appel à la résistance islamique mondiale, dans lequel il exhorte à la domination mondiale de l’islam), a été libéré, en 2011, par la Syrie, après que les services secrets pakistanais l’eurent livré à la CIA qui le remit ensuite aux autorités syriennes ?

La Jordanie demeure le jouet docile du Pentagone, au service de ses intérêts géostratégiques. Dans ce nouveau « Grand Jeu », la duplicité diplomatique des États-Unis ne vise rien moins qu’à accompagner les desseins de dislocation/balkanisation du monde arabo-musulman suivi de sa réorganisation selon des critères religieux (sunnites, chiites, druzes, alaouites) et ethno-fédéralistes.

Or, la redistribution des cartes prévoit tout simplement l’effacement de la Jordanie.

mardi, 26 novembre 2013

Russia and Middle East Policy: Story of Success and Growing Clout



Ex: Strategic-Culture.org

Russia and Middle East Policy: Story of Success and Growing Clout

Resurgent Russia is asserting itself in the Middle East as a big an important international player. The recent diplomacy that averted a U.S. strike on Syria underscored the extent to which Moscow’s steadfast support for its last remaining Arab ally has helped to solidify its role. Russian President Vladimir Putin has emerged as the world leader with the single biggest influence over the outcome of a raging war that is threatening the stability of the broader region. Meanwhile new alliances and old friendships are being revived reaching out to countries long regarded as being within the Western, predominantly US, sphere of influence. Egypt, Jordan and Iraq are exploring closer ties with Moscow at a time when the Obama administration fails to come up with clear-cut regional policy.


On October 16 Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s top media adviser said that that Baghdad had begun receiving arms from Russia under a historic $4.3-billion deal it signed last year but then scrapped amid corruption allegations. A review conducted, Baghdad had ultimately decided to keep the agreement. It makes Russia the Iraq’s second-largest arms supplier after the United States to herald its return to a lucrative Middle East market.

Iraqi officials announced at the start of the year that Baghdad had canceled the contract due to corruption allegations that were not spelled out. “We really did have suspicions about this contract,” the Iraqi government’s media adviser Ali al-Musawi told Russia’s RT state-run broadcaster. “But in the end the deal was signed. We have currently started the process of implementing one of the stages of this contract.” (1) The shopping list includes 40 MI-35 and Mi-28NE attack helicopters (4 rotary wing aircraft added as a bonus to make the deal really lucrative), as we’ll as 42 Pantsir-S1 surface-to-air missile systems. In case of helicopters, the number 40 justifies the creation of helicopter service center on Iraqi soil.  Further discussions were also held about Iraq’s eventual acquisition of MiG-29 jets and heavy armored vehicles along with other weaponry. Musawi said Iraq was primarily interested in acquiring helicopters that could be used by the military to hunt down suspected rebels staging attacks across the war-torn country. Alexander Mikheyev, deputy general director at Russian state arms exporter Rosoboronexport, said in late June that the helicopter contract also covers pilot and technical personnel training and the delivery of essential weapons systems. This is the first contract with Iraq under the package agreement, he added. (2)

By the end of last month it was reported that the northern Kurdistan regional government ordered 14 light helicopters from US MD Helicopters formally for local security forces and medical emergencies. Allegedly the rotary wing aircraft will join the inventory of Peshmerga armed formations.  Unlike in the case of the US, Baghdad may not worry about Moscow, military cooperation with Iraqi Kurds is not on its agenda.  Washington also looks disapprovingly at Iraq’s contacts with Iran, while Iraq felt small when its peace proposals on peaceful management of Syria’s conflict were ignored by Washington. Iraq’s Prime Minister put forward the detailed plan this August with no response from the US.  Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has made two trips to Moscow in the past year and none to the United States.


 According to RIA-Novosti news agency, on November 15 an official from Russia’s state arms exporter Rosoboronexport said Jordan is interested in locally assembling Russian-designed helicopters and anti-tank missile systems. “Our Jordanian colleagues have shown interest in setting up domestic assembly of portable Kornet anti-tank missile systems and several types of helicopters,” said Mikhail Zavaly, head of the Rosoboronexport delegation at the Dubai Air Show 2013. Russia’s Kornet-E system, produced for export, has a firing range of up to 5,500 meters (18,000 feet) and features semi-automatic laser-beam guidance with a thermal imaging site. The system, armed with missiles using dual warheads with shaped charges, is highly effective against tanks with reactive or explosive armor as well as against fortified buildings and helicopters. In May this year Jordan has already launched licensed production of Russian-designed Nashab RPG-32 portable rocket-propelled grenade launchers, which the Jordan Times (3) reports is superior to the RPGs that are currently used by the Jordanian armed forces. Jordan is manufacturing weapons as part of a joint venture with Russia. The plant, which manufactures RPG-32 Hashim launchers, is located about 20 kilometers northeast of Jordan’s capital, Amman. It has been built and equipped by the Jordanian side, whereas Russia’s Rosoboronexport is supplying components for the assembly of the grenade launchers and is overseeing the production process. (4)

On October 25 Jordan announced that it has selected Russian state-owned firm Rosatom as its preferred vendor to construct two 1,000-megawatt (MW) nuclear power plants at a site near Qusayr Amra, some 60 kilometres northeast of Amman and at the edge of the northern desert by 2022. As part of the decision, the government and the Russian firm have entered negotiations over electricity pricing in order to reach a final agreement and break ground on the reactors by 2015. Energy officials listed the safety track record of the firm’s AES92 VVER1000 reactor technology among the main advantages of the Russian bid, which beat out shortlisted French firm AREVA’s experimental ATMEA1 reactor and Canadian AECL’s CANDU technology.

No doubt financial arrangements played an important role. Under the proposal Rosatom has agreed to take on 49 per cent of the plants’ $10 billion construction and operation costs on a build-own-operate basis with the government shouldering the remaining 51 per cent and retaining a majority share in the plants.

The proposal mirrors a similar agreement struck by Rosatom and Turkey in 2010, under which the firm is set to construct four 1,000MW reactors at a $20 billion price tag.

Officials say the deal aims to help achieve energy independence in Jordan, which imports around 97 per cent of its energy needs at a cost of over one-fifth of the gross domestic product, and bring stability to a sector that has been impacted by ongoing disruptions in Egyptian gas.  

Jordan has become the third Arab state to pursue peaceful nuclear energy, with the UAE set to build four reactors with a combined 5,600MW capacity by 2020 and Egypt reaffirming earlier this month its plans to establish a 1,000MW reactor by the end of the decade. (5)

On November 15 His Majesty King Abdullah and a visiting Russian Agriculture Minister Nikolai Fedorov stressed their commitment to boosting cooperation between the two countries and to maintain coordination and consultation vis-à-vis various regional issues of mutual concern. At a meeting with and the accompanying delegation, the King highlighted cooperation prospects and means to develop them in the various sectors, mainly agriculture, tourism, transport and energy as well as in economic fields. The minister is co-chairing the joint Jordanian-Russian Intergovernmental Commission’s meetings in Amman. Fedorov asserted Russia’s commitment to strengthening its relations with the Kingdom and to maintain coordination on all issues of mutual concern, stressing Russia’s willingness to support the Kingdom in the fields of energy, transport, agriculture, tourism and capacity building.

Commending the Kingdom’s track record, the Russian official expressed appreciation of Jordan’s progress in various areas and lauded the Kingdom’s position on different regional issues as well as His Majesty’s efforts to foster peace and stability.

During Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to the Kingdom last year, Jordan and Russia signed an agreement to establish a joint Jordanian-Russian committee to activate cooperation between them. The two countries are also bound by several agreements on economic cooperation.

Jordanian officials held negotiations with the Russian delegation at the Planning and International Cooperation Ministry, and agreed to form a joint business committee to boost commercial and investment cooperation between the two countries.

Saif told reporters following the meeting that Jordan and Russia had signed a memorandum of understanding in the field of nuclear technology, adding that a Jordanian official delegation would visit Moscow early next year

The Russian minister indicated that the two sides also agreed to increase the inflow of Russian tourists seeking religious and medical tourism. 

8 years ago President Putin said he was sorry the bilateral trade turnout was just over modest $50 million. It grew up to $426, 5 million in 2012.


Russian Foreign and Defense Minister Sergey Lavrov and Sergei Shoigu paid a visit to Egypt on November 13-15 for a two-day visit to discuss «the full spectrum» of ties between the two countries, including «military-technical cooperation».  President Putin is expected to visit to Egypt pretty soon.  The talks revealed Egypt is seeking to acquire fighter planes, air-defence systems and anti-tank missiles with 24 MiG-29 M2 fighters are at the top of the shopping list added to the Buk M2, Tor M2 and Pantsir- S1 short- to medium-range Russian defence systems. 

Last month the US froze a sizable portion of the yearly $1.5 billion aid package as a sign of discontent with Egypt’s slow progress towards democracy. The step followed after the delivery of four F-16 fighter jets was suspended and biennial US-Egyptian military exercises were cancelled.

In Egypt, where the military-backed government has accused Washington of sympathy toward the Muslim Brotherhood, some protesters have hailed Putin as a potential diplomatic counterbalance to the United States. Pro-military demonstrators have even drawn parallels between the former KGB operative and their own strongman: During a July protest in the city of Alexandria, pro-military demonstrators unveiled a large poster of the Russian President wearing a naval uniform beside that of Army Chief Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, bearing the inscription "Bye bye, America!"


The Russia-initiated breakthrough on Syria is followed by a host of tangible Middle East policy successes. No doubt it’s a feather in the Russian leadership’s hat, the country is strongly back in the region, its clout growing by leaps and bounds, while the US faces the music having lost its way in the regional maze of overlapping problems and complexities. No calls for revival of Cold War days competition, to the contrary joining together to get down to brass tacks will benefit all. The initiative on Syria proved the possibility and expediency of this approach.        


1)    http://rt.com/news/iraq-election-candidates-dead-031/

2)    http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131017/184210687.html

3)   http://jordantimes.com/king-abdullah-inaugurates-jordanian-russian-rpg-factory

4)  http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131115/184734272/Jordan-Wants-to-Make-Russian-Helicopters-Anti-Tank-Missiles.html

5)   http://jordantimes.com/russian-firm-set-to-build-jordans-first-nuclear-plants


mercredi, 08 mai 2013

'Alliantie Israël met Arabische Golfstaten, Jordanië en Turkije in de maak'

'Alliantie Israël met Arabische Golfstaten, Jordanië en Turkije in de maak'

Ex: http://xandernieuws.punt.nl/

Wordt dit het in de Bijbel voorzegde 'verbond met de dood' dat de laatste eindtijdoorlog zal inluiden?

De ondertekening van de Camp David vredesakkoorden in 1979. Zal dit verbond binnenkort worden 'versterkt' met andere Arabische/islamitische landen?

Volgens een artikel in de Sunday Times probeert het Witte Huis achter de schermen een nieuwe defensie alliantie in het Midden Oosten te vormen waar behalve Israël ook Saudi Arabië, Jordanië, Turkije en de Verenigde Arabische Emiraten aan deel zouden moeten nemen. Het doel van het verbond is om een nucleair bewapend Iran in bedwang te houden, en niet militair te confronteren. Strategie analist Mark Langfan heeft het al over de MEATO, de Middle East Alliance Treaty Organization.

Russia Today bericht dat de Joodse staat samen met de genoemde 'gematigde' Soennitische islamitische staten een front wil vormen om een met kernwapens bewapend Iran in bedwang te houden. Israël en de Arabische landen zouden onder andere informatie van elkaars radar- en antiraketsystemen gaan delen. In het voorstel moet Jordanië beschermd gaan worden door Israëls Arrow lange-afstands afweerraketten.

Diplomaten spreken van een '4+1' voorstel waar de Verenigde Staten een bemiddelende rol in spelen. Een official van het Turkse ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken verklaarde echter dat het 'manipulatieve bericht niets van doen heeft met de realiteit.'

Midden Oosten versie van de NAVO

Israël en Amerika hebben jarenlang volgehouden dat een nucleair bewapend Iran onacceptabel is. Voormalige hoge Israëlische veiligheidsofficials, waaronder oud Mossad directeur Meir Dagan, verzetten zich echter met hand en tand tegen een militaire aanval op de Iraanse kerninstallaties. Het nieuws zou dan ook een signaal kunnen zijn dat Israël en de VS besloten hebben het -al dan niet toekomstige- bestaan van Iraanse kernwapens te accepteren.

Het is onduidelijk of en wanneer dit bericht bevestigd wordt. Strategie analist Mark Langfan neemt het in ieder geval heel serieus. 'De MEATO is geboren. De Middle East Alliance Treaty Organization is gecreëerd op de puinhopen van de val van (de Egyptische president) Hosni Mubarak.' (1)

Bijbel voorzegt verbond Israël met 'de dood'

We berichtten de laatste maanden al vaker dat er geruchten en aanwijzingen zijn voor een baanbrekend akkoord tussen Israël en diverse islamitische landen. Het is niet ondenkbaar dat ook Egypte hier deel van zal uitmaken. De profeet Jesaja voorzegde duizenden jaren geleden dat zo'n verbond er in de eindtijd inderdaad gaat komen:

'Omdat u zegt: Wij hebben een verbond gesloten met de dood, en met het rijk van de dood zijn wij een verdrag aangegaan, wanneer de alles wegspoelende gesel voorbijtrekt komt hij niet bij ons, want van de leugen hebben wij ons toevluchtsoord gemaakt en in het bedrog hebben wij ons verborgen,... Dan zal uw verbond met de dood tenietgedaan worden, uw verdrag met het rijk van de dood zal geen stand houden. Trekt de alles wegspoelende gesel voorbij, dan zult u door hem afgeranseld worden.' (Jes.28;15+18)

De tot het christendom bekeerde voormalige Palestijnse terrorist Walid Shoebat zegt al jaren dat de uitleg van dit vers duidelijk is: Israël zal (met o.a. Turkije) een vredesverdrag sluiten -mogelijk in Egypte-, een 'verbond met de dood' dat wellicht een bevestiging '('versterking' genoemd door de profeet Daniël) en uitbreiding zal zijn van de bestaande Camp David akkoorden tussen Egypte en Israël en de vrede met Jordanië. Dit nieuwe verdrag zal voor Israël echter op een compleet drama uitlopen:

'Wee jullie, koppige kinderen -spreekt de Heer- die plannen uitvoeren tegen mijn wil (NBG/SV: 'niet van mijn Geest'), verdragen sluiten tegen mijn zin en zo zonde op zonde stapelen; die zonder mij te raadplegen op weg gaan naar Egypte, om te schuilen in de vesting van de farao en bescherming te zoeken in de schaduw van Egypte.' (Jes.30:1-2)

Turken zullen Israël aanvallen

Vanaf het moment dat de Turken Israël zover krijgen een nieuw of versterkt vredesverdrag te sluiten, waarschijnlijk met steun en deelname van Amerika en andere islamitische landen en wellicht ook de EU, zullen er volgens de profeet Daniël slechts 3,5 jaar voorbij gaan voordat de Turken Jeruzalem zullen aanvallen en zullen bezetten. 'Maar dan zal de G-d van Israël de stad (en het volk) redden van deze gesel (het Tweede Paasfeest),' aldus Shoebat.

In zijn visioen (of droom) zag Daniël het laatste wereldrijk, het rijk van de Antichrist: het opnieuw opgerichte Ottomaanse Rijk, het rijk van 'het beest' dat zal herstellen van zijn dodelijk wond, opgelopen in 1917 toen de Turken zonder slag of stoot werden verdreven uit Jeruzalem. Het Tweede Paasfeest, de definitieve verlossing van Israël door de komst van de Messias, zal volgens Shoebat worden ingeluid door de totale vernietiging van dit in de maak zijnde Turks-islamistische imperium.Xander

(1) Arutz 7

Zie ook o.a.:

29-03: Door profeet Daniël voorzegd vredesverdrag met Israël nabij
23-03: Turkse minister BuZa: Wij zullen weer heersen van Sarajevo tot Damascus
21-03: Jordaanse koning waarschuwt het Westen voor Turkse premier Erdogan
12-03: Duitse geheime dienst: Turkije werkt al jaren aan kernwapens

lundi, 01 avril 2013

L’engagement d’Obama au Moyen-Orient


L’engagement d’Obama au Moyen-Orient

L’art de la guerre

Double engagement répété par Obama dans sa visite en Israël. L’alliance toujours plus forte des USA avec l’Etat israélien, confirmée par le fait que « nos militaires et nos services de renseignement coopèrent plus étroitement que jamais ». Ceci est indubitable. La création d’ « un état palestinien indépendant et souverain ». Ceci est faux. L’ « Etat palestinien » auquel on pense à Washington ressemble beaucoup à une « réserve indienne » : il y a quatre mois, aux Nations Unies, les Usa ont même voté avec Israël contre la reconnaissance de la Palestine en tant qu’ « Etat observateur non membre ». Mais se déclarer favorables à un Etat palestinien accrédite l’idée que les Etats-Unis sont engagés, comme jamais, pour la paix et la démocratie au Moyen-Orient. Obama a en outre joué le médiateur de paix entre la Turquie et Israël : Netanyahu a téléphoné à Erdogan pour s’excuser des « erreurs opérationnelles » commises dans l’attaque contre la Freedom Flotilla qui transportait les pacifistes à Gaza. Excuses immédiatement acceptées : sur les tombes des pacifistes tués par les Israéliens il sera maintenant inscrit « mort le 31 mai 2010 par une erreur opérationnelle ».

Après ses rencontres en Israël, Obama a fait escale à Amman, en réaffirmant « l’engagement des Etats-Unis pour la sécurité de la Jordanie », mise en danger par la « violence qui filtre à travers la frontière avec la Syrie ». Il reste à voir, cependant, dans quelle direction. Comme informe le Guardian, des instructeurs étasuniens, aidés par des collègues français et britanniques, entraînent en Jordanie les « rebelles » qui sont infiltrés en Syrie. Le cercle se resserre ainsi autour de la Syrie, avec une opération sous direction Usa/Otan menée à travers la Turquie et Israël (à présent réconciliés) et la Jordanie. Et, pour l’estocade finale,  le casus belli est prêt : le lancement d’un missile à tête chimique, qui a provoqué la mort de plusieurs dizaines de personnes dans la zone d’Alep.

A Jérusalem, Obama a exprimé sa solidarité avec « la préoccupation croissante d’Israël pour les armes chimiques de la Syrie voisine », en avertissant que, si l’enquête trouvait les preuves que ce sont les militaires syriens qui ont utilisé l’arme chimique, cela « changera les règles du jeu ». En d’autres termes, c’est une menace d’intervention « préventive » USA/Otan en Syrie, au motif de bloquer l’arsenal chimique avant qu’il ne soit utilisé. Si de telles «preuves » émergeaient, cela voudrait dire que le gouvernement syrien a décidé d’utiliser un missile à tête chimique contre ses propres soldats et civils loyaux au gouvernement (la quasi-totalité des victimes), pour fournir aux Usa et à l’Otan, sur un plateau d’argent, la justification pour attaquer et envahir la Syrie. En attendant, en même temps que des dollars et des armes, Washington a déjà fourni aux « rebelles » le futur premier ministre : Ghassan Hitto, citoyen étasunien d’origine syrienne. Un executive[1] texan dans la technologie d’information, choisi formellement par les « rebelles ».

Qu’est-ce qu’Obama devrait faire d’autre pour la paix et la démocratie au Moyen-Orient ?

Edition de mardi 26 mars 2013 de il manifesto


Traduit de l’italien par Marie-Ange Patrizio


[1] Executive, en anglais dans le texte, est le mot qui revient absolument invariablement dans les présentations anglophones du nouveau premier ministre syrien déniché au Texas par l’administration étasunienne (et « alliés ») : mot générique qui en dit long non seulement sur le flou entourant ce que Monsieur Hitto a fait jusque là mais aussi sur l’arrogance et le mépris de cette même administration (et « alliés ») qui ne ressent aucune nécessité à donner le moindre vernis de crédibilité à ses larbins. L’analyse précise du langage de l’empire, en deçà et au-delà de ses effets d’annonce, donne des clés essentielles pour une analyse non moins précise de la situation géopolitique. NdT pour la version française.

Articles Par : Manlio Dinucci

Sur le même sujet:


dimanche, 10 février 2013

Jordanischer König Abdullah II: Bei Niederlage Assads in Syrien droht Erstarken des Terrorismus

Jordanischer König Abdullah II: Bei Niederlage Assads in Syrien droht Erstarken des Terrorismus

Ex: http://www.zuerst.de/

Davos. Der jordanische König Abdullah II. hat vor einem gewaltsamen Regierungswechsel in Syrien gewarnt, der eine Stärkung des islamistischen Terrorismus hervorbringen könnte.

Das berichtet die russische Nachrichtenagentur RIA Novosti unter Berufung auf arabische Medien. “Wer sagt, daß das Assad-Regime in wenigen Wochen fallen wird, der kennt den tatsächlichen Stand der Dinge nicht”, sagte Abdullah II. dem Bericht zufolge. Die Assad-Regierung sei noch stark genug und werde mindestens bis Mitte 2013 ihre Macht behalten. Jedoch drohten dann katastrophale Folgen für die ganze Region, so der Monarch. Das Terrornetzwerk Al Qaida habe “mit Hilfe bestimmter Kräfte” bereits in Syrien Fuß gefasst und gefährde die Nachbarstaaten. “Selbst wenn morgen in Damaskus die beste Regierung die Macht übernehmen würde, würden wir zwei bis drei Jahre danach unsere Grenzen vor Terroristen aus Syrien schützen müssen.”

In Syrien toben seit März 2011 Kämpfe zwischen der Armee des Landes und oftmals islamistischen Rebellen, die sich vorwiegend in der unter anderem von den USA, Saudi-Arabien und der Türkei unterstützten “Freien Syrischen Armee” (FSA) organisieren.

jeudi, 17 juin 2010

La Turchia progetta un mercato comune con Siria, Libano e Giordania

La Turchia progetta un mercato comune con Siria, Libano e Giordania

di Carlo M. Miele

Fonte: osservatorioiraq [scheda fonte]

Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

Con la prospettiva di una membership europea che si va allontanando sempre di più, la Turchia inizia a pensare concretamente a un’alternativa nel mondo arabo.

Si spiega anche così il progetto di un mercato comune nella regione, annunciato ieri a Istanbul nel corso del meeting arabo-turco.

Da parte turca il progetto – preannunciato qualche mese fa – punta a rilanciare il volume dei commerci con il mondo arabo, fermo a circa 25 miliardi di euro per anno.

Nonostante lo sviluppo registrato dall’economia della repubblica kemalista negli ultimi anni, infatti, i commerci con la regione rappresentano solo una piccola parte degli scambi che avvengono invece con l’Europa, che resta il principale partner commerciale della Turchia.

Il problema dovrebbe essere superato con la zona di libero scambio, che inizialmente dovrebbe comprendere la Siria, il Libano e la Giordania, oltre alla stessa Turchia.

Tra i quattro paesi dovrebbero essere stabilite delle facilitazioni anche in materia di visti.

Leadership turca     

Col nuovo progetto la Turchia intende rilanciare anche il proprio ruolo economico nella regione, dopo essere riuscita a rilanciare quello diplomatico.

Del resto, come hanno sottolineato diversi analisti citati dalla Bbc, il connubio tra politica estera ed economia sta diventando una caratteristica della gestione del governo guidato da Recep Tayyip Erdogan, che nei sue frequenti viaggi ufficiali all’estero si fa sempre accompagnare da un una importante delegazione di imprenditori.

In passato il governo guidato dal Partito di giustizia e sviluppo (Akp, di ispirazione islamica) ha sostenuto con forza il processo di adesione della Turchia alla Ue, che – ribadisce Erdogan – resta tuttora la priorità nell’agenda politica turca.

Tuttavia, poco è stato fatto dall’ottobre 2005 (quando sono stati avviati i negoziati tra le due parti) a oggi. I rapporti tra Ankara e Bruxelles si sono anzi raffreddati, a causa della volontà turca di non riconoscere Cipro e in seguito agli ostacoli posti da alcuni membri chiave dell’Unione, come Francia e Germania.

In questo lasso di tempo, la Turchia ha cominciato a guardare con sempre più insistenza a Oriente e al mondo arabo e musulmano. E l’idea di creare una zona di libero scambio con i vicini regionali assomiglia tanto alla ricerca di un’alternativa.