A Decalogue: The Ten Theses of American Empire-Building: A Dialogue

By Prof. James Petras

Global Research, August 11, 2018

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Introduction

Few, if any, believe what they hear and read from leaders and media publicists. Most people choose to ignore the cacophony of voices, vices and virtues.
This paper provides a set of theses which purports to lay-out the basis for a dialogue between and among those who choose to abstain from elections with the intent to engage them in political struggle.

Thesis 1

US empire builders of all colors and persuasion practice donkey tactics; waving the carrot and wielding the whip to move the target government on the chosen path.
In the same way, Washington offers dubious concessions and threatens reprisals, in order to move them into the imperial orbit.

Washington applied the tactic successfully in several recent encounters. In 2003 the US offered Libyan government of Muammar Gaddafi a peaceful accommodation in exchange for disarmament, abandonment of nationalist allies in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. In 2011, the US with its European allies applied the whip – bombed Libya, financed and armed retrograde tribal and terrorist forces, destroyed the infrastructure, murdered Gaddafi and uprooted millions of Africans and Libyans. . . who fled to Europe. Washington recruited mercenaries for their subsequent war against Syria in order to destroy the nationalist Bashar Assad regime.

Washington succeeded in destroying an adversary but did not establish a puppet regime in the midst of perpetual conflict.

The empire’s carrot weakened its adversary, but the stick failed to recolonize Libya ..Moreover its European allies are obligated to pay the multi-billion Euro cost of absorbing millions of uprooteded immigrants and the ensuing domestic political turmoil.

Thesis 2

Empire builders’ proposal to reconfigure the economy in order to regain imperial supremacy provokes domestic and overseas enemies. President Trump launched a global trade war, replaced political accommodation with economic sanctions against Russia and a domestic protectionist agenda and sharply reduced corporate taxes. He provoked a two-front conflict. Overseas, he provoked opposition from European allies and China, while facing perpetual harassment from domestic free market globalists and Russo-phobic political elites and ideologues.

Two front conflicts are rarely successful. Most successful imperialist conquer adversaries in turn – first one and then the other.

Thesis 3

Leftists frequently reverse course: they are radicals out of office and reactionaries in government, eventually falling between both chairs. We witness the phenomenal collapse of the German Social Democratic Party, the Greek Socialist Party (PASOK), (and its new version Syriza) and the Workers Party in Brazil. Each attracted mass support, won elections, formed alliances with bankers and the business elite – and in the face of their first crises, are abandoned by the populace and the elite.

Shrewd but discredited elites frequently recognize the opportunism of the Left, and in time of distress, have no problem in temporarily putting up with Left rhetoric and reforms as long as their economic interests are not jeopardized. The elite know that the Left signal left and turn right.

Thesis 4

Elections, even ones won by progressives or leftists, frequently become springboards for imperial backed coups. Over the past decade newly elected presidents, who are not aligned with Washington, face congressional and/or judicial impeachment on spurious charges. The elections provide a veneer of legitimacy which a straight-out military-coup lacks.

Mapping Trump’s Empire: Assets and Liabilities

In Brazil, Paraguay and Venezuela, ‘legislatures’ under US tutelage attempted to ouster popular President. They succeeded in the former and failed in the latter.
When electoral machinery fails, the judicial system intervenes to impose restraints on progressives, based on tortuous and convoluted interpretation of the law. Opposition leftists in Argentina, Brazil and Ecuador have been hounded by ruling party elites.

Thesis 5

Even crazy leaders speak truth to power. There is no question that President Trump suffers a serious mental disorder, with midnight outbursts and nuclear threats against, any and all, ranging from philanthropic world class sports figures (LeBron James) to NATO respecting EU allies.


Yet in his lunacy, President Trump has denounced and exposed the repeated deceits and ongoing fabrications of the mass media. Never before has a President so forcefully identified the lies of the leading print and TV outlets. The NY Times, Washington Post, the Financial Times, NBC, CNN, ABC and CBS have been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the larger public. They have lost legitimacy and trust. Where progressives have failed, a war monger, billionaire has accomplished, speaking a truth to serve many injustices.

Thesis 6

When a bark turns into a bite, Trump proves the homely truth that fear invites aggression. Trump has implemented or threatened severe sanctions against the EU, China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, North Korea and any country that fails to submit to his dictates. At first, it was bombast and bluster which secured concessions.

Concessions were interpreted as weakness and invited greater threats. Disunity of opponents encouraged imperial tacticians to divide and conquer. But by attacking all adversaries simultaneously he undermines that tactic. Threats everywhere limits choices to dangerous options at home and abroad.

Thesis 7

The master meddlers, of all times, into the politics of sovereign states are the Anglo-American empire builders. But what is most revealing is the current ploy of accusing the victims of the crimes that are committed against them.

After the overthrow of the Soviet regime, the US and its European acolytes ‘meddled’ on a world-historic scale, pillaging over two trillion dollars of Soviet wealth and reducing Russian living standards by two thirds and life expectancy to under sixty years – below the level of Bangladesh.
With Russia’s revival under President Putin, Washington financed a large army of self-styled ‘non-governmental organizations’ (NGO) to organize electoral campaigns, recruited moguls in the mass media and directed ethnic uprisings. The Russians are retail meddlers compared to the wholesale multi-billion-dollar US operators.

Moreover, the Israeli’s have perfected meddling on a grand scale – they intervene successfully in Congress, the White House and the Pentagon. They set the Middle East agenda, budget and priorities, and secure the biggest military handouts on a per-capita basis in US history!
Apparently, some meddlers meddle by invitation and are paid to do it.

Thesis 8

Corruption is endemic in the US where it has legal status and where tens of millions of dollars change hands and buy Congress people, Presidents and judges.

In the US the buyers and brokers are called ‘lobbyists’ – everywhere else they are called fraudsters. Corruption (lobbying) grease the wheels of billion dollars military spending, technological subsidies, tax evading corporations and every facet of government – out in the open, all the time and place of the US regime.

Corruption as lobbying never evokes the least criticism from the mass media.
On the other hand, where corruption takes place under the table in Iran, China and Russia, the media denounce the political elite – even where in China over 2 million officials, high and the low are arrested and jailed.

When corruption is punished in China, the US media claim it is merely a ‘political purge’ even if it directly reduces elite conspicuous consumption.

In other words, imperial corruption defends democratic value; anti-corruption is a hallmark of authoritarian dictatorships.

Thesis 9

Bread and circuses are integral parts of empire building – especially in promoting urban street mobs to overthrow independent and elected governments.

Imperial financed mobs – provided the cover for CIA backed coups in Iran (1954), Ukraine (2014), Brazil (1964), Venezuela (2003, 2014 and 2017), Argentina (1956), Nicaragua (2018), Syria (2011) and Libya (2011) among other places and other times.

Masses for empire draw paid and voluntary street fighters who speak for democracy and serve the elite. The “mass cover” is especially effective in recruiting leftists who look to the street for opinion and ignore the suites which call the shots.

Thesis 10

The empire is like a three-legged stool it promotes genocide, to secure magnicide and to rule by homicide. Invasions kills millions, capture and kill rulers and then rule by homicide – police assassinating dissenting citizens.

The cases are readily available: Iraq and Libya come to mind. The US and its allies invaded, bombed and killed over a million Iraqis, captured and assassinated its leaders and installed a police state.
A similar pattern occurred in Libya: the US and EU bombed, killed and uprooted several million people, assassinated Ghadaffy and fomented a lawless terrorist war of clans, tribes and western puppets.

“Western values” reveal the inhumanity of empires built to murder “a la carte” – stripping the victim nations of their defenders, leaders and citizens.

Conclusion

The ten theses define the nature of 21st century imperialism – its continuities and novelties.
The mass media systematically write and speak lies to power: their message is to disarm their adversaries and to arouse their patrons to continue to plunder the world.
*
Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Prof. James Petras, Global Research, 2018

North Korea Warns US of ’Nuclear Showdown’

Local Editor

24-05-2018 | 09:17

North Korea cast doubt on the planned summit between its leader, Kim Jong-un, and US President Donald Trump, warning that Pyongyang could make the US “taste an appalling tragedy”.

 

The summit’s fate is “entirely” up to the US, North Korea’s vice foreign minister Choe Son-hui said in a statement on Thursday. If the talks are cancelled, Choe suggested the two countries could engage in a “nuclear-to-nuclear showdown”.

“Whether the US will meet us at a meeting room or encounter us at nuclear-to-nuclear showdown is entirely dependent upon the decision … of the US,” she said.

“We will neither beg the US for dialogue nor take the trouble to persuade them if they do not want to sit together with us.”

The comments come after Trump earlier this week said there was a “very substantial chance” the summit could be delayed.

They also follow a week of heated rhetoric in Washington, with some US officials threatening a fate similar to Libya if the North does not relinquish its nuclear weapons program. Libya dictator Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown and killed in a NATO-backed uprising against his rule.

“In view of the remarks of the US high-ranking politicians who have not yet woken up to this stark reality and compare the DPRK to Libya that met a tragic fate, I come to think that they know too little about us,” Choe said, referring to the North’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. “To borrow their words, we can also make the US taste an appalling tragedy it has neither experienced nor even imagined up to now.”

In an interview on Fox News, US vice president Mike Pence said: “This will only end like the Libyan model ended if Kim Jong-un doesn’t make a deal”.

His words echoed earlier comments by national security advisor John Bolton that the US was studying Libya’s unilateral disarmament as a blueprint for negotiations with Pyongyang.

“As a person involved in the US affairs, I cannot suppress my surprise at such ignorant and stupid remarks gushing out from the mouth of the US vice-president,” Choe said.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

Trump Warns Kim: Make A Deal or Suffer Same Fate as Gaddafi!

Local Editor

18-05-2018 | 08:29

US President Donald Trump threatened the North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un with the same fate as Libya’s former dictator Muammar Gaddafi if he “doesn’t make a deal” on his nuclear weapons program.

Trump issued the threat at the White House when he was asked about the recent suggestion by his national security adviser, John Bolton that the “Libyan model” be a template for dealing with North Korea at a summit between Trump and Kim planned for 12 June in Singapore.

The model Bolton was referring to was Gaddafi’s agreement in December 2003 to surrender his embryonic nuclear weapons program, which included allowing his uranium centrifuges to be shipped out to the US.

Trump, however, appeared to be unaware of that agreement, and interpreted the “Libyan model” to mean the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya in support of an insurrection, which ultimately led to Gaddafi’s murder at the hands of rebels in Tripoli.

“The model, if you look at that model with Gaddafi, that was a total decimation. We went in there to beat him. Now that model would take place if we don’t make a deal, most likely. But if we make a deal, I think Kim Jong-un is going to be very, very happy,” Trump said, suggesting that the regime’s survival could be assured if Kim agreed to disarm.

“This with Kim Jong-un would be something where he would be there. He would be running his country. His country would be very rich,” Trump said.

“We’re willing to do a lot, and he’s willing … to do a lot also, and I think we’ll actually have a good relationship, assuming we have the meeting and assuming something comes of it. And he’ll get protections that will be very strong.”

Asked whether his comments meant that he disagreed with his national security adviser, Trump said: “I think when John Bolton made that statement, he was talking about if we are going to be having a problem, because we cannot let that country have nukes. We just can’t do it.”

Pyongyang, for its part, complained about joint military exercises being conducted by US and South Korean forces. The regime’s mission to the United Nations issued a statement on Thursday saying that nuclear-capable B-52 bombers and F-22 fighter planes were taking part in the exercises. He described it as “an extremely provocative and ill-boding act”.

However, Trump said that despite Pyongyang’s threats to call off the summit, “they’ve been negotiating like nothing happened”.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

If I Were MBS, I’d Be Cynical About This Visit

Robert Fisk

08-03-2018 | 10:52

Thank heavens Theresa May is giving a warm welcome today to the illustrious Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, His Royal Majesty Mohammad bin Salman. For it is meet and right that she should do so. His Royal Highness is a courageous Arab reformer, keen to drag his wealthy nation into the 21st century in a raft of promises – women’s rights, massive economic restructuring, moderate Islam, further intelligence gathering on behalf of the West and an even more vital alliance in the “War on Terror”.

Thank God, however, that Theresa May – in her infinite wisdom – is not going to waste her time greeting a head-chopping and aggressive Arab Crown Prince whose outrageous war in Yemen is costing thousands of lives and tainting the United Kingdom with his shame by purchasing millions of dollars in weapons from May to use against the people of Yemen, who is trying to destroy his wealthy Arab brothers in Qatar and doing his best to persuade the US, Britain and sundry other Westerners to join the Saudi war against the Shias of the Middle East.

You see the problem? When it comes to money, guns and power, we will cuddle up to any Arab autocrat, especially if our masters in Washington, however insane, feel the same way about him – and it will always be a “him”, won’t it? And we will wash our hands with them if or when they have ceased to be of use, or no longer buy our weapons or run out of cash or simply get overthrown. Thus I can feel some sympathy for young Mohammad.

I have to add – simply in terms of human rights – that anyone who has to listen to Theresa “Let’s Get On With It” May for more than a few minutes has my profound sympathy. The Saudi foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, a very intelligent Richelieu, must surely feel the same impatience when he listens to the patently dishonest ramblings of his opposite number. Boris Johnson’s contempt and then love for the Balfour Declaration in the space of less than 12 months is recognized in the Arab world as the cynical charade that it is.

Human rights groups, Amnesty and the rest are angrily calling Crown Prince Mohammad to account this week. So are the inevitable protesters. Any constable who raises a baton to keep order will be “doing the Saudis’ work”, we can be sure. But I fear that the Crown Prince should be far more concerned by the Government which is now groveling to his leadership. For he is dealing with a Western power, in this case the Brits. And the only advice he should be given in such circumstances is: mind your back.

A walk, now, down memory lane. When Gaddafi overthrew King Idris, the Foreign Office smiled upon him. A fresh face, a safe pair of hands with an oil-bearing nation whose wealth we might consume, we thought Gaddafi might be our man. The Americans even tipped him off about a counter-coup, just as we much later helped Gaddafi round up his opponents for torture. Then Gaddafi decided to be an anti-colonial nationalist and eventually got mixed up with the IRA and a bomb in a West Berlin nightclub – and bingo, he became a super-terrorist. Yet come the “War on Terror” and the invasion of Iraq, Gaddafi was kissed by the Venerable Blair and became a super-statesman again. Until the 2011 revolution, at which point he had to become a super-terrorist once more, bombed by NATO and murdered by his own people.

Talking of Iraq, Saddam had a similar experience. At first we rather liked the chap and the Americans even tipped him off on the location of his communist opponents. He was a head-chopper, to be sure, but as long as he invaded the right county, he was a super-statesman. Hence we helped him in his invasion of Iran in 1980 but declared him a super-terrorist in 1990 when he invaded the wrong country: Kuwait. And he ended up, like Gaddafi, killed by his own people, albeit that the Americans set up the court which decided to top him.

Yasser Arafat – not that we even think of him these days – was a Palestinian super-terrorist in Beirut. He was the center of World Terror until he shook hands with Yitzhak Rabin and Bill Clinton, at which point he became a super-statesman. But the moment he refused to deviate from the Oslo agreement and accept “Israeli” hegemony over the West Bank – he was never offered “90 per cent” of it, as the American media claimed – he was on the way to super-terrorism again. Surrounded and bombarded in his Ramallah hovel, he was airlifted to a Paris military hospital where he conveniently died. The “Israelis” had already dubbed him “our bin Laden”, a title they later tried to confer on Arafat’s luckless successor Mahmoud Abbas – who was neither a super-terrorist nor a super-statesman but something worse: a failure.

It should not be necessary to run through the other Arab transmogrifications from evil to good to evil again. Nasser, who helped to overthrow the corrupt King Farouk, quickly became a super-terrorist when he nationalised the Suez Canal and was called the “Mussolini of the Nile” by Eden – a slightly measly comparison when you remember that Saddam became the “Hitler of the Tigris” in 1990. [His eminence Imam] Khomeini was a potential super-statesman in his Paris exile when the Shah was overthrown. Then he became a super-terrorist-in-chief once he established the Islamic Republic. The French Jacobins thought that Hafez al-Assad was a potential super-statesman but decided he was a super-terrorist when Bashar al-Assad – lionized in France after his father’s death – went to war on his opponents, thus becoming a super-terrorist himself. The Brits quickly shrugged off their loyalties to Omani and Qatari emirs when their sons staged coups against them.

Thus Mohammad bin Salman, may his name be praised, might be reminded by Adel al-Jubeir as he settles down in London: “Memento homo”, the gladiator’s reminder to every emperor that he is only “a man”. What if the Yemen war is even bloodier, what if the Saudi military become increasingly disenchanted with the war – which is almost certainly why the Crown Prince staged a putsch among his commanders last month – and what if his Vision2030 proves a Saudi South Sea Bubble? What if the humiliated and vexatious princes and billionaires he humbled in the Riyadh Ritz Hotel come to take their revenge? What if – dare one speak his name? – a future British prime minister reopened the Special Branch enquiry into the Al-Yamamah arms contract? And, while we’re on the subject, what if someone discovers the routes by which US weapons reached Isis and their chums after 2014?

Or a real war breaks out with Iran? Please note, no mention here of the Sunni-Shia struggle, the 2016 butchery of Shia opponents in Saudi Arabia – most described as “terrorists”, most of them decapitated – and absolutely no reference to the fact that Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabist doctrines are the very inspiration of Isis and al-Qaeda and all the other ‘jihadi” mumbo-jumbo cults that have devastated the Middle East.

Nope. The truth is, you can’t just tell who your friends are these days.

Wasn’t it the Brits who double-crossed the Saudi monarchy’s predecessors in Arabia by promising them an Arab empire but grabbing Palestine and Transjordan and Iraq for themselves?

Wasn’t it the Brits who published the Balfour Declaration and then tried to betray the Jews to whom they’d promised a homeland and the Arabs whose lands they had promised to protect?

Wasn’t it – since we are talking autocrats – the Brits who gave Ceaucescu an honorary knighthood and then took it back when he was deposed? We gave Mugabe the same gong and then took it back. Incredibly, we gave one to Mussolini too. Yes, we took it back in 1940.

So have a care, Crown Prince Mohammad. Don’t trust perfidious Albion. Watch your back at home, but also abroad. Thanks for all the arms purchases. And thanks for all the intelligence bumph to help us keep track of the lads who are brainwashed with the Wahabi faith. But don’t – whatever you do – be tempted by an honorary knighthood.

Source: The Independent, Edited by website team

قطر ونظرية “الصيدة”

صائب شعث
كاتب ومحلل سياسي عربي

تلامذة أبناء محاكم التفتيش الإسبانية التى فتكت بفكرة العدالة والمساومة في الأندلس الأموية، في شام الأمويين أكلوا أحشاء جنودنا وباعوا أعضاء أطفالنا قطع غيار بشرية في سوق كهنوت الأعضاء البشرية، عشرات الآلاف من أطفال العرب تُباع وتُشترى في أسوق النخاسة الدولية يا صاحب نظرية “الصيدة”.

قبل سنتين شرح حمد بن جاسم الأوامر الأميركية التي وجهت لهم، لإنشاء جيوش الإرهاب في سوريا

السفير القطري لدى واشنطن مشعل بن حمد آل ثاني في مقابلة مع الصحيفة الأميركية ديلي بيست قال

“لقد طلب منا الأميركيون أن نعمل مع حماس في سياق عملية السلام. وذلك لا يعني إننا على نفس الطريق السياسي أو الأيديولوجي مع حماس”.

سياق عملية سلمية أي اختراق المقاومة و تفتيتها من الداخل بالمال بالمناصب بالمهرجانات الدولية بالاستقبالات في العواصم و الظهور على الشاشات الغربية والخليجية، ترويض المقاومة بالدولار النفطي لتصبح “صيدة ” سهلة للصهاينة وأميركا.

كما شرح نظريّة الصيدة العام الماضي في مقابلة مطوّلة رئيس الوزراء القطري السابق حمد بن جاسم عن الأوامر الأميركية التي وجهت لهم، لإنشاء جيوش الإرهاب في سوريا بتمويل سعودي فاق 150 مليار دولار. ولما طلبت السعودية منهم التخلّي عن عَجَلة القيادة قال “فلتت الصيدة”. وقبل عامين على ذلك أبدع في تحليل دورهم في ليبيا، ولننظر كيف “صادوا” الأخ الشهيد معمّر القذافي وكيف قتلوه وكيف دُمّرت ليبيا وكيف تحوّل أكثر شعب مُرفّه في القارة السمراء إلى ملايين اللاجئين في الدول المجاورة، ُتحكَم بلاده من مرتزقة صاحب نظرية “الصيدة” وحوّلوها سوقاً رائجة لتجارة النخاسة.

تشريد أكثر من 20 مليون عربي سوري وليبي ويمني، وذبح مئات الألوف من العرب، ودفع مئات الألوف منهم لأكل التراب والموت جوعاً، وتدمير قدرات تراكمت عبر عشرات بل مئات السنين بيد تلاميذ نظرية الرعب والصدمة الأميركية، التي أمطرتها طائرات بوش بتعاون غربي سعودي قطري خليجي على بغداد ربيع 2003، قتلت إلى الآن أكثر من مليوني عراقي. غير ضحايا الدواعي ومشايخ الطوائف. شنقت أميركا في عيد الأضحى رئيس العراق بيد طائفية لتسيل أنهار الدماء في العراق، واغتصبوا معمّر القذافي بعصيّ تلاميذ الرعب والصدمة و سجّوا جثمانه، لتُطلق هيلارى كلنتون رأس أفعى البلوماسية الأميركية ضحكاتها الهستيرية فرحاً باغتصابه حتى الموت قائلة “جئنا  وشاهدنا وهو قد مات” – “We came we saw he died”.

تلامذة أبناء محاكم التفتيش الإسبانية التى فتكت بفكرة العدالة والمساومة في الأندلس الأموية، في شام الأمويين أكلوا أحشاء جنودنا وباعوا أعضاء أطفالنا قطع غيار بشرية في سوق كهنوت الأعضاء البشرية، عشرات الآلاف من أطفال العرب تُباع وتُشترى في أسوق النخاسة الدولية يا صاحب نظرية “الصيدة”.

الناجون الذين لم تبتلعهم البحار التركية فرضت عليهم أوروبا- ألمانيا المشي تحت رحمة عصابات التهريب وتجار العبيد سيراً على الأقدام من اليونان إلى صربيا إلى هنغاريا فالنمسا فألمانيا، والبقاء للأصلح كما صاغها صاحب نظرية القوّة الإمبريالية العملية مُنظّر عِلم الأحياء الإنكليزي تشارلز دارون. الضعيف تنهشه الكلاب وتجار الأعضاء.

والناجون الأقوياء يتلقّون أول درس ينصّ على أن ألمانيا، التي لم ترسل لا قطاراً ولا حتى سفينة، لتحول دون الموت لعشرات الآلاف الماشين على الأقدام بعد أن نجوا من التحوّل لوجبة سريعة لحيتان وسمك البحر، الدرس يؤكّد هي ألمانيا مَن أنقذتكم من الهلاك لابأس ساعد البعض من الدول الأوروبية. على الناجين إظهار التفاني في خدمة ألمانيا وأن يقبلوا بما يُلقي لهم السيّد الأوروبي من فتات.

هذا السيّد دفع مع الغرب سيّد صاحب نظرية ” الصيدة” لأن يفتك بهم وببلادهم ليأتوا بعمالة رخيصة راضية وبدم جديد يتدفّق ويضخّ حياة في رحم العجوز الأوروبية العاقِر.

تحاملتم على اليمن والعراق وليبيا وسوريا ، كل بلاد الشام لتحطيم قلب العروبة النابض، ذلك ندركه ويدركه كل عربي فهو من أجل سيادة صهيونية أميركية على المنطقة العربية وتهجير الأقوياء من أبنائها والفتك بالباقي وشفط ثرواتها، هكذا يظن مشايخ آل سعود والخليج وبالأخص قطر واضعي نظرية “الصيدة” بأنهم بعد القضاء على القوّة والمقاومة العربية سيخلدون في حُكم وشفط براميل النفط الفاني. وفي إشارة تذلّل للسعودي يردّد معزوفة الجبير ويتّهم سفير قطر إيران، القوّة الوحيدة التى يحسب الغرب والصهاينة لها ألف حساب والتي تقف كسدٍ منيعٍ جنباً إلى جنب مع سوريا والمقاومة اللبنانية الفلسطينية العراقية اليمنية، والتي تحول من دون وقوع المنطقة العربية بيد الصهاينة والأميركان، بل وتهزم مشاريعها وقواها من صنعاء إلى غزّة، يقول السفير “ندرك أن إيران عامل يزعزع الاستقرار في المنطقة، وأنهم يتدخلون في العراق وسوريا والبحرين واليمن”. أقول لك إيران عامل يزعزع الاستسلام لأميركا ويمنع المنطقة من أن تكون “صيدة” لأسيادك الأميركان والصهاينة.

“الميادين”

الصيدة

How Hitler Analogies Obscure Understanding of Mideast Power Struggle

PHILIP M. GIRALDI | 30.11.2017 | OPINION

How Hitler Analogies Obscure Understanding of Mideast Power Struggle

While growing up in America during the 1950’s, one would sometimes encounter supermarket tabloid headlines asserting that Adolph Hitler had not died in May 1945 in the ruins of the Reich’s Chancellery. It was claimed that he had somehow escaped and was living under a false identity somewhere in South America, most probably in Argentina. Eventually, as the Fuhrer’s hundredth birthday came and went in 1989, the stories pretty much vanished from sight though the fascination with Hitler as the ultimate manifestation of pure evil persisted.

The transformation of Hitler into something like a historical metaphor means that his name has been evoked a number of times in the past twenty years, attached to Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gaddafi, Vladimir Putin and, most recently, to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran. The attribution in the cases of Hussein and Gaddafi was essentially to create popular support for otherwise unjustifiable wars initiated by the United States and its European and Middle Eastern allies. Putin, meanwhile, received the sobriquet from an angry Hillary Clinton, who certainly knows a thing or two about both personalizing and overstating a case.

The Hitler designation of the Iranian spiritual leader, which appeared one week ago in a featured profile produced by Tom Friedman of The New York Times, is particularly ironic as it came from the de facto head of state of Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, whose country has long been regarded as cruel and despotic while also being condemned for its sponsorship of a particularly reactionary form of Islam called wahhabism. Bin Salman described the Iranian leader as “the new Hitler of the Middle East.”

Both Khamenei and bin Salman exercise power without a popular mandate. Khamenei was named to his position in 1989 by a so-called Assembly of Experts, which is a quasi-religious body, and bin Salman was appointed Crown Prince by his father King Salman in June. Both have considerable power over other organs of state, but the comparison largely ends there as Iran does have real elections for an actual parliament with enumerated powers and a president who is also serves as head of government.

Iran is also tolerant of long established religious minorities whereas Saudi Arabia, which is seen by most observers as a theocratic based autocracy that is a personal possession of the House of Saud, is hostile to them. In particular, Riyadh has been actively promoting hatred for Islam’s second largest sect, Shi’ism. The Saudis have also been assisting al-Qaeda, al-Nusra Front and ISIS, though denying the considerable evidence demonstrating those links, while Iran and its allies have been destroying those terrorists on the battlefield.

Crown Prince bin Salman has been preaching an anti-corruption drive of late, which includes torture of those arrested. Many observers believe it is actually a bid to shake down some billionaires while also diminishing the power exercised by some members of the extended Royal Family. The Prince has also suggested that he will be promoting a “more open and modern” form of Islam, which might reduce some beheadings and amputations as punishment. But the death penalty will still apply for heresy, which includes the Shi’ism practiced by Iran, Iraq, some Syrians and Hezbollah. Nor will it put an end to the current horrific slaughter by disease and starvation of Yemenis being implemented by Riyadh with some help from its friends in Tel Aviv and Washington.

Liberal journalists like Tom Friedman, who have editorially sided with the Saudis and Israelis against Iran, have largely bought into the anticorruption theme. The Times profile accepts at face value bin Salam’s claims to be a reformer who will somehow reshape both Saudi Arabia and Islam. Friedman, a passionate globalist, largely goes along for the ride because it is the kind of language a poorly-informed progressive hopes to hear from someone who walks around wearing a keffiyeh and sandals. It also serves Friedman’s other regular agenda justifying Israeli threats to go to war against its neighbors, starting with Lebanon. Make no mistake, the offerings of war abroad and repression at home being served up by Riyadh and Tel Aviv are not the birth pangs of a New Middle East. That died a long time ago. It is instead a fight over who will dominate the region, the same as it always is.

Sayyed Moussa Sadr: A Fighter for Rights and Freedom

Siraj Kobeisy

BIOGRAPHY:

Sayyed Moussa Sadr was born in the Holy Iranian City of Qum in the year 1928, to the Sadr family which was known to be a family of theologians. His father was Ayatollah Sadreddine Al Sadr, and Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir Al Sadr was his cousin.

Sayyed Moussa Sadr attended his primary school in Qum and later on moved to the Iranian Capital Tehran, where in the year 1956, he received a degree in Islamic Jurisprudence and Political Sciences from Tehran University.

After that, His Eminence moved back to Qum to study theology before leaving to Najaf in Iraq in the year 1954, to continue his theology studies under Ayatollah Sayyed Mohsen Al Hakim, and Ayatollah Sayyed Abdul Qassem Al Kouei.

In the year 1955, Sayyed Moussa Sadr came to his home country, Lebanon, for the first time, where he met his cousins and extended family members in Tyr and Shuhoor, and was the guest of honor at Ayatollah Sayyed Abed Al Hussein Sharafeddine’s house.

Ayatollah Sharafeddine saw the talents and skills of Sayyed Moussa Sadr, and started talking about them in all his meetings and seminars, which gave a glimpse that Sayyed Moussa would be his successor.

In this context, and in the end of the year 1957, after Sayyed Sharafeddine’s death, the city of Tyre sent for Sayyed Moussa Sadr from Qum, and by the end of the year 1959, Sayyed Sadr came back to Lebanon, and settled in the city of Tyre.

As he started to appear widely in social affairs, Sayyed Moussa started with religious and general activities, spreading their range through seminars, meetings, and visits, where he was able to relate religion to the social affairs.

His Eminence did not only step into his work in the city of Tyre, but he also went from and to most of the Lebanese areas, among different social ranks, or even religions or sects.

His major concern was the unity of all Lebanese, regardless of their religion or sect, for he believed that religion’s role is ethical stability, where Sayyed Moussa was the first to conduct the Muslim-Christian dialogue, later during the Lebanese civil war.

Sayyed Moussa worked on achieving a better society for the people of his city Tyre, and for other people, leading them to a better civilized way of living, helping them through establishing social and charitable associations to direct basic instructions.

Orphans and less fortunate people had a chance to know the generosity of Sayyed Moussa Sadr, and how much he worked on helping developing the society.

Sayyed Moussa was a prominent active figure in the Islamic and Arab world, where he participated in several international and regional conferences, in which he used to contribute and address people with his knowledge, checking on all Lebanese immigrant people to the world.

When he came to think about his own Muslim, Shiite, sect, Sayyed Moussa Sadr sought to organize his sect’s affairs, as the law allows each sect to have the right to form its own institutions.

A COUNCIL OF AFFAIRS:

From this context, His Eminence started urging for establishing a council special for the Shiite Muslims’ affairs, which was rejected and opposed by some Shiite political figures, in addition to politicians of other sects.

Sayyed Moussa’s cause to establish a Shiite council took him years, until the year 1966, where he conducted a press conference, in which he presented the sorrows of the Shiites, based on statistics and surveys that he used to prove reasons for establishing a council.
By the end of the year 1967, a proposal was approved by the Lebanese Parliament and Lebanese President, resulting in the establishment of the “Islamic Shiite Higher Council”.
This council was considered to be the fruits of what Sayyed Moussa worked for, in order to present a better future for the people of his sect, and to try and stop sectarian racism.
As the council was established to be a legal council with no flaws, it was agreed that a board of members would be formed in order to organize the work as in any other organization.

In the year 1969, Sayyed Moussa was elected as the first Head of the Islamic Shiite Higher Council, where he pledged on his day of election, that he would do his responsibilities and duties as head of the council, in order to achieve all what could be done in the benefit of the Shiite people.

Yet Sayyed Moussa was not only a religious figure, he was also a political scientist who cared enough about political developments, in addition to patriotic campaign in defending their country.

FACING “ISRAEL”

Sayyed Moussa of course did have interest in the Palestinian issue, where he called upon supporting the Palestinians, and strictly cooperate with Arab countries, in order to liberate the occupied territories.

And so it happened that as Imam Moussa Sadr started his way as a prominent, Lebanese, figure, the “Israeli” brutal aggressions and assaults in south Lebanon had have been taking place.

In this context, His Eminence started urging Lebanese authorities to help and protect southern villages, in addition to arming southerners and train them to defend their country.

Sayyed Moussa’s demands developed to become a campaign, which as a result, the Lebanese government approved on enhancing the situation on the Lebanese southern borders in the year 1970.

The year 1970 was a rich year in the accomplishments Sayyed Moussa achieved for the benefit of the Lebanese people, especially in light of the “Israeli” aggressions.

While the South was the most, or by the only damaged area as a result of the enemy aggression, Sayyed Moussa sought to establish the “South Council”, which mainly dealt with making up for all damage caused by “Israeli” assaults, in addition to agreeing upon some projects that aim at enhancing the social situation in the south.

Despite the “Israeli” constant attacks in the southern areas, Sayyed Moussa wouldn’t let the situation go unless he would fight or hold campaigns against the aggressions.

Although the Lebanese government cared less about Sayyed Moussa’s demands in protecting the people, the Lebanese Army Leadership was interested in demands, which led them to establish special joint committees in the year 1974, which would be set to study all demands. Many reports were published concerning demands and the importance of them to be conducted, yet there were no results, leading Sayyed Moussa and his followers to continue all sorts of campaigns.

In the memory of Ashura, in the year 1975, Sayyed Moussa Sadr called upon the Lebanese people to form a Lebanese resistance in order to confront all “Israeli” aggressions and conspiracies planed for Lebanon.

Sayyed Mousa said, “Defending the country is not only the duty of the authorities, and if the authorities let us down, that doesn’t exclude the people’s duty in defending”.

In a press conference His Eminence held on the 6th of July 1975, he announced the start of Lebanese resistance, under the name of “Amal” (hope).
“The youth of Amal are the ones who were with me in my demands for defending the country and the dignity of the nation, in these days where the “Israeli” assaults reached their climax, and the Lebanese authorities did not do its duty in defending its country and people”.

The Lebanese civil war was not any less important than the “Israeli” war against Lebanon, for all His Eminence cared for is the wellbeing of the people of his country.
For that, Sayyed Moussa exerted too much effort for this cause, traveling from one Arab country to another, aiming at coming up with an Arab resolution and decision to stop the civil war in Lebanon.

He finally was capable of imposing a decision after an Arab Summit in Cairo on the 25th of October 1976, which agreed on sending Arab troops to Lebanon, to stop all internal aggressions.

Although the civil war ended, but the “Israeli” assaults continued in southern Lebanon, to the extent that the Arab troops sent for internal Lebanese peace keeping were not able to enter the Lebanese southern territories.

From here and so, Sayyed Moussa’s main concern was to liberate south Lebanon and stop all forms of aggressions against Lebanese civilians.

DISAPPEARANCE:

The Story of Sayyed Moussa, or what is considered to be the most negotiable, yet confusing, would be in Libya, linked with his disappearance.

On the 25th of August 1978, Sayyed Moussa went on an official visit to the Arab country of Libya, accompanied with Sheikh Mohammad Yaakoub, and journalist Abbas Badreldien. The visit aimed at meeting with Moammar Al Qadafi.

For the first time, Sayyed Moussa Sadr did not conduct many phone calls, and surprisingly no one knew anything about him and his companions, were he didn’t call his family nor the council as he usually did in previous travels.

Noon, the 31st of August 1978, was the last day he was seen in Libyan territories, where after no one knew what happened to him and his companions; the whole world started questioning the situation.

As international demands started to become louder, the Libyan authorities announced that His Eminence and his companions left Libyan on the evening of 31st of August, and headed towards Italy.

It is true that Sayyed Moussa’s luggage, and his companions’ were found in a hotel in Rome, yet the Italian intelligence and court conducted a major investigation, which proved that the abducted did not leave the Libyan territories, and never passed through Rome in that time period.

The situation then was announced to be the abduction of Sayyed Moussa Sadr and his companions, where the Lebanese intelligence as well left to Libya in order to investigate the incident, yet the Libyan authorities did not allow any Lebanese entry for that reason.

The Lebanese intelligence were then only able to go to Rome, where Lebanese investigations also proved, that Sayyed Moussa did not leave Libya as was claimed.
The Islamic Shiite Higher Council published many statements, in which with the agreement of all Lebanese parties, and most of international incites, they accused Moammar Al Qaddafi, Libyan President, to be the abductor of Sayyed Moussa Sadr and his companions.

The story has not been forgotten or faded away, for Sayyed Moussa is still awaited in Lebanon, Iran, and most of the areas and sects who believe in his achievements before, and what he could do and achieve if it was destined for him to return.

Sayyed Moussa Sadr, a name of wisdom, faith, strength, nationalism, generosity, and most important, patriotism, would now and forever be a memory, a blessing on the whole world, until the truth is revealed.

Alive or not, a pure soul remains as helping as always in the presence of Hope.

Source: Al-Ahed News

31-08-2010 | 14:15

.Libyan War, Syrian War And Qatar CrisisLIBYAN WAR, SYRIAN WAR AND QATAR CRISIS

06.07.2017 06.07.2017

Written and produced by SF Team: J.Hawk, Daniel Deiss, Edwin Watson

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

The war in Libya was caused not so much by any internal dissent but rather by the West’s need for continued economic expansion, which Western elites view as part and parcel of the post-Cold War “end of history”, a still-potent messianic ideology which gives the West the license to attack anyone, anywhere, to achieve its mercantilist objectives, and which gives the necessary humanitarian “fig leaf” for the benefit of the politically correct faction of Western societies.

Naturally, politically correct Westerners have been unbothered by the “humanitarian interventions” invariably making the situation far worse, and Libya has not been an exception. Since the fall of the regime of Muammar al-Gaddafi, Libya has not experienced any political, financial or even social stability, as the country is witnessing a state of constant fighting between all parties despite the absence of any religious or sectarian differences between the populations. Libya turned from one of the richest countries in the world to a failed state.

The current war in Libya began in 2014, with most of the fighting being between the internationally-recognized Tobruk-based Libyan Interim Government centered on the House of Representatives that was elected democratically in 2014, an Islamist National Salvation Government founded by the General National Congress based in Tripoli city, and the UN-backed Government of National Accord also based in Tripoli.

The Libyan Interim Government has the allegiance of the Libyan National Army under the leadership of General Khalifa Haftar and enjoys the support of Egypt and the United Arab Emirates directly, with indirect support from both the United States, Britain and Russia, with the latter country’s affinity to Haftar clearly demonstrated when the Libyan general boarded the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier in January 2017, as the ship was returning home from its combat mission off the coast of Syria. It is a secular entity and has the sole legitimate power in Libya. Since 2014, Egypt has supplied many light and heavy weapons to the Libyan National Army led by Khalifa Haftar, which included several MiG-21 fighters. The United Arab Emirates also provides financial support to Haftar and has a small airbase in eastern Libya, including AT-802 turboprop light attack aircraft and WingLoong UAVs which appear to be operated by Erik Prince’s Academi (formerly Blackwater) Private Military Company.

The emergence of the Libyan Interim Government was made possible by the withdrawal of House of Representatives support for the Government of National Accord, whose power has since greatly decreased.

Instead, the chief opponent of the LIG is the Islamic government of the General National Congress, also called the Salvation Government,  which is led by the Muslim Brotherhood with support from a coalition of Islamic groups known as the Dawn of Libya. It is believed that one of the combat groups of the General National Congress was involved in the assassination of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens in 2012. The Muslim Brotherhood are also accused of providing political cover to ISIS during its expansion in Libya before 2014, which is a plausible accusation considering Qatar’s tangible support to both ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood.

It too enjoys international support by Qatar, Turkey, and Sudan, with the former two countries playing roles identical to they played in the Syrian conflict.  Qatar’s considerable contribution includes financial support to the General National Congress and smuggling arms using C-130 military cargo planes in cooperation with Sudan, while Turkey has smuggled arms to the Dawn of Libya using ships. Turkey also benefits from illegal oil trade with the militia, according to unconfirmed reports.

Since 2014, ISIS has had strong influence in much of Libya, especially in Darnah east of Banghazi, but this influence of the terrorist organization has shrunk over time. However, Libya is one of the bases of recruitment and money laundering for ISIS, where ISIS is believed to have received indirect support from Turkey, Qatar and the General National Congress. Moreover, ISIS views Libya as an operating base from which to stage expansion into countries of the Sahel and to aid ISIS cells operating in Tunisia and Egypt.

Completing the list of warring parties, Tuareg forces control southwestern Libya, including Amazigh and Ghat area, and are considered indirect allies of the General National Congress.

Given the balance of forces outlined above, the conflict in Libya would have come to a close years ago had it not been for the direct involvement of the Qatar-Turkey alliance, whose aggressive acts against Syria had likewise escalated that conflict. To be sure, the Qatar-Turkey alliance was one of convenience, with the two parties pursuing different objectives which simply happened to be not mutually exclusive.

For Turkey, the aim of the game at the time was neo-Ottomanism. Both Syria and Libya are, after all, parts of the former Ottoman Empire, with the former being wrested from its grasp by the French and the British at the end of World War I, and the former falling to Italy in Italo-Turkish War of 1911-1912. For Qatar, the objective was establishing oneself as a regional power player not only independent of Saudi Arabia but also equivalent to it, a task that would have been greatly facilitated by establishing Qatar-friendly regimes in Libya and Syria, extending Qatar’s control over the region’s hydrocarbons, and gaining access to new markets in Europe. That final point of the Turkey-Qatar strategy was welcome by European factions favoring continued eastward expansion because the Qatari gas pipeline could be used as a political weapon against Russia.

However, that coalition proved too weak to overcome the resistance of legitimate government forces in Libya and Syria, particularly after the direct Russian military involvement in Syria spelled the end of the “Assad must go” campaign, and it never managed to secure the support of the United States for either of its objectives. The US, for its part, attempted to sponsor its own jihadists in Syria or favored the Saudi-led efforts. Therefore it was only a matter of time before either Turkey or Qatar realized its strategy was doomed and sought to pursue a different course of action. Turkey proved the weaker link in that coalition thanks to, ironically, US enlistment of the Kurds as its proxy army in Syria. Faced with an impossible to dislodge Russian presence in Syria, Turkey opted to change its aims to become an “energy gateway” to Europe by joining forces with Russia in the form of the Turkish Stream pipeline.

Worse, while initially the West was generally in favor of any and all forms of “Arab Spring”, including the Turkish-Qatari efforts in both Syria and Libya, by 2016 it was becoming clear the downsides were outweighing the positives. The refugee crisis, in particular, that became a potent political issue threatening the unchallenged liberal status quo had forced a re-evaluation of the policy, lest the likes of Front National or AfD come to power in Europe. Even the US, which did not receive a flood of Middle East refugees, was affected.  On April 11, 2016, Obama was forced to admit that Libya was the “worst mistake” he had committed during his presidency as the mistake was that the United States did not plan for the post-Gaddafi era. He was not doing it because of any sorrow for the citizens of countries he despoiled, but rather because the resulting chaos was now negatively affecting Hillary Clinton’s chances to win.

But it was Donald Trump who delivered what surely will be a fatal blow to Qatar’s international ambitions, first by giving a green light to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states to pounce on Qatar, and then directly accusing it of sponsoring terrorists. The ensuing blockade of Qatar meant that the country’s leaders would have little time or money to continue financing militants in Libya or Syria. Indeed, shortly after the Qatar blockade was imposed, the Russian military stated the war in Syria, other than the fighting against ISIS, had practically ground to a standstill.

Considering that Turkey and Qatar have been the main obstacles to ending the war in Libya, Turkey’s defection followed by the US-authorized Saudi political and economic assault on Qatar have implications not only for Syria but also for Libya. Indeed, there are already many signs the political situation in Libya is evolving. Arguably the biggest development in recent months was the release of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, Muammar Gaddafi’s son, by a Tobruk-based militia upon a request from the House of Representatives. With Saif al-Islam Gaddafi being wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged atrocities committed by the Libyan government during the 2011 war, the fact of his release indicates the political fortunes are now favoring the House of Representatives and Marshal Haftar, a shift also suggested by British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s statements in support of Haftar playing  an important role in Libyan politics and the new French President Macron’s admission the war in Libya was a major mistake.

But here the Western officials seem to be following the trends rather than making them, as the root cause of the shift appears to be the sudden weakening of Qatar’s positions in the region. Egypt is a clear beneficiary of that weakening and is intent on pressing its advantage, to the point of pro-Sisi Egyptian media actually advocating bombing of Qatar. The Qatari disarray is also made apparent by LNA’s recent announcement that the Qatari opposition has provided the LNA with a list of Libyan citizens who worked for Qatar’s intelligence services.

Qatar’s situation is not an enviable one. For the time being Turkey’s military support and the US unwillingness to allow Saudi Arabia to utterly devastate Qatar are enough to allow it to maintain a brave face. But in the longer term it needs to find an accommodation with at least one of the key power players in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, US, or…Russia. The fact of growing Turkey-Russia cooperation on a variety of issues and Qatar’s outreach to Russia in the form of a foreign minister visit and the simplification of visa rules for Russian citizens, suggests that Qatar is at least contemplating realigning its alliance membership. However, considering that all of the three above-named powers are on the opposite side of the barricades as far as Libya is concerned, it seems unlikely Qatar can maintain its proxy war there even with Turkey’s support. Therefore, almost no matter what Qatar decides to do next, it will have no choice but to write off Libya as a total loss, an act that will hasten the end of this tragic six-year war.

The Battle in the Shadow of the War against Daesh

Darko Lazar

The recent shooting down of a Syrian Su-22 fighter jet is only the latest in a long list of incidents during which the Americans have opened fire on Syria’s army.

From direct military strikes targeting the al-Shayrat air base, to bombing pro-government armed formations that supposedly enter dubiously-demarcated no-go zones, the US is only reinforcing the narrative that its objectives have nothing to do with fighting Daesh [Arabic acronym for “ISIS” / “ISIL”].

Instead, these incidents are the consequence of the race for control of eastern Syria.

It is precisely in this context that the Americans have allowed themselves to declare their so-called “de-confliction zone” near the strategically-important Syrian border town of al-Tanf.

The blueprints, drawn up in Washington, envisaged al-Tanf as the launching point for a northward push by US-backed militants towards the Euphrates, and the eventual capture of Syria’s entire southeast.

But the Syrian army, backed by Iranian and Russian forces, have diluted these plans by liberating Daesh-controlled territory, and reaching the Iraqi border – effectively encircling Washington’s ‘zone’.

Faced with the option of sitting with their hands crossed in a stretch of desert rendered strategically useless by the Syrian maneuver, the Americans cooked up quite a creative alternative.

Since the US could find absolutely no justification for directly attacking the corridor established by the Syrian forces, Daesh terrorists were put to use once again and ‘encouraged’ to move south.

Recent reports from the ground have shown that the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces [SDF] are allowing Daesh fighters to flee the ‘encircled’ city of Raqqa towards Deir ez-Zor in the east.

The idea is to put pressure on the aforementioned corridor, which sits just south of Deir ez-Zor. However, things have not exactly gone to plan thanks to the efforts of the Syrian army and its allies.

This brings us back to the Syrian Su-22, which was shot down this week by a US F/A-18E Super Hornet while taking part in operations to fend off the advancing militants.

“Collective self-defense”
Since the inception of the so-called US-led coalition against Daesh, the military alliance’s efforts to partition Syria have been hard to miss.

While acknowledging that the overthrow of Bashar al Assad is improbable – if not impossible – Washington threw its weight behind the Kurds and other militant formations, aiming to sever Damascus’ link with Europe in the north, and its allies – Iraq, Iran – in the east.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the US continues to claim that “the Coalition’s mission is to defeat ‘ISIS’ in Iraq and Syria.”

A statement released by US Central Command attempted to justify the downing of the SU-22 as “collective self-defense of Coalition-partnered forces”, a reference to the SDF, which the Americans claim was being targeted by the Syrian jet.

“The Coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian, or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend Coalition or partner forces from any threat, “the statement adds.

Aside from the fact that this logic fails to explain why no such defenses are being mounted against the Turks, who bomb the SDF at least once a week, the statement also has the potential to backfire on Washington.

While the UN Charter recognizes the right to self-defense, it only applies to the defense of other states, rather than non-state actors like the SDF.

However, the real trap for Washington lies in its continuous assertions that the SDF and other militant formations are an extension of the US. As such, all actions attributed to these groups, including potential war crimes, are automatically credited to Washington.

The June 19 statement also goes on to call

“on all parties to focus their efforts on the defeat of ISIS, which is our common enemy and the greatest threat to regional and worldwide peace and security.”

One of the more obvious problems with that claim is the American presence in al-Tanf and the deployment of its High Mobility Artillery Rocket System [HIMARS] to the area, which is not capable of targeting Daesh positions from that distance.

Confrontation with Russia

American motives in the region have long since led to tensions with the Russians, which have the potential to morph into a direct military confrontation.

Following the downing of the Syrian jet, the Kremlin blasted the U.S. for its blatant violation of international law and issued a stern warning.

“In areas where Russian aircraft are carrying out military tasks in the skies above Syria, any flying objects, including international coalition aircraft and drones found operating west of the River Euphrates, will be tracked by Russian land and air-based anti-aircraft ground systems as targets,” Russia’s defense ministry said in a statement.

This is the most serious threat the Russians have aimed at Washington since the start of the Syrian conflict. Even when Turkey had shot down a Russian warplane over Syria in November 2015, Moscow stopped short of threatening to treat Turkish aircraft as fair game.

Of course, it’s unlikely that the Russians would allow themselves to shoot down American warplanes over Syria without a very good reason.

If nothing else, the Russians have proven to be pragmatic players on the world stage, and shooting down American planes hardly qualifies as pragmatism. The question, though, is: when does such an option become a pragmatic one?

Perhaps more concerning is Moscow’s decision to halt the use of an incident-prevention hotline with Washington, established to prevent accidental clashes between the different forces operating across Syrian airspace.

The fact that the Russians are at a point where they would rather risk an accidental confrontation than cooperate with the Americans further testifies to the lack of trust between the supposed partners in the fight against a ‘common enemy’.

The Philippines scenario

The latest example of how the US uses Daesh as an excuse, rather than a reason for its military interventions, is the fighting taking place in the Philippines.

Just over a month before the outbreak of violence, Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte said that his “foreign policy has shifted from pro-western”.

“I now have this working alliance with China and I hope to establish a good working relations with Russia. Why? Because the western world, EU and everything, they have these double talks,” he added with trademark bombast.

Anyone who has followed international affairs over the last few decades is aware that statements such as the one above never turn out too well. Duterte must have known it too. Even if he has forgotten about leaders like Slobodan Milosevic, he surely remembers Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi – not to mention Bashar al Assad.

And just like Assad, Duterte is now in Washington’s crosshairs.

The anti-Duterte operation was activated on May 23, when none other than Daesh footsoliders invaded Marawi City on the predominantly Muslim island of Mindanao.

The Philippine president responded by declaring martial law on the island, and launching an uncompromising military operation.

Interestingly, the island also houses a US military base with more than a hundred marines, a significant number of special operations units, as well as P-3 Orion surveillance aircraft.

So, the question is obvious. How on earth had a group of terrorists managed to sneak into Marawi, stocking weapons in mosques and basements, and then building tunnels fit to withstand a fierce siege by a better-armed adversary, without alerting American spy planes and special forces?

Just like in Syria, the appearance of Daesh is quickly followed by the appearance of American soldiers, who are supposedly there to protect the locals from the scourge of terrorism. And just like Assad, Duterte had never asked for help.

“I never approached any American to say… ‘Help us’,” the Philippine leader said shortly after the American embassy in Manila announced that US Special Forces were “assisting” operations in Marawi.

The true geopolitical value of Daesh for Washington’s military elites cannot be understated. From the Middle East to the Far East, this terrorist machine is yet to fail in aiding long-term US objectives.

Whether paving the way for a permanent American military presence in Syria, or creating a source of instability for the Philippine government, the battle being fought in the shadows of the war against Daesh is far from over.

Source: Al-Ahed News

24-06-2017 | 09:47