Friday, 23 June 2017

Hillary Clinton Emails Reveal NATO Killed Gaddafi to Stop Libyan Creation of Gold-Backed Currency

Hillary’s emails truly are the gifts that keep on giving. While France led the proponents of the UN Security Council Resolution that would create a no-fly zone in Libya, it claimed that its primary concern was the protection of Libyan civilians (considering the current state of affairs alone, one must rethink the authenticity of this concern). As many “conspiracy theorists” will claim, one of the real reasons to go to Libya was Gaddafi’s planned gold dinar.
One of the 3,000 Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department on New Year’s Eve (where real news is sent to die quietly) has revealed evidence that NATO’s plot to overthrow Gaddafi was fueled by first their desire to quash the gold-backed African currency, and second the Libyan oil reserves.
The email in question was sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by her unofficial adviser Sydney Blumenthal titled “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold”.
The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”
Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency.
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues: 
     a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
     b. Increase French influence in North Africa, 
     c. Improve his internal political situation in France, 
     d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the     world, 
     e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa)
Ergo as soon as French intel discovered Gaddafi’s dinar plans, they decided to spearhead the campaign against him- having accumulated enough good reasons to take over.
Sadly, Gaddafi had earlier warned Europe (in a “prophetic” phone conversations with Blair) that his fall would prompt the rise of Islamic extremism in the West. A warning that would go unheeded; what’s a few lives in France and Libya, if the larger goal lines the pockets of politicians and the elite so much better after all?
Featured image: Sheep Media
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Understanding Russia: The Continuum of History

June 20, 2017
The United States is actively committed to bring Russia into submission via encirclement and a two pronged attack.
NATO’s expansion of bases in vassal states right up to Russia’s borders, coupled with an attempt at encroachment in Syria, should allow The Hegemon to undermine Russia’s underbelly from the Caucasus to Central Asia.
To understand how Russians usually respond to Western power a little time travel, starting 1219 AD, is more than useful.
This was a time when a cataclysmic event left deep scars on the Russian character; an abiding fear of encirclement, whether by nomadic hordes then or by nuclear missile bases today.
Russia then was not a single state but consisted of a dozen principalities frequently at war with each other. Between 1219 and 1240 all these fell to the Genghis Khan hurricane, whose lightning-speed cavalry with his horse-borne archers, employing brilliant tactics unfamiliar to Europeans, caught army after army off guard and forced them into submission.
For more than 200 years Russians suffered under the Golden Horde of the Mongol – named after their great tent with golden poles. They left the Russian economy in ruins, brought commerce and industry to a halt, and reduced Russians to serfdom. Asiatic ways of administration and customs were superimposed on the existing Byzantine system.
Taking full advantage of its military weakness and of its reduced circumstances, Russia’s European neighbors started to help themselves to its territory, starting with German principalities, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden. The Mongols couldn’t care less so long as they received their tribute. They were more concerned with their Asiatic dominions.
Still, European cities did not match the riches of Samarkand and Bukhara, Herat and Baghdad, whose incomparable wealth and splendor outshone wooden-built Russian cities.
Russia’s greatest fear begins here – crushed between their European foes to the West and the Mongols to the East. Russians were to develop a paranoid dread of invasion and encirclement which has tormented their foreign relations ever since. Hardly ever has an experience left such deep and ever-lasting scars on a nation’s psyche as this cataclysm did on Russians. This explains, among other things, their stoical acceptance of harsh rule at home.
And then came Ivan III – the man who freed the Russians from the Golden Horde.
Muscovy then was a small provincial town overshadowed by and subservient to its powerful neighbors. In return for allegiance and subservience locals were gradually entrusted with more power and freedom by the unsuspecting Mongols. Over time the Principality of Muscovy grew in strength and size, eventually to dominate all its neighbors.
In 1476 Ivan refused to pay the customary tribute to the grand Khan Ahmed. In a fit of rage Ivan trampled the portrait of Ahmed and put several of his envoys to death.
The showdown came in autumn 1480 when the Khan marched with his army to teach a vassal a lesson, but was astonished to find a large well-equipped force awaiting him on the far bank of the River Ugra, 150 miles from Moscow. For weeks the two armies glowered at one another, neither side wanting to make the first move.
The stakes were clear. Ivan did not need to cross the river. He would change the course of history if he did not lose. A stalemate could become a turning point in history.
For Ahmed Khan there is no choice. He must cross the river and engage. Win or die like Tariq ibin Ziyad in 711 AD, another age and time, when a brilliant Arab general landed on the ‘rock of Hercules’ subsequently called by Arab Historians ‘Jabal Tariq’, meaning the ‘mountain of Tariq’ and later anglicized as Gibraltar.
Tariq, by one master stratagem, with a much smaller force (12,000 against 90,000 Spaniards) at the Battle of Guadalete defeated Roderic and thus opened the road for the subsequent Arab commanders to march all the way to Tours in France.
With the arrival of winter, the river began to freeze. A ferocious battle appeared inevitable. And then something extraordinary happened. Perhaps a miracle. Without warning both sides turned and fled in panic. Despite their inglorious act, the Russians knew that their long subservience was over.
The Khan had lost his stomach for a fight. The once invincible Mongol might had evaporated. Their centralized authority in the West had now collapsed, leaving three widely separated khanates (Kazan, Astrakhan and Crimea) as their last remnants of the once mighty and the largest contiguous land empire in history.
It was in 1553 when Ivan the Terrible, a successor of Ivan III, thirsting for revenge, stormed the fortress of Kazan on the upper Volga, slaughtered its defenders and thus ended the Mongol rule. Two years later the Khanate of Astrakhan, where the Volga flows into the Caspian met with similar fate.
Starving Napoleon’s army
Fast forward to June 1812, and the fateful day, the 24th , when Napoleon’s Grande Armée crossed the Neman River in an attempt to engage and defeat the Russian army.
Napoleon’s aim was to compel Tsar Alexander I of Russia to stop trading with British merchants through proxies and bring about pressure on the United Kingdom to sue for peace. The overt political aim of the campaign was to liberate Poland from the threat of Russia (as the US claims of Eastern Europe today). Thus the campaign was named the Second Polish War to gain favor with the Poles and provide a political pretense for his actions.
The real aim was domination of Russia.
The Grande Armée was massive; 680,000 soldiers. Through a series of marches Napoleon rushed the army rapidly through Western Russia in an attempt to bring the Russian army to battle, and in August of that year winning a number of minor engagements and a major battle at Smolensk.
Any invading army must consider war in Russia as a war at sea. It is futile to occupy land or city or cities. The aim of an invading force must be to destroy the military machine of Russia. The aim of Russian commanders has always been to survive and use its vast land mass to exhaust its enemy, learn from him and defeat and annihilate him with his own tactics and stratagems, only better executed.
Napoleon engaged the Russian army for a decisive battle at Maloyaroslavets. The Russians would not commit themselves to a pitched battle. His troops exhausted, with few rations, no winter clothing, and his remaining horses in poor condition, Napoleon was forced to retreat.
He hoped to reach supplies at Smolensk and later at Vilnius. In the weeks that followed the Grande Armée starved and suffered from the onset of “General Winter”. Lack of food and fodder for the horses, hypothermia from the bitter cold and persistent attacks upon isolated troops from Russian peasants and Cossacks led to great losses in men, and a general loss of discipline and cohesion in the army.
When Napoleon’s army crossed the Berezina River in November, only 27,000 fit soldiers remained. The Grand Armée had lost some 380,000 men dead and 100,000 captured. A riveting defeat.
All those Afghan overt – and covert – wars
Four centuries after the cataclysm of the Mongol invasion, the Russian Empire had been steadily expanding at the rate of 55 square miles a day – or 20,000 square miles a year. At the dawn of the 19thcentury only 2,000 miles separated the British and the Russian empires in Asia.
Both the Russians and the East India Company (as in the British Indian Empire) sent their officers, businessmen in disguise, as Buddhist priests or Muslim holy men, to survey uncharted Central Asia.
One such chap was Captain Arthur Connolly of the 6th Bengal Light Cavalry in the service of the British East India Company. The East India Company was the British version of America’s Halliburton.
Connolly ended up beheaded as a spy by the orders of Alim Khan, the Emir of Bukhara. It was Connolly who coined the expression “The Great Game”, which Kipling immortalized in his novel “Kim”.
By the end of the 19th century the Tsars’ armies had swallowed one Khanate after another and only a few hundred miles separated the two empires. In some places the distance was only twenty miles.
The British feared that they would lose their Indian possessions – the ‘Jewel in the Crown’ – to the Tsar; and two theories emerged to defend the frontiers of British India.
The ‘forward policy’ and its proponents (hawks, today’s US neocons) argued to stop the Russians beyond India’s frontiers by getting there first, either by invasion, or by creating compliant ‘buffer’ states, or satellites, astride the likely invasion route.
But there were those who did not buy this proposition and did not believe that the Russians would invade India. The opponents of the ‘forward policy’ argued that India’s best defense lay in its unique geographical setting – bordered by impassable mountain ranges, mighty rivers, waterless deserts, and above all warlike tribes.
A Russian force which reached India surmounting all these obstacles would be so weakened by then that it would be no match for the waiting British Army. Therefore, it was more sensible to force an invader to overextend his lines of communications than for the British to risk theirs. And above all this policy was cheaper.
NATO today has a forward policy of deploying troops all over Eastern Europe and creating bases around Russia in an effort to encircle it. The final straw for the Russian Federation has been the occupation of Ukraine, by proxy, by Washington.
Guess who won the policy debate in 19th century Britain? The hawks (the US neocons of today), of course.
In 1838 Lord Auckland decides to replace the current Emir of Afghanistan, Dost Muhammad Khan with Shuja-ul-Mulk.
One could easily replace Dost Muhammad of Afghanistan in 1838 with today’s Gaddafi of Libya or Saddam Hussein of Iraq or Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Or Putin of Russia. Or anyone who becomes an obstacle to the West’s geopolitical, geoeconomic domination.
And yet the British suffered a massive defeat after a year’s occupation of Afghanistan. The only soldier who eventually reached Jalalabad was William Brydon. The Afghans may have spared him so he would be able to tell the tale of this horrific defeat.
You would think the British would have learned from history. Not at all. They did it again.
Tension between Russia and Britain in Europe ended in June 1878 with the Congress of Berlin. Russia then turned its attention to Central Asia, promptly sending an uninvited diplomatic mission to Kabul.
Sher Ali Khan, the Emir of Afghanistan (the son of Emir Dost Muhammad Khan) tried unsuccessfully to keep them out. Russian envoys arrived in Kabul on July 22, 1878, and on August 14, the British demanded that Sher Ali accept a British mission too.
The Emir not only refused to receive a British mission under Neville Bowles Chamberlain, but threatened to stop it if it were dispatched. Lord Lytton, the viceroy, ordered a diplomatic mission to set out for Kabul in September 1878 but the mission was turned back as it approached the eastern entrance of the Khyber Pass, triggering the Second Anglo–Afghan War.
After several defeats in various battles except one, and thus abandoning the provocative policy of maintaining a British resident in Kabul, the British were forced to withdraw.
One would think the British would have enough sense to cease with the stupid policy of occupying Afghanistan. Not at all. They tried it for the third time.
The Third Afghan War began on May 6, 1919 and ended with an armistice on August 8, 1919. An Afghan victory, again.
The British finally abandoned their forward policy. It had failed – just as the American neocons “policy” is failing.
And yet, roughly 60 years later the Russians would don the madman’s (British) hat and on December 25th, 1979, launched a vertical envelopment and occupied Kabul.
Their main aim was the airbase at Shindand, about 200 miles as the crow flies from the Straits of Hormuz, the choke point of the Persian Gulf, through which at the time 90% of the world’s oil was flowing.
They placed 200 Bear Bombers – the equivalent of the US B-52’s – as if sending a message to President Carter: “Checkmate”. A certain game was over – and a covert war was about to begin.
As our historical trip takes us from The Great Game to the Cold War, by now it’s more than established that the United States took on the mantle of the British Empire and filled in the power vacuum left by the British. If Connolly were to come back during the Cold War he would be right at home – as the Cold War was a continuation of the Great Game.
In between, of course, there was a guy named Hitler.
After Napoleon, it was Hitler who considered the Russians as barbarians and despite a nonaggression pact invaded Russia.
The Second Great European War (GEW II) was in fact fought between Germany and the USSR. Germany deployed 80% of its economic and military resources on its Eastern Front compared to 20% against the rest of the allies on the Western Front, where it was merely a ‘fire brigade operation’ (Hitler’s words).
Paul Carell describes the moment when, at 0315 on June 22nd 1941, the massive ‘Operation Barbarossa’ over a 900-mile front went under way.
“As though a switch had been thrown a gigantic flash of lightening rent the night. Guns of all calibres simultaneously belched fire. The tracks of tracer shells streaked across the sky. As far as the eye could see the front on the Bug was a sea of flames and flashes. A moment later the deep thunder of the guns swept over the tower of Volka Dobrynska like a steamroller. The whine of the mortar batteries mingled eerily with the rumble of the guns. Beyond the Bug a sea of fire and smoke was raging. The narrow sickle of the moon was hidden by a veil of cloud. Peace was dead.”
Bagration revisited
Russians are masters of Sun Tzu: “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”
These principles were recently applied in Ukraine and Crimea. For background, one just needs to study the battle of Kursk as well as Operation Bagration.
The Soviet military doctrine of maskirovka was developed in the 1920s, and used by Zhukov in the 1939 Battles of Khalkhin Gol against Japan.
The Field Regulations of the Red Army (1929) stated that:
“Surprise has a stunning effect on the enemy. For this reason all troop operations must be accomplished with the greatest concealment and speed.”
Concealment was to be attained by confusing the enemy with movements, camouflage and use of terrain, speed, use of night and fog, and secrecy.
Operation Bagration – the Soviet destruction of the German Army Group Centre – was, arguably, the single most successful military action of the entire war. This vital Soviet offensive is symptomatic of the lack of public knowledge in the West about the war in the East. Whilst almost everyone has heard of D-Day, few people other than specialist historians know much about Operation Bagration.
Yet the sheer size of Bagration dwarfs that of D-Day.
“Army Group Centre was really the anchor of that whole German front,’ writes Professor Geoffrey Wawro, ‘blocking the shortest path to Berlin; and the Russians annihilated it at the same time as we were landing on D-Day and marching on, liberating Paris and then heading towards Germany. But the scope of the fighting was much bigger in the East.
You had ten times as many Russians fighting in Bagration as you had Anglo/American/Canadian troops landing on the Normandy beaches.
And you had three times as many Germans in action fighting trying to hold up the Russian advance as you had defending the Atlantic Wall.
So, it’s a perfect encapsulation of the problem (of lack of appreciation of the scale of fighting on the Eastern Front). I mean, think about it, when D-Day and Bagration jumped off, the allied armies in Normandy and the Russian armies on the Eastern Front were equidistant from Berlin, and in the German view they were sort of equal threats.
After Operation Bagration, Russia is seen as being the principal threat because they just kicked down the door altogether and reoccupied all the ground that was lost in 1941. They take most of Poland and they move into East Prussia and they’re at the very gates of Berlin while we’re still slogging our way through Normandy and towards Paris.”
Operation Bagration was a colossal victory for the Red Army. By the 3rd of July Soviet forces had recaptured Minsk, capital of Belorussia, a city which had been in German hands for three years. And by the end of July the Red Army had pushed into what had been, before the war, Polish territory, and had taken Lwow, the major cultural center of eastern Poland.
Before Operation Barbarossa, the German High Command masked the creation of the massive force arrayed to invade the USSR and heightened their diplomatic efforts to convince Joseph Stalin that they were about to launch a major attack on Britain.
Maskirovka (deception) was put into practice on a large scale in the Battle of Kursk, especially on the Steppe Front commanded by Ivan Konev.
The result was that the Germans attacked Russian forces four times stronger than they were expecting.
The German general Friedrich von Mellenthin wrote, “The horrible counter-attacks, in which huge masses of manpower and equipment took part, were an unpleasant surprise for us… The most clever camouflage of the Russians should be emphasized again. We did not .. detect even one minefield or anti-tank area until .. the first tank was blown up by a mine or the first Russian anti-tank guns opened fire”.
Broadly, military deception may take both strategic and tactical forms. Deception across a strategic battlefield was uncommon until the modern age (particularly in the world wars of the 20th century), but tactical deception (on individual battlefields) dates back to early history.
In a practical sense military deception employs visual misdirection, misinformation (for example, via double agents) and psychology to make the enemy believe something that is untrue. The use of military camouflage, especially on a large scale, is a form of deception.
The Russian loanword maskirovka (literally: masking) is used to describe the Soviet Union and Russia’s military doctrine of surprise through deception, in which camouflage plays a significant role.
There are numerous examples of deception activities employed throughout the history of warfare, such as: feigned retreat leading the enemy, through a false sense of security, into a pre-positioned ambush; fictional units creating entirely fictional forces or exaggerating the size of an army; smoke screen – a tactical deception involving smoke, fog, or other forms of cover to hide battlefield movements; Trojan Horse – gaining admittance to a fortified area under false pretenses, to later admit a larger attacking force; strategic envelopment – where a small force distracts the enemy while a much larger force moves to attack from the rear (that was a favored tactic of Napoleon’s).
And that brings us to Syria, and its importance to Russia.
The deep state in Washington wants to keep the entire spectrum from the Levant to the Indian sub-continent destabilized – shaping it as the platform to send sparks of terrorism North to Russia and East to China. At the same time the US military will keep a physical presence (if China, India and Russia will allow it) in Afghanistan, from where it can survey the Eurasian land mass. As a master geopolitical chess player, Putin is very much aware of all this.
Syria is right at the underbelly of Russia and would be strategically important if it were in the hands of remote-controlled thugs like Ukraine is today. It has the potential to destabilize Russia from the Caucasus to Central Asia – generating as many Salafi-jihadi terrorists as possible. The region from the Caucasus to Central Asia holds about 80 million Muslims. Russia has enough reasons to stop US advances in Syria and Ukraine. Not to mention that in Iraqi Kurdistan the Pentagon is aiming to build a mega base, a springboard to create mischief in Central Asia for both Russia and China, in the form, for instance, of an Uyghur uprising in Western China, like it has done in Ukraine for Russia.
Once again; it may be helpful to look back to the continuum of history. It tells us these current efforts to encircle and destabilize Russia are destined to fail. (edited by Pepe Escobar)
Selected bibliography:
Carell, Paul: Hitler’s War on Russia (George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd., London, 1964).
Fraser-Tytler, W.K.: Afghanistan: A Study of Political Developments in Central Asia (Oxford University Press, London, 1950).
Hopkirk, Peter: Foreign Devils on the Silk Road: The Search for Lost Cities and Treasures of Chinese Central Asia (First Published by John Murry (Publisher), 1980; First issued as an Oxford University Press, paperback 1980, Oxford).
Tzu, Sun: The Art of War (Edited with an introduction by Dallas Galvin; Translated from Chinese by Lionel Giles, First Published in 1910, Produced by Fine Creative Media, Inc. New Yor
Gibbon, Edward: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Volume III (Random House Inc. Manufactured in the United States by H. Wolf).
Weatherford, Jack: Genghis Khan and the making of the Modern World (Three Rivers Press, New York).
Wawro, Geoffrey: (Professor of Military History at the University of North Texas).

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Palestinian Prof on US Speaking Tour Harassed by Airport Security

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Washington is weaker than waging a confrontation واشنطن أضعف من خوض مواجهة

Washington is weaker than waging a confrontation

 يونيو 22, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The dropping of the Syrian plane in Raqqa by the Americans formed an opportunity to show the war of wills between Washington and each of Moscow and Tehran around Syria, and to determine who has the upper hand in it, after Washington has suffered from successive defeats in an attempt to prove is presence as a party that is capable of drawing red lines, imposing rules of equations and balances, and having control over what is called the rules of engagement. The first attempts were with the high ceiling speech of the US President Donald Trump about Syria after the incident of Khan Sheikhoun, which the President Vladimir Putin was sure that it is bad Hollywood direction by Washington to carry out deliberate strike on Shuairat Airport. The hesitation and the confusion have soon accompanied the implementation of the strike, the Russians were notified about it a few hours before it and it passed without any military impact despite the US illusions about a panic that will affect the Syrian army and its morals, and will lead to a change in the balances of its war with the armed groups, leading to the displacement of thousands of the Syrians from their country, but nothing has happened like that, even the minimum level which is supposed by the Americans by choosing Al Shuairat Airport to draw a red line in front the Syrian army and its allies to stop the war and to restore what is seized by the armed groups in the outskirts of Damascus and the countryside of Hama after the invasion of Mohammed Bin Salman after his visit to Washington has not happened, on the contrary the areas have become successively under the control of the Syrian army during two weeks. The US supposed red line to prevent the Syrian army from progress in Badia has been fallen with the dashing of the Syrian army from Palmyra to beyond Palmyra and beyond beyond Palmyra.
In the second time, the Americans started to organize troops trained and armed in Jordan, they coincided their movement with maneuvers entitled “the Eager Lion” to talk about the process of the southern front. The Jordanian King started talking about the preemptive security, suggesting to the participation of his army and his flight inside the Syrian territories and airspaces, and then this coincided with the US raids in Badia to prevent the Syrian army from reaching the Syrian-Iraqi borders. In these two times the position of Russia and Iran was crucial through the announced position and the field steps along with Syria and Hezbollah, after refusing a bribe offered to Moscow by Adel Al-Jubeir through showing the readiness in committing to the call of the Secretary of State Rex Tellierson to accept the stay of the Syrian President in exchange of the exit of Hezbollah from Syria. The Russian response was harsh, that Hezbollah in Syria is legitimate exactly as the Russian air forces. The field witnessed crowds of the Syrian army towards Daraa and Badia along with the elite units of Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The Russian flight was active in the areas which it did not participate in bombing before, taking into consideration the relations with Jordan and Israel. Everything was put to ensure the victory of the Syrian army and its allies by saying to Washington that the red line in the southern of Syria has been fallen and the red line on the borders with Iraq has been fallen as well. Today the matter is resolved by facts and become above the capacity of the Americans to return back to the previous situations.
This time the Americans pretended to be clever by saying that the war on ISIS in Raqqa is their exclusive responsibility and they behold it in the field to the Kurdish groups, they are ready to apply that on all the possibilities, they have lost an ally as Turkey in order not to lose that principle. The issue as all the issues of America,  the principle depends on the interest, the US interest by staying in Syria is related organically to two conditions; an issue that must not end; as the war on terrorism through a war led by Washington in which ISIS can be moved from one area to another, and a coverage that is granted the legitimacy, and has a formative identity in the Syrian society, here the choice is known, it is the Kurds, but Syria and its allies succeeded in disrupting the US plan, they prevented the rolling war in favor of a war of resizing ISIS, they drew the map to close the secure corridors which were arranged by the Americans to ISIS towards Badia, they tried to attract ISIS making use of the US desire of rolling in order to transfer the battle of termination to Deir Al Zour, they surrounded Deir Al Zour from all directions to make the war arena  under their control. But when the Americans noticed that the matters have become out of their control they raised the tension by dropping the plane to keep the matters under their control and agenda.
The answer came; the Syrian army and the allies will continue their plan to approach Deir Al Zour, to enhance their presence in it, to make a progress in Badia and the borders with Iraq, to coordinate with the Iraqis whether the Iraqi army or the Popular Crowd, and to continue their progress in the countryside of Raqq and at the course of the Euphrates. The Iranians have sent missile message to Deir Al Zour, which its chosen as a goal was not in vain. The Russians announced that they will consider any flying object in the areas of their military operations a goal for their missiles after they canceled the working under the understanding of preventing the collision with the Americans in the Syrian airspaces, so how did Washington behave?
Washington responded by asking Moscow immediately to return to the understanding, and to consider the dropping of a plane an incident resulted from the lack of coordination in a geographic spot in which the forces have become working closely. The Russians responded this can be through one of two conditions; either to be sufficient with an understanding to prevent the collision and in this case not the Russian flight will be involved only but the Syrian flight too, or to coordinate in the war on ISIS by land and air, and in this case there must be a coordination with the Syrian army. Washington is still confused, it tries to adapt to less expensive choices, after Moscow has adjusted the conditions of the return to understanding, so for whom the high hand? And who will be ready to prove the superiority of the will at the end?
Washington is living in a state similar to the state experienced by it when it came with its fleets at the era of the President Barack Obama, and it discovered that due to the Russian and Iranian positions and the readiness of Syria and the resistance that it faced the choice of the full war, so it retreated and accepted the face-saving with the political solution of the Syrian chemical weapons, but with one difference this time, it will not get a compensation for the retreat, it has to accept the new equations which are drawn by sacrifices, and which are fixed by the Russian and Iranian cross-missiles or to go the full war if it is ready, but the time of testing the intentions has ended. The lesson is that the pretension to be clever does not replace the cleverness, the pretension to be strong does not replace the strength, and the psychological war does not replace the actual war, because neither the owner of the land is as the occupier, nor the owner of right is as the trader.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

(Visited 2 times, 2 visits today)

واشنطن أضعف من خوض مواجهة

يونيو 20, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– شكّل إسقاط الأميركيين للطائرة السورية في منطقة الرقة فرصة لتظهير حرب الإرادات بين واشنطن وكل من موسكو وطهران حول سورية، وتحديد صاحب اليد العليا فيها، بعدما مُنيت واشنطن بهزائم متلاحقة في محاولة إثبات حضورها كجهة قادرة على رسم الخطوط الحمراء، وفرض قواعد المعادلات والتوازنات، والتحكم برسم ما يُسمّى بقواعد الاشتباك. وكانت أولى المحاولات مع الكلام العالي السقوف للرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب حول سورية بعد حادثة خان شيخون التي يجزم الرئيس فلاديمير بوتين أنها إخراج هوليودي سيئ قامت به واشنطن لتنفيذ ضربة معدّة مسبقاً لمطار الشعيرات. ولم يلبث أن ظهر التردد والارتباك في تنفيذ الضربة، فأبلغ الروس بها قبل ساعات، ومضت بلا أثر عسكري رغم الأوهام الأميركية عن ذعر سيُصاب به الجيش السوري وانهيار في معنوياته وتغير في توازنات حربه مع الجماعات المسلحة، ودفع لمئات آلاف السوريين للنزوح عن بلدهم. وشيء من كل هذا لم يحدث، بل إن الحد الأدنى الذي افترضه الأميركيون تحصيل حاصل باختيارهم مطار الشعيرات، عبر رسم خط أحمر للجيش السوري وحلفائه لوقف الحرب لاسترداد ما سيطرت عليه الجماعات المسلحة في أطراف دمشق وريف حماة في غزوة محمد بن سلمان بعد زيارته لواشنطن، لم يحدث، فتهاوت هذه المناطق بيد الجيش السوري تباعاً خلال أسبوعين. والخط الأحمر الافتراضي لمنع الجيش السوري من التقدم في البادية لم يبد له أثر مع اندفاع الجيش السوري من تدمر إلى ما بعد تدمر وما بعد ما بعد تدمر.

– في المرة الثانية بدأ الأميركيون بتنظيم قوات درّبوها وسلّحوها في الأردن وزامنوا تحريكها مع مناورات أسموها بالأسد المتأهب للحديث عن عملية الجبهة الجنوبية. وبدأ الملك الأردني يتحدث عن الأمن الوقائي ملمّحاً لمشاركة جيشه وطيرانه داخل الأراضي والأجواء السورية، وتلتها وتزامنت معها المرة الثالثة بالغارات الأميركية في البادية لمنع الجيش السوري من بلوغ الحدود السورية العراقية. وفي هاتين المرّتين كان موقف روسيا وإيران حازماً بالموقف المعلن والخطوات الميدانية إلى جانب سورية وحزب الله، بعد رفض رشوة حاول عادل الجبير تقديمها لموسكو بإبداء الاستعداد للسير بدعوة وزير الخارجية الأميركية ريكس تيلرسون لقبول بقاء الرئيس السوري مقابل خروج حزب الله من سورية، فكان الردّ الروسي قاسياً، بأن حزب الله في سورية شرعي تماماً كالقوات الجوية الروسية. وشهد الميدان حشوداً للجيش السوري نحو درعا والبادية ومعه وحدات النخبة من حزب الله والحرس الثوري الإيراني. وفي السماء نشط الطيران الروسي في مناطق لم يشارك في قصفها من قبل مراعاة لحسابات العلاقات بالأردن و«إسرائيل»، وتم وضع كل شيء جانباً لضمان انتصار الجيش السوري والحلفاء بالقول لواشنطن إن الخط الأحمر في جنوب سورية ساقط والخط الأحمر على الحدود مع العراق ساقط مثله، وقد بات ذلك اليوم محسوماً بالوقائع، وبات فوق قدرة الأميركيين العودة بالأمور إلى الوراء.

– هذه المرة تذاكى الأميركيون بمحاولة القول إن الحرب على داعش في الرقة هي اختصاصهم الحصري، وقد أوكلوه في الميدان للجماعات الكردية، وأنهم مستعدون لفرض ذلك بكل الاحتمالات، وقد خسروا حليفاً كتركيا كي لا يتسامحوا مع هذا المبدأ. والقضية ككل قضايا أميركا المبدأ فيها هو المصلحة. والمصلحة الأميركية في البقاء في سورية ترتبط عضوياً بشرطين، هما قضية يجب ألا تنتهي وهي الحرب على الإرهاب عبر حرب لا تكسر عظام داعش يقودها الأميركيون بدحرجتها من منطقة إلى منطقة، وبغطاء يمنح المشروعية له هوية تكوينية في المجتمع السوري، وهنا الخيار معلوم وهو الأكراد، لكن سورية وحلفاءها نجحوا بتعطيل الخطة الأميركية ومنعوا الحرب المتدحرجة لحساب حرب كسر العظام مع داعش، ورسموا الخارطة لإقفال الممرات الآمنة التي رتبها الأميركيون لداعش نحو البادية، وعملوا لاجتذاب داعش مستفيدين من الرغبة الأميركية بالتدحرج لتكون معركة كسر العظم في دير الزور، وزنّروا دير الزور من الجنوب والغرب والشرق والشمال لتكون ساحة الحرب بين أيدي الجيش السوري والحلفاء. ولما رأى الأميركيون الأمور تفلت من بين أيديهم أرادوا رفع التوتر بإسقاط الطائرة لرد الأمور إلى حضنهم وسيطرتهم وإدارتهم وأجندتهم.

– جاء الجواب المثلّث، فالجيش السوري والحلفاء يواصلون خطتهم نحو التقرّب من دير الزور وتعزيز الوجود فيها والتقدم في البادية والحدود مع العراق والتنسيق مع الجانب العراقي المقابل سواء الجيش العراقي أو الحشد الشعبي، ومواصلة التقدم في ريف الرقة وعلى مجرى نهر الفرات، بينما قام الإيرانيون بتوجيه رسالة صاروخية لم يكن عبثاً اختيار دير الزور هدفاً لها، وقام الروس بإعلان اعتبار كل جسم طائر في مناطق عملياتهم هدفاً لصواريخهم بعدما ألغوا العمل بتفاهم منع التصادم مع الأميركيين في الأجواء السورية، فكيف تصرّفت واشنطن؟

– ردّت واشنطن بالطلب الفوري إلى موسكو العودة للتفاهم واعتبار إسقاط الطائرة حادثاً ناجماً عن ضعف التنسيق في بقعة جغرافية باتت القوى فيها تعمل عن قرب، فردّ الروس بأن لذلك أحد طريقين، إما الاكتفاء بتفاهم لمنع التصادم. وفي هذه الحالة لن يشمل الطيران الروسي وحده بل الطيران السوري معه، أو الذهاب للتنسيق في الحرب على داعش براً وجواً. وفي هذه الحالة يجب أن يشمل التنسيق الجيش السوري أيضاً، ولا تزال واشنطن مرتبكة محاولة التأقلم مع أقل الخيارات كلفة، بعدما عدّلت موسكو شروط العودة للتفاهم، فلمن تكون اليد العليا؟ ومن يكون المستعدّ للذهاب إلى النهاية في إثبات تفوق الإرادة؟

– تعيش واشنطن حالة تشبه تلك التي عاشتها يوم جاءت بأساطيلها في عهد الرئيس باراك أوباما، واكتشفت أنها مع الموقفين الروسي والإيراني وجهوزية سورية والمقاومة، تواجه خيار الحرب الشاملة، فتراجعت وارتضت بحفظ ماء الوجه بالحل السياسي للسلاح السوري الكيميائي، مع فارق أنها هذه المرة لن تحصل على تعويض لتتراجع، فعليها تجرّع المعادلات الجديدة التي ترسمها الدماء، وتثبتها الصواريخ العابرة الروسية والإيرانية، أو الذهاب للحرب الشاملة إن كانت مستعدّة وقد فات أوان اختبار النيات، والعبرة أن التذاكي لا يحلّ مكان الذكاء والاستقواء لا يحلّ مكان القوة، والحرب النفسية لا تحلّ مكان الحرب الفعلية، وليست الثكلى كالمستأجرة، وليس صاحب الأرض كالمحتل، ولا صاحب الحق كالتاجر.

(Visited 363 times, 363 visits today)
Related Videos
Related Artcles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Qatar Crisis: Origins and Consequences

The current crisis surrounding Qatar represents the most severe conflict among Gulf Arab states since the end of the Cold War. While these oil-rich, autocratic OPEC members have historically been at the most allies of convenience united by common fears (USSR, Saddam Hussein, Iran, etc.), their mutual mistrust has arguably never escalated to the point of demanding to what amounts to a complete surrender by one of its members. Several interesting features of this crisis immediately jump out.
First of all, the breaking off of diplomatic relations by Saudi Arabia and several other major regional powers including Egypt, and depriving Qatar of the ability to use land and air transport routes through or over the territory of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, including Egypt came suddenly and without any warning. There was no ongoing visible dispute between Qatar and any of its neighbors, no major recent provocative policy moves. This suggests it was a premeditated and planned move by Saudi Arabia and its partners.
While the US role in the crisis is still ambiguous, it is unlikely in the extreme that Saudi Arabia would have undertaken something so drastic without coordination with the US, particularly since this action comes literally on the heels of President Trump’s high-profile visit to Saudi Arabia.  While initially silent, President Trump ultimately took to Twitter to back Saudi Arabia against Qatar, even as the US still maintains major military presence in that country.
The nature of the accusations leveled at Qatar is nothing short of extreme. Both US and Saudi leaders accused Qatar of about the worst offense currently available, namely supporting violent Islamic extremism. Trump went so far as to say that Qatar’s change of policies would be a major step toward resolving the problem of terrorism.
The nature of the crisis suggests it represents tensions that long bubbled under the surface but now have finally burst into the open.  The Qatari-Saudi falling out, and the make-up of the pro-Saudi faction, suggests that several factors at work here.
Not the least trivial of them is the drop in energy prices in recent years.  Saudi Arabia’s costly wars in Syria and Yemen only make that problem worse. Since Qatar’s main line of business is natural gas whose production is outside OPEC’s purview, it may be that Saudi Arabia is attempting to force Qatar, whose per-capita GDP is the highest in the world, to share some of its wealth with the failing Saudi monarchy
This drastic step would likely have not been needed had the Saudi and Qatari ambitions in Syria been realized by now. The objective was, after all, the laying of pipelines through the territory of Syria and also seizing Syria’s oil fields using ISIS as a proxy, all very much with the tacit approval of the Obama Administration. While the outcome of the war in Syria is still uncertain, it is all too clear the Saudi and Qatari efforts to expand their wealth at Syria’s expense have failed.
The Saudis are also attempting to establish their political dominance within the region, as part of the “Sunni NATO” concept. Qatar’s independent foreign policy which often ignored or even undermined Saudi aims in Syria and Libya, was naturally an obstacle in reaching that objective. Moreover, Qatar’s freelancing also appears to be the reason why countries like Egypt and Israel have backed Saudi moves. Qatar is a major sponsor the Muslim Brotherhood and of Hamas which are major irritants for these two countries, respectively.
The other major show of Qatari independence has been its Iran policy, where it is also sharply at odds with the hard-line Saudi approach. Since the “Sunni NATO” is aimed squarely at Iran and should Saudi Arabia succeed in crushing Qatar’s independence, it will establish itself as the unquestionably dominant political power within the Arabian Peninsula. The harsh disciplining and humiliation of Qatar would also serve as a long-term warning for any other minor Gulf power which might attempt to pursue a foreign policy independently of Saudi Arabia. The importance of Iran to the Saudi-Qatar conflict has been starkly demonstrated by Iran’s willingness to supply Qatar with food to overcome Saudi blockade, and the terrorist attack in Tehran that was attributed to Saudi Arabia by Iranian authorities. Tehran also opened its airspace for Qatar Airways aircraft and expanded unofficial efforts to draw Doha into own sphere of influence.
With that in mind, Trump’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia which culminated with the rather bizarre “glowing orb” ceremony, acquires a new meaning. While we do not yet know just how much leeway Washington is giving Riyadh in its dealings with Doha and how much coordination and communication there are between the two powers, Trump’s behavior while in Saudi Arabia was likely intended to send a message that Saudi Arabia has the full faith and confidence of the United States, though evidently Qatar had failed to heed the warning. If the Saudi action does result in Qatari abandonment of Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, it will help the US restore some of its political standing in the region by drawing both Israel and, especially, Egypt, closer toward the US. Qatar’s emasculation furthermore promises to bring the wars in not only Syria but also Libya to a closer conclusion by eliminating a significant player pursuing an independent objective. Last but not least, Qatar also enjoys rather better relations with both Russia and Turkey than Saudi Arabia, which no doubt raised additional fears in Washington that Russia is about to take the US’ place as the most influential external power in the Middle East. The emergence of a Russia-Iran-Turkey-Qatar constellation as a result of Russian diplomacy and Turkey’s own regional ambitions is a nightmare scenario for both Riyadh and Washington.
It is not yet clear whether the Trump Administration compelled Saudi Arabia to undertake this course or whether Trump had no choice but to endorse and acquiesce in the Saudi course of action, with some accommodations made to respect US interests outlined above.  On the one hand, Trump could have easily used the same “support for terrorism” cudgel on the Saudis that in the end he used on the Qataris. On the other hand, the power of the Saudi lobby in Washington and the absence of a proxy power capable of doing to Saudi Arabia what Saudi Arabia is doing to Qatar means that the Saudis are not simply following Washington’s orders.
However, in light of Trump’s upcoming visit to Poland and the participation in the so-called Three Seas Initiative summit, one must also entertain the possibility that the US saw in Qatar an unwelcome competitor for the liquid natural gas (LNG) market. It is becoming apparent that the US will continue to expand its role as hydrocarbon exporter in the future, which will naturally bring it into conflict with not only Russia, but also Qatar, and even Saudi Arabia. It is also becoming apparent that at least some of that expansion will take place in Europe, or the market which Qatar had hoped to access by sponsoring jihadists in Syria who would ultimately pave the way for its gas pipelines into Europe.
The falling out between the US and Qatar appears to have had a sobering impact on Qatar’s leaders who, evidently fearing that any show of weakness might lead to their overthrow and even death, have dug in their heels and began to seek support from unorthodox sources. That process, in turn had shown both the extent of anti-Saudi sentiment in the region and the limits of US influence. Turkey’s President Erdogan came out strongly in support of Qatar, and went so far as to reaffirm the Turkey-Qatar military alliance and send troops to Qatar. Pakistan similarly decided to send a military force to Qatar, and collectively these actions are likely sufficient to dissuade any Saudi military adventurism, possibly with cooperation with dissatisfied factions of Qatari military. At this stage, it would take a direct US military intervention to bring down the Qatari government, but the US clearly prefers to do its dirty work through proxies.Moreover, there is no sign of an effort to interdict or block Qatar’s LNG tanker traffic. Even though Egypt had joined the anti-Qatar coalition, it has not blocked LNG tankers carrying Qatari gas from passing the Suez Canal.
Even so, Qatari leaders were concerned enough to send their Foreign Minister to Moscow for consultations. Nevertheless, considering that Saudi Arabia responded to Turkey’s support of Qatar by expressing its own support for the Kurdish cause–so far only verbal–it does appear that Russia, Turkey, and many other countries in the region do not wish to see Qatar brought to heel. Russian military spokesmen also noted that in the meantime the war in Syria had greatly diminished in its intensity as the Qatar- and Saudi Arabia-backed militants now find themselves in a very confused situation where it’s not clear who is supposed to be their enemy, Syrian forces or other rebel groupings. However the situation evolves in the future, it is unlikely in the extreme Qatar will be close collaborator in any Saudi schemes. Instead it is more than likely Qatar will gradually drift further away from Saudi policies and bolster its ties with Turkey, and therefore indirectly also with Russia and Iran.
As a final note, one cannot but help reflect on the fact this is a severe and potentially very dangerous confrontation between, after all, two important US allies.  Considering that both Qatar and Saudi Arabia are members of the “Free World” (sic) of which the US is the undisputed leader, the fact that a few policy disagreements among these members can no longer be managed by means short of blockade and threats of war does not speak highly of the US ability to continue to maintain its empire. While the Saudi-Qatari conflict is unprecedented in its intensity, it is far from being the only internal “Free World” conflict which the US is apparently powerless to resolve. We have already seen Brexit, the looming “two-speeds EU”, the Turkey-EU and Turkey-NATO spats, the failure of TTIP and TPP multilateral US-centric trade deals, and other signs of US weakness. The use of Saudi Arabia against Qatar suggests the US might be moving toward a different model of imperial governance, namely “divide and rule” among its own client states. In the short term this may well be successful. However, it is US client states’ awareness that is driving them to seek help from Moscow, which in turn gives us narratives of “Russian meddling”, including now in the case of Qatar.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!