Saturday, 18 January 2020

UNDERWHELMING TURKISH INVASION OF LIBYA





In early 2020, Libya became one of the main hot points in the Greater Middle East with stakes raised by Turkey’s decision to launch a military operation there.
On January 5, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that Turkey had sent troops to Libya to support the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA). No Turkish soldiers will reportedly participate in direct fighting. Instead, they will create an operation center and coordinate operations. Erdogan pointed that “right now”, there will be “different units serving as a combatant force.” He didn’t say who exactly these troops would be, but it is apparent that these are members of Turkish-backed Syrian militant groups and Turkey-linked private military contractors.
Ankara started an active deployment of members of pro-Turkish Syrian militant groups in Libya in December 2019. So far, over 600 Turkish-backed Syrian fighters have arrived. According to media reports, the officially dispatched Turkish troops included military advisers, technicians, electronic warfare and air defense specialists. Their total number is estimated at around 40-60 personnel.
A day after the Erdogan announcement, on January 6, the defense of the GNA collapsed in Sirte and the GNA’s rival, the Libyan National Army (LNA), took control of the town. Several pro-GNA units from Sirte publicly defected to the LNA with weapons and military equipment, including at least 6 armoured vehicles. With the loss of Sirte, only two large cities – Tripoli and Misrata – formally remained in the hands of the GNA. Misrata and its Brigades in fact remain a semi-independent actor operating under the GNA banner.
From January 7 to January 12, when the sides agreed on a temporary ceasefire proposed in a joint statement of the Turkish and Russian presidents, the LNA continued offensive operations against GNA forces near Tripoli and west of Sirte capturing several positions there. The GNA once again demonstrated that it is unable to take an upper hand in the battle against forces of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar.
The GNA formally requested “air, ground and sea” military support from Turkey on December 26th, 2019, in the framework of the military cooperation deal signed by the sides in November. On January 2, 2020, the Turkish Parliament approved the bill allowing troop deployment in Libya. This move did not change the situation strategically. Even before the formal approval, Ankara already was engaged in the conflict. It sent large quantities of weapons and military equipment, including “BMC Kirpi” armoured vehicles, deployed Bayraktar TB2 unmanned combat aerial vehicles at airfields near Tripoli and Misrata, and sent operators and trainers in order to assist GNA forces.
Turkey could increase military supplies, deploy additional private military contractors, military advisers and special forces units, but it has no safe place to deploy own air group to provide the GNA with a direct air support like Russia did for pro-Assad forces in Syria. Approximately 90% of Libya is under the LNA control. Tripoli and Misrata airports are in a strike distance for the LNA. Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad and Sudan refuse to play any direct role in the conflict, while the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is still too far away. Egypt, alongside with the UAE and Russia, is a supporter of the LNA. Therefore, deployment there is out of question.
Turkey operates no aircraft carriers. Its TCG Anadolu amphibious assault ship can be configured as a light aircraft carrier, but the warship isn’t in service yet. It is unclear how Ankara will be able to provide the GNA with an extensive air support without endangering its own aircraft by deploying them close to the combat zone.
Turkey could deploy a naval task force to support the GNA. Nonetheless, this move is risky, if one takes into account the hostile political environment, with Egypt, Cyprus, the UAE and Greece are strictly against any such actions. Additionally, this deployment will go against the interests of other NATO member states such as France and Italy that see the expansion of the Turkish influence as a direct threat to their vital economic interests, especially in the oil business. Warships near the Libyan coast will be put in jeopardy from modern anti-ship measures. Yemen’s Houthis repeatedly proved that missiles could be quite an effective tool to combat a technologically advanced enemy. In the worst-case scenario, the Turkish Navy can suffer notable losses, and the risk of this is too real to tangible to overlook.
Another unlikely option is a large-scale ground operation that will require an amphibious landing. Turkey has several landing ships, the biggest of which are the two Bayraktar-class amphibious warfare ships (displacement – 7,254 tons). There are also the Osman Gazi-class landing ship (3,700 tons), two Sarucabey-class landing ships (2,600 tons). Other landing ships, albeit active, are outdated. With 5 modern landing ships, any landing operation will endanger Turkish forces involved, keeping in mind the complex diplomatic environment and the LNA that will use all means and measures that it has to prevent such a scenario.
In these conditions, the most likely scenario of Turkey’s military operation was the following:
  • Deployment of a limited number of specialists;
  • Public employment of private military contractors’
  • Redeployment of members of pro-Turkish proxy groups from Syria to Libya;
  • Diplomatic and media campaign to secure Ankara’s vital interests and find a political solution that would prevent the LNA’s final push to capture Tripoli. Turkey sees the Libyan foothold and the memorandum on maritime boundaries signed with the GNA as the core factors needed to secure own national interests in the Eastern Mediterranean.
This is exactly what Ankara did. On January 8, Turkish and Russian Presidents released a joint statement in which they called for reaching cease-fire in Libya by midnight of January 12. The joint statement emphasized the worsening situation in Libya and its negative impact on “the security and stability of Libya’s wider neighborhood, the entire Mediterranean region, as well as the African continent, triggering irregular migration, further spread of weapons, terrorism and other criminal activities including illicit trafficking,” and called for the resumption of a political dialogue to settle the conflict. The LNA initially rejected the ceasefire initiative, but then accepted it. This signals that key LNA supporters agreed on the format proposed by the Turkish and Russian leaders. On January 13, the delegations of the GNA, the LNA, and Turkey arrived in Moscow for talks on a wider ceasefire deal. The deal was not reached and clashes near Tripoli resumed on January 14.
Russian and Turkish interests are deeply implicated. Some experts speculated the contradictions within the Libyan conflict could become a stone that will destroy the glass friendship between Ankara and Moscow. However, the joint Russian-Turkish diplomatic efforts demonstrate that the sides found a kind of understanding and possibly agreed on the division of spheres of influence. If the Moscow negotiations format allows de-escalating the situation and putting an end to the terrorism threat and violence in Libya, it will become another success of the practical approach employed by the both powers in their cooperation regarding the Middle East questions.
The 2011 NATO intervention led by France, Italy and the United States destroyed the Libyan statehood in order to get control of the country’s energy resources. Now, Egypt, the UAE, Russia and Turkey are driving France, Italy and the US out of Libya in order to put an end to the created chaos and secure own interests.
Related News

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!

Summarising the Year: Lavrov Highlights Results of 2019 Russian Foreign Policy in Annual Address

Sputnik
7.01.2020(updated 13:00 17.01.2020)
Sergei Lavrov’s annual press conference comes amid the sudden resignation of the Russian government earlier this week and it’s still unknown whether he will retain the post of foreign minister.
Acting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is holding an annual press conference and a question and answer session with journalists, during which he will review the main achievements of the country’s diplomacy in 2019.
The senior official is expected to touch upon the situation in Ukraine and Syria, bilateral relations between Moscow and Washington as well as with European nations. 
Lavrov is also expected to talk about the acute issue of the recent tensions between Tehran and Washington, following the assassination of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani and Iran’s subsequent missile attack on American facilities in Iraq.




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!

ترامب يسقط في دم سليماني وصراع القوة في جغرافيا آخر الزمان…!


تقطع مصادر متابعة للعدو الأميركي المحتل وقاعدته المتقدمة في الكيان الصهيوني بأن عملية اغتيال الجنرال قاسم سليماني لم تكن عملية استخبارية معقدة أبداً بقدر ما هي قرار جنوني يائس للجناح المتخبّط والمتطرف في القوة الامبريالية الأميركية الممتدة من واشنطن حتى تل أبيب.
فالرجل لم يكن يتخفّى منهم وهو أصلاً كان في زيارة رسمية للعراق وضيف كبير على رئيس الحكومة العراقية حاملاً رسالة رسمية من القيادة الايرانية بخصوص الجدل الدائر منذ مدة في دوائر صنع القرار في المنطقة بين خياري المفاوضات أو الحرب.
الآن وقد قررت إدارة ترامب الرعناء قرار اغتيال قائد أركان حرب حلف المقاومة فما عليها الا ان تجمع كل ما لديها من عتاد وجيوش ونفوذ وترحل من هذه المنطقة كما جاءت عمودياً أو ستُجبر على مغادرتها أفقياً وتحت جنح الظلام وهي مطارَدة بكل أنواع السلاح الذي تعرفه والذي لا تعرفه.
فالمرحلة تغيّرت ملامحها وها نحن ندخل صراعاً جديداً للقوة في جغرافيا جديدة يمكن أن نسمّيها مجازاً جغرافياً آخر الزمان.
وإليكم أهم ملامح الصراع المرتقب:
لقد ولدت العملية الايرانية في عين الاسد صراعاً عنيفاً بين دوائر صنع القرار في اميركا حول ضرورة الانسحاب الأميركي الشامل من منطقة” الشرق الأوسط”.
هذا وقد كان قرار اغتيال الجنرال سليماني قد اتخذه التيار المؤيد للانسحاب وصادق عليه ترامب بقصد إحداث موجة تسونامي ضاغطة، على الدولة الأميركية العميقة وعلى دولة الظل الأميركية في بغداد ومشيخات الخليج، للدفع باتجاه انسحاب القوات الأميركية.
عملية الانسحاب لن تكون سريعة، وإنما ستستغرق وقتاً بسبب الصراع الداخلي الاميركي، خاصة قبل الانتخابات، وبسبب تخاذل أعراب الجاهلية في الجزيرة العربية.
المواجهة بين واشنطن ومحور المقاومة، التي بدأت بعملية الاغتيال الغادرة، ستستمر الى ان يتحقق الهدف الاستراتيجي للمحور، وهو انسحاب كافة القوات الاجنبية من المنطقة الممتدة من أفغانستان حتى المتوسط.
يجري العمل على تحقيق ذلك بوسيلتين :
الأولى: هي الديبلوماسيا، عبر آليات من جنس قرار البرلمان العراقي بطلب مغادرة قوات الاحتلال الاميركي للعراق وما يجب أن يقوم به الخليجيون من إجراء مماثل.
الثانية: هي العسكرية والتي بدأتها طهران بصفعة السيد التي وجهتها القيادة الايرانية لقاعدة عين الأسد الأميركية في العراق.
تلك الضربة التي حققت نتائج كبيرة وصلت حد الهزيمة من الناحية الاستراتيجية.
هزيمة تسمح للمهزوم بقبولها والإذعان لتداعياتها إن أراد أو تحمل وزر رفض ذلك ومعاندة الواقع.
يجب دائماً ان نتذكر ان الحرب هي تعبير عن السياسة بوسائل أخرى، أي بالقوة.
من هنا فإن محور المقاومة سيحاول توظيف الضربة العسكرية المزلزلة – ضربة عين الاسد – والتي كانت رسالة قوية لواشنطن لتوضيح قدرات حلف المقاومة على تحقيق أهدافها، وصولاً الى إزالة دويلة “اسرائيل” سواء بتفكيكها سلماً وبطرق وأساليب عديدة ووسائل حرب شعبية وأخرى استنزافية طويلة الأمد وأيضاً بالديبلوماسية وإلا فبالحرب الكبرى ومنازلة يوم القيامة لفلسطين وتفكيك الكيان الصهيوني. وهذه المنازلة المخطط لها أصلاً كأحد سيناريوات الخيار الأخير الأمر الذي لا بدّ منه.
كما اتضح من المؤتمر الصحافي الذي عقده ترامب بعد الصفعة في البيت الابيض فان الادارة قد تسلمت الرسالة بوضوح بدليل إشارته الى عدم حاجة الولايات المتحدة لنفط العرب والى عودته لإعلان رغبته المجددة الى المفاوضات المباشرة والشاملة ومن دون شروط مع طهران ومحاولة تحميل مسؤولية سحب قواته من المنطقة على عاتق الناتو الذي لم يف بتعهداته، كما اوضح ترامب.
صحيح أن استشهاد الجنرال سليماني وابو مهدي المهندس خسارة كبيرة لمحور المقاومة إلا انه نتيجة هذه الخسارة ستكون سقوطاً مدوياً لترامب وكل المحافظين الجدد في واشنطن وتثوير الوطن العربي والعالم الإسلامي والانتقال الى بيئة جيو استراتيجية جديدة ستفضي بالضرورة الى نشأة جبهة عالمية تقاتل أميركا قتالاً استنزافياً حاداً حتى إخراجها من هذه المنطقة وإعادة تشكيلها على أسس وطنية تحررية تضمن استقراراً سياسياً وازدهاراً اقتصادياً على المدى البعيد.
قيامة إيران الثانية وقيامة العرب المتجددة وقيامة فلسطين العربية المستقلة والحرة باتت رهناً بإخراج الأميركان من غرب آسيا والوطن العربي.
بعدنا طيبين، قولوا الله.
مقالات متعلقة

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!

Hezbollah Deputy SG Sheikh Naim Qassem: Murderer Will Face Thousands of Hajj Soleimani’s Likes Who Will Avenge Him




By Fatima Deeb Hamzah
Lebanon – Hajj Qassem Soleimani wasn’t just a person. He was also a project, and a project does not die. From Beirut to Tehran to Kerman, Baghdad and Damascus, Soleimani was at every place and at every time, specifically in al-Quds [Jerusalem], the final destination of the broader jihad in the project of the resistance and its axis.    
But the international and regional scene changed significantly. The assassination of the commander of the axis, which extends along the aforementioned cities, has reshuffled cards and accounts. What comes after the assassination? How did the crime impact the capital of the Islamic Revolution? And what about Lebanon?
In an attempt to outline the features of the coming stage, al-Ahed sat down with Hezbollah’s Deputy Secretary-General, His Eminence Sheikh Naim Qassem, just days after his return from Iran.
Hajj Qassem Soleimani’s martyrdom reignited the revolution
Before talking about the dimensions of the developments and their importance, Sheikh Qassem talked about what he saw during his participation in the funeral procession and consolation ceremony of Hajj Qassem Soleimani.
From Tehran to Kerman, His Eminence described a monumental scene.
“Neither contemporary nor ancient history witnessed a funeral procession on this scale. Various Iranian regions saw million-man marches in which the youth element was predominant. This aspect bears the connotations of a revolution that is still radiant and rooted in the spirituality of the Iranian people.”
Sheikh Qassem recounted how the large crowds on the streets and squares prolonged the journey from their place of residence to the University of Tehran. He also told us how he saw Soleimani in all the faces of the participants and those who loved him. After talking about the family of martyr Soleimani and the manner of reception, communication and solace, Sheikh Qassem said that “the conclusions that embody the reality that took place is that Hajj Qassem’s martyrdom reignited the revolution. It was as if we are at its beginning when everyone took to the streets to confront the tyrant.”
A new reality in the region
“Hajj Qassem accomplished a lot in his life. His project was to drive the Americans out of the region, so his martyrdom fueled the decision to expel the US military forces from our region. Hence, we are facing the stage of ending the American presence in the region, and this carries significant implications, dimensions and effects on regional states and their peoples,” Sheikh Qassem added.
The Deputy Secretary General of Hezbollah pointed out that “the significance of the assassination, its nature and magnitude created a new reality in the region, a foundational and fundamental reality, one in which the American prestige will be broken in preparation for expelling its forces from here.”
The killer will face thousands of Qassem Soleimani’s likes who carry his thoughts and will avenge him
Sheikh Qassem asserts that “Qassem Soleimani was the field commander of the axis of resistance, which is a liberation project. Despite his assassination, the project will not die. Rather, it will continue with greater and stronger momentum and a renewed thrust that will be sensed by the murderer soon. The murderer will know that he did not get rid of this project, and that after Hajj Qassem, he will face thousands of Qassem Soleimani’s likes who carry his thoughts and will avenge him.”
Hezbollah is continually working on addressing complications in the government
As for Lebanon, the problem is not in any regional or international change or developments, but rather in “the mentality that this country suffers from. It requires a bit of modification and attention to the reality of the people’s lives and their deteriorating conditions, especially as we are at a stage that is farthest from external influences on Lebanese internal affairs.”
The Deputy Secretary General of Hezbollah concluded by saying that “Hezbollah is continuing to seek resolutions to complications in the government. It will talk with the prime minister-designate and the parties concerned with the formation of the government to get some facilities and concessions that will contribute to the formation of the government as soon as possible because without that we will face further deterioration.”

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!

Friday, 17 January 2020

The «Immoral» Killing of the Iranian General




By Benjamin B. Ferencz, NYT
This is a letter sent by a former Nuremberg war crimes prosecutor, Benjamin B. Ferencz, who says the American public deserves to know the truth.
To the Editor:
Now in my hundredth year, I cannot remain silent. I entered the United States in January 1921 as a poor immigrant boy, and I have felt obliged to repay the United States for the opportunities given to me.
I was an American combat soldier in World War II, and was proud to serve my country as the chief prosecutor in a war crimes trial at Nuremberg against Nazi leaders who murdered millions of innocent men, women and children.
The administration recently announced that, on orders of the president, the United States had “taken out” (which really means “murdered”) an important military leader of a country with which we were not at war. As a Harvard Law School graduate who has written extensively on the subject, I view such immoral action as a clear violation of national and international law.
The public is entitled to know the truth. The United Nations Charter, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in The Hague are all being bypassed. In this cyberspace world, young people everywhere are in mortal danger unless we change the hearts and minds of those who seem to prefer war to law.
Benjamin B. Ferencz
Delray Beach, Fla.

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!

Some Private Banks Plundered $12 billion of Public Funds: Olleik




January 16, 2020
The journalist Hassan Olleik considered in an interview with Al-Manar TV channel that the term of the Central Bank Governor Riad Salemeh should not have been extended in 2017, adding that the private banks are involved in an aggression on the Lebanese people.
According to Olliek,in 2019, some private banks plundered $12 billion of the public funds, adding that Salemeh granted Bankmed (owned by caretaker PM Saad Hariri) hundreds of millions of dollars as a bribe.
Olleik urged the political parties who are not involved in any form of partnership with the banks to confront their aggression, calling the owners of some private banks as US spies.
In this context, Olleik revealed that one of the US officials said that Washington exchanges information with Salameh and Mohamad Baasiri (the deputy governor) who is promoted by the Americans, adding that they must be tried on the charge of communicating with a foreign state.
The plundered $12 billion were enough for Lebanon to build a railway as well as nuclear and power plants, pay unemployment compensations, and establish a medical insurance system, Olleik said.
Olleik also condemned the security forces’ assault on the protestors who demonstrated in condemnation of the banking sector’s policy, adding that those demonstrators defended the livelihood of all the Lebanese.
Olleik revealed that Hariri provoked Beirut locals against the protestors and the security forces fired gas bombs at them, revealing that General Director of the Internal Security Forces General Imad Othman contacted Hezbollah and Amal Movement officials to be assured of the political affiliation of the demonstrators.
“If Hezbollah and Amal Movement officials tell you that the protestors do not belong to them, this does not mean that you oppress them,” Othman addressed Olleik.

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!

Putin makes annual State of the Nation address to the Federal Assembly



January 15, 2020
Besides discussing internal demographic, economic and weapons issues, the president said the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the US, China, Russia, Britain and France – carry a “special responsibility for securing the sustainable development of humanity.”
These five nations must begin to devise measures aimed at neutralizing any conditions for a global war, and develop new approaches towards securing the stability of the planet.


RT Commentary : Five nuclear-armed states must work together to neutralize threat of ‘global war’ – Putin
Sputnik Commentary : Key Takeaways From Vladimir Putin’s Address to Federal Assembly
Pravda Commentary : Putin wants 7 amendments to Constitution for strong, nuclear Russia
Transcript : Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly

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!

احذروا الفتنة القادمة.. فيلم مُسيء للصحابة







كاتب وأستاذ جامعي جزائري
يتم التحضير لفتنة جديدة خطيرة في بريطانيا، وتتجسّد بفيلم مسيء للصحابة، يستبسل دُعاة الفتنة في الدعوة إليه.




تظاهرة في لندن تندد بجرائم “الكراهية ضد الإسلام”

كما أفلح الغرب وعملاؤه في تشويه المدرسة السنّية عبر أولئك الذين امتلأوا بالعنف والتطرّف فإنه يسعى بكل جهده لتشويه المدرسة الشيعية عبر أدعياء التشيّع الذين لا يختلفون عن السلفيين في تطرّفهم وتشدّدهم وسوء أدبهم.
وقد اُستعمل ذلك سابقاً ـ وأفلح فيه للأسف ـ عندما أثار بعض دُعاة التشيّع البريطاني قضايا خطيرة تتعلّق بعرض رسول الله (ص)، والتي تصدم كل مؤمن محب لرسول الله سواء كان سنّياً أو شيعياً؛ فلا يمكن لمُحب لرسول الله أن يرضى بالإساءة إلى عرضه.
وعلى الرغم من كثرة الفتاوى من جميع مراجع الشيعة في العراق وإيران والبحرين وباكستان وأفغانستان والهند وغيرها من المناطق التي يتواجد فيها الشيعة، والذين ردّوا على أولئك المُنحَرفين عن التشيّع وأئمة أهل البيت في هذا الشأن وغيره، إلا أن كل ذلك لم يستطع ـ بفعل الآلة الإعلامية الشَرِسة ـ من محو آثار تلك الفتنة العريضة، والتي لا نزال نعيش آثارها إلى اليوم.
وعلى منوال تلك الفتنة، يتم التحضير لفتنة جديدة خطيرة في بريطانيا، وتتجسّد بفيلم مسيء للصحابة، يستبسل دُعاة الفتنة في الدعوة إليه.
وللأسف فإن الدعوة إلى هذا الفيلم تتم عبر قنوات يستضيفها (نايل سات)، المملوكة للشركة المصرية للأقمار الصناعية، والتي استطاعت السعودية وغيرها أن تجبرها على إزالة قناة المنار، وغيرها من قنوات المقاومة، في نفس الوقت الذي تترك فيه قنوات أخرى تسبّ الصحابة، وتُسيء إلى أمّهات المؤمنين.
ولكن لأن تلك القنوات تقف موقفاً سلبياً من إيران والمقاومة، بل تحكم بتكفيرهم، فهي لذلك لم تر بأساً في أن يسبّ الصحابة أو يتعرّض لأمّهات المؤمنين، وخاصة أن غلوّهم وانحرافهم يخدم أهدافهم في خدمة الفرقة والفتنة بين المسلمين.
ولهذا لا نجد في الواقع مَن يواجه هذا الفيلم (نتحفّظ على ذكر اسمه كيلا نروّج له)، ويفتي بتحريمه وتحريم دعمه سوى علماء الشيعة ومراجعهم الكبار، والذين أصدروا الفتاوى والبيانات في ذلك.
لكن للأسف لا يستمع إليهم أحد، حتى إذا جاء دور الفتنة وخرج الفيلم، حينها يصحو أولئك الذين يحضّرون للفتنة، لا لينشروا تلك الفتاوى والبيانات المُحذّرة، وليشكروا مَن قدَّمها، ويعتذروا من التقصير في تفعيلها، وإنما ليتّهموهم بأنهم هم مَن أنتج الفيلم وأن الشيعة جميعاً هم الذين أساؤوا إلى الصحابة، وليس أولئك النفر المحدودين الذين يموّنهم الحقد الغربي والعربي.
ومن باب إقامة الحجّة على المسارعين للفتن قامت وكالة (فارس) الإيرانية ببحث حول آراء علماء الشيعة ومراجعهم الكبار حول الموقف من الفيلم، وقد خلصت من خلال بحثها إلى أن “مراجع الشيعة أفتوا وبشكل قاطع بضرورة التنبّه له، بل أجمع العلماء لا سيما مراجع الحوزة الدينية في قم المُقدّسة، أن أية مساعدة أو إبداء أيّ اهتمام أو مُشاهَدة للفيلم هو أمر حرام ومُخالِف للشرع”.
ومن الفتاوى والبيانات التي نقلتها في ذلك فتوى المرجع الديني آية الله ناصر مكارم شيرازي، ومما جاء فيها: “مما لا شك فيه أن أولئك الذين يساهمون في إعداد ونشر هذا الفيلم أو مشاهدته يرتكبون كبائر الذنوب خاصة في الظرف الحالي الذي يصب فيه أيّ خلاف بين المسلمين، في صالح الأعداء ويعتبر نصراً لهم.. والقيام بمثل هذه الأمور يحمل في طيّاته مسؤولية شرعية جسيمة، وهناك احتمال قوي بأن يكون للأعداء يد في ذلك وأنهم خطّطوا لإثارة مثل هذه الموضوعات.. وكل مَن يساهم في ذلك يُعتبر شريكاً في الدماء التي قد تُراق بسببه.. ولا بد من أن تقول للجميع أن مَن يبحث عن مثل هذه البرامج المُثيرة للخلافات، ليس منا”.
ومنها فتوى آية الله نوري همداني، والتي جاء فيها: “نحن ضد هذه الأنشطة ولا نعتبرها أبداً لصالح الإسلام، ونرى في أية مساعدة أو إبداء أي اهتمام أو مُشاهَدة للفيلم، حراماً وخلافاً للشرع”.
ومنها فتوى آية الله جعفر سبحاني، ومما جاء فيها: “في الظروف التي تعيشها البلدان الإسلامية في الوقت الحاضر والفتنة الكبرى التي أثارها الأجانب والتي أدَّت إلى تقاتُل المسلمين وتشريد الملايين من العراقيين والسوريين من منازلهم وأوطانهم ليلجأوا إلى الغرب، فإن إنتاج هكذا فيلم لا يُحقّق إلا مطالب الأعداء، وهو بعيد كل البُعد عن العقل والتقوى، وعلى هذا فإن إنتاجه حرام وأية مساعدة مالية له، تعاون على الإثم”.
ومنها فتوى آية الله صافي كلبايكاني، ومما جاء فيها: “لقد قلنا مراراً وتكراراً إن الشيعة ومُحبي أهل البيت يجب أن يكونوا دائماً حذرين وأن يحرصوا على نشر المعارف القرآنية والعترة النبوية وأن يتجنّبوا القيام بأيّ عمل قد يؤدّي الى الإساءة للإسلام والمذهب”.
وقبل ذلك فتوى وبيان السيّد علي الخامنئي، والتي أصدرها لا باعتباره مرجعاً فقط، وإنما باعتباره الوليّ الفقيه، والذي يعتبر الموالون له طاعته واجبة شرعياً، فقد سُئِل هذا السؤال: “ما هو رأي سماحتكم في ما يُطرَح في بعض وسائل الإعلام من فضائيات وإنترنت من قِبَل بعض المُنتسبين إلى العِلم من إهانة صريحة وتحقير بكلمات بذيئة ومُسيئة لزوج الرسول أمّ المؤمنين السيّدة عائشة واتهامها بما يخلّ بالشرف والكرامة لأزواج النبي أمّهات المؤمنين رضوان الله تعالى عليهن”.
فأجاب بقوله: “يُحرَّم النيل من رموز إخواننا السنّة فضلاً عن اتهام زوج النبي بما يخلّ بشرفها، بل هذا الأمر ممتنع على نساء الأنبياء، وخصوصاً سيّدهم الرسول الأعظم (ص)”.
ولم يكتف بذلك، بل هو يشير في خطبه كل حين إلى حرمة ذلك، وينبّه إلى أنه دسائس أجنبية، ويُسمّي التشيّع المرتبط بمثل هذا “تشيّعاً بريطانياً”، وليس تشيّعاً علوياً مثلما يُسمّى التسنّن الداعي إلى الفتنة “تسنّناً أميركياً” لا تسنّناً نبوياً.
إن الآراء المذكورة في هذه المقالة لا تعبّر بالضرورة عن رأي الميادين وإنما تعبّر عن رأي صاحبها حصراًالمصدر : الميادين نت

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!

Thursday, 16 January 2020

What’s Behind The West’s Hatred of Iran?

By Stuart Littlewood
Mohammad Mosaddegh 82014
Nobody saw that coming. Trump ordering Soleimani’s execution, I mean.
Nobody thought even he was quite so stupid.
It follows his last year’s caper when the “cocked and loaded” drama-queen ordered military strikes against Iran’s radar and missile batteries in retaliation for their shootdown of a US spy drone. He changed his mind with only minutes to spare on account of a reminder that such lunacy might actually cost human lives.
Plus the fact that the drone was eight miles from the coast, well inside the 12 nautical miles considered to be Iran’s territorial waters under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and it clearly represented a military threat and provocation. So he had no lawful claim of self-defense that would justify a military attack.  The United Nations Charter only allows the use of military force in self-defense after an armed attack or with Security Council approval. So his proposed action would have been illegal as well as unwise, but none of that seemed to enter into his calculations then, or now.
Before that we had Trump’s executive order in August 2018 reimposing a wide range of sanctions against Iran after pulling the US out of the seven-party nuclear deal for no good reason, a spiteful move that annoyed the EU and caused  all sorts of problems for other nations. And he was going to impose extra sanctions aimed mainly at Iran’s oil industry and foreign financial institutions.
“If the ayatollahs want to get out from under the squeeze,” warned US national security adviser John Bolton, “they should come and sit down. The pressure will not relent while the negotiations go on.” To which Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani responded: “If you stab someone with a knife and then you say you want talks, then the first thing you have to do is remove the knife.”
United Nations Special Rapporteur Idriss Jazairy described the sanctions as “unjust and harmful…. The reimposition of sanctions against Iran after the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, which had been unanimously adopted by the Security Council with the support of the US itself, lays bare the illegitimacy of this action.”
The other countries party to the nuclear deal – Russia, China, Germany, France, the UK and the EU – vowed to stick with it and continue trading with Iran, some EU foreign ministers saying Iran was abiding by the agreement and delivering on its goal when Trump withdrew and they deeply regretted the new sanctions. Trump in turn called Iran “a murderous dictatorship that has continued to spread bloodshed, violence and chaos.”  The irony of such a remark was, of course, completely lost on him.
I read today that the EU “will spare no efforts” to keep the nuclear deal with Iran alive though I doubt if Boris Johnson, passionate Zionist that he is, will be among them.
When it comes to aggression and dishonesty the US has form, and lots of it. Who can forget during the Iran-Iraq war the cruiser USS Vincennes, well inside Iran’s territorial waters, blowing Iran Air Flight 655 to smithereens and killing all 290 passengers and crew on board? The excuse, which didn’t bear examination afterwards, was that they mistook the Airbus A300 for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat manoeuvring to attack.
George H. W. Bush commented on a separate occasion: “I will never apologize for the United States – I don’t care what the facts are… I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of guy.” Trump seems to have caught the same disease. And, from the outside, the White House itself seems home to the the sort of “murderous dictatorship” he describes.
The need to continually demonize Iran
When I say the West’s hatred of Iran, I mean primarily the US-UK-Israel Axis.  Ben Wallace, UK Defence Secretary filling in for Boris Johnson who had absented himself, has told Parliament: “In recent times, Iran has felt its intentions are best served through… the use of subversion as a foreign policy tool. It has also shown a total disregard for human rights.” This is amusing coming from the British government and especially a Conservative one which adores Israel, the world’s foremost disregarder of human rights and international law.
Britain and America would like everyone to believe that hostilities with Iran began with the 1979 Islamic Revolution. But you have to go back to the early 1950s for the root cause in America’s case, while Iranians have had to endure a whole century of British exploitation and bad behaviour. And the Axis want to keep this important slice of history from becoming part of public discourse. Here’s why.
In 1901 William Knox D’Arcy obtained from the Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar a 60-year oil concession to three-quarters of the country. The Persian government would receive 16% of the oil company’s annual profits, a rotten deal as the Persians would soon realise.
D’Arcy, with financial support from Glasgow-based Burmah Oil, formed a company and sent an exploration team. Drilling failed to find oil in commercial quantities and by 1908 D’Arcy was almost bankrupt and on the point of giving up when they finally struck it big.  The Anglo-Persian Oil Company was up and running and in 1911 completed a pipeline from the oilfield to its new refinery at Abadan.
Just before the outbreak of World War 1 Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, wished to convert the British fleet from coal. To secure a reliable oil source the British Government took a major shareholding in Anglo-Persian.
In the 1920s and 1930s the company profited hugely from paying the Persians a miserly 16% and refusing to renegotiate terms. An angry Persia eventually cancelled the D’Arcy agreement and the matter ended up at the Court of International Justice in The Hague. A new agreement in 1933 provided Anglo-Persian with a fresh 60-year concession but on a smaller area. The terms were an improvement but still didn’t amount to a square deal for the Persians.
In 1935 Persia became known internationally by its other name, Iran, and Anglo-Persian changed to Anglo-Iranian Oil. By 1950 Abadan was the biggest oil refinery in the world and the British government, with its 51% holding, had affectively colonised part of southern Iran.
Iran’s tiny share of the profits had long soured relations and so did the company’s treatment of its oil workers. 6,000 went on strike in 1946 and the dispute was violently put down with 200 dead or injured. In 1951 while Aramco was sharing profits with the Saudis on a 50/50 basis Anglo-Iranian declared £40 million profit after tax and handed Iran only £7 million.
Iran by now wanted economic and political independence and an end to poverty. Calls for nationalisation could not be ignored. In March 1951 the Majlis and Senate voted to nationalise Anglo-Iranian, which had controlled Iran’s oil industry since 1913 under terms frankly unfavourable to the host country. Social reformer Dr Mohammad Mossadeq was named prime minister by a 79 to 12 majority and promptly carried out his government’s wishes, cancelling Anglo-Iranian’s oil concession and expropriating its assets.
His explanation was perfectly reasonable…
“Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries… have yielded no results this far. With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.” (M. Fateh, Panjah Sal-e Naft-e Iran, p. 525)
For this he would be removed in a coup by MI5 and the CIA, imprisoned for 3 years then put under house arrest until his death.
Britain was determined to bring about regime change so orchestrated a world-wide boycott of Iranian oil, froze Iran’s sterling assets and threatened legal action against anyone purchasing oil produced in the formerly British-controlled refineries. The Iranian economy was soon in ruins…. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
America was reluctant at first to join Britain’s destructive game but Churchill (prime minister at this time) let it be known that Mossadeq was turning communist and pushing Iran into Russia’s arms at a time when Cold War anxiety was high. That was enough to bring America’s new president, Eisenhower, on board and plotting with Britain to bring Mossadeq down.
Chief of the CIA’s Near East and Africa division, Kermit Roosevelt Jr, played the lead in a nasty game of provocation, mayhem and deception. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi signed two decrees, one dismissing Mossadeq and the other nominating the CIA’s choice, General Fazlollah Zahedi, as prime minister. These decrees were written as dictated by the CIA.
In August 1953, when it was judged safe for him to do so, the Shah returned to take over. Mossadeq was arrested, tried, and convicted of treason by the Shah’s military court. He remarked: “My greatest sin is that I nationalised Iran’s oil industry and discarded the system of political and economic exploitation by the world’s greatest empire… I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle East in breaking the chains of slavery and servitude to colonial interests.”
His supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed. Zahedi’s new government reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium to restore the flow of Iranian oil, awarding the US and Great Britain the lion’s share – 40% going to Anglo-Iranian. The consortium agreed to split profits on a 50-50 basis with Iran but refused to open its books to Iranian auditors or allow Iranians to sit on the board.
The US massively funded the Shah’s government, including his army and his hated secret police force, SAVAK. Anglo-Iranian changed its name to British Petroleum in 1954. Mossadeq died on 5 March 1967.
The CIA-engineered coup that toppled Mossadeq, reinstated the Shah and let the American oil companies in, was the final straw for the Iranians. The British-American conspiracy backfired spectacularly 25 years later with the Islamic Revolution of 1978-9, the humiliating 444-day hostage crisis in the American embassy and a tragically botched rescue mission.
Smoldering resentment for at least 70 years
And all this happened before the Iran-Iraq war when the West, especially the US, helped Iraq develop its armed forces and chemical weapons arsenal which were used against Iran.  The US, and eventually Britain, leaned strongly towards Saddam in that conflict and the alliance enabled Saddam to more easily acquire or develop forbidden chemical and biological weapons. At least 100,000 Iranians fell victim to them.
This is how John King writing in 2003 summed it up…
“The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam’s army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.”
And while Iranian casualties were at their highest as a result of US chemical and biological war crimes what was Mr Trump doing? He was busy acquiring the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Trump Castle, his Taj-Mahal casino, the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan…. oh, and he was refitting his super-yacht Trump Princess. What does he know, understand or care about Iran and the Iranian people today?
On the British side our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was at Oxford carousing with fellow Etonians at the Bullingdon Club. What does he know or care?
The present Iranian regime, like many others, may not be entirely to the West’s liking but neither was Dr Mossadeq’s fledgeling democracy nearly 70 years ago. If Britain and America had played fair and allowed the Iranians to determine their own future instead of using economic terrorism to bring the country to its knees Iran might have been “the only democracy in the Middle East” today.
So hush! Don’t even mention the M-word: MOSSADEQ.

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!

US Reportedly Tells European Allies to Pressure Iran or Face 25% Auto Tariffs

Source


00:56 16.01.2020
Under the Trump administration, the United States has widely expanded its economic leverage to renegotiate international agreements which it considers inequitable to US economic or strategic interests.
The Trump administration quietly threatened last week to impose tariffs on key European nations, just before they officially accused Iran of breaching the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday.
According to EU officials familiar with the talks, the United States threatened to impose a 25-percent tariff on European automobiles from Germany, France and Britain, if they refused to condemn Tehran’s actions and trigger a trade dispute mechanism within the deal.
Days after the alleged ultimatum, the 3 countries formally accused Iran of violating the agreement, triggering a fallback option which could reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran, thus destroying the residual accords of the Obama-era nuclear deal.
“We’ve been very clear that the JCPOA was a horrible deal”, an unidentified senior US official within the Trump administration said, when asked about the tariff threat, cited by the WaPo.
The unnamed official acknowledged, however, that the Europeans were already moving towards triggering the dispute resolution before the US threat was issued.
“The consensus among the Europeans about the need to hold Tehran accountable took form weeks ago and was driven by Iran’s escalatory behavior and violations of the nuclear deal,” the official said, according to WaPo.
It is unclear whether the so-called EU 3 issued the criticism against Iran due to the US threat or whether interests just happened to align in this circumstance, as both blocs maintain an interest in triggering the mechanism.
The United States views the mechanism as a means of reimposing full sanctions on Iran within 65 days, while EU powers see it as a necessary way to ultimately restore the deal, reduce tensions, and prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.

Abbas Araghchi (Center R), political deputy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran, and Helga Schmid (Center L), Secretary General of the European Union's External Action Service (EEAS), take part in a meeting of the Joint Commission of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) attended by the E3+2 (China, France, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom) and Iran on July 28, 2019 at the Palais Coburg in Vienna, Austria.

© AFP 2019 / ALEX HALADAAbbas Araghchi (Center R), political deputy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran, and Helga Schmid (Center L), Secretary General of the European Union’s External Action Service (EEAS), take part in a meeting of the Joint Commission of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) attended by the E3+2 (China, France, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom) and Iran on July 28, 2019 at the Palais Coburg in Vienna, Austria.

A New Transatlantic Relationship

Trump has previously used tariffs against the EU to win favourable trade concessions, but has yet to use them to influence foreign policy.
The policy is, however, indicative of the way the Trump administration views geopolitics, seeing the world through an ‘America First’ lens and willing to use economic leverage to reorganise the global geopolitical balance.
Opposing the Iranian nuclear deal has been the position held by the US since Trump’s election in 2016, characterizing the Iran nuclear deal as “unfair” to the United States.
The Europeans, however, have maintained their dedication to the deal, with EU leaders repeatedly saying, in line with international nuclear inspectors, that Iran has consistently been found to be in compliance with the landmark peace deal.
“The tariff threat is a mafia-like tactic, and it’s not how relations between allies typically work” said Jeremy Shapiro, research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

A Deal Scrapped 

Due to the recent heating up of tensions between the US and Iran beginning with the withdrawal of the US from the JCPOA and the assassination of top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani on 3 Janurary, Iran has begun to enrich uranium beyond the limits set by the deal.
The JCPOA was signed and ratified in 2015 by the US, Iran, Russia, China, France, Germany, United Kingdom and the EU.
The purpose of the deal is to allow – but limit – Iran’s uranium enrichment program, to be used only for peaceful nuclear power and other research purposes, seeing Tehran agreeing to scrap its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, cut its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98 percent, and reduce its number of gas centrifuges by around two-thirds.

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!