Hizbullah changed the ME in 2006

Posted on August 27, 2010 by rehmat1

Mohamad Bazzi, adjunct senior fellow with the powerful Jewish think tank, Council on Foreign Relations (headed by Obama’s senior adviser on ME, Zionist Jew Richard Haass) in an interview from Lebanon said that “the United States must eventually reach out to Hizbullah”, in order to save Israel from another bloody war. He stated that Washington would fail to create a rift between Dmascus and Tehran and that Hariri government has no muscle to control Hizbullah militia. He suggested that in order to control the power of Hizbullah, Washington must arm the Lebanese military, which now is seeking help from the Islamic Republic.

The occupation of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) were both initiated by the neocons (mostly Jewish) for the theft of oil/gas and to create a new Middle East, a region of small and militarily weak tribal states, always looking for US-Israeli help for their survival. When this dream failed – Washington gave green light to the Zionazi Jews to destroy all secondary threats before attacking the Islamic Republic in the future. The aim was to wipe out Lebanese Islamic resistance Hizbullah and bring a regime-change in Damascus. However, after 34-days of indiscriminate aerial bombing, killing over 1200 Lebanese civilians and losing its 137 ‘bravw Jewish soldiers’ – Israel decided to bite the dust and retreat. That defeat created the vacuum to be filled by new powers.

The Jewish Army’s defeat in Summer 2006 at the hands of Hizbullah freedom-fighters ended not only the myth of the ‘invincibility’ of the Jewish Army but also proved that a morally-driven resistance movement doesn’t need F16s or nuclear bombs to defeat a corrupt, dis-illusioned but heavily armed army. Israeli defeat also spelled the end of its ‘gaurdian-angel’s’ supremacy in the Middle East. Within the next four years, the military, economic and diplomatic situation in the region has given birth to the new regional powers, Islamic Republic and Turkey – and Turkey-Iran-Brazil at the international level.

French political analyst Theirry Meyssan, wrote that after the un-expected military humiliation of Israeli forces, several top US military officers agreed with Admiral William Fallon and senior General Brent Scowcraft that after American military failure in Iraq, it would be a suicide to attack a “well armed and organized state – Iran – potentially setting the entire region ablaze”. The same group hoisted Obama to the White House on the condition that their ally Robert Gates will remain in the Pentagon”.

The ‘Israel-First’ neocons in Washington “thought that the dismantlement of Iraq would be contagious. The Sunni-Shiite civil war (the Fitna, in Arabic) was supposed to pit Iran against Saudi Arabia and split the whole Arab-Muslim world. The virtual independence of Iraqi Kurdistan was expected to cause a Kurdish secession in Turkey, Syria and Iran.

But the opposite happened. The easing of US pressure on Iraq sealed the alliance among the enemy brothers of Turkey, Syria and Iran. All three realized that in order to survive they had to unite and that once united they could exert regional leadership. In fact, Turkey, Syria and Iran, together, cover all crucial aspects of the regional political spectrum. As the heir to the Ottoman empire, Turkey incarnates political Sunni Islam. As the only remaining Baathist state after the destruction of Iraq, Syria embodies secularism. And, finally, since the Khomeini Revolution, Iran represents political Shi’ism.

In just a few months, Ankara, Damascus and Teheran opened their common borders, lowered customs tariffs and paved the way for a common market. This opening provided them with a breath of fresh air and a sudden economic growth which, despite the memories of prior disputes, has also garnered genuine grassroots support.”
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian