Saturday, 6 February 2021

America first: Trump or Biden? أميركا أولاً: ترامب أم بايدن؟


Image result for america first or Israel first

America first: Trump or Biden?

Nasser Kandil

– An equation that tries to read the change in the Administration, as a transition from former President Donald Trump’s “isolationist” project that does not care about America’s relations in the world, under the American first slogan, is being debated by President Joe Biden’s project of America’s return to the world and its place among the world, and the hallmark of Trump’s withdrawal from international agreements and Biden’s return to it, particularly the climate agreement on environmental pollution, and the return to the United Nations organisations from which Trump has decided to withdraw, with the world’s health organisation at the forefront.

In fact, this image seems deceptive, with trump speaking only of America first, and Biden’s America logo coming back. It is well established that the policies of U.S. intervention in international crises did not stop with America first in the Trump era, nor will it stop with Biden, the fate of American welfare and security is already based on America’s economic, political and military standing in the world, not on what is happening within America independently of this international extension of this great nation.

– The debate in the slogan needs a different approach, the retreat toward the American interior relatively and the easing of the burden of foreign interventions, does not mean withdrawal and cannot mean withdrawal, and the evidence of what Trump did to strengthen relations with China and Russia and escalate the confrontation with Iran, and Biden’s intentions for his foreign policy dealing with the files of relations and international policies, so that America’s content first becomes viable To measure either of the policies and either of the two presidents, it is closer to treating these international files with the mentality of reducing the highest degree of escalation and getting off the tree of crisis, in search of the best possible to achieve American interests with the least degree of crisis, and so it will be easy to discover that Biden is closer than Trump by degrees to the concept of America first, even if his motto is the return of America and the Tump America first slogan.

In the region, trump, raising the slogan of America first, was fighting the escalation that followed his withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran, on fronts stretching from Iraq and Syria to Yemen, Lebanon and Palestine. On Yemen to the extent that Ansar Allah is classified on the lists of terrorism in the late days of his term, and all these policies are based on the illusion of their ability to achieve policy change for the axis of resistance, first and foremost Iran, or success by dropping this axis and in the heart of Iran, and Biden comes to inherit the failure of these policies heading to switch the direction towards minimum understandings starting with the revival of the nuclear agreement with Iran and the cessation of the War of Yemen, and any scrutiny of the difference between the two policies and the two presidents, will lead to us that Trump was working in the region under the slogan ”  First, and that Biden works under the banner of America first, where U.S. interests include protecting “Israel” Biden will not hesitate to protect them, but where U.S. interests call for a return to the nuclear deal with Iran Biden will do so independently of the reservations of  “Israel”, and where U.S. interests call for the protection of Saudi Arabia, Biden will do so, but where U.S. interests call for an end to the War of Yemen, Biden will not hesitate to do so in isolation from Saudi accounts.

America first or “Israel” first is the fundamental difference in the region between the elements and orientations of policy making between Trump and Biden, whether Biden succeeds in sticking to the security of  “Israel”  and its superiority, by continuing a policy independent of Israeli pressure or bowing to pressure and modifying his policies. Negotiations in the middle of a return to the nuclear deal will remain the criterion for Biden to win his policy or fall under pressure, and to move toward this goal is done in the minefield, where Israel and Saudi Arabia muster all the papers to influence the U.S. decision to avoid this bitter cup.

أميركا أولاً: ترامب أم بايدن؟

ناصر قنديل

يجري التداول بمعادلة تحاول قراءة التبدّل الحاصل في الإدارة الأميركية، بصفته انتقالاً من مشروع الرئيس السابق دونالد ترامب “الانعزالي” الذي لا يهتمّ بعلاقات أميركا في العالم، تحت شعار أميركا أولاً، إلى مشروع الرئيس جو بايدن القائم على عودة أميركا كما قال بايدن الى العالم والانخراط في مكانتها بين دول العالم، والعلامة الفارقة تمثلت بانسحاب ترامب من الاتفاقات الدولية وعودة بايدن إليها، خصوصاً اتفاق المناخ الخاص بتلوث البيئة، والعودة الى منظمات الأمم المتحدة التي قرر ترامب الانسحاب منها وفي طليعتها منظمة الصحة العالمية.

في الواقع تبدو هذه الصورة مخادعة، وليس فيها الا كلام ترامب عن شعار أميركا أولاً، وشعار بايدن أميركا تعود. فالثابت أن سياسات التدخل الأميركي في الأزمات الدولية لم تتوقف مع أميركا أولاً في عهد ترامب، ولن تتوقف مع بايدن، فمصير الرفاه والأمن الأميركيين مبنيّ أصلاً على مكانة أميركا الاقتصادية والسياسية والعسكرية في العالم، وليس على ما يحدث داخل أميركا بمعزل عن هذا الامتداد الدولي لهذه الدولة العظمى.

النقاش في الشعار يحتاج مقاربة مختلفة، فالانكفاء نحو الداخل الأميركي نسبياً والتخفف من عبء التدخلات الخارجية، لا يعني الانسحاب ولا يمكن أن يعني الانسحاب، والدليل ما فعله ترامب من تأزيم العلاقات مع الصين وروسيا وتصعيد المواجهة مع إيران، وما يعلنه بايدن من نيات لسياسته الخارجية التي تعنى بملفات العلاقات والسياسات الدولية، ليصير مضمون أميركا أولاً قابلاً للقياس بأي من السياستين وأي من الرئيسين، أقرب لمعاملة هذه الملفات الدولية بعقلية التخفف من أعلى درجات التصعيد والنزول عن شجرة التأزيم، بحثاً عن أفضل الممكن لتحقيق المصالح الأميركيّة بأقل درجة من الأزمات، وهكذا سيكون سهلاً اكتشاف أن بايدن أقرب من ترامب بدرجات لمفهوم أميركا أولاً، ولو كان شعاره عودة أميركا وشعار ترامب أميركا أولاً.

في المنطقة كان ترامب وهو يرفع شعار أميركا أولاً يخوض التصعيد الذي أعقب انسحابه من الاتفاق النووي مع إيران، على جبهات تمتد من العراق وسورية الى اليمن ولبنان وفلسطين، وكان واضحاً أنه وضع وصفات ثنائي رئيس حكومة الاحتلال بنيامين نتنياهو وولي العهد السعودي محمد بن سلمان كأساس للسياسات الأميركية، فكانت عمليات التطبيع الإسرائيلية العربية، وصفقة القرن وما تلاها من دعم لقرارات الضم الإسرائيلية للأراضي العربية، وكان التصعيد في لبنان وصولاً لإسقاطه تحت الضغط وصولاً للانهيار أملاً بإسقاط المقاومة، والذهاب في تبني الحرب العدوانية على اليمن الى حد تصنيف أنصار الله على لوائح الإرهاب في أواخر أيام ولايته، وبنيت كل هذه السياسات على وهم قدرتها على تحقيق تغيير السياسات لمحور المقاومة وفي مقدّمته إيران، أو النجاح بإسقاط هذا المحور وفي قلبه إيران، ويأتي بايدن ليرث فشل هذه السياسات متجهاً لتبديل الوجهة نحو تفاهمات الحد الأدنى بدءاً من إحياء الاتفاق النووي مع إيران ووقف حرب اليمن، وأي تدقيق بالفارق بين السياستين والرئيسين، سيوصلنا إلى أن ترامب كان يعمل في المنطقة تحت شعار “إسرائيل” أولاً، وأن بايدن يعمل تحت شعار أميركا أولاً، فحيث المصالح الأميركية تتضمن حماية “إسرائيل” لن يتوانى بايدن عن حمايتها، لكن حيث المصالح الأميركية تستدعي العودة للاتفاق النووي مع إيران سيفعل بايدن ذلك بمعزل عن تحفظات “إسرائيل”، وحيث المصالح الأميركية تستدعي حماية السعودية سيفعل بايدن ذلك، لكن حيث المصالح الأميركية تستدعي وقف حرب اليمن لن يتردّد بايدن بفعل ذلك بمعزل عن الحسابات السعودية.

أميركا أولاً أم “إسرائيل” أولاً هو الفارق الجوهري في المنطقة بين عناصر وموجهات صناعة السياسة بين ترامب وبايدن، سواء نجح بايدن المتمسك بأمن “إسرائيل” وتفوقها، بمواصلة سياسة مستقلة عن الضغوط الإسرائيلية أم رضخ للضغوط وقام بتعديل سياساته. فالمفاوضات بالواسطة للعودة الى الاتفاق النووي ستبقى هي المعيار لفوز بايدن بسياسته ام سقوطه تحت الضغوط، والسير نحو هذا الهدف يتم في حقل الغام، حيث تحشد “إسرائيل” والسعودية كل أوراق التأثير على القرار الأميركي لتفادي هذه الكأس المرة


فيديوات ذات صلة


مقالات ذات صلة


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!

Burmese Days, Revisited

 

Image result for Burmese Days, Revisited
Independent geopolitical analyst, writer and journalist

Pepe Escobar

February 5, 2021

It will be fascinating to watch how the (Dis)United States will deal with post-coup Myanmar as part of their 24/7 “containment of China” frenzy.

The (jade) elephant in the elaborate room housing the military coup in Myanmar had to be – what else – China. And the Tatmadaw – the Myanmar Armed Forces – knows it better than anyone.

There’s no smoking gun, of course, but it’s virtually impossible that Beijing had not been at least informed, or “consulted”, by the Tatmadaw on the new dispensation.

China, Myanmar’s top trade partner, is guided by three crucial strategic imperatives in the relationship with its southern neighbor: trade/connectivity via a Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) corridor; full access to energy and minerals; and the necessity of cultivating a key ally within the 10-member ASEAN.

The BRI corridor between Kunming, in China’s Yunnan province, via Mandalay, to the port of Kyaukphyu in the Gulf of Bengal is the jewel in the New Silk Road crown, because it combines China’s strategic access to the Indian Ocean, bypassing the Strait of Malacca, with secured energy flows via a combined oil and gas pipeline. This corridor clearly shows the centrality of Pipelineistan in the evolution of the New Silk Roads.

None of that will change, whoever runs the politico-economic show in Myanmar’s capital Naypyidaw. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Aung San Suu Kyi, locally known as Amay Suu (“Mother Suu”) were discussing the China-Myanmar economic corridor only three weeks before the coup. Beijing and Naypyidaw have clinched no less than 33 economic deals only in 2020.

We just want “eternal peace”

Something quite extraordinary happened earlier this week in Bangkok. A cross-section of the vast Myanmar diaspora in Thailand – which had been ballooning since the 1990s – met in front of the UN’s Asia-Pacific office.

They were asking for the international reaction to the coup to ignore the inevitable, incoming U.S. sanctions. Their argument: sanctions paralyze the work of citizen entrepreneurs, while keeping in place a patronage system that favors the Tatmadaw and deepens the influence of Beijing at the highest levels.

Yet this is not all about China. The Tatmadaw coup is an eminently domestic affair – which involved resorting to the same old school, CIA-style method that installed them as a harsh military dictatorship way back in 1962.

Elections this past November reconfirmed Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the NLD, in power by 83% of the votes. The pro-army party, the USDP, cried foul, blaming massive electoral fraud and insisting on a recount, which was refused by Parliament.

So the Tatmadaw invoked article 147 of the constitution, which authorizes a military takeover in case of a confirmed threat to sovereignty and national solidarity, or capable of “disintegrating the Union”.

The 2008 constitution was drawn by – who else – the Tatmadaw. They control the crucial Interior, Defense and Border ministries, as well as 25% of the seats in Parliament, which allows them veto power on any constitutional changes.

The military takeover involves the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. A year long state of emergency is in effect. New elections will happen when order and “eternal peace” will be restored.

The man in charge is Army chief Min Aung Hlaing, quite flush after years overseeing juicy deals conducted by Myanmar Economic Holdings Ltd. (MEHL). He also oversaw the hardcore response to the 2007 Saffron revolution – which did express legitimate grievances but was also largely co-opted as a by-the-book U.S. color revolution.

More worryingly, Min Aung Hlaing also deployed wasteland tactics against the Karen and Rohingya ethnic groups. He notoriously described the Rohingya operation as “the unfinished work of the Bengali problem”. Muslims in Myanmar are routinely debased by members of the Bamar ethnic majority as “Bengali”.

No raised ASEAN eyebrows

Life for the overwhelming majority of the Myanmar diaspora in Thailand can be very harsh. Roughly half dwell in the construction business, the textile industry and tourism. The other half does not hold a valid work permit – and lives in perpetual fear.

To complicate matters, late last year the de facto military government in Thailand went on a culpability overdrive, blaming them for crossing borders without undertaking quarantine and thus causing a second wave of Covid-19.

Thai unions, correctly, pointed to the real culprits: smuggling networks protected by the Thai military, which bypass the extremely complicated process of legalizing migrant workers while shielding employers who infringe labor laws.

In parallel, part of the – legalized – Myanmar diaspora is being enticed to join the so-called MilkTeaAlliance – which congregates Thais, Taiwanese and Hong Kongers, and lately Laotians and Filipinos as well – against, who else, China, and to a lesser extent, the Thai military government.

ASEAN won’t raise eyebrows against the Tatmadaw. ASEAN’s official policy remains non-interference in the domestic affairs of its 10 members. Bangkok – where, incidentally, the military junta took power in 2014 – has shown Olympic detachment.

In 2021, Myanmar happens to be coordinating nothing less than the China-ASEAN dialogue mechanism, as well as presiding over the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation – which discusses all crucial Mekong matters.

The mighty river, from the Tibetan plateau to the South China Sea, could not be more geo-economically strategic. China is severely criticized for the building of dozens of dams, which reduce direct water flows and cause serious imbalances to regional economies.

Myanmar is also coordinating a supremely sensitive geopolitical issue: the interminable negotiations to establish the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea, which pit China against Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei and non-ASEAN Taiwan.

The Tatmadaw does not seem to be losing sleep over post-coup business problems. Erik Prince, former Blackwater honcho and now the head of Hong Kong-based Frontier Services Group (FSG) – financed, among others, by powerful Chinese conglomerate Citic – is about to hit Naypyidaw to “securitize” local companies.

A juicier dossier involves what’s going to happen with the drug trade: arguably Tatmadaw getting a bigger piece of the pie. Cartels in Kachin state, in the north, export opium to China’s Yunnan province to the east, and India to the west. Shan state cartels are even more sophisticated: they export via Yunnan to Laos and Vietnam to the east, and also to India to the northwest.

And then there’s a gray area where no one really knows what’s going on: the weapons highway between China and India that runs through Kachin state – where we also find Lisu and Lahu ethnic groups.

The dizzying ethnic tapestry

The Myanmar electoral commission is a very tricky business, to say the least. They are designated by the Executive, and had to face a lot of criticism – internal, not international – for their censorship of opposition parties in the November elections.

The end result privileged the NLD, whose support is negligible in all border regions. Myanmar’s majority ethnic group – and the NLD’s electoral base – is the Bamar, Buddhist and concentrated in the central part of the country.

The NLD frankly does not care about the 135 ethnic minorities – which represent at least one third of the general population. It’s been a long way down since Suu Kyi came to power, when the NLD actually enjoyed a lot of support. Suu Kyi’s international high profile is essentially due to the power of the Clinton machine.

If you talk to a Mon or a Karen, he or she will tell you they had to learn the hard way how much of an intolerant autocrat is the real Suu Kyi. She promised there would be peace in the border regions – eternally mired in a fight between the Tatmadaw and autonomous movements. She could not possibly deliver because she had no power whatsoever over the military.

Without any consultation, the electoral commission decided to cancel voting, totally or partially, in 56 cantons of Arakan state, Shan state, Karen state, Mon state and Kachin state, all of them ethnic minorities. Nearly 1.5 million people were deprived of voting.

There were no elections, for instance, in the majority of Arakan state; the electoral commission invoked “security reasons”. The reality is the Tatmadaw is in a bitter fight against the Arakan Army, which want self-determination.

Needless to add, the Rohingyas – which live in Arakan – were not allowed to vote. Nearly 600,000 of them still barely survive in camps and closed villages in Arakan.

In the 1990s, I visited Shan state, which borders China’s strategic Yunnan province to the east. Nothing much changed over two decades: the guerrilla has to fight the Tatmadaw because they clearly see how the army and their business cronies are obsessed to capture the region’s lavish natural resources.

I traveled extensively in Myanmar in the second part of the 1990s – before being blacklisted by the military junta, like virtually every journalist and analyst working in Southeast Asia. Ten years ago, photojournalist Jason Florio, with whom I’ve been everywhere from Afghanistan to Cambodia, managed to be sneaked into Karen rebel territory, where he shot some outstanding pictures.

In Kachin state, rival parties in the 2015 elections this time tried to pool their efforts. But in the end they were badly bruised: the electoral mechanism – one round only – favored the winning party, Suu Kyi’s NLD.

Beijing does not interfere in the dizzyingly complex Myanmar ethnic maze. But questions remain over the murky support for Chinese who live in Kachin state in northern Myanmar: it’s possible they may be used as leverage in negotiations with the Tatmadaw.

The basic fact is the guerrillas won’t go away. The top two are the Kachin Independence Army and the United Wa State Army (Shan). But then there’s the Arakan Liberation Army, the China National Army, the Karenni Army (Kayah), the Karen National Defense Organization and the Karen National Liberation, and the Mon National Liberation Army.

What this weaponized tapestry boils down to, in the long run, is a tremendously (Dis)United Myanmar, bolstering the Tatmadaw’s claim that no other mechanism is capable of guaranteeing unity. It doesn’t hurt that “unity” comes with the extra perks of controlling crucial sectors such as minerals, finance and telecom.

It will be fascinating to watch how the (Dis)United Imperial States will deal with post-coup Myanmar as part of their 24/7 “containment of China” frenzy. The Tatmadaw are not exactly trembling in their boots.

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!

سورية ولبنان ليسا ضمن الأولويّات الأميركيّة؟


ناصر قنديل

ينقلب الذين كانوا يروّجون دائماً لكون لبنان وسورية تحت مجهر المتابعة الدوليّة، والأميركية خصوصاً، الى حد تصوير حال البلدين ترد في برقية موجزة للرئيس الأميركي كل صباح مع الفطور، للتحدث عن هامشية الاهتمام الأميركي بسورية ولبنان، والتبدّل ليس نتاجاً لوطنية هبطت عليهم فجأة، فما عاد يهمهم الاهتمام الغربيّ عموماً والأميركي خصوصاً، بل لسببين ظاهرين، الأول أن مصدر هذا الاهتمام عائد لما يكرهونه ويرفضونه في البلدين، وهو حال المقاومة والصمود التي يريدون تحميلها مسؤولية تهميش كل من البلدين، والثاني أن وجهة هذا الاهتمام ليست في الاتجاه الذي يرغبونه، وهو التحضير لمزيد من الحروب ومزيد من العقوبات، كانوا دائماً من المحرّضين عليها. وهكذا فجأة بتنا نقرأ لأقلام يسميها البعض مرموقة، أصحابها نجوم صحف عربية مموّلة خليجياً، ونجوم إعلام العلاقات العامة الذي يكثر من الضجيج ويفتقد السعي للحقيقة.

بالتوازي ينقلب هؤلاء لتبييض وجوههم عند المموّل المنتمي للعالم للحر ومنظومة حقوق الإنسان والديمقراطية من حكومات الحليج، للتحدّث عن أولوية حاكمة للسياسات الأميركية الجديدة، تتمثل بالاستثمار على الإنجاز المعجزة لعمليات التطبيع التي خلقت حلفاً جديداً في المنطقة يشكل ركيزة السياسات الأميركية سيتم استرضاؤه، والسعي لوضع أولوياته كأولويات أميركية جديدة، ويتغافلون حيث يكتبون ويعلقون كل ما ينشر ويُذاع عن أن حدود الالتزام الأميركي بثنائي التطبيع الخليجي الإسرائيلي، هو الحماية، أما صناعة السياسة فلن تكون لدعاة وأدعياء الالتزام، لا لشيء إلا لأنهم وكلاء تم الاعتماد عليهم قبل التورط الأميركي في حروب المنطقة وفشلوا فشلاً ذريعاً في مهمتهم المتمثلة بتجنيب أميركا التورط في الحروب، وبعد التورط الأميركي تم اعتماد وصفتهم بالانسحاب من الاتفاق النووي مع إيران والذهاب الى لعبة التصعيد، والضغوط، وجاءت النتيجة كارثية، حيث يقول المسؤولون الأميركيون الجدد، إن تنامي مقدرات محور المقاومة وإيران نمت بصورة مرعبة في عهد هذا الرهان، من امتلاك المقاومة للصواريخ الدقيقة الى تطور برنامج إيران النووي والصاروخي الى تبلور حضور المقاومة في العراق وتدحرج الانتصارات السورية، وسيطرة أنصار الله على أمن الخليج، وفي قلب التغافل والتجاهل يتعامى هؤلاء ومؤسساتهم الإعلامية عن مجرد ذكر ما يصرّح به المسؤولون الأميركيون حول وقف صفقات السلاح، وإعادة النظر بالسيادة المغربية على الصحراء الغربية، وبتصنيف أنصار الله على لوائح الإرهاب، وفتح ملف جريمة قتل الصحافي جمال الخاشقجي.

من الزاوية الواقعية لم يكن لبنان ولم تكن سورية يوماً في مكانة هامشية في السياسات الأميركية، لسبب بسيط هو أن «إسرائيل» ليست في مكانة هامشية في هذه السياسة، ومنذ فشلت إسرائيل في توفير شروط الحماية الذاتية، وصارت واشنطن مسؤولة عن حمايتها، ومنذ صار لبنان وسورية مصدر تهديد جدّي لأمن كيان الاحتلال، دخل البلدان قائمة الأولويات الأميركية، والذي يتبدّل مع السياسات هو وجهة الاهتمام الأميركي، فمع فشل الحروب والضغوط واعتماد الوصفات الغبية للثلاثي، بولتون وبنيامين نتنياهو وبن سلمان، بقي الاهتمام وتغيرت الوجهة نحو كيفية تفادي الأسوأ، وطريق تفادي الأسوأ الذي يحكم السياسة الأميركية الجديدة، انطلاقاً من مقاربة العودة للاتفاق النووي مع إيران، يجد أمامه مع مساعي العودة الآمنة للاتفاق تحت شعار تفادي امتلاك إيران مقدرات إنتاج سلاح نووي، أنه معنيّ بالسير بالتوازي بما يضمن تفادي الأسوأ في ساحات الاشتباك المحورية في المنطقة، والتي نصنع فيها بيئات التصعيد والتهدئة، وخصوصاً لبنان وسورية والعراق واليمن، وليس من باب الفراغ ولا المصادفات، أن تتحرّك واشنطن على الخط اليمنيّ، وأن تتحرّك باريس بإيعاز أميركيّ لاستكشاف وتعديل السياسات بما يتناسب مع مخاطبة المعادلات اللبنانية المحيطة بالمقاومة، وأن يتسابق صناع الرأي والنخب الدبلوماسيّة على تقديم التوصيات والمقترحات لمغادرة الفشل الذريع الذي كانوا رواده وصناعه في سورية، كما هو حال كتابات السفيرين السابقين روبرت فورد وجيفري فيلتمان.

تندّر أحد السفراء الذين رافقوا حقبة فيلتمان اللبنانية، والتي رسمت عبرها سياسات واشنطن نحو لبنان وسورية، وتساءل ماذا لو عين فيلتمان مبعوثاً أميركياً خاصاً في سورية وفقا لتوصياته بالاعتراف بانتصارات سورية ورئيسها، فهل سيجرؤ أصدقاؤه اللبنانيون على مواصلة ما يقولونه عن سورية؟


فيديوات متعلقة


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!

War on Syria: Israel and the Kurdish Card

 01.02.2021 

The conflict in Syria does not seem to be nearing its end despite the diplomatic efforts to find a solution for it. Every participant in the standoff is undertaking actions to pursue their interests, and many of them evidently are in conflict with one another.

Israel and its never-ending fight against the ‘Iranian threat’, as usual, appears to be in the middle of it.

On January 31st, along the separation line of the Golan Heights, a Syrian Arab Army (SAA) post was attacked by unknown gunmen. They came from the Israeli-occupied side, and a loud explosion followed. No casualties were reported, and it is possible that Israel was behind it, since the IDF has done raids such as these in the past, including twice in 2020. According to pro-militant sources, the IDF operation was carried out to deter purported Iranian forces in the area.

Israeli media reported that several months ago that in Damascus itself, an unnamed “Western Intelligence Agency” carried out a raid the headquarters of Iran’s Quds Force Unit 840. While the report remains questionable, at minimum, it can be considered as a direct threat to Tehran and Damascus.

In Northeast Syria, a severe conflict appears to be in the making, as US President Joe Biden seems to want an extremely negative outward scenario in order to reverse the limited involvement approach of Donald Trump.  Soon, MSM may get a new ‘war for democracy’ to cover, so, the population can focus less on what is transpiring inside the US.

The US-supported Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) appear to be the prime candidates to lead the situation towards critical mass. Hillary Clinton, and her daughter Chelsea are already moving with propaganda preparations: a Kurdish soap opera, focused on the lives and struggle of Kurdish women who fought not only against ISIS, but also fought for their liberty and their rights.

The Kurdish “freedom fighters” also fight against Turkey and reject a political settlement with Damascus.

Still, the SDF is now emboldened, it has support from the US, and little else in the region, except the poison hand of “friendship” from Israel. If all hell breaks loose, however, it is dubious whether or not Tel Aviv would come running to help.

This, however, does not stop the Kurdish leadership from employing harsh approaches to suppress local discontent with its anti-Syrian approaches. Just recently in Al-Hasakah, a pro-government protest was democratically put down by live fire and killings by the SDF’s “freedom fighters”.

It is an open secret the SDF-controlled area is in fact run by the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) “shadow government” and the SDF itself is full of PKK members, including the SDF commander in chief himself. This creates conditions for a continuous fight against the Turkish forces, and provides additional motivation for the SDF rejection of a political settlement with the Damascus government.

The Kurdish leaders are happy to receive weapons and funds from the US in exchange for loyalty to the project of the dismantling of the Syrian state.

Emboldened by the supposed support from the US, and the recent large deployments that have been carried out, the SDF and co. have recently become more active in their attempts to hinder the interests of Damascus, Russia and Iran.

The SDF’s mismanagement of the situation is further evidenced by the permanent tensions with Arab locals in the controlled areas and the deep humanitarian problems in SDF-run camps for displaced persons, including those affiliated with ISIS members. There are about 27,000 children in the SDF-run Al-Hol camp, where families of ISIS members and supporters are held. ISIS activity has seen an incredible increase in 2021, and the terrorist group would be more than content with “adopting” these young recruits.

With the new administration in Washington, the wind is blowing towards an incredibly violent scenario. The resumption of the ‘active’ policies to ‘deter’ Russia, Iran and the ‘Assad regime’ by playing the Kurdish card creates conditions for a further destabilization of Syria’s northeast. In some scenarios, the situation could swiftly descend into complete chaos.

To avoid this scenario, Kurdish leadership needs to remember that they are short on allies in the region and adapt a more constructive approach towards a political settlement with Damascus. Otherwise it is “highly likely” that dark clouds are soon to come on the horizon and the SDF card will once again become a small coin in the Big Middle Eastern Game.


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, 5 February 2021

On the rockets that deprive Israeli leaders of sleep: Friedman’s letter to his “dear” Biden عن الصواريخ التي تَحرِم قادة إسرائيل من النوم: رسالة فريدمان إلى «عزيزه» بايدن

 **English Machine translation Please scroll down for the Arabic original version **

On the rockets that deprive Israeli leaders of sleep: Friedman’s letter to his “dear” Biden


Al-Akhbar

Walid Sharara

Wِednesday, December 2, 2020

The message from the American journalist, the Zionist ideologues, Thomas Friedman, deserves to be read closely.

Image result for Thomas Friedman and joe biden
“Dear Joe, it is no longer a matter of Iranian nuclear”

It is not similar to his articles and books, which are fraught with missionary ideology, which is associated with his personal convictions, which have been lied to by subsequent developments as a whole. He probably wishes to forget his untold narratives of “happy globalisation” and the positive and benefits it will bring to the peoples of all the world, which he has compiled in two books: “Lexus and the Olive Tree”, and “The World Is Flat”. This time, in a remarkable article entitled, “Dear Joe, it is no longer a matter of Iranian nuclear”, he does not speak of his whim. Friedman wanted to address the president-elect, an ardent supporter with close and historical ties to the Democratic Party, on behalf of Israel and its support system in the United States, not just the lobby, commissioned or without them. The article – The message is very clear and candid, reinforcing the conviction that the essence of the strategic battle between the U.S.-Israeli alliance and its allies in the region, and between the axis of resistance, and at the heart of it Iran, is the development of its specific missile capabilities and its allies’ help to do the same. Of course, the attempt to prevent Iran from developing scientifically and technologically, particularly in the nuclear field, and as a result of its independent political choices, is among the central objectives of the hostile alliance, as confirmed by the targeting of its scientists and nuclear facilities, but not the first target on its agenda. Precision missiles, or the “game-changer” as used in dozens of Israeli, U.S. and Western reports, are the number one priority on this scale, and are likely to remain so after Biden enters the White House.

If an Arab writer or expert dares to say that Iran’s missile program deprives Israeli military experts of sleep, it will be judged by the “armies of experts and analysts” Arab “realists” as a “media mouthpiece” of resistance. But they will not dare to treat their friend, and in an earlier era, their reference, Thomas Friedman, in the way he writes that “what some Israeli military experts will admit to you is that Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon is not what keeps them awake all night, because they don’t think Tehran will use it, because that would be suicide, and Iran’s religious leaders are not suicide bombers. What worries them is Iran’s new weapons, the precision missiles it used against Saudi Arabia, which continue to try to export them to its proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, posing a deadly threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and U.S. forces in the region.”

Image result for Abqaiq offensive

The Zionist-American theorist does not hesitate to describe the Abqaiq attack, which targeted Saudi oil industries with precision guided missiles and Drones, as he claims, which he accuses Iran of direct responsibility for, of “Pearl Harbor Middle East”, and believes that this region has been reconstituted by Iranian missiles and U.S., Israeli and Gulf responses to it. He concludes that the new U.S. president will face enormous pressure not to return to the nuclear deal as originally drafted, to include the missile program in negotiations with Iran, and to use the “power paper” represented by the harsh sanctions imposed on it to bind it by making concessions about it.

The missile program was not put under the microscope at the time of the signing of the nuclear agreement.


Perhaps it should be remembered that Iran’s missile program was not put under the microscope at the time of the signing of the nuclear deal with Iran.

Image result for signing of the nuclear deal with Iran

To appreciate the position that the Obama administration used when it agreed to the original version of this agreement, it was assumed that Iran was suffering because of what looked like the international embargo that was being imposed around it at the time, that it was draining in Syria and Iraq, and that these conditions provided an opportunity to come to terms with it, and that it is not at its peak. However, the major changes that took place in the Syrian arena after the Russian intervention in September 2015, three months after the signing of the agreement, and the subsequent transfer of qualitative military and missile capabilities to Syria, and the Israeli and American attention to the accelerated development of the missile program in Iran, may be one of the most prominent factors explaining the slow lifting of sanctions stipulated in the agreement, and preventing western companies and institutions from opening up to this country and investing in it, because of warnings and pressure from the United States and sometimes public.

Image result for signing of the nuclear deal with Iran

It was these military, technological and field variables that led Donald Trump and his team to withdraw from the agreement and adopt “extreme pressures” against Tehran, without succeeding in halting the quantitative and qualitative growth of its missile arsenal and its allies. How will Biden and his administration deal with the “stubborn” and different realities that prevailed at the time of the signing of the nuclear deal? What is certain is that Israel’s balanced supporters in this team and beyond and in the various institutions of the U.S. state, i.e. the supporting system, will also stay up all night if they have to, to get the president-elect to be tough on Iran’s missile program, whose continued growth leads to a gradual shift in the balance of power to the detriment of Israel and U.S. hegemony in our region.


Related ِArticles

عن الصواريخ التي تَحرِم قادة إسرائيل من النوم: رسالة فريدمان إلى «عزيزه» بايدن

Image result for وليد شرارة

الأخبار 

وليد شرارة 

الأربعاء 2 كانون الأول 2020

Image result for Thomas Friedman and joe biden

الرسالة التي وَجّهها الصحافي الأميركي، الصهيوني العقائدي، توماس فريدمان، تستحقّ القراءة بتمعّن. هي لا تشبه مقالاته وكتبه المشحونة بأيديولوجيا تبشيرية، تشي بقناعاته الشخصية، التي كَذّبتها التطوّرات اللاحقة بمجملها. وغالب الظن أنه يتمنّى أن تُنسى سرديّاته المغفلة عن «العولمة السعيدة» وما ستحمله من إيجابيات وفوائد لشعوب العالم قاطبة، والتي جمعها في كتابين: «سيارة ليكسوس وشجرة الزيتون»، و«العالم مسطّح». هذه المرّة، وفي مقال بعنوان لافت، «عزيزي جو، لم يعد الأمر يتعلّق بالنووي الإيراني»، هو لا ينطق عن هواه. أراد فريدمان أن يخاطب الرئيس المنتخَب، وهو من مؤيّديه المتحمّسين ولديه علاقات وثيقة وتاريخية بالحزب الديمقراطي، نيابةً عن إسرائيل والمنظومة الداعمة لها في الولايات المتحدة، وليس مجرّد اللوبي، بتكليف منهما أو من دونه. المقال – الرسالة شديد الوضوح والصراحة، ويعزّز القناعة بأن جوهر المعركة الاستراتيجية الدائرة بين التحالف الأميركي – الإسرائيلي وأذنابه في المنطقة، وبين محور المقاومة، وفي القلب منه إيران، هو تطوير الأخيرة لقدراتها الصاروخية النوعية ومساعدتها حلفاءَها على القيام بالأمر عينه. بطبيعة الحال، فإن محاولة منع إيران من التطوّر علمياً وتكنولوجياً، خاصة في الميدان النووي، ونتيجة لخياراتها السياسية الاستقلالية، هي بين الأهداف المركزية للتحالف المعادي، وهو ما يؤكده استهداف علمائها ومنشآتها النووية، لكنه ليس الهدف الأول المدرَج على جدول أعماله. الصواريخ الدقيقة، أو «العامل المُغيِّر لقواعد اللعبة» حسب التعبير المستخدَم في عشرات التقارير الإسرائيلية والأميركية والغربية، هي الأولوية الأولى على هذا الجدول، ومن المرجّح أن تبقى كذلك بعد دخول بايدن إلى البيت الأبيض.

لو تَجرّأ كاتب أو خبير عربي على القول إن البرنامج الصاروخي الإيراني يَحرم الخبراء العسكريين الإسرائيليين من النوم، لانهال عليه التقريظ والتسخيف من قِبَل «جيوش الخبراء والمحلّلين» العرب «الواقعيين»، باعتباره «بوقاً إعلامياً» للممانعة. لكنّ هؤلاء لن يتجرّأوا على معاملة صديقهم، وفي حقبة سابقة مرجعهم، توماس فريدمان، بالطريقة إيّاها عندما يكتب أن «ما سيعترف به أمامكم بعض الخبراء العسكريين الإسرائيليين هو أن امتلاك إيران لسلاح نووي ليس ما يُبقيهم مستيقظين طيلة الليل، لأنهم لا يعتقدون أن طهران ستستخدمه، لأن ذلك سيكون انتحاراً، والزعماء الدينيون في إيران ليسوا انتحاريين. ما يُقلقهم هو أسلحة إيران الجديدة المفضّلة، أي الصواريخ الدقيقة التي استخدمتها ضدّ السعودية، والتي تواصل محاولة تصديرها إلى وكلائها في لبنان واليمن وسوريا والعراق، ما يشكّل تهديداً قاتلاً لإسرائيل والسعودية والإمارات والقوات الأميركية في المنطقة».

Image result for Abqaiq offensive

لا يَتردّد المنظّر الصهيوني – الأميركي في وصف هجوم أبقيق، الذي استهدف صناعات النفط السعودية بصواريخ مُوجّهة دقيقة ومسيّرات، وفقاً لزعمه، والذي يتّهم إيران بالمسؤولية المباشرة عنه، بـ«بيرل هاربر الشرق الأوسط»، ويرى أن هذه المنطقة أعيد تشكيلها من خلال الصواريخ الإيرانية والردود الأميركية والإسرائيلية والخليجية عليها. هو يَخلُص إلى أن الرئيس الأميركي الجديد سيواجه ضغوطاً هائلة لعدم العودة إلى الاتفاق النووي بصيغته الأصلية، ولإدراج البرنامج الصاروخي في المفاوضات مع إيران، وتوظيف «ورقة القوة» التي تُمثّلها العقوبات القاسية المفروضة عليها لإلزامها بتقديم تنازلات حوله.

البرنامج الصاروخي لم يكن قد وُضع تحت المجهر إبّان فترة التوقيع على الاتفاق النووي


ربّما ينبغي التذكير بأن البرنامج الصاروخي الإيراني لم يكن قد وُضع تحت المجهر في الفترة التي تمّ التوقيع خلالها على الاتفاق النووي مع إيران.

Image result for signing of the nuclear deal with Iran

تقدير الموقف الذي استندت إليه إدارة باراك أوباما عندما وافقت على الصيغة الأصلية لهذا الاتفاق، كان يَفترض أن إيران تعاني بسبب ما يشبه الحصار الدولي المضروب حولها آنذاك، وأنها تُستنزف في سوريا والعراق، وأن هذه الظروف تُوفّر فرصة سانحة للتفاهم معها، وهي ليست في أوج قوتها. غير أن المتغيّرات الكبرى التي شهدتها الساحة السورية بعد التدخل الروسي في أيلول/ سبتمبر 2015، أي 3 أشهر بعد توقيع الاتفاق، وما تلاها من عملية نقل لقدرات عسكرية وصاروخية نوعية إلى سوريا، والالتفات الإسرائيلي والأميركي إلى تسارع تطوير البرنامج الصاروخي في إيران، قد تكون من أبرز العوامل التي تُفسّر تباطؤ رفع العقوبات التي نصّ عليها الاتفاق، والحؤول دون قيام شركات ومؤسسات غربية وغير غربية بالانفتاح على هذا البلد والاستثمار فيه، بسبب تحذيرات وضغوط أميركية مبطّنة وأحياناً علنية.

Image result for signing of the nuclear deal with Iran

هذه المتغيّرات العسكرية والتكنولوجية والميدانية هي التي حدت بدونالد ترامب وفريقه إلى الانسحاب من الاتفاق واعتماد «الضغوط القصوى» ضدّ طهران، من دون النجاح في وقف النموّ الكمّي والنوعي للترسانة الصاروخية لديها ولدى حلفائها. كيف سيتعامل بايدن وإدارته مع الوقائع «العنيدة» والمغايرة لتلك التي سادت في فترة توقيع الاتفاق النووي؟ المؤكد هو أن أنصار إسرائيل الوازنين في هذا الفريق وخارجه وفي مختلف مؤسسات الدولة الأميركية، أي المنظومة الداعمة لها، سيبقون بدورهم مستيقظين طيلة الليل إن اضطرّوا لذلك، لحمل الرئيس المنتخَب على التشدّد حيال برنامج إيران الصاروخي، الذي يفضي نموّه المستمرّ إلى تحوّل تدريجي في موازين القوى لغير مصلحة إسرائيل والهيمنة الأميركية في منطقتنا.


فيديوات ذات صلة


مقالات ذات صلة


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!

Iran: Keeper of mankind’s anti-imperialist flame amid the ‘end of history’

Thursday, 04 February 2021 3:33 AM  

US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) (L) talks with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a rally with fellow Democrats before voting on H.R. 1, or the People Act, on the East Steps of the US Capitol on March 08, 2019 in Washington, DC. (AFP photo)
The Islamic Revolution, February 1979. (Photo by Reuters)
Iran at 42: Keeper of mankind’s anti-imperialist flame amid the ‘end of history’
Ramin Mazaheri (@RaminMazaheri2) is currently covering the US election. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea, and elsewhere. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China,’ which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

By Ramin Mazaheri and cross-posted with The Saker

At 42 years the Iranian Islamic Revolution has endured so long that it has seen the reactionary force which rose to counter it – Reaganism – partially defeated by a new faction: Trumpism.

With the return to power – via Joe Biden – of the three decade-long Clintonista ideology Iran hasn’t lasted so very long as to witness a total sea change in US politics, but revolutionary Iran continues to vex, undermine and even defeat mighty Washington precisely because of a key pillar of the Islamic Republic: anti-imperialism.

It’s difficult for me to take Biden and his supporters seriously because even though they claim to represent a progressive leap forward politically one never hears them utter the phrase “anti-imperialism”. In fact, nowhere in US mainstream discourse is this phrase ever heard, and that should be very telling about the true nature of the political factions here.

Anti-imperialism. Indeed, it is a complete sentence. It is a definitive answer to so many questions and problems.

It’s so big that even Wikipedia’s scant page on anti-imperialism relates how it has five different axes: “the moral, the economic, the systemic, the cultural and the temporal”. In one column I cannot discuss all five axes, but I can relate how the phrase is never discussed in both polite and impolite American society. That’s worth repeating because the US is so very aggressive militarily, still.

The single greatest cardinal sin in politics is to attack another country, so from a political point of view the dominant concept behind “anti-imperialism” is an anti-war stance: To be anti-imperialist is to be pro-peace. Therefore, in its political sense “anti-imperialism” is a phrase which implies an inherently internationalist viewpoint which sees weaker – or maybe just less warlike –  countries bound together against any colonising aggressor.

The sad reality is that “anti-imperialism” is not what it used to be.

As I have often related, an accurate analysis of modern human history is that precisely as Iran emerged victorious from the Western-orchestrated War of Holy Defense (also referred to as the Iran-Iraq War) the global anti-imperialist struggle completely collapsed, due to the fall of the USSR and Europe’s Eastern Bloc.

Almost universally anti-imperialism had a crisis of intellectual confidence. This even allowed Western pro-imperialists to insist that Iran was in a laughable condition: it went from being a revolutionary country to an outdated country almost overnight! The sad, but partial, truth of this historical era is not widely understood even in 2021.

It’s an important rejoinder that Iran’s revolutionary mix of anti-imperialism, state economic management and a modern, late-20th century political structure mixed with the revolutionary addition of clerical democratic inclusion has also still not been fully understood by most non-Iranians on both the left and the right.

But for pro-imperialists understanding was not necessary because in 1992 they infamously, abruptly and arrogantly declared the “end of history”, and that anti-imperialism had permanently lost. This explains Washington’s philosophy towards Iran for the last 30 years: waste time – and make things as difficult as possible via illegal and murderous sanctions – until Iran catches up with “history”. Or to put it in the exact terms used today by the Biden administration, which is struggling to gain domestic legitimacy after a deeply-disputed election: wait for Iran to accept “reality” (a “reality” defined by pro-imperialists, of course).

After 42 years Iran is still waiting for many to understand the political and economic modernity of its culture, but most with open eyes have at least partially come to understand Iran thanks to its actions. They see that Iran is consistently a top 10 country in the acceptance of refugees; they see that Iran puts its best and most beloved, like QasemSoleimani, in harm’s way in foreign nations in order to aid their struggles; they see that Iran supports righteous Sunni countries like Palestine; they see that Iran takes major and daring risks to send help to Latino countries like Venezuela; they see that Iran followed all the rules of the JCPOA pact on Iran’s nuclear energy program even when Western signatories did not.

Anyone with open eyes sees that Iran is an internationalist country, an anti-imperialist fighter, a peacemaker and a supporter of righteous global cooperation . Anyone with a modicum of imagination has also wondered just how very successful Iran could be and would have been – with their natural and human resources, and with the exact system they have had in place for 42 years – if the West would end its decades of imperialist blockades on Iran.

In the modern digital age – dominated by Western corporations who undoubtedly support pro-imperialist ideologies – eyes are not allowed to be opened, sadly. The pen is not mightier than the sword of deplatforming, censorship and endless Western propaganda.

And yet anti-imperialism remains an ever-powerful sword, because defense of one’s home and sovereignty is always legitimate.

In the post-1991 world who has wielded this sword more than Iran? This is not mere boasting, and proof of humility can be shown by quickly recounting the history of modern anti-imperialist struggles:

Only a know-nothing would say that the USSR, with its 25 million martyrs, didn’t primarily defeat German imperialism. China gave so very much to protect Korea from American invasion, but not as much as North Koreans gave, of course. The sacrifices of the Vietnamese were the most globally galvanising anti-imperialist force in the 20th century – who could ever forget that? Ending South African Apartheid can never be forgotten, but Western media certainly does obscure the role played by Cuban soldiers in repelling attacks from the Western-backed South African Defense Force, which ultimately resulted in the discrediting of the entire South African system and led to the freedom of Angola and modern-day Namibia. And who can forget when Algiers was the “Mecca of revolutionaries”, following the victory of its incredibly inspiring anti-imperialist struggle which overturned 132 years of Algeria “being France”?

Yet Iran’s contributions to the global and supremely humane anti-imperialist movement have been easily obscured by the West’s post-2001 state-sponsored ideology: Islamophobia.

Islamophobia was a very good ideology for pro-imperialists to promote because it has no troublesome economic or class components – it is mere xenophobia. Islamophobia explains why even the few committed Western anti-imperialists so often dismiss Iran’s anti-imperialism with a dismissive wave of their hand: they feel that because of the presence of the religion of Islam Iran is too difficult to even be understood. Sadly, Western pro-imperialists – via the promotion of Islamophobia – have won in many areas for decades.

Iran is concerned with Islam, of course, but Islam differs from Christianity in that there is no possibility for forced conversion, for proselytising monks or nuns or for the forcing of faith on others. Islam, from a political, economic and geopolitical perspective, is simply an insufficient tool with which to define all of modern Iran (believing that it is sufficient is Islamophobic, of course).

Because anti-imperialism cannot die as long as countries are conquered and colonised (openly or via puppets), it must have a center somewhere, no?

It’s laughable to say that the centre of the anti-imperialist movement in 2021 – which began in politics with Lenin and his critiques of Western-style capitalism – could be located anywhere in the United States. Or in Western Europe, for that matter.

I think it is perhaps fair to say the centre in 2021 is in Iran.

If that seems strange to your ears: Isn’t it true that Western Islamophobia has made modern Iran seem to be totally inscrutable, or even not even worth serious analysis? At the very same time, hasn’t the huge reductions in the anti-imperialist movement – which was a global cultural force for nearly a century – made Iran even more atypical? Is Iran so hard to place on the global and historical political spectrums because it is so very revolutionary, or is it that many simply don’t make the effort to accurately understand it’s structures, ideals and actions?

After 42 years Iran’s actions are clear, even if – to some – their motivations and methods are not yet comprehended.

There are other established anti-imperialist nations, as I have noted, and I am not accusing them of resting on their laurels – I simply note here that since 1979 Iran has undoubtedly joined their company in the history of modern mankind. Given the importance of anti-imperialism in establishing global peace, goodwill and cooperation – who wouldn’t thank God for that?

(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV.)


Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir

www.presstv.co.uk

www.presstv.tv


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!