Iran busts major Israeli terrorist network

Posted on April 14, 2012 |

Islamic Republic’s intelligence ministry announced that it has busted a major Israeli network of terrorism and sabotage being operated from neighboring AzerbaijanOn Tuesday, Islamic Republic’s intelligence ministry announced that it has busted a major Israeli network of terrorism and sabotage being operated from neighboring Azerbaijan. The statement claimed arrest of several terrorists trained in anti-Iran foreign countries and seizer of a large amount of explosives, automatic weapons, silencers, military and telecommunication equipment and terrorist tools after a tough gun battle with the terrorists.

Earlier this month, the Jewish Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter for The New Yorker magazine, Seymour Hersh had revealed that the US Joint Special Operations Command had been training members of Iranian terrorist organization Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) since 2005 inside state of Nevada. Ironically, MEK is listed as a ‘terrorist group’ by the US State Department since 1997.

Last month, US Treasury Department issued subpoenas into an investigation against over three dozen former US high ranking government and military officials for accepting large sum of money in return for lobbying for an anti-Tehran government terrorist militant group, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK). A large number of these scums happened to be Jewish with loyalty to Israel, such as, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, Vermont Governor Howard Dean, CNN’s resident terror expert Frances Townsend, former US Attorney General, Michael Mukasey and John Bolton.

US and Israel share a long anti-Islam and anti-Iran cooperation with Azerbaijan’s communist-nationalist ruling class. The US, NATO and Israel have been using Azerbaijan as a launching pad for their intelligence, terrorism and military activities against Azerbaijan’s Muslim neighbors. Azerbaijan has a powerful Jewish minority with links to their Azeri relatives settled in the US, Israel and Britain after the fall of communist USSR. Azerbaijan’s strategic location and its large oil reserves work like magnet for oil-thirsty Israel.

CIA, Mossad and MI5 have been involved in covert terrorist activities in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The MEK carried its first major terrorist attack on parliament building on August 30, 1981, killing 72 lawmakers including country’s president Mohammad Ali Rajai and prime minister Mohammad Javad Bahonar.

In 2007, The Sunday Telegraph had reported that CIA was providing funding and arms to Iran’s terrorist group, Jundallah, to destablize both Iran and Pakistan. In October 2009, Abdolmalek Rigi, the captured leader of Jundallah confessed on Iranian TV that he was promised unlimited Washington’s military support and bases in Iran’s bordering countries to wage terrorist attack against Islamic Iran as the Obama administration doesn’t believe in the success of a military action to bring in a pro-US regime-change in Tehran.

Since Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President of Islamic Republic in 2005 – the western covert operations and open war threats against Iran has increased due to Israeli fear of an emerging pro-Palestinian regional power along its borders. Tehran has been able to establish a significant political and economic influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza and to some extent in Turkey and Egypt during the last few years. This has posed a great challenge to the US-Israel domination of the Muslim EAST.

To counter Iran’s rising political and military muscles under Ahmadinejad’s administration - CIA-Mossad-MI6 have been using drones for surveillance and covert terrorist operations inside Iran using MEK, Iranian Kurds and anti-Islam pro-royalist and communist groups. These groups have carried out anti-regime protests (Green movement), blowing up gas pipelines and assassinations of Iran’s nuclear scientists, military personnel and political figures.

On December 4, 2011 – Iranian Army’s electronic warfare unit announced that it had downed a US-built RQ-170 Sentinel stealth aircraft after it crossed into Iran’s airspace from neighboring US-NATO military base in neighboring Afghanistan.

The latest bust shows that Iranian intelligence has been able to out-smart CIA-Mossad-MI6 gansters. Last year, several CIA and Mossad espionage cells were busted in Iran, Lebanon and Egypt.

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 this Blog!

Gilad Atzmon on Gunter Grass, poetry and politics.

Friday, April 13, 2012 at 8:30AM Gilad Atzmon

 

Wenlock Poetry Festival
Saturday 14th April 1.00 p.m. The Edge Arts Centre free

On 4th April, eminent German writer and Nobel laureate, Günter Grass published a poem in the German newspaper, Süddeutsche Zeitung. The poem is called What Must Be Said, and deals with Israel's nuclear programme and the threat it poses to world security. Grass's stimulus to write the poem was Germany's recent sale to Israel of submarines that carry nuclear weapons. The poem has sparked a huge amount of media and political attention, and the Israeli government has banned Grass from entering Israel.

This weekend, musician and writer Gilad Atzmon is appearing at the Wenlock Poetry Festival to perform, and to present a composition workshop. In the light of the ongoing storm of debate around Grass's poem, he has been invited to lead a discussion on the role of the artist in contemporary political debate. Atzmon has written widely on Jewish identity politics and has first-hand experience of public reaction to critical opinion about Israel.

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 this Blog!

Mitt and Bibi Joined at the Hip

By Philip Giraldi

The Passionate Attachment
April 12, 2012

One of the more outrageous articles to appear recently describes how likely Republican Party presidential nominee Mitt Romney and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu enjoy a close personal relationship based on their simultaneous employment at the Boston Consulting Group in 1976. The article also explains how that relationship has continued, with Netanyahu briefing Romney on the subject of Iran before the March Super Tuesday primaries. Earlier, in December, Romney criticized Newt Gingrich over a comment about Palestinians, asserting that “Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’”

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Romney is handing the exercise of US foreign policy on the Middle East over to Israel. And it also doesn’t take any particular insight to realize that if a foreign head of state is advising a presidential candidate on foreign policy in any context it is completely unacceptable interference in the domestic politics of the United States. So why isn’t the media screaming in outrage? Well, the usual reason: that Israel is untouchable.

As loathsome as Obama has been in his craven surrender to Israeli interests, there has always been to the saving grace that one knows deep down that the president despises Netanyahu even as he fears him and the power of the Israel Lobby. Not so with Mitt, who will be an enthusiastic puppet in whatever game the Israelis decide to play.

Philip Giraldi is the executive director of the Council for the National Interest and a recognized authority on international security and counterterrorism issues.

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 this Blog!

Günter Grass; What Must Be Said (genius performance)

Thursday, April 12, 2012 at 11:45PM Gilad Atzmon

What must be said

Why have I been silent, silent for so long?,
Our generals have gamed it out,
Confident the west will survive.
We people have not even been considered.

What is this right to "preventive war"?
A war that could erase the Iranian people.
Dominated by it's neighbor, pulsing with righteousness
Smug in the fact that it is they, not Iran,
Who have the Bomb.

Why have I so far avoided to identify Israel by it's name?,
Israel and it's ever increasing nuclear arsenal,
Beyond reproach, Uncontrolled, uninspected.

We all know these things
Yet we all remain silent, fearful of being labeled:
anti-Semitic
hateful
worse

Considering Germany's past these labels stick
So we call is "business", "reparation" take your pick,
As we deliver yet another submarine.
As we provide to Israel the means to deliver annihilation.
I say what must be said.

Why did I stay silent until now?
Because I'm German, of course.
I'm tainted by a stain I cannot wash out
I'm silent because I want so badly to make it right
To put my sins in the past and leave them silently there.

Why did I wait to say it until now?
And write these words with the last of my ink?
Declaring that Israel threatens world peace?
Because it is true and it must be said,
Tomorrow will be too late.

We Germans now carry a new burden of sin on our shoulders
Through the weapons we have sold
We are helping to carry out this foreseeable tragedy
No excuse will remove our stain of complicity.

It must be said. I won't be silent
I've had enough of the hypocrisy;
Please shed the silence with me,
The consequences are all too predictable.
It's time to demand free and permanent control
of BOTH Israel's nuclear arsenal
AND Iran's nuclear facilities
enforced with international supervision.

It's the only way, in a land convulsed with insanity,
Israelis, Palestinians, everybody, will survive.
And we too, will survive.

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 this Blog!

Abdel Azim: Adherence to Cease Fire the Beginning of the End to Syria’s Crisis

Local Editor

The head of the Syrian Opposition National Coordinating Committee Hassan Abdel Azim confirmed that "the cease-fire- that went into effect Thursday morning- is important and essential for the beginning of an end to the one year long violence."

In an interview with "al-Intiqad" website, Abdel Azim stated that "this violence has set Syria on a risky stage to the people, the country, and the sovereignty making all the international and regional forces intervene in the Syrian affairs.
"
"Kofi Annan's initiative is an important opportunity to resolve the crisis in Syria as he is the representative of the United Nation's Secretary General and the Arab League," the opposition figure viewed.
He further confirmed that "this initiative summarizes all the national, Arab, and regional initiatives and efforts that emerged to resolve the crisis."

"The top priority is resembled by adherence of the political regime in Syria to cease fire, and that what the Defense Ministry announced, as well as by the "Free Syrian Army"," he added.
Abdel Azim moved to urge "the need to act responsibly so that this initiative would achieve success in order to save the Syrian blood and to resolve this complex crisis."

Regarding the Syrian Opposition National Coordinating Committee position, Abdel Azim confirmed that "the committee welcomes all the initiatives to resolve the crisis and the need to achieve the aspirations of the Syrian people in freedom, justice and building a democratic system which is open to the Arab nation and integrates with the revolutionary change taking place in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and other countries."

"Syria is known with its important geographical and political position in the Arab region and the world," he asserted noting that " the solution to the crisis is manifested by a democratic pluralistic transition that opens the way for the construction of a national project with positive impacts on Syria's relations with the Islamic people and the world."

Source:al-Intiqad, Translated and Edited by moqawama.org

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 this Blog!

Russia to Keep Navy Ships off Syria Coast

Local Editor

Russia will keep a permanent naval presence off Syria's coast to match the growing number of Western warships monitoring the 13-month crisis, a top defense official said on Friday.

"A decision has been taken to keep Russian navy ships permanently stationed near Syria's coast," the RIA Novosti state news agency quoted a senior defense ministry official as saying.

The unnamed source said the move was taken in response to the growing number of US warships in the region as well as those from European naval powers Britain and France.

Russia at the start of the month dispatched the Smetlivy guided-missile destroyer to the coast of its Soviet-era ally.

The defense source said several Russian warships -- including those capable of landing ground forces in Syria -- were now being prepared for Mediterranean Sea missions.

The next warship sent to the region "could be the destroyer escort Pytlivy or one of the big amphibious assault ships," the Russian defense official said.

Earlier reports said the Smetlivy ship Russia now has off Syria's coast had planned to dock at the Tartus naval base that Moscow leases from Damascus.

The Syrian port is the last Russia has in the Mediterranean after an era of Soviet naval dominance.

Source: AFP
13-04-2012 - 16:02 Last updated 13-04-2012 - 16:02

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 this Blog!

Gandhi On Jews And Hitler (incredible!!!)

Thursday, April 12, 2012 at 9:20PM Gilad Atzmon

 

 

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 this Blog!

China, Russia, and BRICS – the Rise of a New World Order Challenges the West

Muhammad Abu Nasr

April 7th 2012

The new order being led by China and Russia will not recreate the Cold War, but it won’t just be absorbed into US-led globalism either. It’s something really new.

This rising ’new order’ is based on economic development, stability, and national sovereignty while the US and NATO are becoming increasingly desperate and rely on armed force and on ‘civil’ disruption of their opponents on ‘transnational’ pretexts about ‘human rights’ and democracy.’

That is a very different world from what we grew up with, where the US ruled the globe and wanted to enforce its ‘stability’ and order and hated disruption.

China and Russia are not a New Europe

Europe equals NATO. Even the “neutral” European states like Sweden join NATO in its campaigns of aggression. For example, Swedish planes took part in the war against Libya. So functionally, Europe equals NATO. And NATO is not an alliance of equals; it’s a bloc of the US and its satellite states. The US runs NATO. The US runs Europe, in the final analysis.

We could analyze the history that has led up to this, from the total weakening of the core European countries after World War II, through the Marshal Plan that tied their economies to the US, to the trumpeting of the “Communist Threat” idea that was pounded into every Western person’s head for 50 years. The fact remains that the US supplanted the old British and French colonialists, while upholding their global interests fundamentally, especially through the formation and maintenance of the NATO alliance and much more.

Different Systems, Not Just a Geo-political Alignment

Indeed, the common political systems of the Western countries have also greatly facilitated the integration of their economies by masking the changes behind a facade of multiparty theatrics. All the Western countries see regular rotation of two, or possibly three, “ruling” political parties that all serve the established ruling classes. These parties and their parliamentary debates and activities mask class rule behind empty verbiage about democracy and a great deal of public antics. A psychology takes hold of the masses that any significant change is simply utopian and impossible, because for all their debates and elections, the politicians really can’t change the general trajectory of issues that directly affect the masses. Therefore, the masses have become accustomed to the idea that all that one can hope for would be minor ‘tinkering’ with the status quo. This situation inures people to even sharp economic downturns as if they were some sort of natural disaster. “The politicians can’t do much about it anyway,” is the commonly accepted notion there, because even if you vote the president/prime minister out, the process will generally continue with his successor. There is a reason why this political structure has established itself in all the Western countries.

By contrast, it is noteworthy that the political systems that are functioning in China and even Russia are quite different. In Russia or China, political and economic rule, in a sense, is much ‘closer to the surface’ of the societies. I meant that in the Western countries real power resides in the oligarchies and ‘deep state’ functionaries that you almost never see, that operate behind the scenes. These big interests – be they Bilderburgers or the military-financial-security complex or whatever sorts of organizations they may have – manipulate the political parties and politicians who act like entertainers.

In China and Russia, on the other hand, the economy is still largely subject to the control, or at least guidance, of the political leaders. The political leaders are known. They make the decisions and can veto decisions by big corporations, even private ones. In China, for example, the exact workings of the Politbureau and Central Committee and Central Military Commission, etc., may be behind closed doors but basically you know that the Communist Party is in charge. And the big businesses, even the private ones, even private ones in Hong Kong, have to pay attention to the ‘guidance’ of the authorities or they may suddenly find themselves denied contracts.

Formally and officially in the West, the corporations are subject to the law. But the laws are drawn up in accordance with the demands of lobbyists and basically with a view to serving corporate interests. The state serves the corporations. In China and in Russia, the state directs or sets limits for the business world, basically laying down developmental strategy. Private capital functions because and to the extent that it can contribute to national development. In the West, national development takes place insofar as it suits the business interests – which is why the US is being ‘de-industrialized’ as capital finds it can reap better profits by producing outside the US, and it makes no difference that workers in the US are laid off.

Obstacles to Joining the Globalist Imperialist System

So, basically, if the Chinese and Russians are going to be integrated into the US-led global order, that would require that the political leaders – the Communist Party of China and Putin’s leading group – change course and set new guidelines and policies and strategies for their business world. This change can’t occur mysteriously, the way that the corporate world can embark on new strategies and courses that affect national development entirely behind closed doors and in secret in the West. In China such changes would show up in five-year plans, and in fact before that in the various conferences that they have in various party/government sectors.

So that’s what I mean by saying that political leadership is more on the surface in China and Russia. The known, public political leaders and their political parties or elites are actually in charge. In the West, real power is not in the hands of the politicians who must cater to the interests of corporations that are – to us in the public – largely unknown, faceless, and mysterious in their identities and interactions.

Both China and Russia are characterized by dominant single parties that seek to represent the nation rather than political blocs that represent only the jockeying of a small elite of office-holders for power and authority. As a result, you don’t have a situation in Russia or China where the actual long-term class control of the country is masked by rotating politicians and their theatrical posturing. Individual politicians may come and go, but political leadership (not just economic control) remains in the same party’s hands. It is therefore difficult on a very deep level to integrate Russia or China into the Western camp. Whereas Western integration can be conducted on a financial level by private businesses behind the scenes of political activity as a kind of ‘natural growth’; trying to integrate Russia or China would require major public realignments of the open and obvious political leaderships of those countries, since the dominant political elites (Putin and his party in Russia and the Communist Party in China) still set the priorities of their countries’ economic forces. Chinese and Russian banks and big businesses cannot independently set their agendas.

So without major political changes in Russia and China, those countries are not going to be “sucked into” the US-dominated globalist system, even though you might see Chinese banks operating all over the world and Chinese businesses investing in Europe or the USA or Western companies investing in Russia and China.

A Platform of National Sovereignty

Russia and China are not seeking to submit to NATO rule. They certainly are not recipients of any American Marshal Plan today. In fact, if anything, the reverse is the case – the West is practically begging for money from the Chinese. The Russians and Chinese are not joining the chorus of the West in expressing fear of a common external threat – like the ‘fear’ of “Communism” that was used to unite the West during the cold war. And the Russians and Chinese are not stepping into the shoes of the Western colonialists around the world, boosting their own and the Americans’ and Europeans’ economic interests at the expense of Asians, Africans, and Latin Americans.

So there’s no sign that the Russia and China are integrating into the Western, US-run NATO world, the way the Europeans did. There is burgeoning economic integration for sure, but the control of Russia and China’s economies is still outside the reach of the US-led globalist system. There’s no point speculating on what might happen if there were upheavals and regime changes in Russia or China. But today with the current regimes in place in Moscow and Beijing are not copying the behavior of Europe after World War II.

Totally Different Historical Trajectories

It should be noted too that really if we’re talking about alternatives to the US, NATO and US-led globalism, we’re talking about Russia and China. The rest of the BRICS – Brazil, India, and South Africa – are much less independent of the West. The vote on Syria on 4 February, when Russia and China vetoed the Western motion, exposed Brazil, India, and South Africa as siding with the US. This reality highlights the fact that the political independence of the leaderships in China and Russia are actively promoting the independent economic development of the BISA and other Third World countries. This is in contrast to the way that historically the US and the old colonialist European powers all facilitated continued Third World subjugation. Today, by contrast, only 12 years after Putin came to power in Russia, and after a similar period of rapid economic development in China, we see that the effect has been a dramatic contrast to the days when the US stepped into the shoes of the old colonialists. Today Brazil, India, and South Africa are rising, the ASEAN countries are advancing in East Asia, the CELAC countries are advancing in Latin America, and several African states are also scoring gains as they now can set somewhat independent developmental goals based on the leverage they are gaining thanks to the rising role of China and Russia. And this is happening even though many of the political leaderships of those countries are far from being single-minded anti-imperialists.

Tackling Local Separatists More Forcefully

At some point, Russia was subjected to threats from minor countries like Georgia. But let’s not forget here that Georgia was backed by the US and the Zionists, as have been the Chechens and other ‘minor’ countries. In fact, this situation is simply another continuation of the Western attempts to break apart the Soviet Union and its political bloc – which has a very long history and involved a lot of ‘minor’ countries, proceeding from Yugoslavia (1948) and Czechoslovakia and continuing into Soviet space after the break-up of the USSR. What is new and different is that under Putin the Russians drew a line and said that no more breakups or secessions would be allowed, beginning with Chechnya. The unraveling of Russia had to stop, and if the Chechen separatists don’t get the message, they’re in for a very painful clash with the new cold hard Russian realities. Similarly, Russia would accept no challenges from Georgia and therefore crushed the Georgians and recognized two breakaway sections of Georgia as independent states, rolling back the Western-led schemes to use ‘minor countries’ to break up Russia.

The New Dynamic of Global Power Politics

Now, this rise of Russia and China has been underway really for just over a decade. The US is still the dominant global military power, yet its economic leadership is severely undermined. The economies of the US and Europe are in difficulty. Europe now admits it can only ‘save’ itself by increasing unemployment and undermining the ‘economic miracle’ of domestic consumption that kept the system functioning for the last 60 or 70 years. The same fate awaits the US whenever the US dollar is dethroned as global currency – something that the Russians and Chinese are eagerly but quietly pursuing. The Chinese recently signed agreements to settle trade between China and Australia (yes, even Australia!) in Yuan and Australian dollars. So this process of disestablishing the US dollar is making inroads even into the American economic backyard.

In this situation, where China and Russia are increasingly seizing the high ground economically, while the US continues to dominate the world militarily, how is the US trying to stop its slide into the abyss? (Because obviously, the US cannot sustain global military dominance for a long time without a sound economy.) How is the US responding to the economic, and therefore political, rise of China and the BRICS? It is responding militarily, as you might predict, – by stirring up color revolutions, ‘Arab springs’, Islamist insurgencies in Central Asia, China, and Russia, by expanding NATO to include even Mongolia and Vietnam as ‘partners’ or ‘candidate partners’ of one sort or another. The US is responding by stirring up political turmoil that it hopes to turn into military intervention for itself and its allies. This is not necessarily to control the world, but to destabilize any power not accepting US hegemony and US-led globalism.

In this context, no, the Russians and Chinese are NOT going to arm resistance movements against the US imperialists. If they did, they would immediately be drawn into a conflict that would weaken their own strongpoint (their economies) in order to confront the US in precisely the one area where the US still has an overwhelming preponderance (the military). That would, in effect, be falling into the American trap. It’s elementary strategic thinking: you simply do NOT fight the enemy at his strongest point. Opting for a direct military confrontation with the US could bankrupt China and Russia economically, leading to the downfall of their states. But continuing to foster their own economic growth, while increasing their own defensive potential gradually and unobtrusively, starting with their own geographic regions, will drain the US of its resources and eventually force Washington to disband its massive military complex.

The Implications for International Institutions and International Law

With their economic power, the Russians and Chinese are seeking to reverse the process whereby NATO took over at the end of the Cold War as the “enforcer” for the United Nations – (in fact a situation in which the UN was brought under the control of the US). The Chinese and Russians are trying to turn international institutions against the US by using their own economic power.

Legal institutions – whether inside a country or internationally – simply reflect the power structure that wields them. A policeman in a fascist country defends fascism. A policeman in the USA defends the US imperialist state. A policeman in China defends the Chinese social system currently defined as ‘Socialism with Chinese characteristics.’ Similarly, the United Nations and international law work for the states that control them. At the moment that is largely the USA. But the US control, like the US economic position in the world is beginning to slip. At the end of the Cold War, in the 1990s, Kofi Annan blessed the relationship of NATO with the UN, in which NATO was allowed to play the role of ‘enforcer’ of whatever the UN (under US domination) declared to be international law.

The rising power of Russia and China has enabled those countries to block the use of NATO to overthrow the Syrian regime. This means that now the mechanisms of international law are not being wielded exclusively by the United States as they were 10 or 15 years ago. Russia and China invoke classic doctrines of national sovereignty and territorial integrity to block the US from intervening and overthrowing states it doesn’t like. The US, on the other hand, invokes ideas of ”universal” (“universal” meaning that they are not limited by borders or national sovereignty) ’rights to protect civilians’ and ‘human rights.’ Again - notions that do NOT recognize borders or national sovereignty – to justify its intrusion into every place on earth.

Promoting “Human Rights” As A Façade for Imperialist Aggression

Thus US military intervention relies on the pretext of transnational ‘defence of universal rights’ and ‘defence of civilians.’ Washington can and frequently does declare any regime that refuses to accept US-led global hegemony as a ‘violator of human rights’ and then the US asserts its ‘right’ to support ‘defense of human rights’ – by peaceful means or armed insurgency within those countries.

The Chinese and Russians counter this by insisting on the inviolability of borders and on national sovereignty.

In this situation, it is the US that has a major interest in stirring up armed ‘resistance’ to ‘oppression’. The US has a political interest in doing this since it’s linked to the US doctrines of regime change on human rights pretexts, and the US has a military interest in doing this because by shifting the emphasis of international affairs to struggles between ‘democratic’ peoples and ‘oppressive regimes’ the US military preponderance places the US squarely in the center of all international disputes. The US is the only state with such total military force that it can cope with armed disputes anywhere on the planet. Incidentally, it is almost irrelevant if the US is drawn in to support ‘democratic insurgents’ or to suppress ‘terrorists’ or ‘drug cartels’ or ‘pirates.’ All armed conflicts are an excuse and an open invitation for US involvement simply because the US has the most firepower.

Regarding Syria and the Way Forward for Third World Revolutionaries…

Accordingly, yes, China and Russia do not want to see armed conflicts anywhere, because conflicts ‘feed’ the US Empire. They keep it going, keep it justified, and give it opportunities. Take Syria for example. Calm in Syria would not benefit the US, NATO, the Zionists, or US-led globalism. Calm allows the Syrian state to strengthen itself on the basis of its own resources – with or without reforms, depending on the domestic political situation. Syria could speak to the globalist hegemonists from the position of at least being in control of Syrian space – and, indeed, with the friendship of Russia and China, too. That is bad news for the West. But the West can benefit from Islamist insurgency, guerrilla warfare, and political unrest in the country. All those allow the US to meddle in the country – to ‘protect the victims’ to ‘support democracy’ and what not else.

Accordingly you will not hear about the Chinese and Russians arming insurgents. That will be the talk you hear openly in Western client regimes and privately in the US and Europe. For one thing, the Chinese and Russians are seeking to build an international order based on national sovereignty, not on ‘universal rights’ (that are always an excuse for intervention). For another thing, armed insurgencies that rely on Russia or China would be outgunned by the Americans anyway and would suck Russia and China into debilitating wars with the US – just at the time when the US’s ability to wage war is being undermined by its faltering economy.

Now what does this international situation mean for the people of the Third World and the Arab World? Does it mean that they should give up and sit back and wait for China and Russia to take over the world? No, it does not. In fact the Chinese and Russians are in a position to offer increasing support precisely to states that act independently (but not overtly provocatively). They cannot easily support political parties or movements or guerrilla groups without giving carte blanche to the US. But the cornerstone of the new world order that they are trying to build is national sovereignty, not human rights or rights of the oppressed classes. In Marxist terms, this is the ultimate outcome of the shift from class struggle within individual states under laissez faire capitalism to the struggle for national liberation against imperialism in the age of imperialism. Therefore, today, within states it’s up to the social forces to struggle for national welfare so that those states, when they address the world, address it with a nationalist rather than a comprador voice. If oppressed nationalists in a given country seek to take power by armed struggle, they must be mindful that any armed struggle will be an invitation to US involvement on terms that the US can largely dictate. On the other hand, a state that defends its independence and works with the Chinese and Russians can expect from them support to the extent that their own state interests are not significantly undermined.

This new political ‘terrain’ is not ‘better’ than what we were used to during the Cold War. The conditions for “protracted people’s war” which was a kind of direct adaptation of class struggle, are now very different and much more unfavorable than they were then. Invocation of concepts of democracy, human rights, anti-dictatorship, are also guaranteed to open the door to US intervention. Clearly the best way forward, outside the context of directly occupied states and foreign invasions where military resistance is certainly warranted, is to back the assertion of national sovereignty by the state. That is the option best suited to today’s political climate, although given the comprador regimes installed in most Arab states, this is far from being a simple issue. The rise of laissez faire Islamists who are open to US-led globalist economic dominance, but make a show of ‘looking non-Western’, is also going to complicate matters. But this is the situation we’re faced with. For sure, Russia and China won’t be backing armed revolutions the way the USSR once did. But that doesn’t mean that they are indistinguishable partners with the USA and NATO either. That is far from being the case.

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 this Blog!

Calm Before Greater Storm in Syria

by Stephen Lendman

Previous articles stressed Washington's longstanding regime change plans in Syria. Independent sovereign states aren't tolerated.

Replacing them with pro-Western ones is policy. All means are used. They include punishing sanctions, color revolutions, violent coups, subversion, cyberwar, targeted assassinations, armed insurgencies, and war if other methods failed.

So far, Syria and Iran withstood hostile Washington assaults. At issue is what's next? On April 12, Syria was largely calm. Both sides halted hostilities. For how long?

Calm and stability defeat Washington's agenda. Advancing it depends on violence blamed on Assad. Expect lull conditions to be temporary.

Insurgent attacks will resume. It's just a matter of time. Alleged or provoked incidents will be used as justification. Perhaps one already occurred.

On April 12, Today's Zaman headlined, "Syrian troops fire on refugees fleeing Turkey," saying:

Hours before the ceasefire deadline, Turkey's state-run Anatolia news agency said Syrian troops "reportedly" fired on civilians fleeing to Turkey. "(N)o casualties were reported." Regard the allegation skeptically.

Syrian forces engage armed insurgents. Noncombatant civilians aren't attacked. Why would they fire on men, women and children posing no threat? Reports said they tried to enter Southern Turkey through its Kilis Province Oncupinar border post.

If an attack occurred, blame insurgents, not Assad. Witnesses said they heard "heavy gunfire." It was dark. Attackers weren't visible. It suggests guerilla activity, not an army provoked incident.

Insurgents willfully target civilians. Assad's blamed. Perhaps again. It happens regularly. Expect further provocations. Fingers will point the wrong way. Violence will resume, then intervention. Expect war to follow.

On April 12, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Syria instituted positive steps toward ending violence. He wants international monitors sent soon as possible to supervise ceasefire conditions. He also urged all sides to engage diplomatically.

Expressing concern, he added:

"However, it is clear that some of our partners in the international arena have been saying different things to the opposition and pushing it towards intransigence."

"The Syria leadership has the support of the majority of the Syrian people and to say that an opposition trend is the legitimate representative of the Syrian people is an exaggeration."

Ahead of the ceasefire deadline, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said insurgents escalated violence after army forces withdrew from some areas. It suggests short-lived peace and calm before renewed eruptions.

On April 12, The New York Times headlined, "Activists Report Quiet but No Pullback of Forces in Syria," saying:

Fighting stopped, but opposition Syrian National Council (NTC) officials claim "there were reports of raids and arrests of the government’s opponents in some suburbs of Damascus and that it was not clear how long the guns would remain silent."

The Times and other scoundrel media also cite the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). UK-based, it's a pro-Western propaganda vehicle pretending to support human rights. Its reports lack credibility. Many later were proved false, grossly exaggerated, or misleading.

From Homs, The Times quoted SOHR spokesman Rami Abdel Rahman. He contradicted himself. On the one hand, he said "(t)he situation is calm in all regions." On the other, he claimed "a few explosions" were heard in Zabadani near Damascus.

He also accused Assad of violating ceasefire terms. He added that "(t)here has not been any movement indicating a withdrawal of tanks."

According to Free Syrian Army (FSA) spokesman Qassem Saad al-Deeb, government forces made a "detour" around Annan's plan by remaining in major cities. "We will wait until tomorrow and see. We will not act before tomorrow."

FSA's Col. Malik Kurdi said:

"The regime is mocking the international community. It will stop shooting for Mr. Annan for a while, but it will go back to the killing and violence and humiliation."

Assad's damned whatever he does or doesn't do. Al-Deeb's comments suggest resumed insurgent violence. Pretexts are easy to find. If not readily available, they're invented. Today's calm belies what's likely coming.

Belligerent media and political comments incite it. On April 11, White House spokesman Jay Carney expressed skepticism of Assad's intentions, saying:

"(D)epending on how events play out on Thursday, the administration would consult with allies on any additional measures toward Syria."

According to Washington's UN envoy Susan Rice, Assad's "commitments....have little if any credibility given (his) track record."

Ahead of the ceasefire deadline, Hillary Clinton expressed "alarm for the ongoing violence in Syria and we are concerned about the problems facing (Annan) as he attempts to bring about a ceasefire and the end to violence."

"We will have another go at trying to persuade the Russians that the situation is deteriorating and the likelihood of regional conflict and civil war is increasing."

She added that Washington and allies will "look for ways (to) bring about a peaceful resolution of the current situation and a political transition."

In other words, regime change.

Perhaps Annan spoke for her warning of "unimaginable consequences" if violence continues. It suggests short-lived calm followed by violent eruptions, then intervention heading for war.

British Prime Minister David Cameron perhaps implied it saying:

"Now is the time to say to the Russians and Chinese, look at the man we are dealing with, look at the appalling way he is behaving. We need to go back to the UN and tighten the pressure, tighten the noose."

He stopped short of what he likely means. Perhaps not for long, nor from Obama administration officials.

A Final Comment

The blame game points fingers the wrong way. Today's lull resembles hurricane eye deception. Often following calm, more dangerous storm surges, winds, and tornadoes follow.

This one may head toward Category 5. With it comes significant damage and loss of life. Hurricanes do it through storm surges, wind velocity and flooding. America's wars feature shock and awe mass killing, devastation, colonization, resource theft, exploitation, and human misery.

Storms come and go. Imperial war effects are long-lasting. Syrians understand. So do Iranians and others throughout the region. When America shows up, trouble follows.

In response, they resist. Sovereignty is too precious to surrender to imperial control. They'll do what it takes to prevent it or contest what Washington imposes.

US policies make more enemies than friends. Perhaps when few or none remain, they'll be free. Imagine an imperial America free world. What better way to secure ceasefires and peace.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

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 this Blog!

The Economist: "Assad defied a hubristic Erdogan, who is used to getting his own way!"

Via FLC

"... With one foot in the West and the other in the Middle East, Turkey was able to mediate between Lebanon’s rival factions, between Iraq’s Shias and Sunnis, and between Israel and Syria (until Israel’s 2009 assault against Gaza). “It was this ability to talk to all sides that made Turkey an effective player,” says Nikolaos van Dam, a former Dutch ambassador to Turkey. But “now it has chosen sides.”This shift could have far-reaching consequences. What lies behind it? .....

One explanation is simply that Turkey, like so many, believed that Mr Assad’s end was nigh. A more worrying possibility is hubris. Increasingly authoritarian and rarely challenged by his circle of sycophants, Mr Erdogan is used to getting his own way. Mr Assad dared to defy him. Mr Erdogan’s party has “extraordinary neo-Ottoman ambitions”, wrote Timothy Garton Ash, a British historian, in a Turkish daily. But it “should be careful not to overestimate its possibilities”.

Mr Erdogan’s secular critics argue that his behaviour points to another troubling impulse: to lead an arc of Sunni Muslim countries spanning Africa, Asia, the Balkans and the Middle East. As evidence they point to Turkey’s coddling of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood. “They want to counter Iran, and America is encouraging this,” says Faruk Logoglu, a deputy for the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP). Mr Erdogan’s AK party, he adds, has also begun to embrace Islam more firmly at home, suggesting some influence of religious ideology over foreign policy.

Since AK won a third consecutive term last summer, Mr Erdogan has been pandering to his pious base. He recently rammed through controversial legislation allowing middle-school students to enroll in imam hatip schools, where Muslim clerics are trained, and to study the Koran in state schools. These days, when Mr Erdogan attacks Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the CHP leader, he draws attention to his membership of the minority Alevi faith.

He has even suggested that Mr Kilicdaroglu opposes intervention in Syria out of a sense of kinship with Mr Assad, who belongs to the Alawite sect, often seen as a close cousin to Turkey’s 15m-20m Alevis. The Alevis practise a liberal form of Shia Islam and have long faced discrimination. Although their rituals differ from the Alawites in Syria, they feel some solidarity with them. Mr Van Dam warns that any war against Syria could “further polarise Sunnis and Alevis within Turkey.”

The Syrian crisis has exposed another long-running Turkish sore: its Kurdish minority. Selahattin Demirtas, leader of Turkey’s mainly Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), insists that Turkey is seeking regime change in Syria “to ensure that the Syrian Kurds don’t get any more rights than Turkey is prepared to grant its own Kurds, which is hardly any at all.”

The AK government has done more than any of its predecessors to address Kurdish grievances. It has even conducted secret talks with rebels from the separatist PKK. Last year Mr Davutoglu pressed Mr Assad to be kinder to his Kurds. But the conciliatory mood in Turkey has faded. Thousands of BDP officials have been arrested on dubious charges of PKK membership. AK portrays the crackdown as a response to PKK attacks. Mr Demirtas says it was never sincere about reconciliation.

The PKK considered Syria a mentor until Turkey threatened war against the country in 1998. A frightened Syria booted out the PKK leader, Abdullah Ocalan, who was captured in Kenya and then imprisoned in Turkey. But in those days, pilots in the Israeli air force were allowed to train in Turkish skies. If Israel and Turkey were still friends Mr Assad might feel every bit as shaky as his father did when the Turks last clenched their fists. Then again, if Israel and Turkey were still friends, Turkey might not need to shake its fists at all."

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 this Blog!