Doctored photo showing event that didn’t happen, which was used in an experiment designed to illustrate how easily memories can be manipulated. Source: William Saletan

 by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The New York Times made it public that the Obama Administration had sent an important letter to the leadership of Iran on January 12, 2012. [1] On January 15, 2012, the spokesperson of the Iranian Foreign Ministry would acknowledge that the letter was delivered to Tehran by way of three diplomatic channels:
(1) one copy of the letter was handed to the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammed Khazaee, by his U.S. counterpart, Susan Rice, in New York City;
(2) a second copy of the letter was delivered in Tehran by the Swiss Ambassador to Iran, Livia Leu Agosti; and
(3) a third copy went to Iran by way of Jalal Talabani of Iraq. [2]

In the letter, the White House spelled out the position of the United States, while Iranian officials said it was a sign of things as they really are: the U.S. cannot afford to wage a war against Iran.

Within the letter written by President Barak Hussein Obama was a U.S. request for the start of negotiations between Washington and Tehran to end Iranian-U.S. hostilities. “In the letter, Obama announced readiness for negotiations and the resolution of mutual disagreements,” Ali Motahari, an Iranian parliamentarian, has said to the Mehr News Agency.] [3] According to another Iranian parliamentarian, this time the Deputy Chairperson of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Hussein Ebrahimi (Ibrahimi), the letter went on to ask for Iranian-U.S. cooperation and negotiations based on the mutual interests of both Tehran and Washington. [4]

Obama’s letter also tried to assure Tehran that the United States would not engage in any hostile action against Iran. [5] In fact, in the same timeframe, the Pentagon cancelled or delayed major joint drills with Israel. [6] To the Iranians, however, the gestures are meaningless, because the Obama Administration’s actions with Iran have always contradicted its words. Moreover, Iran believes that the U.S. will not attack, because it knows that the costs of a war with an opponent like Iran are too high and its consequences far too risky.

This, however, does not mean that an Iranian-U.S. showdown has been avoided or will not eventually happen. The currents can go either way, so to speak. Nor does this mean that the Obama Administration is not currently waging a war against the Iranians and their allies. In fact, Washington’s bloc and Iran’s bloc have been fighting a shadow war from the digital arena and television airwaves to the valleys of Afghanistan and the bustling streets of Beirut and Baghdad.

The War Against Iran Started Years Ago

The war in Iran did not start in 2012 or even 2011. Newsweek Magazine even stated the following on a cover title in 2010: “Assassinations, cyberattacks, sabotage – has the war against Tehran already begun?” The actual war may have started in 2006.

Instead of attacking Iran directly, the U.S. has started a covert and proxy war. The covert dimensions of the war are being fought by intelligence assets, cyber attacks, computer viruses, secretive military units, spies, assassins, agent provocateurs, and saboteurs. The kidnapping and assassination of Iranian scientists and military commanders, which started several years ago is a part of this covert war. In this shadow war, Iranian diplomats in Iraq have been abducted and Iranians visiting Georgia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have been detained or kidnapped. Syrian officials, various Palestinian figures, and Hezbollah’s Imad Fayez Mughniyeh have also all been assassinated in this shadow war.

The proxy wars started in 2006 when Israel attacked Lebanon with the intention of expanding the war against Syria. The road to Damascus goes through Beirut, while Damascus is on the way to Tehran. After their failure in 2006, realizing that Syria was the lynchpin of the Resistance Bloc, which Iran dominated, the U.S. and its allies spent the next five to six years trying to de-link Syria from Iran.

The U.S. is also fighting Iran and its allies on the diplomatic and economic fronts through the manipulation of international bodies and proxy states. In the 2011 to 2012 context, the crisis in Syria on a geo-political level is a front in the war against Iran. Even the Israeli-U.S. drill Austere Challenge 2012 and the U.S. deployment of troops were primarily aimed at Syria as a means of combating Iran.

Syria in the Eye of the Storm

What Washington is doing is exerting psychological pressure on Iran as a means of distancing it from Syria, so that the United States and its cohorts can go for the kill. Up until the start of January 2012, the Israelis have continuously been preparing to launch an invasion of Syria in a rematch of 2006, while U.S. and E.U. officials have continously tried negotiating with Damascus for a deal to de-link from Iran and the Resistance Bloc. The Syrians, however, have always refused.

Foreign Policy, the magazine of the Council on Foreign Relations, published an article in August 2011 stating what was on the Saudi King’s mind about Syria in context of attacking Iran: “The King knows that other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic [of Iran] itself, nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria.” [7] Whether the above statement genuinely came from Abdul Aziz Al-Saud or not, this strategic outlook is representative of the reasons for the targeting of Syria. Obama’s own security advisor has also said the same thing, just a few months after the piece by Foreign Policy was released, in November 2011. National Security Advisor Donilon gave a speech saying that the “end of the Assad regime would constitute Iran’s greatest setback in the region – a strategic blow that will further shift the balance of power in the region against Iran.” [8]

The Kremlin has also made statements that corroborate that Washington wants to de-link Syria from its Iranian ally. One of Russia’s highest security officials has announced that Syria is being punished, because of its strategic alliance with Iran. The Secretary of the National Security Council of the Russian Federation, Nikolai (Nikolay) Platonovich Patrushev, has publicly stated that Syria is the subject of Washington’s pressure due to geo-political interests tied to cutting Syria’s ties with Iran and not due to any humanitarian concerns.] [9]

Iran has also given signals that should the Syrians be attacked, it will not hesitate to intervene militarily to come to Syria’s aid. Washington does not want this. The Pentagon would much rather swallow Syria first, before turning its full and undivided attention to Iran. The Pentagon’s objectives are to fight its targets piecemeal. Despite the U.S. military doctrine of fighting simultaneous wars in multiple theatres and all the Pentagon literature about it, the U.S. is not ready yet to wage a conventional regional war against both Iran and Syria or risk an expanded war with Iran’s Russian and Chinese allies yet. The march to war, however, is far from over. For now the U.S. government will have to continue the shadow war against Iran and intensify the media, diplomatic, and economic war.

Source: Voltairenet.org

*********

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya Canadian-based sociologist and scholar. Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), specializing in geopolitical and strategic issues.

A new edict issued by General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood organization in Egypt, Dr. Mohammad Badih in which he writes about the possibility of his movement imposing an Islamic Caliphatein accordance with the principles laid out the Mulsim Brotherhood founder(Courtesy Therearenosunglasses's Weblog)

FRANKLIN LAMB

(Tripoli) – It appears, from interviews and discussions with a wide range of Libyans including students, lawyers, judges at the Ministry of Justice, shopkeepers and casual acquaintances that the Muslim Brotherhood currently has very little popular support among this pious conservative, Sunni Muslim society. Widely expressed opinion is along these lines: “The Brotherhood is different from how Libyans view Islam,” and “They represent outsiders and interference in our country”, “Our revolution was not about replacing one autocratic regime with another.

”That said, the Muslim Brotherhood is odds-on favorite to win the June elections, in the view of many observers here in Libya.he reason the MB is in such a relatively strong position is that is has the support of Qatar, assistance from the well-established MB organizations in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, and Turkey. The flights arriving in Tripoli from Egypt are always full and some of the passengers are MB operatives according to Professor “Dr. Ali”, a pro-Gadhafi political scientist who has so far managed to keep his teaching post.

The MB is far more organized, well-funded and is working today in the neighborhoods of Libya’s main cities recruiting members and campaign organizers, while trying to keep a low profile. They have asked members to shave their beards, talk about clean government, avoid arguments, and remind anxious Libyans that “Libya is not Afghanistan” and all we want is security, domestic peace and no foreign interference.

Nonetheless, a new edict issued by General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood organization in Egypt, Dr. Mohammad Badih, in which he writes about the possibility of his movement imposing an Islamic Caliphate in accordance with the principles laid out by the Muslim Brotherhood founder, Imam Hassan al-Banna, created wide controversy in political circles in Libya just as it did in Egypt.

The US, UK and France are currently just watching and guessing at developments, according to the Ambassador from one southern African country. The US State Department is believed even by some National Transition Council officials, lawyers and Judges, (who I met with during two days of meetings this week at the Libyan Ministry of Justice inquiring about certain individuals in NTC and Militia custody,) to be unsure what the US policy should be because they have mixed feelings about the MB. Some US officials are reported to believe that an unstoppable Muslim Brotherhood arc or crescent is quickly jelling across the Maghreb, as it grows also in Turkey and that the MB will dominate in Syria when and if the Assad government is toppled.

The potential utility for Washington of the MB does not end there. Some in Congress and the Obama administration, as well as the Zionist lobby in and outside of Congress, hope that after all the failures of the US administration to spark a Sunni-Shia war, that the MB might just be the best and unexpected weapon in achieving this goal which has been US policy since the late 1980s.

These forces are said also to hope that after achieving a substantial share of the next government of Syria, the MB will quickly build itself up in Lebanon, and give the Sunni community strong effective leadership that has been lacking the past nearly seven years following the assassination of PM Rafiq Hariri, and take on Shia Hezbollah.

In short, NATO countries may sit on their hands regarding the coming elections, drop the current attachment to NTC officials who have only have six months left in office anyhow, and let the MB control Libya’s next government.

The MB in Libya is actually quite good on the issues that are increasingly concerning potential voters as the latter learn how to vote and participate in political parties, which have been outlawed since 1972 when Revolutionary Committees were established to make legislative and administrative decisions.

Those issues are many and include, but are not limited to the following:

– Lack of security due to the militias being viewed as increasingly aggressive with the public and fighting among themselves, as they did this week;

–growing rumors and even evidence of corruption. One example being that there is still not enough money in the Central Bank of Libya to supply local banks around the country. It’s an issue that is expected to explode here once the facts become known. During the uprising this summer, the Gadhafi government limited bank deposit withdrawals to 500 dinars per month (about $475). The new “government” has raised it to 750 dinars per month and it is not enough, given approximately 18 per cent rise in prices since this summer when the Gadhafi government enforced anti-gouging rules. Those rules are no longer being enforced and prices continue to rise.

Where suspected corruption enters the bank withdrawals problem is that according to one Central Bank official who has spent more than 15 years in the CB office that monitors the receipt of payments for Libya oil shipments, even though oil is being shipped today as well as the past few months, zero payments have been received at the CB. The reason is said to be that NATO countries are being shipped oil, (also to gas and oil rich Qatar) free of charge under a payback arrangement with NATO for its regime change services.

This issue is quickly becoming a scandal. I asked the official is he was sure of his information and he brought over the lady who keeps the records and she verified it and said Central Bank officials are outraged because the money is needed at the local banks where long lines of desperate account holders who often wait hours in lines outside banks only to be told to return another day for their monthly allocation of 750 dinars of their own money. This week, I saw ugly, sad scenes at banks in the neighborhood south of Green Square and Omar Muktar Street, as I tried in vain to find a working ATM machine. One cannot but feel bad for elderly citizens standing in the rain waiting half the day to get a meager monthly withdrawal of their funds, only to be told to return another day when, enshallah, there will be money for them. Citizens have reported that they should have taken all their money out of their bank account as soon as there were signs of trouble last February. Now it’s too late and anger is growing.

Qatar’s favorite candidate, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and a former leader of the militant Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, (who is suing UK ministers and MI-6 for the part he claims they played in secretly sending him and his wife to Libya in March 2004 where he claims he endured seven years of torture,) has promised to fix the banking problem. Qatar is expected to play a major role as the June elections draw near.

Another issue that the MB is championing is the need to pay the salaries of the military, finding or creating jobs for militia fighters, many of whom are deeply suspicious of Belhaj just as the eastern militia continue to skirmish with those from the west.

Even women’s rights are being supported by the MB….sort of. Repairing war damage, garbage pickup, organizing traffic which has brought some crowded streets in downtown Tripoli to a near halt, (given that more than one million Libyans and others have flooded into the capital city from around the battered country with few showing signs of wanting to leave) are issues the MB is talking about while calling for sectarian dialogue.

Disarming the militias and pressuring young men to go back home, give up their arms, join the police force or a new Libyan army or get a real job are very sensitive issues that the MB does not address with much conviction. Privately the MB, as well as the NTC, admits that there will be no disarmament of militias anytime soon. A few young men I chatted with during a demonstration at Green Square yesterday actually said they miss the fighting and want to fight some more. “It was really exciting and fun most of the time and I made some great friends!” one kid from Benghazi told me. He plans to stay in Tripoli with his militia buddies.

Another development that will favor the Muslim Brotherhood in the coming Libyan elections is the draft Election law that was adopted last Monday. It eliminates many of the strongest opponents of the MB. The legislation regulates the election of a national assembly tasked to write a new constitution and form a second caretaker government. It is expected to be finalized within a month.

It bars, with loosely all-embracing language, “former members of Gadhafi’s regime” from being candidates in the election. Among the judges I spoke with at the Ministry of Justice some expressed dismay because they said that 80 per cent of the current staff at their Ministry, and most other Ministries, worked there, lawyers and judges included, under the Gadhafi regime and were patriotic Libyans. There is going to be lots of confusion concerning the scope of the new law and its application. The new election law also bans anyone who got a degree based on academic research on the Green Book — Gadhafi’s political manifesto that laid out his theory of government and society declaring Libya a “republic of the masses.” Thousands are covered by this exclusion because in order to get a good position it helped if one’s CV showed studies relating to theories of government espoused in the Green Book. The same idea as in China when it was a good idea to study Mao’s little Red Book and add that fact to one’s CV. Academics who even wrote about Gaddafi’s Green Book, which discusses politics, economics and everyday life, will also be barred from running under the law.

The draft election law has outraged women because it restricts them to only 10 per cent of the 200 election seats and the law does not indicate how many seats will go to which tribal areas. One woman angrily told me, “Ten percent is about what the Brotherhood thinks we are worth.”

The NTC officials will not offer much of an electoral impediment to the MB as it is increasingly under attack as it begins its last six months of existence. Last month, an umbrella group claiming to represent 70 per cent of militia fighters demanded that the NTC grant them 40 per cent of its seats which it failed to do and instead appointed fairly random technocrats with some exceptions. Mustapha Abdul Jalis plans on retiring in June and is still being criticized for reneging on his earlier pledge to resign following the fall of Sirte.

The coming government will likely be heavily influenced, if not controlled by Libya’s new arrival in force, the Muslim Brotherhood. The consequences for Libya and the Muslim Brotherhood’s effect on America’s withdrawal from the region is presumably being closely watched from Tehran to Washington DC and Tel Aviv

********

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Libya. He is reachable c\o fplamb@gmail.com  He is the author of The Price We Pay: A Quarter-Century of Israel’s Use of American Weapons Against Civilians in Lebanon. Dr. Lamb is Director, Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Wash.DC-Beirut

Analysis by Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Jan 3 (IPS) – President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are engaged in intense maneuvering over Netanyahu’s aim of entangling the United States in an Israeli war against Iran.

Netanyahu is exploiting the extraordinary influence his right-wing Likud Party exercises over the Republican Party and the U.S. Congress on matters related to Israel in order to maximise the likelihood that the United States would participate in an attack on Iran.

Obama, meanwhile, appears to be hoping that he can avoid being caught up in a regional war started by Israel if he distances the United States from any Israeli attack.

New evidence surfaced in 2011 that Netanyahu has been serious about dealing a military blow to the Iranian nuclear programme. Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who left his job in September 2010, revealed in his first public appearance after Mossad Jun. 2 that he, Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) chief Gabi Ashkenazi and Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin had been able to “block any dangerous adventure” by Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak.

The Hebrew language daily Maariv reported that those three, along with President Shimon Peres and IDF Senior Commander Gadi Eisenkrot, had vetoed a 2010 proposal by Netanyahu to attack Iran.

Dagan said he was going public because he was “afraid there is no one to stop Bibi and Barak”. Dagan also said an Israeli attack on Iran could trigger a war that would “endanger the (Israeli) state’s existence”, indicating that his revelation was not part of a psywar campaign.

It is generally agreed that an Israeli attack can only temporarily set back the Iranian nuclear programme, at significant risk to Israel. But Netanyahu and Barak hope to draw the United States into the war to create much greater destruction and perhaps the overthrow of the Islamic regime.

In a sign that the Obama administration is worried that Netanyahu is contemplating an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Defence Secretary Leon Panetta tried and failed in early October to get a commitment from Netanyahu and Barak that Israel would not launch an attack on Iran without consulting Washington first, according to both Israeli and U.S. sources cited by The Telegraph and by veteran intelligence reporter Richard Sale.

At a meeting with Obama a few weeks later, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey and the new head of CENTCOM, Gen. James N. Mattis, expressed their disappointment that he had not been firm enough in opposing an Israeli attack, according to Sale.

Obama responded that he “had no say over Israel” because “it is a sovereign country.”

Obama’s remark seemed to indicate a desire to distance his administration from an Israeli attack on Iran. But it also made it clear that he was not going to tell Netanyahu that he would not countenance such an attack.

Trita Parsi, executive director of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), who has analysed the history of the triangular relationship involving the United States, Israel and Iran in his book “Treacherous Alliance”, says knowledgeable sources tell him Obama believes he can credibly distance himself from an Israeli attack.

In a Dec. 2 talk at the Brookings Institution, while discussing the dangers of the regional conflict that would result from such an attack, Panetta said the United States “would obviously be blamed and we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, sinking our ships, striking our military bases.”

Panetta’s statement could be interpreted as an effort to convince Iran that the Obama administration is opposed to an Israeli strike and should not be targeted by Iran in retaliation if Israel does launch an attack.

Parsi believes Obama’s calculation that he can convince Iran that the United States has no leverage on Israel without being much tougher with Israel is not realistic.

“Iran most likely would decide not to target U.S. forces in the region in retaliation for an Israeli strike only if the damage from the strike were relatively limited,” Parsi told IPS in an e-mail.

The Obama administration considers the newest phase of sanctions against Iran, aimed at reducing global imports of Iranian crude oil, as an alternative to an unprovoked attack by Israel. But what Netanyahu had in mind in proposing such an initiative was much more radical than the Obama administration or the European Union could accept.

When Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is closely aligned with Netanyahu’s Likud Party, pushed the idea of sanctions against any financial institution that did business with Iran’s Central Bank, the aim was to make it impossible for countries that import Iranian crude to continue to be able to make payments for the oil.

Dubowitz wanted virtually every country importing Iranian crude except China and India to cut off their imports. He argued that reducing the number of buyers to mainly China and India would not result in a rise in the price of oil, because Iran would have to offer discounted prices to the remaining buyers.

Global oil analysts warned, however, that such a sanctions regime could not avoid creating a spike in oil prices.

U.S. officials told Reuters Nov. 8 that sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank were “not on the table”. The Obama administration was warning that such sanctions would risk a steep rise in oil prices worldwide and a worsening global recession, while actually increasing Iranian oil revenues.

But Netanyahu used the power of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) over Congressional action related to Israel to override Obama’s opposition. The Senate unanimously passed an amendment representing Netanyahu’s position on sanctions focused on Iran’s oil sector and the Central Bank, despite a letter from Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner opposing it. A similar amendment was passed by the House Dec. 15.

The Obama administration acquiesced and entered into negotiations with its European allies, Saudi Arabia and the UAE on reducing imports of Iranian crude oil while trying to fill the gaps with other sources. But a number of countries, including Japan and Korea, are begging off, and the EU is insisting on protecting Greece and other vulnerable economies.

The result is likely to be a sanctions regime that reduces Iranian exports only marginally – not the “crippling sanctions” demanded by Netanyahu and Barak. Any hike in oil prices generated by sanctions against Iran’s oil sector, moreover, would only hurt Obama’s re- election chances.

In an interview with CNN in November, Barak warned the international community that Israel might have to make a decision on war within as little as six months, because Iran’s efforts to “disperse and fortify” its nuclear facilities would soon render a strike against facilities ineffective.

Barak said he “couldn’t predict” whether that point would be reached in “two quarters or three quarters or a year”. The new Israeli “red line” would place the timing of an Israeli decision on whether to strike Iran right in the middle of the U.S. presidential election campaign.

Netanyahu, who makes no secret of his dislike and distrust of Obama, may hope to put Obama under maximum pressure to support Israel militarily in a war with Iran by striking during a campaign in which the Republican candidate would be accusing him of being soft on the Iranian nuclear threat.

If the Republican candidate is in a strong position to win the election, on the other hand, Netanyahu would want to wait for a new administration aligned with his belligerent posture toward Iran.

Meanwhile, the end of U.S. Air Force control over Iraqi airspace with the final U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq has eliminated what had long been regarded as a significant deterrent to Israeli attack on Iran using the shortest route.

*********

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in 2006.

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

A cold war has been ongoing between Tehran and Washington. U.S. spies, drones, assassinations, and accusations against Tehran have all been a part of this package. Washington and its minions have been using every means possible, including international organizations, like the United Nations, as a battleground against Tehran in this cold war. The destabilization campaign being waged against Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon are also a critical front in this cold war…

The Obama Administration has used 2011 to unleash Washington’s so-called “Coalition of the Moderate” against the Resistance Bloc, which pins together all the countries and forces united by their opposition to U.S. and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region. The two camps that are becoming more and more visible in the MENA region are falling along the lines of what Washington, Tel Aviv, and NATO planned on forming after the 2006 Israeli defeat in Lebanon as a means of tackling Iran and its allies. In 2007, the United States of America, represented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates, held a meeting in Cairo under the “GCC + 2” formula with the Gulf Cooperation Council – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Oman, and Qatar – plus Egypt and Jordan to form a strategic and all encompassing front against Iran, Syria, and their regional allies. This “Coalition of the Moderate” formed by Washington was a direct extension of NATO that also included Israel and Turkey as important and central participants.

The Balance of Power is being played out in Syria and Iraq

While Syria is being targeted for regime change as a means of re-orienting the balance of power in the Middle East, Iraq is also being destabilized as a means of catalyzing a sectarian civil war between Muslim Shia Arabs and Muslim Sunni Arabs. The bombings in both Iraq and Syria carry all the trademarks of Washington and its network of allies, as do the murder of civilians by Salvador-style death squads. For years Iraqi refugees have been reporting that U.S. and British forces were leading the death squads in Iraq and that they were the main perpetrators behind the explosions targeting civilians in Iraq. In regards to Syria, even the press in North America and Western Europe has been forced to admit that there are “mysterious death squads” killing Syrian civilians. One example is the National Post in Canada, which admitted on December 7, 2011 that unknown death squads were causing havoc in Syria by killing civilians.

The massive waves of explosions in Iraq targeting civilians are a means of not only destabilizing Iraq, but igniting sectarianism as the U.S. pulls out. It is no coincidence that the neighbourhoods in Baghdad and its galaxy cities were quickly turned into sectarian enclaves under U.S. administration. It is also worth noting that the current Vice-President of the United States, Joseph Biden, was the man that in 2006 authored a plan – or more correctly stamped his name on the plan – called the “Biden Plan” to divide or balkanize Iraq into three sectarian entities.  It is in this context that the political tensions between Prime Minister Nouri Al-Malaki and Vice-President Tariq Al-Hashimi are being played out and utilized. If a genuine sectarian civil war occurs in Iraq it could galvanize the region along the lines of Sunnites and Shiites as Washington, Tel Aviv, NATO, and the Arab dictatorial families wish. Regional chaos is their goal. Such chaos and divisions would preoccupy and distract the peoples of the region with internal fighting and allow the U.S. and Israel to maintain advantageous positions while the petro-sheikhdom rulers would be able to maintain their illegitimate hold on power.

Turkey’s Central Role in Syria and the Middle East Spy War

In Libya, while Qatar was designated as the main Arab country, Britain and France were the NATO members that were outsourced the handling of the war by Washington (at least publicly). In Syria, the campaign was outsourced to France, Germany, and Turkey by Washington, while Qatar and Saudi Arabia, with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to follow in the future, were designated as the principle Arab players. Berlin was initially pushing for foreign intervention in the Syrian Arab Republic, but its role has seemed to have subsided as has the possibility of direct NATO military intervention in Syria. Focusing back on Turkey, Ankara is nonetheless the central player in besieging Syria and without Turkey’s participation the operations against Syria have a slim chance of success.

From the end of November to the start of December, the Syrian Army begun to setup positions near the Syrian-Turkish borders, including Hatay Province where Alexandretta (Iskenderun) is located. As Syrian troops positioned themselves near the Turkish border a little after mid-December, U.S. or NATO aircraft violated Syrian airspace. The aircraft entered Syria’s airspace via Incirlik Air Base from the nearby Adana Province of Turkey and dropped off electronic spy devices near the predominately Kurdish-inhabited vicinity of the town of Afrin in the Governate of Aleppo.

This is part of the broader electronic monitoring and spy war that has also gripped Lebanon and Iran. Recently in Lebanon large numbers of Israeli and U.S. spies were apprehended with direct ties to the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. In parallel, U.S. spies and spy networks have also been ensnared in Iran by the Iranian intelligence apparatus. This spy war is tied to the stepped up efforts by Washington to infiltrate Iran. With this view, Washington has also augmented its Iranian special interest office in the United Arab Emirates with a virtual embassy for Iran.

Playing the Turks; Ankara May Back Down in its Syrian Gambit

Public in-fighting is not new to NATO states and in this respect Paris and Ankara have begun to squabble over the Armenian Genocide. For years Nicolas Sarkozy and legislators in Paris have talked about passing legislature that would outlaw the denial of the Armenian Genocide in the dying Ottoman Empire. This legislature was recently passed in France and has been widely analyzed as an elections stunt by Sarkozy to win Armenian support and votes in France. Nevertheless, it has to also be noted that Paris has also predicted that the situation in Iraq after the U.S. military evacuation could radically modify the stance of the Turkish government towards Syria. This is a key point.

If Iraq becomes an assertive single entity that aligns itself completely with Tehran and Damascus, then Turkey will be forced to change its position. Turkish trade could heavily be decelerated and a contour would be formed around Turkey going from Iran to Iraq to Syria that could cut Turkey’s land routes to North Africa, Jordan, the Arabian Peninsula, Central Asia, Pakistan, India, and East Asia. Along with the Republic of Armenia, Tehran, Baghdad, and Damascus could form a wall around Turkey. The only open borders to Turkey would be Greece, Bulgaria, and Georgia. The latter of which, Georgia, could be cutoff too by the Russian Federation.

Hence, the course of events in Iraq will be pivotal to Turkish foreign policy and to the shape of the balance of power in the Middle East. It is in this context that creating internal tensions in Iraq is being used to keep Iraq from asserting itself as a staunch Iranian and Syrian ally. Should the regime in Syria manage to holdout and should Iraq manage to maintain stability, Washington’s time in the Middle East will be over; followed by Israel’s capabilities to launch anymore wars.

Moreover, the Turks are slated for relatively short-term use. It is not in the interest of Washington or Israel to allow Turkey to become a major power. The U.S. and Israel have been working behind Ankara’s back to also weaken Turkey after it serves it purpose in their regional strategy. This is one of the reasons they have been supporting Kurdish separatist movements opposed to Turkey. Turkey itself is slated to erupt into internal fighting and divisions. Turkish involvement in Syria or a war with Syria involving the Turks will ultimately weaken Turkey itself and have disastrous side effects like Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran did for Iraq. If a war does erupt between Ankara and Damascus, the war itself will be damaging to Turkish national unity and could led to a civil war; such a war will also erupt into a conflict with Syria’s Iranian and Russian allies.

The Demonization of Iran in the International Commons

The international system that was setup after the Second World War is in increasing decline. The United Nations and other international bodies have become the scenes of struggles between two emerging global camps – on the one hand is the U.S. and what has become, since the end of the Cold War, the expanded Western Bloc and on the other hand are all those countries that are independent of Washington or that resist U.S. hegemony. These two camps are increasingly becoming visible on the basis of their positions in the international arena and how they vote in global forums. For example, albeit there were key abstentions, at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva there were two diametrically opposed positions on Syria that saw countries like Ecuador, Cuba, Russia, and China siding with Syria against the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Poland.

Much earlier, the International Atomic Energy Association (I.A.E.A.) in the same context of a battle ground also released a grossly manipulated report. The report took information from the intelligence services of the U.S. and its allies and old information that was discarded earlier for being false by the I.A.E.A. and reinvented the very same information as “potentially” meaning that the Iranian nuclear energy program had military applications. Director-General Yukiya Amano, a former Japanese diplomat, even violated the regulations of the I.A.E.A. in composing the report and its clandestine release to a few I.A.E.A. members. Amano’s report also knowingly released a list of Iranian scientists working on the nuclear energy program, knowing that it would place their lives in danger with assassinations attempts.

Washington with the collaboration of the Al-Sauds also tried to rally international support in October 2011 by claiming that Iran wanted to assassinate the Saudi envoy to Washington. After changing the outlandish narrative of the Iranian assassination attempt several times, the issue was brought to a vote at the U.N. General Assembly by Saudi Arabia and the U.S. in mid-November. One hundred and six countries voted in favour of the resolution calling for Iranian cooperation and condemning the plot. Forty countries abstained and nine voted against the resolution. The U.S. also took the opportunity to renew sanctions against Iran and present it as a threat to world peace.

A month later, a cyber warfare unit of the Iranian Armed Forces overrode U.S. controls over a Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel spy drone. It was a reenactment of the 1960 U-2 spy plane incident with the Soviet Union. The Pentagon originally denied that the U.S. had violated Iranian airspace or that a drone was captured and gave several conflicting stories, but was faced to admit the truth once the Iranians unveiled the U.S. spy drone in perfect condition under Iranian custody. In the process of taking over the controls of the spy drone when it violated Iranian airspace, U.S. satellites and command and control facilities were electronically manipulated by the Iranian military. In the same month a U.S. court in New York declared that Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah aided Al-Qaeda in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 (9/11) and found Iran liable for a hundred billion dollars worth of damages.

The American-Iranian Cold War could lead to a Global Hot War

Now, close to the end of 2011, General Martin Dempsey, the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said several times that the U.S. Armed Forces are prepared to attack Iran. The Iranians have dismissed the ability of the U.S. to wage a war, but have not ruled out U.S. or Israeli attempts to launch strikes. It is in this context that Iranian naval forces have conducted naval drills in and around the Straits of Hormuz and in the waters of the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden, and Arabian Sea.

The term cold war can be very misleading, because many hot events can take place in the context of such rivalries, as is the case of the events in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq in regard to the cold war between Washington and Tehran. The actual Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States was actually played out via many hot wars in different parts of the world like Angola, Vietnam, and the Korean Peninsula. With this consideration in mind, the cold war in the Middle East between Tehran and Washington could erupt into a real and dangerous hot war with global ramifications.

On December 14, 2011, Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported that Russia is paying special attention to its military infrastructure in Armenia, which has greater geo-political importance now in regards to Russian involvement in the Middle East in the case of a U.S. or NATO war. On November 28, 2011 it was declared that Dmitry Rogozin, Mowcows’s envoy to NATO and now one of Russia’s deputy prime ministers (vice-prime ministers), would visit both Beijing and Tehran in mid-January 2012 to discuss collectively countering Washington’s missile shield project. This was after Rogozin speaking in late-September 2011 to the Rossiya-24 Television Network denied Iranian media reports that Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing were planning on jointly spearheading a response to Washington’s global missile project.

In the scenario of a U.S. war with Iran, the frozen conflicts in the Caucasus between Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia, and the Republic of Azerbaijan would also all be ignited. The Armenians, which are the allies of both Moscow and Tehran, have also made it clear that Yerevan would be forced to pick sides. From Central Asia and the Caucasus to Pakistan and the Middle East there would be major upheavals.

Neither Russia nor China will be able to stand idly in the case that a war is launched against Iran. In one way or another, if Russia enters a war against the U.S. and NATO then countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Moldova would all be dragged into the conflict as it broadens. The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (S.C.O.) would be collectively involved. Rear-Admiral Zhang Zhaozhong, a Chinese military official and a director at the National Defence University of the People’s Republic of China has also acknowledged this and stated that China would not hesitate in entering a war against the United States should Washington attack Iran. Rear-Admiral Zhazhong has also addressed the importance of Pakistan as a bridge to Iran for Beijing during a possible war and the instability in Pakistan should also be examined in the context of its value to China. It is in this respect that the cold war in the Middle East has the dangerous potential of igniting into a broader war involving the core of Eurasia that would envelop the globe in disaster.

Article originally posted  at Global Research.CA

***************

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal, Quebec. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He has been a contributor and guest discussing the broader Middle East on numerous programs and international networks such as Al Jazeera, Press TV and Russia Today. Nazemroaya was also a witness to the “Arab Spring” in action in North Africa. While on the ground in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign, he reported out of Tripoli for several media outlets. He sent key field dispatches from Libya for Global Research and was Special Correspondent for Pacifica’s syndicated investigative program Flashpoints, broadcast out of Berkeley, California. His writings have been published in more than ten languages. He also writes for the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF), Moscow.

Nour Rida

Its 2012, the presidential battle in the United States of America started its real warm up. Since the current US President Barack Obama took office in 2009, he has only been adding up more stories to the “Tell some Obama administration memoirs”. He has spent his term collecting the scattered US administration and people, who had suffered a lot during the Bush era, but not too long before he even did worse.

The failing health care plan, the ballooning nation’s debts reaching past $15 trillion, the expansion of US military activity worldwide-including the drones buzzing over several countries and aiming for haphazard targets under the pretext of counter-terrorism, the ongoing financial support for “Israel’s” Iron Dome and War system at the time some Americans still live in tents upon loss of their homes during the Global financial crisis back in 2009, and the list of O’bummer achievements is endless. Oh and did we forget to mention the oil spill in the Mexican gulf that has led to a natural disaster? All that among claims that economy is on the mend…

In his May 2011 speech on the Middle East, President Obama described the US commitment to “Israel’s” security as “unshakeable”. Also in 2011, the Obama administration requested $3 billion in Foreign Military financing for “Israel”, the highest level since 2003. According to the State Department, the assistance is aimed at maintaining “Israel’s” “qualitative military edge” and ensuring “the security it requires to make concessions necessary for comprehensive regional peace.”

Today, after all the relentless efforts Obama has made to support “Israel”, nearly all Republican presidential candidates have expressed resentment towards the Obama administration for what they said is waning support for “Israel”. They also have expressed strong backing for “Israel”, as quotes the Council on Foreign Relations.

Beginning with Representative Michele Bachmann, she cites her Christian background as the foundation of her support for “Israel”. “”Israel” is not merely the cradle of my faith; it’s the greatest strategic asset the United States has in the region.” She says, stressing that “the United States should ensure that “Israel” gets “stronger and stronger” so that it is able to defend itself “at all times and under all circumstances.”

Bachmann said she would “fully recognize al-Quds (Jerusalem) as “Israel’s” undivided capital, and will be the first administration to finally implement the laws passed by Congress requiring the State Department to move the US Embassy to al-Quds (Jerusalem).”

As for Newt Gingrich, in his remarks to the Republican Jewish Coalition in December 2011, former speaker of the House Gingrich said the greatest obstacle is that “Israel” should not be expected to negotiate with any Palestinian coalition that includes Hamas, “an organization dedicated to its destruction.” Gingrich, criticizing Obama’s stance on pre-1967 borders as a basis for negotiations during his May 2011 speech on the Middle East, said it is “a suicidal step for “Israel”.”
Gingrich supports the recognition of Jerusalem as the “undivided capital of a Jewish state,” and has also vowed, if elected, to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to al-Quds (Jerusalem).

In a December 2011 interview, Gingrich questioned the historical basis of a distinct Palestinian people, stating “remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community.”

As for Jon Huntsman, he believes “the foundation of a successful US policy in the Middle East rests upon a strong US-”Israel” relationship.”
Huntsman says the “best chance for peace is for “Israel” to know that America stands shoulder-to-shoulder beside her and for the Palestinians and “Israelis” to negotiate with each other.”

Writing in the National Review Online, Huntsman referred to the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN as a “cynical, counterproductive ploy.”
In the short term, he says, “We must work to regain the confidence of our friends in Israel so that meaningful work toward an enduring peace can begin.”
Representative Ron Paul, for his part, calls for a reduced US diplomatic role in Arab-”Israeli” affairs, including cutting off foreign aid to “Israel” and other countries in the region. Perhaps being less diplomatic on “Israel” would help him arrive in office… He says the United States buys “Israel’s” allegiance and “they sacrifice their sovereignty to us.”

Paul has also been critical, referring to the 2009 “Israeli” invasion of Gaza as a “sad day” that demonstrated the “unfortunate” spread of preemptive war.
He has described conditions in Gaza as a “tragedy” similar to that of a concentration camp. He opposed House Resolution 34, a 2009 congressional motion formalizing U.S. support for Israel’s actions in Gaza. Paul said he was “appalled by the longstanding Israeli blockade of Gaza–a cruel act of war–and the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest “Israeli” attack.”
Now Texas Governor Rick Perry, a strong advocate of U.S.-”Israeli” relations, describes the latter as a special partner and the US’s “oldest and strongest ally in the Middle East.”

Perry condemned the White House for suggesting the 1967 borders as the starting point for negotiations, and described the Palestinian insistence on the “right of return” of refugees as “a disturbing sign that the ultimate Palestinian ‘solution’ remains the destruction of the Jewish state.”
Perry says the Obama administration has encouraged Palestinians to “take steps backward” from the peace process by demanding an Israeli settlement freeze in late 2010.

Speaking at the Republican Jewish Coalition Forum in December 2011, Perry said, “I support the goal of a Palestinian state, but it should be the Palestinians who meet certain preconditions,” These preconditions include a statehood “directly negotiated between “Israeli” and the Palestinian leaders; second, a Palestinian recognition of “Israel’s” right to exist as a Jewish state; and third, Palestinian leaders must renounce the terrorist activities of Hamas.”

Under the title “An American Century”, which outlines his foreign policy strategy, Republican candidate Mitt Romney describes “Israel” as the closest US ally in the Middle East, and said he will work to maintain “Israel’s” “strategic military edge.” He iterated that “The key to negotiating a lasting peace is an “Israel” that knows it will be secure.”

Romney said he will oppose “any measure,” such as a moratorium on Jewish settlements, “that would frustrate direct negotiations” between the two parties.” In the November 2011, foreign policy debate, Romney said, “My first foreign trip will be to “Israel”, to show the world we care about that country and that region.”
Just like his fellow candidates, Lawyer and former United States Senator from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum has denied the existence of a Palestinian people, stating that “All the people who live in the West Bank are “Israelis”, they are not Palestinians. There is no Palestinian. This is “Israeli” land.”

In a November campaign stop, the candidate also strongly condemned the Palestinian statehood bid at the UN, describing the move as “an embarrassment to this country,” and “an offense to the state of “Israel”.”
In the National Review Online in May 2011, Santorum wrote that “Israel” “has never been in more danger of disappearing” and described it as “surrounded by an armed alliance of Jihadist fundamentalists and nationalists.”

The 57th quadrennial United States Presidential Election will be held on November 6, 2012, and it will be expected to feature the incumbent, President Barack Obama for the Democrats, against a yet to be decided Republican candidate all “Israel”-friendly.

All Republican candidates have exploited the stuttering economy, runaway public debt and the lack of viable solutions as well as the rise to the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially in light of a Democratic administration under which the gap between the rich and poor has widened.

By Nour Rida.  Article originally posted here http://www.english.moqawama.org/.

Obama should demand an immediate halt to all Israeli destruction of Palestinian property in the West Bank.

 by  Yousef Munayyer

Washington, DC – Much was made of what many in the media described as a “confrontation” between Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama over the building of illegal Israeli settlements (or colonies) in Occupied Palestinian Territory. From the very beginning of the Obama administration, the pursuit of a freeze on Israeli settlement activity was a stated goal – one that was never really accomplished and never adequately pursued.

The idea of a settlement freeze, which was wrongly attributed to the now-resigned special envoy George Mitchell, was actually stipulated in the Bush administration’s Road Map and accepted by the parties in 2003. A freeze on all settlement activity was a first-phase Israeli obligation – not to mention an obligation under international law. It should go without saying that the Israelis failed to fulfill this obligation, and instead the Israeli government, then led by Ariel Sharon, presided over the single largest and most aggressive period of settlement activity in the West Bank since the Menachem Begin government in 1977-83.

Still, Israeli settlement construction is not the only belligerent behaviour conducted by the occupation regime in Palestinian Territory. To paraphrase the now-former US Congressman Brian Baird, if the law is “thou shall not build on territory which does not belong to you”, an equally important corollary of this law is “thou shall not destroy what belongs to others in territory which does not belong to you”. Of course, apart from the regular construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, there is also the regular destruction of Palestinian buildings and infrastructure in the same territory.

Both the construction of illegal settlements and the destruction of the homes and property of the native Palestinians stem from the same origin: Israel’s unbridled assertion of power over the native Palestinians in the context of total impunity.

Much destruction occurs in Area C of the West Bank. This territory comprises roughly 60 per cent of the West Bank, and Israel maintains full control over security, planning and zoning.

The United Nations Organisation for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Territories (UNOCHA) noted in a recent report:

“In the first six months of 2011, OCHA recorded the Israeli authorities’ demolition of 342 Palestinian-owned structures in Area C, including 125 residential structures, displacing a total of 656 Palestinians, including 351 children. This is almost five times as many structures demolished and people displaced as during the equivalent period in 2010.”

Take, for example, the time when 30 Israeli vehicles and 100 soldiers entered the village of Ein al-Duyuk and demolished the homes of four different Palestinian families deep in the West Bank. Or the dawn raid of Jaba’a near Hebron which led to the demolition of another family’s home. Or the demolition of five homes in Khan al-Ahmar, near Jerusalem, which left 71 people, including 60 children, homeless. Or when a mosque, two homes and a barn housing children’s pet rabbits were demolished in the village of Um Fagareh. Or the demolition of wells near Idhna, which debilitated Palestinian farmers. Or Khirbet Susa’s rural primary school, which currently educates 36 Palestinian children and has recently received demolition orders after it was last demolished a year ago. Or the solar panel complex, built by a Spanish NGO for €300,000 ($401,310) in 2009 to provide much-needed sustainable electricity to the isolated Palestinian village of Imneizel, which also has demolition orders pending.

Or, perhaps most disturbing of all, is that all of the above-mentioned Area C demolitions and demolition orders were executed or handed down only in the past 90 days.

Israeli destruction of Palestinian homes and buildings, like the construction of illegal settlements, is part of a matrix of control aimed at limiting Palestinians to an existence on only a fraction of a fraction of their land. No objective observer can take the argument that the destruction of Palestinian village schools, water wells, solar panels and homes provides anyone with security. Likewise, Palestinian villagers left homeless at the hands of an Israeli bulldozer will rightly find claims that Israeli politicians want peace to be farcical.

Yet this destruction persists today at accelerated levels, with little objection from an Obama administration that races to show its support for Israel as we enter an election year.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration should demand an immediate halt to all Israeli settlement construction because it is illegal, and an immediate halt to all Israeli destruction in the West Bank because it is simply inhumane.

This article originally appeared on AlJazeera.net

**********

Yousef Munayyer is the Executive Director of the Palestine Centre in Washington, DC. 

Paul Balles

“Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.” –Arthur Schopenhauer

Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong. --James Bryce

Americans won’t like this.  Practically everyone else will: Americans simply can never admit they were wrong.

Ill-begotten wars–from Vietnam to Afghanistan have accomplished nothing but increasing enemies toward American arrogance.

Nothing could have been more misguided than the Iraq war, based on a mythical collection of WMDs. The lie, the war and the occupation cost the lives of 4,801 Americans plus 179 UK lives and the death of 1,455,590 Iraqis. The WMD’s never existed.

Instead of an admission that the Iraq debacle was wrong, the fraudsters made lame excuses in attempts to exonerate themselves.  Past Vice President Dick Cheney, the strongest defender of the Iraq misadventure continues his vain attempts to justify the unjustifiable.

“There is nothing less to our credit than our neglect of the foreigner and his children, unless it be the arrogance most of us betray when we set out to ‘Americanize’ him,” wrote American sociologist Charles Horton Cooley.

On November 28th, a NATO air attack killed at least two dozen Pakistani soldiers. Instead of admitting that they were wrong, the US military suggested that the Pakistanis shot first.

Said Fred Branfman about the incident, “Short-sighted U.S. policy is creating a national security disaster in Pakistan.” Instead of apologizing and admitting to a mistake, Branfman concludes:

“The U.S. policy of trying to win in tiny Afghanistan by extending its war-making into giant, nuclear-armed Pakistan–including drone strikes, cross-border raids, illegal U.S. ground assassination… threatens the greatest U.S. foreign policy disaster….”

American arrogance has clearly found several avenues for acrimony. More than 1,000 American military bases around the world has often been an unwelcome embodiment of American military power.

Next, not only do Americans display a belief in their superiority over other countries, their leaders’ actions reveal an arrogant pre-eminence over the masses of the American public.

In an earlier article, “Ruled by Arrogance”, I commented on an American tendency to discredit others’ opinions with forcefulness aimed at dominating those considered weaker or less important.

Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry faulted a mixture of arrogance and audacity in the Obama administration:

This administration in Washington…clearly believes that government is not only the answer to every need but it’s the most qualified to make essential decisions for every American in every area. That mix of arrogance and audacity that guides the Obama administration is an affront to every freedom-loving American.

That’s the same Rick Perry who arrogantly boasts about how great Texas has been with his governorship. In America, the pot (Rick Perry) is expected to call the kettle (Barack Obama) black.

Paradoxically, another American presidential candidate, Rick Santorum criticized President Obama for looking apologetic rather than being arrogant:

Watching President Obama apologize last week for America’s arrogance before a French audience that owes its freedom to the sacrifices of Americans–helped convince me that he has a deep-seated antipathy toward American values and traditions.

What American values and traditions does Santorum believe become belittled by an apology uttered by an American president? American arrogance!

Earlier, in April 2009, a number of Republicans castigated President Obama for bowing before Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah. Though the White House denied it, the video of the meeting provided enough fodder for Obama’s critics.

The arrogance of Obama’s predecessor established a standard of American presidential behaviour that those following the Bush administration should not deviate from.

America has a history of arrogance reflected in racial and gender supremacy. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) provides an example of a superior white attitude reflected in American slavery.

In a country full of misogyny, it’s ironic that Americans now belittle countries whose men treat women as lesser creatures.

If it’s difficult to convince most Americans that they are guided by undeserved arrogance, those who know it seem undisturbed by it.

As I mentioned in an earlier article, “Look closely enough and you’ll find groups in any country who believe they are superior to all others.”

When the political elite assume they are superior to others, and when the media elite behave as if America is better than others, they flaunt a dangerously endemic model of arrogant behaviour.

The problems come when the “others” resist being disadvantaged.

********

Paul Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He’s a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the GULF DAILY NEWS . Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

by Mahdi Darius NAZEMROAYA

The encirclement of Syria and Lebanon has long been in the works. Since 2001, Washington and NATO have started the process of cordoning off Lebanon and Syria.The permanent NATO presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Syrian Accountability Act are part of this initiative. It appears that this roadmap is based on a 1996 Israeli document aimed at controlling Syria.The documents name is A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.

The 1996 Israeli document, which included prominent U.S. policy figures as authors, calls for “rolling back Syria” in 2000 or afterward. The roadmap outlines pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon, diverting the attention of Damascus by using an anti-Syrian opposition in Lebanon, and then destabilizing Syria with the help of both Jordan and Turkey. This has all respectively occurred from 2005 to 2011. This is also why the anti-Syrian March 14 Alliance and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) were created in Lebanon.

As a first step towards all this the 1996 document even calls for the removal of President Saddam Hussein from power in Baghdad and even alludes to the balkanization of Iraq and forging a strategic regional alliance against Damascus that includes a Sunni Muslim Arab “Central Iraq.” The sectarian nature of this project is very obvious as are its ties to opposing a so-called “Shiite Crescent.” The roadmap seeks to foment sectarian divisions as a means of conquering Syria and creating a Shiite-Sunni rift that will oppose Iran and keep the Arab monarchs in power.

The U.S. has now initiated a naval build-up off the Syrian and Lebanese coasts. This is part of Washington’s standard scare tactics that it has used as a form of intimidation and psychological warfare against Iran, Syria, and the Resistance Bloc. While Washington is engaged in its naval build-up, the mainstream media networks controlled by the Saudis and Arab clients of the U.S. are focusing on the deployment of Russian naval vessels to Syria, which can be seen as a counter-move to NATO.

Al-Ramthain, Jordan is being used to launch attacks into Daraa and Syrian territory. The Jordanian Minister of State for Media Affairs and Communications, Rakan Al-Majali, has even publicly admitted this and dismissed it as weapons smuggling. For years, Jordanian forces have successfully prevented weapons from reaching the Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank from Jordanian territory. In reality, Ammanis sending weapons into Syria and working to destabilize Syria. Jordanian forces work as a frontline to protect Israel and the Jordanian intelligence services are an extension of the C.I.A. and Mossad.

According to the Turkish media, France has sent its military trainers into Turkey and Lebanon to prepare conscripts against Syria. The Lebanese media also suggests the same. The so-called Free Syrian Army and other NATO-GCC front organizations are also using Turkish and Jordanian territory to stage raids into Syria. Lebanon is also being used to smuggle weapon shipments into Syria. Many of these weapons were actually arms that the Pentagon had secretly re-directed into Lebanon from Anglo-American occupied Iraq during the George W. Bush Jr. presidency.

The French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppé, has promised the Syrian National Council, that a so-called “humanitarian corridor” will be imposed on Syria. Once again, the Syrian National Council is not an independent entity and therefore Juppé did not really make a promise; he really made a declaration.

While foreign companies like Suncor Energy were forced to leave Libya, they have not left Syria. The reason for that these companies have stayed have been presented as being humanitarian, because they provide domestic local services in Syria. For example, Suncor Energy helped produce oil for export from Libya, but in Syria produces energy for local consumption. In reality, hostile governments are letting these companies to stay, because they siphon money out of Syria. They want to prevent any money from going in, while they want to also drain the local economy as a catalyst to internal implosion in Syria.

Along with the U.S. and its NATO allies, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is imposing sanctions that include an end to all flights to Syria. The GCC states and Turkey have joined the foreign ministries of NATO states in asking their citizens to leave Syria. Since the U.N. Security Council is no longer a viable route against Syria, the GCC may also try to impose a no-fly zone over Syria through the Arab League.

Turkey: NATO’s Trojan Horse and Gateway into the Middle East

Turkey was present at the Arab League meeting in Morocco, which demanded regime change in Damascus. Ankara has been playing a dirty game. Initially, during the start of NATO’s war against Libya, Ankara pretended to be neutral while it was helping the Transitional Council in Benghazi. The Turkish government does not care about the Syrian population. On the contrary, the demands that Turkish officials have made to the Syrians spell out that realpolitik is at play. In tune with the GCC, Turkeyhas demanded that Damascus re-orient its foreign policy and submit to Washington’s demands as a new satellite. Through a NATO initiative, the Turks have also been responsible for recruiting fighters against the Libyan and Syrian governments.

For several years Ankara has been silently trying to de-link Syria from Iran and to displace Iranian influence in the Middle East. Turkey has been working to promote itself and its image amongst the Arabs, but all along it has been a key component of the plans of Washington and NATO.At the same time, it has been upgrading its military capabilities in the Black Sea and on its borders with Iran and Syria. Its military research and development body, TUBITAK-SAGE,has also announced that Ankara will also start mass-production of cruise-missiles in 2012 that will fitted for its navy and forthcoming deliveries of U.S. military jets that could be used in future regional wars. Turkey and NATO have also agreed to upgrade Turkish bases for NATO troops.

In September 2011, Ankara joined Washington’s missile shield project, which upset both Moscow and Tehran. The Kremlin has reserved the right to attack NATO’s missile shield facilities in Eastern Europe, while Tehran has reserved the right to attack NATO’s missile shield facilities in Turkey or in the case of a regional war. There have also been discussions about the Kremlin deploying Iskander missiles to Syria.

Since June 2011, Ankara has been talking about invading Syria. It has presented the invasion plans as a humanitarian mission to establish a “buffer zone” and “humanitarian corridor” under R2P, while it has also claimed that the protests in Syria are a regional issue and not a domestic issue. In July 2011, despite the close Irano-Turkish economic ties, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard made it clear that Tehran would support the Syrians and choose Damascus over Ankara. In August 2011, Ankara started deploying retired soldiers and its military reserve units to the Turkish-Syrian border. It is in this context, that the Russian military presence has also been beefing up in the port of Tartus.

From Damascus to Tehran

It is also no mere coincidence that Senator Joseph Lieberman started demanding at the start of 2011 that the Pentagon and NATO attack Syria and Iran. Nor is it a coincidence that Tehran has been included in the recent Obama Administration sanctions imposed against Damascus. Damascus is being targeted as a means of targeting Iran and, in broader terms, weakening Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing in the struggle for control over the Eurasian landmass. The U.S. and its remaining allies are about to reduce their forces in Iraq, but they do not want to leave the region or allow Iran to create a bridge between itself and the Eastern Mediterranean using Iraq.

Once the U.S. leaves Iraq, there will be a direct corridor between Lebanon and Syria with Iran. This will be a nightmare for Washington and Tel Aviv. It will entrench Iranian regional dominance and cement the Resistance Bloc, which will pin Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinians together. Israel and the U.S. will both be struck with major strategic blows.

The pressure on Syria is directly tied to this American withdrawal from Iraq and Washington’s efforts to block Tehran from making any further geo-political gains. By removing Damascus from the equation, Washington and its allies are hoping to create a geo-strategic setback for Iran.

Everything that Washington is doing is in preparation for the new geo-political reality and an attempt to preserve its regional standing. U.S. military forces from Iraq will actually be redeployed to the GCC countries in the Persian Gulf. Kuwait will host new combat units that have been designated to re-enter Iraq should security collapse, such as in the case of a regional war, or to confront Iran and its allies in a future conflict. The U.S. is now activating the so-called “Coalition of the Moderate” that it created under George W. Bush Jr. and directing them against Iran, Syria, and their regional allies.

On November 23, 2011 the Turks signed a military agreement with Britain to establish a strategic partnership and closer Anglo-Turkish military ties. During an important state visit by Abdullah Gül to London, the agreement was signed by Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond and the Deputy Chief of the Turkish General Staff,Hulusi Akar.The Anglo-Turkish agreement comes into play within the framework of the meetings that the British Chief of Defence Staff, General David Richards, and Liam Fox, the former scandal-ridden British defence minister, had with Israeli officials in Tel Aviv. After the visit of General Richards to Israel, Ehud Barak would visit Britain and later Canada for talks concerning Syria and its strategic ally Iran. Within this timeframe the British and Canadian governments would declare that they were prepared for war with both Syria and Iran.

London has announced that military plans were also drawn for war with Syria and Iran. On the other side of the Atlantic, Canada’s Defence Minister, Peter MacKay, created shock waves in Canada when he made belligerent announcements about war with Syria and Iran. He also announced that Canada was buying a new series of military jets through a major arms purchase. Days later, both Canada and Britain would also cut their banking and financial ties with Iran. In reality, these steps have largely been symbolic, because Tehran was deliberately curbing it ties with Britain and Canada. For months the Iranians have also openly been evaluating cutting their ties with Britain and several other E.U. members.

The events surrounding Syria have much more to do with the geo-politics of the Middle East than just Syria alone.In the Israeli Knesset, the events in Syria were naturally tied to reducing Iranian power in the Middle East. Tel Aviv has been preparing itself for a major conflict for several years. This includes its long distance military flights to Greece that simulated an attack on Iran and its deployment of nuclear-armed submarines to the Persian Gulf. It has also conducted the “Turning Point” exercises, which seek to insure the continuation of the Israeli government through the evacuation and relocation of the Israeli cabinet and officials, including the Israeli finance ministry, to secret bunkers in the case of a war.

For half a decade Washington has been directing a military arm build-up in the Middle East aimed at Iran and the Resistance Bloc. It has sent massive arms shipments to Saudi Arabia. It has sent deliveries of bunker busters to the U.A.E. and Israel, amongst others, while it has upgraded its own deadly arsenal. U.S. officials have also started to openly discuss murdering Iranian leaders and military officials through covert operations. What the world is facing is a pathway towards possible military escalation that could go far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East and suck in Russia, China, and their allies. The Revolutionary Guard have also made it clear that if conflict is ignited with Iran that Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinians would all be drawn in as Iranian allies.

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

*********

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya Canadian-based sociologist and scholar. Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), specializing in geopolitical and strategic issues.

Seif-Al-Islam Gaddafi is seen after his capture in the custody of revolutionary fighters

by FRANKLIN LAMB / IntifadaPalestine.com

(Benghazi, Libya) An affable gentleman, “Mahmoud” ushered this observer into the Benghazi People’s Court (Mahkamat al-Sha’b) and showed me the freshly painted courtroom where on December 19, 2006, the current NTC leader and long term CIA favorite, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, twice upheld death sentences by firing squad against a Palestinian doctor, Ashraf al-Hujuj, and five Bulgarian nurses Kristiyana Valtcheva, Nasya Nenova, Valentina Siropulo, Valya Chervenyashka, and Snezhana Dimitrova. The death sentences were requested by the Libyan prosecutor in his opening statement four months earlier, in the final appeal in the fake HIV show trial case # 607/2003 held at the criminal court in Benghazi.

The appellate judge in the case was none other than the current head of the NATO-installed Libyan National Transition Council (NTC) Mustafa Abdul Jalil, whose formal legal education consisted of sitting in on some Sharia law classes. Following his appellate decision in the case, and for other services rendered to the former regime, Jalil was rewarded with the post of Minister of Justice. He served loyally in that position until American associates encouraged the intensely ambitious Minister to resign on February 24, 2011, the day he joined the Benghazi based uprising, as “leader.”

In the Benghazi nurses case, “Judge” Jalil knew the defendants were innocent and had been regularly and severely tortured during years of incarceration and forced into making false confessions which they later recanted. He also knew that the families of the false government witnesses against the “Benghazi Six” had been threatened with death if their relative failed to testify that it was the defendants who injected 426 Libyan children with HIV at the al-Fateh hospital in Benghazi. Jalil was also fully aware that, as the Libyan and International medical community knew, unsanitary conditions at the hospital caused the spreading of the HIV virus which originated in Benghazi from African guest workers, well before the arrival of the Palestinian and Bulgarian humanitarian medical staff.

During his “judicial review”, Jalil ignored the most elementary rules of criminal trial procedure and did not appear to grasp the fact that without procedural rights no accused person possesses substantive rights.

From day one of the “Benghazi Six” proceedings, which spanned more than five years, it was a political exercise. The same appears certain to be the case from the moment of the the opening of any trial conducted in Libya of high profile ex-regime loyalists including Saif al Isam, Abdullah al-Senussi, Abu Zeid Dorda, former Libyan Prime Minister al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi, former vice foreign minister Khaled Kiam, and others. If their trial is held in Libya, it is not at all certain that these accused will still be alive when the courtroom proceedings begin. This is because of the current lawlessness and political jockeying among NTC power centers and a widespread thirst across Libya today for revenge which trump international notions favoring just trials.

Jalil who recently announced that men in Libya will be allowed four wives because the “New Libya” is going to strictly follow Sharia law and four wives is what the Koran allows, wants the trials held in Libya. He will try to convince the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo who is currently visiting Libya on behalf of the ICC that Libya should be the venue for Gadhafi regime trials and not The Hague. Perhaps Jalil will tell Ocampo not to worry about fair trials in Libya because one area in particular in which Libyan laws have been inconsistent with Sharia is in the penal law. Punishments under the Gadhafi regime were lighter than those mandated by traditional Islamic Hudud deterrent punishments, which Jalil is reported to favor but current Justice Ministry officials say current punishments, not Hudud will be applied.

Ocampo’s challenge will be to explain the legal steps to officials in Tripoli, and try to convince them that The Hague is the better option for the coming trials. Ultimately, it is up to the ICC judges backed by the UN whether to hand over the cases against Saif al Islam and Abdullah al Senussi to the NTC.

Jalil will have the White House and NATO backing him on this issue. Indeed, yesterday, 11/21/11, UN Ambassador Susan Rice beat Ocampo to the punch so to speak and showed up here in Libya to flamboyantly announce that the US will not pressure Libya to send Seif al Islam to the ICC at The Hague, an international criminal court whose jurisdiction the Obama Administration has refused to accept but which 119 countries have.

What the White House and NATO want is for former key Gadhafi loyalists like Seif al Islam to be silenced ( reminding one of Saddam, Osama and Muammar) before they can reveal criminal dealings by NATO country leaders. Chances are the jailed defendants will be killed unless the UN Security Council, which allowed the destruction of Libya via UNSC Resolution 1973, intervenes to uphold UN humanitarian principles.

Returning to the subject of my courtroom usher, who currently works in Benghazi as a NTC liaison officer with some of NATO’s still active special units, he showed me the large ornate Italian style courtroom window which, like the courtroom, was also freshly painted. Wiping an index finger on the window ledge to show me its dust free condition, he explained: “As you can see with our newly painted courtroom we are now ready to bring these dogs to justice and we don’t want any foreign interference in our country. We can take care of our own problems.” Speechless, I kept my thoughts to myself. But they included that had my guide’s new attitude about foreign interference and rivals in Libya settling their differences among themselves prevailed nine months ago, Libya would not have experienced the scores of thousands killed, wounded or whose lives were to varying degrees shattered, the latter affecting Libya’s total population.

The above events, the show trial and equating a painted courtroom with readiness to administer justice, ma

ke plain to this observer that Libya in not yet ready to conduct fair criminal trials, not for the 16,000 current detainees, (approximately 3000 still in prison from the previous regime, and close to 13,000 jailed by Libya’s claimed liberators). Libya currently lacks the capacity and perhaps agreement about what a fair trial would even be. It appears that currently a fair trial will not be conducted for high profile former regime loyalists.

Part of the reason is that today in Libya, the prevailing political, and legal dicta comes not from Gadhafi’s little Green book, volume I of which was published in 1976, or the engraved words outside UN HQ at Turtle Bay, New York, from Isaiah 2:4: “They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.” Rather today’s clarion in Libya trumpets a quotation from Mao Tse-Tung’s Little Red Book published in 1964, and it’s as true today as ever it was: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Despite sanctimonious NATO calls for the nearly four dozen militia, with more forming every month, to turn in their weapons, most of which NATO indirectly supplied, Libya’s armed gangs are rearming, increasing their rank and file numbers and expanding the scope and the variety of their “security parameters”, all designed for maximizing their political power in the continuing turbulent period which will likely witness serial new and weak governments rising and collapsing here.

Key militias groups like the Zintanis, who captured Seif, or the Misratans, who killed Muammar and the most organized groups, which are Islamist, have organizational networks that are supporting their demands for major posts in the new government. Todays expected announcement by interim Prime Minister Abdul Rahim al-Keib, of a new interim government, is considered a mere starting point by these stronger militias in the process of maneuvering themselves into essentially full control.

This absence of control over the militias is only too evident in the treatment of less than high profile captured former regime officials and towns. Reports of score settling are heard everywhere. Ignoring the claimed authority of the NTC, militias continue to ransack towns formally loyal to Gadhafi as they mete out bloody reprisals even on rival militia opposed to the former regime. Instead of handing over weapons from captured government arsenals to the authorities, militias are taking them back to their hometowns. So far the interim government has been unable to exert any significant authority over a country awash with weapons and armed men.

This observer was approached last week in the lobby of a five-star Tripoli hotel by an Israeli business man who was jokingly complaining, “Why don’t these people speak Hebrew? Maybe I should open a school.” Like many of his countrymen and hundreds from NATO countries, Israelis are having no trouble getting visas here. It is not the same for black Africans and Arabs who are being held in herds at the borders with Egypt or Tunisia, or in Cairo, Alexandria, or Tunis, until groups of hundreds can be assembled and processed by well-paid construction and domestic worker employment agents who will likely continue Lebanese and Saudi Arabian style “keep their passports and pay them pittance” slave labor practices. The droves arriving in Libya to do business, some of whom this observer has spoken with, will pretty much accept any kind of business if the bottom line is attractive. “God willing we can make this country into another Dubai”, one fellow opined as he asked if I knew any real estate agents who could help him buy up Mediterranean beach frontage cheap for a tourist resort.

On the lighter side, but to this observer’s chagrin, even my Chadian princess friends, who work with the traditional Saharan medicine specialist Dr. Fatma, and who more or less cured my leg in late August, and whose staff still administers my necessary outpatient physical therapies, are getting into the weapons business.

Today the picture of Libya is that of a country split into deadly rival factions. Cambridge University’s Tarak Barkawi, accurately describes Libya as a country “shot through with rivalries, jealousies and blood debts.” The NTC is itself is a disparate collection of defected regime elements, Islamists, secular expatriates and Berbers, many deeply suspicious of NTC leader Jalil who has never adequately explained his role in the July assassination of his rival, former Interior Minister General Younis after the latter joined the rebels.

An international legal team is working on a brief for the UN Security Council, the International Criminal Court and the Libya National Transitional Council, laying out arguments to be used on behalf of former Gadhafi regime loyalists in an effort to convince these bodies that the facts and law of this case warrant moving their trials from Libya to The Hague.

The brief is expected to be made available publicly on December 15, 2011. Meanwhile the UN Security Council must support the ICC and assure that Libyan show trials for former regime loyalist that have been indicted are avoided by conducting their trials in The Hague.

***********

FRANKLIN LAMB is reachable c/o fplamb@gmail.com

By Dr. Elias Akleh -  Intifada-Palestine.com

Due to its important geopolitical location (linking Asian, African and European continents) and to its diversified rich natural resources the indigenous inhabitants of the Middle Eastern region had been subjected to multi-forms of colonial campaigns since the beginning of ancient times. These inhabitants were subjected to ruthless military occupations, genocides, persecutions, oppressions, enslavements, and ethnic cleansing. Yet the people never surrendered nor gave up. They struggled for their freedom and independence and fought all colonial powers one after the other. Since the beginning of 2011 we are witnessing their latest regionally-sweeping fight against local ruling regimes that are subservient to foreign powers. This has become known as the Arab Spring. Unfortunately, like all their previous struggles, there is a poisonous snake in the background, which covertly is directing and orchestrating this Arab Spring to reap its fruits for itself.

Their most previous sweeping struggle, similar to the present Arab Spring, was the famous Arab Revolt of June 1916 kicking the colonial Ottoman Empire, known as the “Sick Man”, out of the whole Middle East. The poisonous snake then was the United Kingdom, who pledged to recognize Arab independence throughout the whole Middle East if they join the British in their fight against the Ottoman Empire; an ally to Germany during WWI. This pledge was officiated through what is known as McMahon/Hussein Correspondence (1915 through 1916). Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Arthur McMahon was the British High Commissioner in Egypt from 1915 to 1917 and Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif of Mecca. The British confirmed their pledge, again, through the January 1918 letter by Sir Mark Sykes carried by British Commander David Hogarth to Hussein. British weapons were shipped to Arab fighters through T.E. Lawrence (known as Lawrence of Arabia), who also coordinated the war efforts between the two parties. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire the British broke their pledge to Sharif Hussein. According to their May 16^th 1917 secret Sykes-Picot Agreement they divided the Middle East into French and British colonies, and according to their Balfour Declaration, November 2^nd 1917, they promised Palestine to the Zionists. Sharif Hussein was ousted from Mecca to exile by the British supported Abdul-Aziz bin Saud, who established the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The military struggle continued within each separate Arab state until independence was achieved. Before quitting and leaving their Arab colonies, France and Great Britain raised some of their local cronies to become heads of states in order to keep the country dependent on the occupier economically, politically and even culturally. Some of the Arab countries, especially in Northern Africa, still use the occupier’s language next to Arabic as a main daily language.

There exists in the world a very wealthy and very influential group of people; the wealthiest 1%; a Power Elite, who exerts tremendous influence on world events. This Power Elite value themselves above all other nations. They had developed a kind of political theology that exalts them as the elite of all elites, the divinely chosen group, the architects of this world, the crafters of all religious, political and social ideologies, and the destroyers and builders of nations. It gives them the right and the duty to move nations and lead them into reshaping their political regimes through revolutions and wars to make these nations subservient to their own agenda. They spend their days drawing global projects and dedicate all their resources for their execution. They were responsible for all major wars around the world, for revolutions in many countries, for economical crises and for most major events in the history of this world. Through their wealth they control heads of states, all media outlets, military and intelligence organizations, and the world economy. Looking at the present global financial crises affecting many countries, one could not help but ask: who is this debtor, wealthy enough to hold many countries and their whole economies in his debt?

This is not any longer the farfetched conspiracy theory they are trying to ridicule those who try to expose it. It is a fact. After all a conspiracy is defined as “evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more people”.

For those who doubt that nations could be blindly and irrationally driven to acts against their own national interests and welfare, I would like to remind them of the drastic opposing effects of the famous speeches given by Brutus Albinus and Mark Antony to the Roman citizens after the assassination of Julius Caesar. The Romans, won by Brutus’ speech, were immediately converted against him within few minutes by Mark Antony’s speech. The famous proverb states that “people are just like a ball kicked from one corner of the field to the other by politicians.” Thus the political term “the ball is in one politician’s court.”

Iraq, Syria and Iran were the main obstacles to the Power Elite’s primary colonial Zionist Project of establishing Greater Israel to control the Middle Eastern region. The Power Elite came up with the “New Middle East” and “fighting global terrorism” projects to augment their Zionist Project. Intending to move southward they started with the occupation and destruction of Iraq. Although the Iraqi occupation was carried out under the banner of weapons of mass destruction and spreading the American democracy, it was faced with huge global political opposition not to mention the large financial expenses.

After failing to manipulate the IAEA and UN to isolate and to break the Iran/Syria ally, who supports Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas in their resistance against Israeli occupation and expansion, the Power Elite came up with the perfect scheme of “New Order through Chaos” erroneously dubbed, later on, as the Arab Spring. It involves revolution from within to topple the ruling regime and to incite conflict and struggle between the different religious and ethnic groups to divide and to weaken the country in order to make it easier for them to interfere, under the pretence of protecting minorities and/or of economic aid, to virtually control and re-organize the country. This way the Power Elite would present itself as an ally rather than an occupier, would gain the approval of the international community, would sidetrack all global political opposition and criticism, and would avoid the huge expenses incurred by the revolution. Their first attempt during 2009 Iranian election failed to topple the regime due to the relatively small size of demonstrators. A proven precedent with a strong credibility was needed to convince larger masses into revolting. The Power Elite was ready for a “controlled sacrifice” in order to win the ultimate prize, similar to a chess player, who is ready to sacrifice his queen in order to check-mate his opponent’s king. The goal is a controlled election in an American style democracy in some of the “non-friendly” Middle Eastern countries.

Tunisian Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was the first sacrifice. Tunisia was a French colony from 1883 to 1956 when Habib Bourguiba established the Republic of Tunisia. Bourguiba made the fatal mistake of nationalizing foreign land holdings and Christian religious institutions. This infuriated the Italians, who brokered what is known as the “medical coup d’état” deposing Bourguiba and installing the head of security forces, Ben Ali, in his place. This was declared to a 1999 Parliamentary Committee by Fulvio Martini, former head of Italian military secret service (SISMI). Ben Ali was perfect local foreign puppet. He has French and American military and intelligence training. He had close working relationship with Bush’s (Junior) administration and was a partner in fighting the so called global terrorism through the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative.

Contrary to the claimed cause for the 2010/11 Tunisian Revolt its economy was considered the best in the African continent and was projected to even improve in the coming years. The 2010-2011 Global Competitive Report (Davos World Economic Forum) ranked Tunisia as first in Africa and 32^nd out of 132 globally. In an attempt to fight potential terrorism through economic assistance Ben Ali established a National Solidarity Fund that slashed Tunisia’s poverty from 7.4% in 1990 to 3.8% in 2005. The Oxford Business Group stated that Tunisia’s economy was likely to grow starting with 2008 due to its diversified industries.

Tunisia was chosen for its vulnerability to the West. Its security intelligence was penetrated through its cooperation in NATO’s Operation Active Endeavor, and its military and economy were compromised through the American military and economic assistance programs. Although the Power Elite supports its local puppet rulers they also support, to a lesser extent, opposition groups just in case the ruler gets out of line they would use the opposition groups to get rid of him.

The revolution started with Wikileaks exposing the large extent of Ben Ali’s corruption. When Mohammed Bouazizi lit himself aflame the opposition groups were already primed for mass demonstrations. As the head of state, and through bribery, Ben Ali could have sent the army and thugs to crush the demonstrators, as we have seen in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria. The country’s army chief withdrew his support to Ben Ali after his consultation with the Obama’s administration as was rumored. Ben Ali flew out to Saudi Arabia that has become known as the refuge for all deposed dictators of the region.

The many political parties formed before the Tunisian election is an indicative of the prevalent division and confusion among the people. The inexperienced Ennahda Islamist Party, who won the October 23^rd election, could become a very easy prey to foreign long experienced political interference and to economical manipulation.

Egypt was the litmus test that would propel the rest of the Arab nations, particularly Syrians, into revolting against their ruling regimes. Hosni Mubarak was chosen for he was the most hated, although very influential, Arab leader of the most important Arab country. He was hated by his people for his tyranny, his oppression, his corruption, and his cheap privatization of Egyptian natural resources to foreign investors among many others. He was hated by the majority of Arab nations for his pro-American/Israeli foreign policies, for supporting the American invasion of Iraq, for his opposition to the democratically elected Palestinian Hamas, for his sabotage to all inter-Palestinian reconciliation efforts, for his partnership with Israeli Gaza siege, for his opposition to Hezbollah’s and Hamas’ armed resistance against Israeli occupation, and for his support to Israel’s 2006 war against Hezbollah and Israel’s 2009 war against Gaza. He was the queen to be sacrificed in the chess game.

“US groups helped nurture Arab Uprisings” was the title of an article in New York Times, which exposed that young Egyptian activists had received technical training on the use of social networking and mobile technology, and were financed by American groups such as International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, National Endowment for Democracy and Project on Middle East Democracy.

It is inconceivable that Mubarak, the wealthy ruthless head of state for thirty years and with long history in military service, did not have any loyal subjects in the army, who would help him crush the demonstrators. For the last thirty years the Egyptian army had been virtually armed, trained, and financed by the US. The army did not crush the protesters because there were strict orders not to do so. Comparatively the same army had crushed protesters and even opened live fire at them after the revolution (Maspero Massacre of 9th October, here and here). The Supreme Counsel of the Armed Forces, who seized power after the revolution, had re-instated the emergency laws and is slapping in military courts prison sentences to young activists, who started the revolution. This Counsel stood watching thugs attacking and destroying many government buildings. The latest attack this month was on the Supreme Court while judges were in a meeting. Egypt now is divided with religious conflicts (Christian Copts vs Muslims) and non-functioning government.

The American chosen next president is already primed and ready for the proper time to grab presidency. As for Mubarak, he had served the American/Israeli interest well for the last thirty years and would not be let off empty handed. According to Egyptian weekly “Alanbaa Aldawlia” the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE) organization, with 14 million members and specializes in the monitoring of money laundering schemes, had reported to the FBI that for 10% commission President Obama and 17 other American officials, including both former presidents Bush (father & son), Hillary Clinton, James Baker and others, with the cooperation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a high manager of Deutche Bank in France, had been involved in the money laundering of Mubarak’s $700 Billion from Deutche Bank, Barclays Bank and HSBC Bank, to Israel’s Bank Leumi and other banks in China and Taiwan. According to Anat Levin, the branch manager of Israeli Bank Haboalim-Swiss branch, she was authorized by the Israeli government to transfer $20 Billion from Mubarak’s account to Saudi King Abdulla Abd El-Aziz’s account and to UAE president Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan’s account. The weekly also reported that Christine Legarde, while still French Minister of Economic Affairs, had submitted a report to the Interpol requesting thorough investigation into the management of Deutche Bank in France.

Libyan revolution was actually a civil war brokered by Western powers (US, UK, and France) and some Arab Gulf countries (Egypt, UAE, and Qatar). After paying reparations for Lockerbie bombing, abandoning his nuclear program, and giving Western energy companies (Royal Dutch Shell and BP) access to Libyan oil fields in 2004, Gaddafi had ended enmity with the West. Although he had a type of grandeur illusions Gaddafi attempted in the past to unite Arab countries, and upon failing he recently attempted to create an African Union which threatened the re-colonization plan of Africa by AFRICOM. The decision to get rid of Gaddafi, once and for all, came when he vowed to expel Western energy companies from the country and replace them with oil firms from China, India and Russia. Gaddafi’s second fatal mistake was his plan to convince African and Muslim counties to create a new currency, the gold dinar, to rival the American Dollar and the European Euro, in oil trade.

Libyan revolution was totally militarized. It was revealed that Egypt and Qatar were the main arms suppliers to the Libyan rebels. Under American pressure Arab League urged UN to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, and Qatar offered to cover all expenses of NATO forces to bomb alleged Gaddafi’s forces. Libyan rebels were civilians without any military training and were no match for Gaddafi’s well-trained and well-equipped army. It was revealed by Walter Fauntroy, member of US House of Representatives, that while in a self-sanctioned peace mission to Libya, he witnessed French and Danish troops coordinating NATO bombings and raiding Libyan villages, and giving the credit to Libyan rebels. At the end Gaddafi was ordered murdered rather than captured for fear of exposing all his shady dealings with the West.

Two unplanned products of the Arab Spring were the Yemeni and Bahraini revolutions. These are genuine popular peaceful revolutions against Yemeni Saleh’s 33 years oppressive rule, and against Al Khalifa family virtual 191 years rule. The two countries have strategic locations in the region and are of important interest to the American Administration. Yemen is located on the southern entrance of the Red Sea, through which all east/west marine traffic passes. Citing the October 2000 USS Cole bombing, the 2008 attacks on US embassy, and the October 2010 bomb packages incidents, allegedly linked to Anwar al-Awlaki, as proof of Al Qaeda in Yemen, Obama’s administration and Saudi Arabia justified sending money, arms and troops to help Saleh fight terrorists, and to crush the 10 months old demonstrations

The US has possibly the largest marine/air force base in Bahrain, where the Fifth Fleet provides support to all war ships of the US Naval Forces Central Command (USNACENT) to patrol the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. To keep the status quo in Bahrain Obama’s administration encouraged Gulf States to send the Peninsula Shield Force to Bahrain to crush the demonstrators. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE were happy to oblige and send their troops to Bahrain.

Syria is the main target; the prize; the king to be checked-mate. With American money and with the cooperation of some Arab officials, paid operatives incited some Syrian citizens, motivated by ethnic and religious background, to demonstrate in the streets demanding reform and regime change. These demonstrations took place in the easy accessible small towns on the borders of Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. Yet these demonstrations were dwarfed by millions of other Syrian citizens who demonstrated in major cities in support of the regime. To intensify the conflict these operatives, dressed in Syrian army outfits, started killing some citizens and accusing the Syrian police and army, and at the same time attack police and army personnel to force them into the defensive.

Compared to Tunisian, Egyptian, Yemeni and Bahraini peaceful demonstrations, Syrian demonstrations are totally armed with heavy weapons; machine guns, propelled missiles, anti-tank RPG, mines and heavy explosives, and are directed and orchestrated by military experts from other neighboring Arab countries as exposed by Al-Alam and Syrian TVs.

Heavy weapons and military experts were smuggled in through Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, as reported by the Lebanese Arabic Assafir. Turkey had also played a major role in pressuring Syria and had harbored and encouraged armed Syrian rebels called Free Syrian Army. In successive televised interviews the former Lebanese MP Nasser Kandil had exposed in details including names, dates, and places, the conspiracy of destroying Syria as a country not just a regime change. The Saudi Bandar Ben Sultan (dubbed Bandar Bush by the Bush family) was named as a major conspirator with the Americans against Syria. It was reported that He was arrested in Syria while under cover smuggling money and weapons to Syrian operatives. It was also exposed that the American Ambassador Robert Ford and French Ambassador Eric Chevallier (in Arabic) to Syria had smuggled sophisticated satellite communication and surveillance equipment to the Syrian rebels some of which were seized by Syrian police.

Media outlets had also been manipulated to pressure Syrian government and to inflame the demonstrators. After gaining credibility in reporting Tunisian, Egyptian, and Libyan revolutions Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia TV channels had almost totally ignored the 99% popular Bahraini peaceful demonstrations and concentrated on Syrian demonstrators, less than 40% of the population, in a biased unconfirmed and more hostile reporting against the Syrian government. Every Thursday one could notice heightened reports about civilian casualties and ruthless attacks of the Syrian army in an attempt to incite more people to join Friday demonstrators. Syrian news would top every news broadcast even though there might be more important news in the region. Al-Jazeera repeated broadcasting phone video clips of the same demonstrations from different angles, and of alleged civilian victims, some of these clips proved to be of old Iraqi troops abusing citizens. The victims were always reported as civilians while there was no mention of Syrian soldiers being killed. Unlike Tunisian, Egyptian, Libyan, and Yemeni army defectors shown on TV declaring support to the people, the media failed to show one Syrian army defector while they keep announcing wide defection. Al-Jazeera had established a special war room planning anti-Syrian propaganda as reported by some Al-Jazeera’s prime reporters and directors such as Ghassan Ben Jeddo and Luna Al-Shibl among many others (Arabnews in Arabic), who submitted their resignation in protest of such unprofessional politically biased reporting.

The US and France, particularly, had pushed for many harsh sanctions against Syria through the UN. Fortunately they could not obtain a military interference under the excuse of protecting Syrian citizens, as was done in Libya, because of the Russian and Chinese veto threat. So the Arab League, a Western tool, was pushed to play pressuring active role in Syria. It seems that many Arab leaders, especially Gulf leaders, who cynically call for democratic regime in Syria, have forgotten that they, themselves, employ family autocratic dictatorships in their own countries. Despite this fact the Syrian government had accepted the Arab League plan. The oppositional Syrian National Council rejected the plan and intensified its violence against the Syrian army inviting harsh retaliation. So the Arab League suspended Syria’s membership and threatened economic and political sanctions. Such are illegal actions contradicting the constitution of the Arab League that had never made a decision benefiting any Arab state, but legalized the many Western military interference in the Middle East such as in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, and Libya. We should mention here that the Arab League had refused to receive a petition from the slaughtered Bahraini people requesting protection. Thousands of people within different Arab states demonstrated against the decision of Arab League in front of Qatar’s and Saudi Arabia’s embassies.

It has become obvious that the Syrian oppositional groups are divided and have different aspirations some of them are conflicting and confusing. This division and confusion are due to the background of each oppositional group. The Western paid groups are armed seeking violent regime change and call for foreign interference the same as in Libya. The genuine oppositional groups reject any foreign interference fearing the same fate of Libya, and seek drastic reform through dialogue.

To obtain peace, real democracy and prosperity in the Arab World, ALL the present Arab leaders and regimes need to be abolished, starting east with the Gulf States all the way west to the Atlantic  Ocean through the northern Arab states of Africa. This would give a chance for an Arab Union to develop under one real democratic regime with one united economy. Such a strong Arab Union would rebalance global power and put an end to Western re-colonization schemes of the Middle East.

We should remember that permanent changes happen through the evolution of human consciousness not through violent destructive revolutions.

*********

Dr. Elias Akleh

Dr. Elias Akleh is an Arab writer from a Palestinian descent born in the town of Beit Jala. His family was first evicted from Haifa after the “Nakba” of 1948, then from Beit Jala after the “Nakseh” of 1967. He lives now in the US, and publishes his articles on the web in both English and Arabic.