SYRIA : Direct clash between Moscow and Washington. Who’s pulling the strings?

Following the American bombing of a humanitarian convoy in Syria (on the 20th September 2016) and five long hours of relentless bombardment of Syrian army positions by the US air-force, a violation of the cease-fire agreement signed on 9 September, Moscow is taking a harder line.

During a BBC interview, the Russian foreign affairs minister, Sergueï Lavrov, dropped diplomatic language and openly accused the US of protecting terrorists belonging to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (formerly the Al-Nusra Front) when he pointed out that “The Americans have never attacked a single position belonging to the Al-Nusra Front”. (1)

This was confirmed by a commanding officer of the Al-Nusra Front in an interview granted to the German newspaper Stadt-Anzeiger : “Yes, the US support the opposition (in Syria), but not directly. They support the countries which support us. But we are still not satisfied with this support”. (2) What’s more, he revealed that the terrorist group had won battles thanks to American TOW anti-tank missiles which were “directly given” to his troops and added that “thanks to these missiles, the situation in several (Syrian) regions is under control”. Regarding heavy artillery, he explained that “our tanks and rocket-launchers came from Libya via Turkey”.

In order to prevent any future error being made by the American air-force, and thereby protect the Syrian army and Russian ground units, Russia has deployed its defensive missile systems (S300 and S400). Washington’s reaction was swift. Pentagon spokesman, Peter Cook, warned the Russians: “It must be clear for the Russians and all those operating in Syria that we take very seriously the safety our pilots”. In response, the spokesman for the Russian ministry of defence, Igor Konachenkov, stated: “we reiterate that the S-300 is uniquely for defence purposes and threatens nobody”. (3)

It should be made clear that the Russians decided to deploy their defensive systems following news that Washington was considering carrying out air-strikes against the Syrian army. Igor Konachenkov added in a press statement that “We have to be aware of the fact that the Russian systems will not have time to identify the precise trajectory of the missiles and their origin. And those who claim that invisible airplanes exist are heading for a big disappointment” (4)

We have perhaps come to a point of no return in this stand-off between America and Russia. A direct confrontation between the two great military powers in Syria could cause a world war. But one question, which has never been asked, remains: who would benefit from this possible world war? In order to identify the guilty party and the ultimate beneficiary of this coming world war, it is necessary to go back to the origins of the Syrian conflict and those who created it.

ARCHITECTS OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE MIDDLE EAST

In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Israeli leaders and the Israeli lobby in America jumped into action to use these attacks as a justification for a series of war against their Arab neighbours, a war which the Americans were to wage on their behalf. In statement which Netanyahou had published in the Chicago Sun-Times on the 7 January, we see very clearly that 9/11 was nothing other than a pretext for the reconstruction of the Middle East: “Should America overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the Al-Qaida network would fall apart on its own accord. The United States must now act in the same way for the other regimes of terror – Iran, Iraq, the dictatorship of Yasser Arafat, Syria and several others” (5)

In 2002, the very powerful pro-Israeli lobby group, AIPIC, held their annual conference, the theme of which was “America and Israel against Terrorism”. Discussions focused on the common threats to Israel and the US: the old and tired Yasser Arafat (who, poisoned, would die two years later), the former CIA employee Ossama bin Laden, the Taliban (armed and supported by the CIA via the Pakistani special forces), Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. (6)

In April 2002, the American neoconservative think-tank PNAC (Project for the New American Century) published a letter addressed to president Bush. This letter was signed by several Jewish figures (William Kristol, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Eliot Cohen, Norman Podhoretz) and non-Jewish Zionists (William Bennet, R James Woosley) together with 28 other prominent neoconservatives figures: “Nobody should doubt that the United States and Israel have a common enemy. Our two countries are the target of what you have rightly called the ‘axis of evil’. As the secretary of state for defence, Donald Rumsfeld, pointed out, Iran, Iraq and Syria encourage a culture of political assassination and terrorist attacks against Israel, just as they have supported terrorist campaigns against the US. Mr President, you have declared war against international terrorism. Israel is fighting the same war”. (7)

Looking at the chronology of the statements, we can clearly see that the neoconservatives have in fact merely followed a plan which was drawn up well in advance by Israeli strategists, their American followers and by their agents of influence planted at the heart of the citadel of American power…

In the US, the promoters of this project to destroy Arab countries are the neoconservatives. But make no mistake: the roots of neoconservatism are essentially Jewish. (8)

It’s worth noting that the hard core of American neoconservatives is dominated by Jews, who occupy key posts in influential organisations, foundations and political institutions, such as:   Elliott Abrams, Keneth Adelman, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz. In journalism, we find David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Bret Stephens and Norman Podhoretz.

Among the Jewish neoconservative university professors, we find Eliot Cohen, Aaron Fridberg, Ruth Wedgwood and the highly influential Bernard Lewis, a pro-Israeli Jewish historian (father of the “theory” of the clash of civilisations, popularised by his assistant, Samuel Huntington).

Note that among the experts we have Max Boot, David Frum, Reuel Gerecht, Robert Kagan, Michael Ledeen (father of the “constructive chaos” doctrine), Joshua Maravchik, the ineffable Daniel Pipes, Danielle Pletka, Michael Rubin and Meyra Wurmser.

The Jewish neoconservative Max Boot stated very clearly that “support for Israel is one the key principles of neoconservatism”. (9) As renowned American professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt point out: “neoconservatism is a sub-set of the pro-Israeli movement. Jewish Americans are at the heart of the neoconservative movement, in the same way that they form the majority of the (pro-Israeli) lobby”. (10)

Résultat de recherche d'images pour

BACK TO THE ORIGINS OF THE SYRIAN WAR

American strategic aims in Syria are based on the Israeli plan written in 1982 by Oded Yinon (11), who was an official at the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs.  This primarily targeted Iraq and made a plan to disintegrate the country before subjecting it to the same treatment as Syria. The Israelis, via the intermediary of the United States, have indeed followed the Oded Yinon plan to the letter. As soon as Baghdad fell, the Israeli leaders began to prepare for the future war against Syria, making accusations of a Syrian chemical weapons programme.

In April 2003, when Baghdad had just fallen, the Israelis started to push the United States to attack the Syrian regime. (12)

In an interview granted to the newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth on the 15 April 2003, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, stated that Bashar Al-Assad was “a dangerous man, incapable of sound judgement”. The Israelis had already said the same thing about Saddam Hussein who, according to them, had hidden “weapons of mass destruction” in Syria in collusion with Damascus just before the outbreak of the conflict. Is there really any need to explain why such an accusation is ludicrous?

Sharon called for the United States to put “great pressure” on Syria to force it to stop supporting Hamas and Islamic Jihad. He also demanded that Lebanon: drive out the Iranian Revolutionary Guards from the Beqaa Valley; stop all cooperation with Iran; force Hezbollah to withdraw from its positions on the border with Israel; replace Hezbollah with the Lebanese army; and remove its short-range missiles targeting Israel. (13)

In other words, Sharon demanded that all barriers to Israeli expansion in the region be removed; he wanted the Levant served on a plate. Even an Israeli diplomat criticised Sharon’s excessive demands, inviting him to be more discreet regarding the relations between Damascus and Washington. (14)

Sharon was not an isolated case among the Israeli leaders. The minister of defence, Shaul Mofaz, declared on 14 April 2003 that: “We have a long list of demands regarding the Syrians, and it seems appropriate that they be communicated via the Americans” (15). Like Sharon, the minister of defence demanded that Syria break all links with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and that Hezbollah be disbanded.(16)

Two weeks later, Sharon’s national security adviser, Ephraïm Halevy, came to Washington to push American leaders to take decisive action against Syria. He deployed the well-known Israeli argument; according to him, Syria had weapons of mass destruction and they were in the hands of Bashar al-Assad, who was described as being “irresponsible” and “arrogant”. (17)

For its part, Syria – whether it be under Hafez (1930-2000) or under Bashar al-Assad, throughout the 90s and from the year 2000 onwards – has sought peace with both the Israelis and the Americans. But the Israelis – who, as usual accepted to enter negotiations in order to better deceive – systematically derailed negotiations or simply did not comply with the agreements made. For instance, in December 2003, Assad proposed a peace deal and Haaretz’s military correspondent, Ze’ev Schiff, made the following comment: “The most surprising thing about the Syrian president’s proposal to resume peace talks with Israel is the Israeli leaders response…Prime minister Ariel Sharon has remained silent. Not a single word has passed his lips… We in the press have always held up hopes that such an offer would be made” (18)

This policy of mistrust towards Syria, promoted by the Israelis in the United States, did not please the American administration. The CIA and the State Department, in particular, stressed that the policy of confronting Syria was a strategic error. But Israel and the pro-Israel lobby convinced the American government to follow them down this road. (19) They used the same argument that they had previously used for Iraq, namely that Syria was not only a severe threat to Israel but also to the United States (20). It could well be asked in what sense Syria could possibly be a threat to the United States? No lie is too big for the Israeli leaders. By destabilising the region and beyond, these falsehoods have serious consequences.

Following the fall of the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Israelis declared that Syria was, at the very least, just as dangerous as Iraq. The Israeli strategists, Yossi Alpher, giving the Israeli point of view on Syria, explained that “Syria had a great ability to do harm, much more so than Iraq”. In April 2003, the Washington Post reported that Sharon and Mofaz strove to fuel the anti-Assad campaign by swamping the United States with secret reports on the misdeeds of president Bashar al-Assad (21) and the concealment of his Iraqi weapons.(22)  Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States began their anti-Syrian campaign as early as 1996. (23) The current situation is merely the direct consequence of this.

For those who believe that attempts to overthrow the Syrian government began in 2011 following the supposed “massacres” of Syrian civilians by Assad, here’s something that will make them think again. In April 2003 (eight years before the Arab Spring), Paul Wolfowitz, a Jewish neoconservative, declared that “regime change in Syria is essential”. Speaking to a journalist, Richard Perle, also a Jewish neoconservative, said that “we will be able send a short message, five words long, to other hostile regimes in the Middle East: now it is your turn”. (24)

In the light of these facts, and given Israel’s constant aggression towards Syria together with its open support of terrorists, it is obvious that the potential war between the United States and Russia will ultimately be to the exclusive benefit of Israel. Its goal is to have its insane project completed by the United States, which is supposed to destroy the Syrian army and drive Russia out of the region, in order to finally clear the way for Greater Israel, which will stretch to the Euphrates. In other words, Greater Israel will be built on the corpse of the Syrian nation.

When the great global catastrophe happens, we shouldn’t forget who the true culprits are.


Article Translated from French

The original author was Jean Terrien

Source: Rivarol, n°3253, 13/10/2016

http://www.rivarol.com/Rivarol.html


REFERENCES

  1. Lavrov : Les Etats-Unis protègent un groupe jihadiste en Syrie : <http://aa.com.tr/fr/monde/lavrov-les-etats-unis-prot%C3%A8gent-un-groupe-jihadiste-en-syrie-/655943>.
  2. Russia Today, 27/09/2016.
  3. 20 minutes, Syrie : L’armée russe déploie des systèmes de défense antiaérienne S-300, 05/10/2016.
  4. Sputnik News, Moscou annonce ses intentions d’abattre tout missile menaçant en Syrie, 06/10/2016.
  5. Benjamin Netanyahou, Three Pinciple Keys to Defeat Terrorism, Chicago Sun-Times, 7 January 2002.
  6. Dana Hearn, AIPAC Policy Conference, 21-22 April 2002, Journal of Palestine Studies 31, n° 4, summer, 2002, pp. 66-79.
  7. Letter to President Bush on Israel, Arafat, and the World on Terrorism, Project for the New American Century, 3 avril 2002, www.newamericancentury.Org/bushletter-040302.htm
  8. Murray Friedman explains that neoconservatism is a Jewish invention in: The Neoconservative Revolution : Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy. See also the article written by Gal Beckerman in The Forward, The Neoconservative Persuasion, 6 janvier 2006.
  9. Max Boot, What the Heck is a Neocon ?, Wall Street Journal, 30 December 2002.
  10. Walt and Mearsheimer, La politique étrangère américaine et le lobby pro-israélien, 2007, La Découverte.
  11. Oded Yinon’s A strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties, 1982. New French translation, Le Plan sioniste pour le Moyen-Orient, Sigest, Paris, 2015.
  12. Seymour Hersh, The Syrian Bet, art. cit. ; Molly Moore, Sharon Asks U.S. Pressure Syria on Militant, Washington Post, 17 avril 2003 ; Ori Nir, Jerusalem Urges Bush ; Next Hezbollah, Forward, 11 avril 2003 ; Ori Nir, Sharon Aide Makes the Case for U.S. Action against Syria, Forward, 18 avril 2003 ; Marc Perelman, Behind Warnings to Damascus : Reassessment of Younger Assad, Forward, 18 avril 2003 ; Daniel Sobelman and Nathan Guttman, PM Urges U.S. to keep on Syria, Calls Assad “dangerous”, Haaretz, 15 avril 2003.
  13. Daniel Sobelman and Nathan Guttman, PM Urges U.S. to Keep Heat on Syria. See also Molly Moore, Sharon Asks U.S., article quoted in Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 299.
  14. Herb Keinon, Sharon Criticized for Public Declaration on Syria-U.S. Tension, Jerusalem Post, 16 avril 2003.
  15. Ori Nir, Sharon Aide Makes the Case. See also DeYoung, U.S. Toughens Warning, quoted in Molly Moore, Sharon Asks U.S.
  16. Walt et Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 299.
  17. Forward, quoted par Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 299.
  18. Ze’ev Schiff, The Peace Threat from Damascus, Haaretz, 8 december 2003. See the details of Syrian peace offers in Walt et Mearsheimer, op. cit., chap. 9.
  19. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 298.
  20. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 298.
  21. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 300.
  22. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 300. See note 51, p. 475.
  23. Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 300.
  24. Wolfowitz quoted in Nathan Guttman, Some Senior U.S. Figures Say Syria Has Crossed the Red Line, Haaretz, 14 avril 2004 ; Perle quoted in Michael Flynn, The War Hawks : The Right Flexes Muscle with New U.S. Agenda, Chicago Tribune, 13 avril 2003.

Obama rescues ISIS

The US president will soon take his leave but, before joining the 100 000 dollar a speech conference circuit, he will have committed another heinous crime in Syria. On the 17th September, his air-force killed some 80 soldiers belonging to the Syrian army in Deir Ezzor. Far from being accidental, this attack was carried out at the very moment when the Syrian national army was being attacked by ISIS.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour

The Pentagon declared that it was an error. But who can believe such a lie? Besides, this official version was modified by the American UN ambassador. She admitted to the Security Council that the US was behind this attack, but she minimised its importance by comparing this “unintentional” error with the “deliberate attacks” carried out by Damascus against civilians. What a bizarre explanation!

The theory of an accident doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You just have to look at the facts to realise this.

First of all, we have the modus operandi of the attack. According to witnesses, the attack lasted 45 minutes, and successive bombardments were carried out by several fighter jets.  Therefore it cannot be the act of a stray pilot who had misunderstood orders.

Secondly, consider the location of the attack. The position targeted was Jebel Tudar, 4km to the south of the town’s airport. This is a strategic high-point for the defence of the entire zone, where 100 000 civilians are surrounded by ISIS. It’s a fixed position, which has been visibly occupied by the Syrian army for months.

Thirdly, there is the triumphant press release made by ISIS. Indeed, the ISIS propaganda agency “Amaq” confirmed that the jihadist group had taken control of the hill where the supposed “anti-terrorist” coalition had carried out the attack. This superb coordination between the US and their unofficial mercenaries is worth highlighting.

Finally, it is highly unlikely that the US air-force would support the Syrian army. If it were a blunder, this would be the only possible explanation, but it is absurd. NATO forces have never lent air support to the Syrian army. Why would they? This is the question that the Russian ambassador recently asked at the UN. The answer is obvious: the aim was not to help the Syrian army but to help ISIS.

Indeed, attacking the Syrian army for ISIS allows the US to achieve three objectives. By relieving the Aleppo front, this new front in the far east of the country crushes the dream of of recapturing national territory. It weakens the Syrian state. But it also sends a clear message to the Takfiri extremists, who were in a bad position ever since the neighbourhoods in the south of Alep were recaptured. Furthermore, it strengthens Washington’s regional allies in the implementation of the deadly “constructive chaos” policy, at a time when the end of Obama’s term in office could lead to fears of a softening in the Washington line.

We knew that American cynicism was limitless. But they have just a made a quantum leap. This is the first time that the US has directly attacked the Syrian army. This new infringement is a test case, and it cannot be too long before the Moscow-Damascus axis retaliates. This support for the terrorist group shows that the neo-cons do not intend to let go of the Middle East. The fact that this attack coincides with the American donation of 38 billion dollars of military aid to Israel is revealing. Contrary to what one sometimes reads, Washington is not withdrawing from the region. It will continue to spread chaos in the region by arming all sorts of assassins.


Article Translated from French

The original author was Bruno Guigue, a political analyst and author, whose works include Les raisons de l’esclavage (L’Harmattan, 2001) et Aux origines du conflit israélo-arabe, l’invisible remords de l’Occident, (L’Harmattan, 2002).

Source : Agoravox

http://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/obama-au-secours-de-daech-184756


See also: Are we honestly fighting against ISIS? https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/are-we-honestly-fighting-against-the-islamic-state-isil/

Iran is still the Target of Western Secret Services and their Allies

On the 14 July 2015, Iran and the P5+1 group (US, France, UK, Russia, China and Germany) signed the Vienna nuclear agreement, lifting the Iranian sanctions – on paper at least.

Following this, not only have the Americans been reluctant to implement the agreement, but they are again attempting to overthrow the Islamic regime with the help of their Western and regional allies – Israel and Saudi Arabia – still with the idea of dividing the country into regions.

A few months ago, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, spiritual guide of the Iranian Revolution, met the parents of Revolutionary Guard troops who had been killed in Syria and Iraq. He declared that their children had given their lives to prevent the destruction of Shia Muslim holy sites, that they had protected the populations of these countries and that they had fought to ensure that Iran will not have to fight the same enemy tomorrow  “in Kermansha, Hamadan and in other provinces.

Un commando des forces terrestres du Corps des Gardiens de la Révolution islamique (CGRI)

Ground Troops from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) 

ISIL is, of course, one the main enemies threatening Iranian internal security. But there also local armed groups (jihadist and/or separatist) which operate mainly in the border regions.

Djihadist and Separatist Threats

In recent weeks, there have been violent clashes between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and terrorist groups in Kurdistan, Sistan and Baluchestan, West Azerbaijan and Khuzestan:

  • Following Masoud Barazini’s decision in March to revive the Kurdish separatist movement, which has lain dormant in Iran since 1996, the Peshmerga from the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), led by Mustafa Hijri, have been attempting to get a foothold in the mountainous regions and the towns close to the Iraqi border. The hostilities have now reached the stage where Mohammad Pakpour (Brigadier-General and Commander of the IRGC) is threatening to intervene in Iraqi Kurdistan if the Kurdish fighters are not given the order to withdraw. Given that Barzani has not embarked upon this mission without CIA and Mossad backing, the situation can only get worse. Especially since, according to Stratfor, Mustafa Hijri now wants bring all Iranian separatist movements together in a Congress of Nationalities for a Federal Iran (CNFI).
  • On 20 June, Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani (Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran) revealed that Iranian intelligence had thwarted “one of the biggest terrorist plots” hatched by djihadists “who planned to carry out suicide attacks in Teheran”.  This is the first time this have ever happened !
  • On the 22 June, six members of the GAMO (The National Army of South Azerbaijan) were arrested in Iranian Azerbaijan for possessing “sensitive documents and information intended for a foreign power.”
  • On the 23 June, several groups of saboteurs were arrested in the oil producing province of Khuzestan. The insurgent group Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz (ASMLA) demands the independence of this region.
  • On the 10 July, an armed group from the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK) – linked to the Turkish PKK – had wounded an Iranian MP and a commissioner and killed their driver in an ambush in the Kermanshah province.
  • On the 21 July, 40 people, preparing to attack “important military and defence targets in Khash” were arrested in the province of Sistan and Baluchestan. They were members of Jaish ul-Adl (Army of Justice), a Sunni insurgent group based in the Sistan-Baluchestan province, which had taken over from Jundallah (Soldiers of God), largely disbanded following the arrest and execution of its leader Abdolmalek Rigi on 20 June 2010. According to several Western newspapers, the Jundallah was, in particular, financed by Mossad whose agents posed as members of the CIA so as not to embarrass its Islamist partners!

The “late” Massoud Rajavi

On the 9th July, during the annual meeting of The People’s Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI – a group opposed to the Iranian government linked to American and Israeli neo-conservatives), the Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal (former head of the secret services and former ambassador to Washington) caused much consternation when he pointedly implied that Massoud Rajavi, founder of the PMOI, was dead.

We can imagine the embarrassment of his energetic wife, Myriam, who took over the leadership of the group ever since his mysterious and unexplained disappearance.

Myriam Radjavi is expected to deny that Massoud Rajavi is dead and prove that he is alive or confirm that he is dead and, in this case, explain the circumstances of his death and why she had not reported it. Would there perhaps be a few foul deeds to conceal? The legitimacy of her leadership hinges on this matter.

That said, everybody understood that the PMOI is officially supported by Saudi Arabia which, until now, was an open secret.

Towards a remake of the Iran-Iraq war ?

The current resurgence in subversive activities in Iran is redolent of 2007, when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney planned to overthrow the Iranian regime by means of ethnically and religiously motivated assassinations followed by a bombing campaign. The scheme was postponed without any consideration for the armed separatist groups who had believed that the US would go ahead with their plan … and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was triumphantly re-elected two years later.

Do these attacks against Iran foreshadow the outbreak of a new Arabic-Persian conflict? Was the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT) set up with this in mind ?

These questions are being asked by those who listened to the speech made in January by Prince Turki al-Faisal at the Académie Diplomatique Internationale. They were surprised to hear him paying homage to the orthodox Christian, Michel Aflaq, “great thinker of Pan-Arabism”, neglecting to point out – no doubt deliberately – that he was said to have “secretly” converted to Sunni Islam prior to his death.

1 August 2016


Translated from French

The original author was Gilles Munier

Source: France-Irak Actualité

http://www.france-irak-actualite.com/2016/08/iran-est-toujours-la-cible-des-services-secrets-occidentaux-et-de-leurs-allies.html

Terrorism – A Geopolitical Perspective

Who will tell you about the origins of the different forms of terrorism ? Who will explain the geopolitical role of this destructive logic in the confrontation between the two opposing blocks in the world? So far, sociologists and other experts have not been able to usefully categorise the different types of terrorism, according to their geostrategic role, and place them in a historical perspective.


The Clash of Civilisations – A Messianic Strategy 

Some people know, superficially at any rate, Samuel Huntington’s pseudo theory which has been greatly promoted by the media. The “clash of civilisations” divides the world according to religion and civilisation and presents the diversity of cultures as the root cause of geopolitical conflict. It therefore implies that only cultural and political unification will eliminate all conflict.  This is in line with Francis Fukayama’s idea of the end of history, which is constantly proven wrong by reality

.

Few know that this so-called theory was taken from Bernard Lewis who, in 1957, developed his clash of civilisations concept. According to this, the Christian world and the Muslim world are, by their very nature, destined to confront each other until the end of “history” or rather until both of these civilisations destroy each other in an eschatological war which will be to the benefit of a third party

My latest historical research (1), which identifies the origins of Zionism and this clash of civilisations strategy, shows that what Lewis had put forward as theoretical conflict between the most important religions in the world is in fact a messianic strategy, which was developed during the Middle Ages as part of the project to re-establish the Kingdom of Israel. This project gave birth to political Zionism in its atheist form at the end of the 19th century.

Bernard Lewis – who holds Israeli, Britsh and Amerian passports – is not just an historian. He also a strategist who has worked at the heart of both the British and American state, and has done so ultimately for the benefit of Israel. He is, moreover, one of those influential stateless people who are members of, or allies to, the powerful American pro-Israel lobby, which pushed the American administration to destroy Iraq (2) to the benefit of Israeli expansionism. Lewis will go down in history as having given a scientific facade, a theoretical disguise, to this messianic strategy. History will recognise that Huntington brought this strategy to the masses in order to justify global chaos, which is not a natural state of affairs, but is encouraged by powerful forces (3).

Terrorism has not always been international. Nor has it always had that shade which certain ideologues close to Zionist and neo-conservative circles describe as “green-fascism”+. Neither has terrorism always benefited from Hollywood-style media promotion on a global scale.

What we describe as being terrorism, sometimes wrongly, can take a large number of forms and have many definitions.

We can draw a parellel between the terror linked to the expansion of the Cromwell regime in the 17th century with that of Wahhabism in the Arab peninsula in the 18th century. We can also make a comparison with the French revolution of 1789, which preceded the social-anarcho revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries.

These revolutions, which were accompanied by territorial conquest, all had one point in common : mass extermination as a means of achieving ideological domination. The goal was to construct modern institutions on the ruins of the traditional society.

The socialist ideology behind these historical catastrophes also gave birth to the Haganah, created in the early 1920s, which in turn led to the creation of the Irgun. These Jewish homeland (Yishuv) terrorist organisations, which formed the basis of what was to become the IDF, were created to support and expand the Jewish settlements in Palestine.

Wahhabi Terrorism, Zionist Terrorism and False Flag Attacks

It is necessary to distinguish two types of terrorism, the analysis of which will allow us to see geopolitics from a different perspective:

  • Wahhabi terrorism, directed by America, whose aim is territorial conquest and the disintegration of nations.
  • Zionist terrorism which aims to divide and provoke.

Although the British created a Jewish homeland for the Zionists at the end of the First World War, the Irgun led a violent campaign against the British in order to drive them out of Palestine (4).

This culminated with the bombing of the British administrative headquarters in the Hotel King David on the 22 July 1946. An important detail : the Irgun terrorists dressed as Arabs for the occasion so that the Palestinians would be blamed for the attackThis is an excellent example of a “false flag” attack.

The Israelis carried out several disguised attacks of this sort in order to drag their allies into armed conflicts:

  • In 1954, Israeli agents attempted to blow up several American buildings in Egypt in order to turn the Americans against the Egyptians.
  • In 1967, the Americans avoided intervening in the Six-Day War as the Soviet Union was an ally to Syria and Egypt. The Israelis attempted to draw the Americans into the war by attacking their reconnaissance ship, the USS Liberty. The Israelis attempted to pass this off as an attack by the Egyptians, in the same way as they had done in 1954.

The same pattern can be found with the 9/11 attacks which led the United States into a permanent war with one part of the Muslim world, in accordance with the clash of civilisations strategy and the Israeli project to redraw the boundaries of the Muslim world (5). The World Trade Centre attacks were viewed with suspicion by various analysts, scientists and politicians.

Certain facts lead me to believe that we are dealing with the same strategy as that deployed in 1946, 1954 and 1967.

Among the stack of evidence highlighting the implication, albeit indirect, of the Israeli secret services in these spectacular attacks we find the fact that five Israelis were arrested by the New York police. They were caught rejoicing while taking photos of each other in front of the burning towers.  The police had discovered documents in their possession which proved that they knew the exact time and location of the attacks. It turned out that they were Mossad agents. Their names: Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari.

Some thirty other Israeli agents, who went undercover as art students in America, lived close to 15 of the supposed hijackers (6).

An article in the New York Times, published on the 18 February 2009, revealed that Ali al-Jarrah, who was a cousin of Ziad al-Jarrah, the hijacker of flight UA93, had been a Mossad spy for 25 years and had infiltrated the Palestinian resistance movement in 1983.

Moreover, the US Army School for Advance Military Studies published a report, quoted in a Washington Times article *, which stated that Mossad “has the capability to target US forces and make it look like an Arab/Palestinian act”.

What’s more, journalists working for Le Monde revealed on February 2015 that a Mossad agent in Panama, Shimon Yalin Yelinik, had confessed to having funded the 9/11 terrorists.

Benjamin Netanyahou, the current Israeli Prime Minister, gladly admitted that the terrorist attacks benefitted Israel. The Israeli newspaper Maariv quoted Netanyahou, who declared the 9/11 attacks had been “good for Israel” and added: “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq. These events have swung American public opinion in our favour”

When interviewed by a French journalist for I-Télé on the 7 August 2014, Netanyahou implied, somewhat menacingly, that terrorists would attack France if it did not support Israel in its policy with regard to the Palestinians.

We do not have solid proof to hand of Mossad involvement in the terrorist attacks against France, carried out in 2012 and 2015. Nevertheless, Georges Malbrunot, journalist for Le Figaro, stated in a Tweet 17 days after the November attacks that: “A military official confides that the DGSI (the French secret service) refused Israeli assistance in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks” and adds that “Mossad took advantage of the honeymoon between Sarkozy and Israel to reinforce its presence in France”. He concludes with the DGSI’s own words: “Mossad already has an active presence on French soil and we must not reinforce it”

This confirms the statement of the former French minister for foreign affairs, Roland Dumas. In his book, Coups et Blessures, he delared that: “The Israelis do what they like in France and manipulate the French intelligence service, the DST, in any way which suits them … The Jewish lobby, as Mitterrand used to call it, was extremely active”.

This Zionist form of terrorism combines perfectly with the nihilistic Wahhabi form of terrorism, a product of two ideologies which appear foreign to one another. From an historical and geopolitical point of view, they merge within the framework of the clash of civilisations strategy.

What is extraordinary is the fact that Wahhabism and Zionism, as incarned by a nation state, appeared at the same time and were both backed by the British armed forces.

The British, who supported at arms’ length the accomplishment of the Zionist project in the aftermath of the First World War, also encouraged Saudi-Wahhabi expansionism in the Arab peninsula in the early 1920s.

In 1945, the Americans took over from the British in their support for Saudi Arabia, in the same way as they did for the state of Israel, and contributed to the spread of the Wahhabi doctrine across the world (7).

Wahabbi terrorism was, right from the very start, a geostrategic weapon used by the British and Americans against their enemies. As mentioned previously, this form of terrorism is used by the Anglo-Saxons as a corrosive to fragment target nations.

Indeed, in the late 1970s, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was at the time National Security Advisor to President Carter, masterminded the coordination of the CIA with the Pakistani and Saudi intelligence services in order to finance future terrorists, including Bin Laden, in order to draw the Soviet Union into Afghanistan.

In the late 1990s, this strategy was again deployed in Chechnya in order to trigger the collapse of the Russian Federation. It was then used in Iraq (in 2003) and again in Libya, in Syria and in Yemen. And, perhaps, it will again be used in Algeria.

This fact was finally admitted by the New York Times on the 23 January 2016: “US relies heavily on Saudi money to support Syrian Rebels” **

Geopolitical Conclusion – America versus Russia in the Struggle to Control Eurasia

Let’s put this into a geostrategic perspective. The key issue in the geopolitics of opposing continental blocks is the control of Eurasia, the centre of which is the Middle East.

The Atlanticist policy, whose strategy for the year 2000 onwards was developed by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997, consists of penetrating deeply into Eurasia by making Europe one of the vital pillars of an American-sponsored Eurasian structure of security and cooperation (8).

This strategy aims to destroy, or at least weaken, Russia by pushing for Ukrainian independence. This would change the very geostrategic nature of Russia: “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire (9)”.

Russia is the main target. It is having to cope with a double strategy, as explained in article published in 2015 (10). First, there is the Brzezinski strategy, which serves American imperial interests. Secondly, there is the more covert Zionist strategy, epitomised by Henry Kissinger. This consists of disconnecting Russia from its allies in the Middle East, in particular Iran and Syria.

So far, Putin’s Russia has withstood the Kissinger strategy. On 11 May 2014, Kissinger declared that “we should not isolate Russia and it’s in everybody’s interests that it be maintained in the international system.” As far back as 2008, he reached out to Russia, claiming that the United States should seek agreement with Russia, while describing Iran as being a danger for the region, in accordance with the Israeli geopolitical doctrine. This sent a clear message to the Russians : you will remain in the international system provided that you abandon your Middle Eastern allies in favour of Israel. But this geopolitical deal is a trap, the ultimate goal being to weaken Russia.

The conclusion is obvious: the stabilisation and the continued existence of the Middle East, the Maghreb and Europe depend on the formation of a mutually beneficial strategic axis, stretching from Brest to Vladivostock, running through Rabat and Alger. This would lead to Brezinski’s worst nightmare: the loosening of transatlantic ties which would bring an end to America’s primacy in Eurasia.

+Islamic extremism. Green is the colour of the cloth used to cover coffins in Islamic funerals.
*See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/sep/10/20010910-025319-6906r/
**See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0

Translated from French

The original author was Youssef Hindi

Source: Arret Sur Info


References:

(1) Youssef Hindi, Occident et islam – Sources et genèse messianiques du sionisme, éd. Sigest, 2015.

(2) Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, 2008

 (3) Youssef Hindi op. cit.

(4) Henry Laurens, L’Orient arabe, Arabisme et islamisme de 1798 à 1945, éd. Armand Colin, 1993, p. 353.

(5) Oded Yinon’s “A strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”, Published by the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc., Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982, Special Document N° 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8).

(6) Youssef Hindi, op. cit.

(7) Hamadi Redissi, Le pacte de Nadjd, ou comment l’islam sectaire est devenu l’islam, 2007, éd. Seuil.

(8) Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997.

(9) Zbigniew Brzezinski, op. cit.

(10) Youssef Hindi, La Russie, l’Europe et l’Orient, Revue Europe & Orient, N° 21, 2015.

Could Algeria be the Next Target?

It really is bad news. Bernard-Henri Lévy (BHL), the sinister theorist of the “Arab Spring” who has destroyed Libya, Syria and Yemen, now intends to apply his horrific model to Algeria.

How exactly? By using the Movement for the Autonomy of Kabylie (MAK). Its call for a demonstration in Paris has just been relayed by BHL.

 

The latest edition of his magazine “La Règle du Jeu” includes a long article on the celebration of the Berber Spring but not in a way that commemorates this event. BHL is a war-monger, so he is genetically incapable of promoting peace. His destructive instinct naturally leads him to support movements and sects whose aim is to provoke insurrection in their countries.

And this is precisely what he is attempting to do in Algeria via the MAK by publishing in his magazine an announcement made by their “provisional government” calling for a demonstration in Paris.

BHL has written an article, entitled “The Kabyles : An Unrecognised Population in Algeria”, in which he calls for people to support the demonstration in favour of “the autonomy of Kabylie”. He writes “the Kabyles are campaigning for the recognition of their rights in Algeria and for a secular society” and stresses that “some Kabyle friends have asked us to publish the call by the provisional government of Kabylie for a demonstration in Paris this Sunday, 17 April. We are all the more happy to do this because the aims of the demonstration, as specified in a short document sent to us, appear legitimate to us”

Such concern for humanity ! There are grounds for being wary of this dangerous liaison between the MAK and BHL because he has powerful contacts in the French government and elsewhere. Ferhat Mehenni’s MAK is “a good client” which will allow him to get closer to Algeria, a country which he still hopes to see join the ranks of those countries brought to heel in the same way as Libya.

BHL’s support for MAK is definitely bad news for both Kabylie and Algeria. He is not motivated by the ideals of Ferhat Mehenni’s group. He is motivated by Zionist ideology and by racism against Muslims in general. A quick look at the editorial board of his magazine will soon convince anybody of the sinister aims of “the man in the white shirt”… stained with blood.

On his editorial board, we find all the Zionists in the French media such as Armin Arefi, Hélène Brenkman, Eric Dahan, David Gakunzi, Raphaël Haddad, Patrick Klugman, Patrick Mimouni, and Yann Moix, to name but a few. BHL, who was invited as a VIP to Algeria during the 90s to support the government in its fight against terrorism, now comes to support a separatist movement which is opposed to the Algerian government…

By totally disregarding his contradictions, this warlord can cry crocodile tears for “the Kabyles, a people without a nation, just like the Kurds, who oppose what they call Algerian colonialism.”

In his magazine, he publishes MAK’s notice calling “French Kabyles and all Kabyles” to march and demonstrate in homage “to the Kabyle civilians killed during the Berber Spring of 1980″ and “the 128 Kabyles killed during the Black Spring in 2001”.

This testifies to his obsessive desire to provoke civil unrest in Algeria. But not just in Kabylie. BHL also has compassion for the “Mozabite political prisoners who have been locked in Algerian jails for nine months and whose fate has been met with total indifference the world over”.  While examining BHL’s support for MAK, one cannot help but conclude that vigilance is more than ever necessary in order to defeat his determined attempts to destabilize the country.


Translated from French

The original author was Rafik Benasseur

Source: Algérie 1.com

http://www.algerie1.com/zoom/bhl-mak-liaison-dangereuse/

Assad – Portrayed as Tyrant to Serve Western Interests

Interview with Fahad Al Masry, member of the Syrian opposition and coordinator of the Syrian National Salvation Front

Fahad al-Masri

 

The US and Russia have intensified their military efforts in Syria with the help of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG). Do you think an end to the crisis is now near?

You must remember that during the ISSG meeting, held last May in Paris, there were many disagreements, caused by the difference in Russian and American policies. This also led to the creation of two different groups: one supported the US and Russia, while the other supported Europe, led by Germany and France (and also included Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar). They created a European, Arab and Muslim coalition; the dozen or so Arab and European countries which formed the Group of Friends of the Syrian People continues to declare its support for the opposition.

This situation is due to Obama’s disastrous Middle East policy which left Russia free to intervene in the conflict, while sidelining Turkey and the Gulf countries. This split within the support group can be clearly seen because, during the Paris meeting, there was tension between the Europeans (France and Germany) and the other countries.

There are a number of unresolved issues, even if all parties claim that the target date for political transition is a real goal. The Vienna talks aimed to strengthen relations between the partner countries and to rebuild alliances which had became too narrowly focused during the Paris meeting.  Russia, an ally of Bashar al-Assad, reported in early May on active negotiations aimed at bringing an end to the conflict in Aleppo.

Moscow, however, had warned that it did not intend to put pressure on Damascas to stop carrying out air strikes on the city, even though that’s what had Washington’s demanded. All these alliances and disagreements make the Syrian issue very complicated. An alliance, or several alliances even, within the same support group does not necessarily help attempts to find a resolution to the crisis. The post-Geneva period is only just beginning, and the hope is that we do not go down the road of a Geneva V, Geneva VI…etc

The United States does not see a future for Bashar al-Assad in Syria, it is one of their priorities: remove him from power. What’s your opinion on this matter?

As Lakhdar Brahimi once put it, Bashar al-Assad is finished. This declaration can be justified given that Bashar al-Assad had supported the Iranian and Russian attacks on civilians demanding freedom and respect.

History will remember that Obama was the worst American president ever because his policy pushed Syria and the entire region into endless conflict. From the beginning, Washington severly criticised Assad’s policy. But while Assad was free to transgress all limits, the US did nothing but interfere in our internal affairs rather than finding a solution to both the conflict and Bashar al-Assad.

The image of Bashar as a tyrant merely served the interests of certain world powers who aim to destroy our country and destabilise the entire region to serve interests beyond our own. Syria is not the only target. This strategy of destruction targets other countries, too, in particular the countries in Northern Africa, such as Algeria.

Do you think that recapturing Rakka from ISIL could have an impact on other towns in the country?

The liberation of Rakka is important and, without a doubt, constitutes a defeat for ISIL. The international media distracted us with “the destruction of archaeological sites” in order to conceal an international illegal trade in archaeological treasures, supported by both the Syrian and Iranian government.  By destroying a country’s memory, you destroy its future. The other problem in Rakka is that the US had brought Kurdish militia forces into Syria to help liberate the city. We can now expect a civilian massacre.

Translated from French

The original author was Faten Hayed

Source: France-Irak Actualité

http://www.france-irak-actualite.com/2016/05/interview-de-fahad-al-masri-opposant-syrien-et-coordinateur-du-groupe-salut-national-en-syrie.html

 

SYRIA – Towards an Islamic Emirate in Idlib Province?

Ayman al-Zawahiri, the chief of Al-Qaida, had previously opposed the creation of a Syrian Islamic emirate in the areas controlled by the Al-Nusra Front and its allies. Today he supports the idea, believing that the conditions on the ground would allow this.

Syrie : Vers un émirat islamique dans la province d’Idlib?

With this in mind, he is reported to have sent a delegation of leaders from his group to the Idlib province in order to assess the feasibility of the project. Among the delegation was Saif al-Adel, a former colonel of both the Egyptian Special Forces and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. He was accused by the American government of having participated in the 1988 US embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) and in Nairobi (Kenya).

Imprisoned in Iran, Saif al-Adel was apparently released in 2015, along with four other Al-Qaida members, within the framework of an exchange of prisoners with AQAP (Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula) and the Taliban.

An Arab Spring which is on the right track…

In a message broadcasted last May, Ayman al-Zawahiri declared: “Syria today represents hope for the faithful….the only Arab Spring revolution which is on the right track”. He also declared that jihadi fighters should unite “to defeat the war machine of the eastern and western crusades” and that this is “a matter of life or death for them”. He added that the West “aims to create a regime in Syria which will appear to be Islamic but which will be based on a corrupted version of Islam”. And he described the members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), an organisation which he considers to be illegitimate, as “extremists” and “renegades”

The entire world has risen up against Muslims

The initiative taken by Ayman al-Zawahiri is backed by Hamza ben Laden – the 23 year-old son of Osama – who also urged all jihadi fighters to unify their ranks, stating that “there are no longer any excuses for those who still want to argue and divide, now that entire world has risen up against Muslims…”

Hamza ben Laden reminded jihadi fighters that the purpose of their combat is the “liberation of Al-Qods” and that “the path to the liberation of Palestine is today shorter thanks to the revolution in Syria”.

The Al-Nusra Front, led by Abou Muhammad al-Joulani, has not yet come to a decision because its allies within the Jaish al-Fatah (The Army of Conquest, which comprises several Islamic groups) fear that news of the creation of an Islamic state in the Idlib province will lead to division in its ranks.

Translated from French

The original author was Gilles Munier

Source: France-Irak Actualité

http://www.france-irak-actualite.com/2016/05/syrie-vers-un-emirat-islamique-dans-la-province-d-idlib.html