SYRIA: THE MIDDLE EAST'S TIPPING POINT

10 February 2012, Alternative Information Center (AIC) http://www.alternativenews.org (Israel)

The struggle for Syria isn't just about Syria--it's the struggle for a free, democratic Middle East versus one that lives under the yoke of American and Israeli hegemony.

The conflict in Syria has reached its tipping point. At this level, it is no longer acceptable or reasonable to continue playing in a gray area in the name of diplomacy, as the struggle on Syria has a crucial significance from various strategic points of views.

The importance of the Syrian question has to be found in Syria’s key-role in the regional geostrategic pattern. Its position is directly intertwined with the confrontations we will witness in the Arab world for the next decade, whose results will in turn be strongly affected by the transformation happening in Syria. To be clear, the moves we are witnessing nowadays will influence the fate of a number of regional and global balances on more than one axis.

From the moment that the Arab League made the decision to suspend Syria's membership, entailing a series of sanctions against the Syrian people, the clashes happening in Syria have moved to another level. This became even clearer with the second proposed UN resolution--calling for a democratic transition and for Bashar Al Assad to step down--which was stopped by Russia and China’s vetoes last Saturday for the second time in four months. There have been two attempts to prepare the ground for a military intervention – that the US, European, and Arab countries would like to see and that 13 out of 15 UN Security Council members voted for. Such fervor reminds of the international climate before the war against Iraq began in 2003.

With the recent developments, the façade has tumbled down disclosing the real goals hidden behind different masks, revealing that the slogans demanding freedom, democracy, and human rights have been used as a battering-ram by the advocates for an intervention to break Syria. The objective seems clear: depriving the country of its role and the Syrian people of their will. Here it has to be remembered that Syria has always had a relevant position in Arab history, being an example of a centuries-old civilization, solid state structures and a reference pole for the whole Arab world, not only because of its geopolitical position, but also because of its anti-colonial spirit and historical stand toward the state of Israel – as the longa manus of Western colonial powers in the Middle East. These elements, which have determined the nature of the people’s national feelings, are completely ignored by advocates of "human rights, freedom and democracy" – specifically the reactionary regimes in the Gulf, Turkey, the Lebanese Hariri-movement and Syrian Islamist groups - hired by the American - French - Qatar- connection. Ironically, representatives of countries which have been re-named after the ruling family (Saudi Arabia) or whose leaders came to power with a coup d’état while the own father was abroad (Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa of Qatar) are begging today for a NATO intervention aiming at the destruction of Syria under the banner of "human rights and democracy". At the peak of their frustration – being unable to provoke a regime change for ten months in spite of all their media, financial and military efforts – the opposition chef Burhan Ghalioun already promised his intention to open up Syria to the Western allies, cut off Syria’s relations with Iran, with the Lebanese and the Palestinian resistance and furthermore to establish positive relations with Israel - if their project will succeed. This shift toward a stronger inclusion into the free market economy and the penetration by colonial forces would deny Syria’s historical role and certainly not represent the Syrian people’s interests.

The Western goal for Syria, and the broader Middle East, is to progressively consolidate its control of the region. The so-called "War on Terror" that began after 9/11 is an expression of this desire to co-op the Middle East, as are the occupation of Afghanistan, the fall of Baghdad in 2003, the Israeli war with Lebanon in 2006, and, finally, the Israeli attack on Gaza at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009. The United States, however, faced resistance and opposition movements.

Washington has been surprised by the fall of the Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, the breakdown of Hosni Mubarak's regime in Egypt, and the outbreak of protest movements in various Arab countries. The game, which was so clear until then, got distorted, and the equation confused. These overthrows forced the West to re-formulate strategies and policies in order to contain and control the social change. This became even more important in light of the US-defeat in Iraq after nine years of war under the pressure of the Iraqi resistance, five thousand people dead, and an estimated three trillion dollars military expenditure.

At this point, the alliance between the US and reactionary regimes alliance could no longer set the agenda in an overt way. The strategy shifted to involving the public debate and to direct the Arab reactionary regimes to break the Syrian conflict. Strong engagement seemed to be the sole chance to compensate for losses in Afghanistan, Iraq, and to protect the allied regimes from the “Arab Spring”.

So, the imperialist and reactionary forces – namely NATO and its Gulf allies - quickly decided to intervene against Syria, aiming at two possible scenarios. The first option was to ride the wave of the Arab revolts, employing full force to overthrow Syria using a comprehensive political, psychological, and media war, including the internationalization of the crisis and the call for an external intervention (like the one that occurred in Libya) to finally turn this NATO-hostile country into a satellite state like other Arab reactionary regimes revolving in the orbit of the colonial West.

If this doesn’t happen, we could see Western forces sink Syria in a quagmire of destruction, exhausting its resources as state and society and, in doing so, erasing the gains of its historical role at the regional and international level. This would be achieved by fueling sectarian violence and by arming terrorist organizations and extremist groups - trained and directed to drain the structures and institutions of the state – to disrupt the social and religious models, condemning Syria to long term internal conflicts.

In this context, we have to analyze the power positions of the different parties that have been involved in this struggle for months. We see two fronts squaring off: the first includes the United States, Israel, Western European countries, the Arab reactionary regimes represented by the Gulf Cooperation Council, reactionary segments of Gulf societies, and Turkey, which is looking for its regional role. On the other side we find the Syrian people demanding a change, the Syrian state and resistance forces of political and cultural opposition, especially in Lebanon and Palestine, backed by Algeria and Iran.

Here a point has to be stressed: the Syrian regime – and the Baath party# in particular- has to be strongly criticized for its repressive policies. The people’s will for a change and for reforms must be respected and supported. But the fact that the regime could not be overthrown yet shows that the internal balance of powers is different than it is presented in the international mainstream media. The crucial role of the Baath party in the creation of state structures (for example, the health care and educational systems) and in the support of the resistance movements- first and foremost the Palestinian one – has not been forgotten by the Syrian people. Moreover, if foreign powers are calling for the destruction of Syria’s state and structures, the regime should answer the Syrian people’s demands for reform. While a transition is necessary, it shouldn’t come at the price of Syria’s dismantlement and the denial of its people’s right to self-determination, disguised as democratization.

Internal pressure has already proven to be able to force the regime to open up for reforms, which were announced in recent months and include the withdraw of the emergency law in power since 1963, constitutional reforms entailing Presidential and local elections, parties pluralism with four new legalized parties and five others in the process of legalization, economic reforms revoking free trade agreements harming the interest of small and medium Syrian entrepreneurs and taking distance again from the shortly started free market policies. But the reforms need time and space to work and to prove that democratization is possible without Western dictates.

What is happening in Syria now is in not a local conflict, but an expression of the clashes between the American and Israeli vision of a "New Middle East" on one side and the resistance movements and oppositions fighting for true democratic social change.

This struggle moves on three interdependent levels:

First level: the confrontation between the resistance and opposition parties fighting for their political, economic and cultural rights versus the Zionist project in all its dimensions and goals.

Consequences of the conflict at this level will determine the future of the Palestinian cause, either beyond the impasse created by the Oslo Accords, or by the dependency of the Arab countries and the consequent weakening of the Palestinian resistance. This would mean that the Arab world has to take initiative, pushing for Palestinian national rights, and countering the Zionist project as a prelude to his defeat. Or, it would lead to the defeat of the core of the resistance with the following Zionist victory, implying the annihilation of Palestinian rights.

Second level: a confrontation between the US- EU colonial attempt to dominate the region, with the support of the reactionary forces in Turkey and in the Arab regimes, against the Russian-Chinese axis, backed by emerging international forces, such as Iran, Brazil, and India.

This confrontation will determine the parameters of the new international balances, aiming, on the one hand, to overcome American hegemony and restore Russia's and China’s moderating roles - which would lead to a reshaping of international relations, including reforming the UN role, which has been increasingly dominated by US interests in the last two decades. Russia and China, together with other emerging countries - such as India, South Africa, Brazil and Venezuela, and much of Latin America - are willing to reshape international relations on the basis of a more just balance than the pattern of US dominance that emerged after World War II and that was reinforced by the fall of the Soviet Union.

The alternative to this would be the fulfillment of the US plan to break Syria, gaining the chance to rearrange the region according to American interests and strategies.

Third level: The confrontation at the sociopolitical – ideological level between the reactionary religious forces and the Salafists on one side and the secular progressive movements on the other, with their respective social and political agents.

This will determine the nature of change in the region and in the Arab communities, either moving the area towards a state of decline, leading to the establishment of new reactionary systems ruling in the name of religion, which will put an end to the process of democratic change with its national progressive expressions. This is what we will see if NATO powers intervene and manipulate the Arab ownership of the democratization process, thus restoring the colonial “democracy” once again. Alternatively, we could see the socio-political democratization process gain new momentum in Arab societies, becoming a genuine and profound phenomenon, which could be a model for change in Syria. This would clear the path for the Arab nation to break away from a state of dependency on the West, allowing it to enter a phase of progress and to assert itself on the international stage.

In light of this analysis, and stressing the interdependency of these three levels, the conflict in Syria has to be seen not just as struggle to punish the previous positions or the repressive policies by the Assad regime. It is, in essence, a conflict to determine the region's future. In this sense, the confrontation transcends narrow readings. A success for Syria means more than the state’s survival resisting foreign colonial interventions and standing against the attempt of its dismantlement. This is important, but a real success is dependent on the ability to implement a deep, radical and comprehensive reform process targeting the Syrian institutions, society and state apparatus. Aim of such democratization should be tapping the full potential of the Syrian society, especially in light of the high level of consciousness it proved in crucial historical moments. The people who - with their protests and, at the same time, their resistance to external interventions - did not fall in the trap of dazzling slogans for democracy and human rights, have been a big surprise for those who wagered on their break down. They proved to the Assad regime that they are willing and capable of true democratic change that is more than a translation of external models.

The struggle taking place in Syria reveals that current developments have been fueled by colonial powers. The goal sought by the colonial and reactionary actors is to prevent Syria from building its own democratic model as an alternative to the Western "Democratic colonial" project. The Western policy implemented towards the Assad regime seeks Syria's subordination and dependence, as a strategy to contain the Arab revolutions, to control and keep them under the roof of the American-Western vision, as the latter have failed to protect their Arab allies from mass revolts. Western interests in keeping hold of the reins of change in the Arab world explains the Western repositioning towards political Islam, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, which came to power in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. In their turn, the Islamist movements are proving to be far less dangerous to Western interests than Western leaders, analysts, and the media claimed they would be. Looking past the hostile rhetoric we see that the Islamist movements in power are, in fact, rethinking their attitude in order to build bridges with Western countries, as a prelude to the establishment of new alliances in the region.

There is no room to be neutral or ambiguous in the face of this confrontation, and the duty of the resistance forces and the actors struggling for a democratic change across the Arab world – the actors that shouldn’t be forgotten - is, therefore, to evolve and protect Syria and the broader Middle East.

U.S. Arms Persian Gulf Allies For Conflict With Iran

18 november 2011,Global Research http://www.globalresearch.ca (Canada)

By Rick Rozoff

Rumors and reports of, speculation over and scenarios for attacks against Iran’s civilian nuclear power facilities and military sites by the United States, Israel or both have flared up periodically over the past several years, especially since early 2005.

However, recent statements by among others the president and defense minister of Israel and a leading candidate for the American presidency in next year’s election – Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Mitt Romney respectively – before and after the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran’s nuclear program manifest a more stark and menacing tone that has been heard in a long time. Standing U.S. head of state Barack Obama recently stated, “We are not taking any options off the table.”

The above threats and others of the same tenor have been noted in the capitals of countries around the world.

Last week the Global Times, a publication of the Communist Party of China, featured an unsigned editorial entitled “Winds of war start blowing toward Iran,” which contained these excerpts:

The financial crisis is showing cracks in the Western lifestyle, making people anxious and irritable. History teaches us that war can quickly raise its ugly head at such times. There are always those who think wars can be a catalyst to move past a crisis.”

“While the US and other Western countries are struggling economically, their military power reigns supreme. This contrast is inevitably tempting in their strategic thinking but would have a profoundly negative impact on world peace.”

“Military rhetoric is usually heard from Western mouths. Where will the next war happen? War first exists in the minds of those obsessed with military might. If war is treated as a tool to solve problems, new excuses for it can easily be found.”

“The last few days have seen tensions over Iran take a sharp turn for the worse. Some feel that the US and Israel should combine to strike at Iranian nuclear facilities. This is reminiscent of those who encouraged NATO to hit Syria a few weeks ago.” [1]

On November 14 former Cuban president Fidel Castro warned that “a U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran would inevitably unleash a bloody war,” adding that because of the country’s size and comparative military strength “an attack on Iran is not like the previous Israeli military adventures in Iraq and Syria.” In fact, with a population as high as 75-77 million, Iran is larger in that regard than the last four nations attacked by the U.S. and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies combined: Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

Four days earlier Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Russian Duma Committee for International Affairs, in casting grave doubts on the accuracy and purpose of the recent IAEA report on Iran, said:

“A military operation against Iran could have grave consequences. And Russia should make every effort to control emotions, bring negotiations back into the field of political and expert discussion, and not allow any such action against Iran.” [2]

The following day it was announced that Iran was pursuing full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, whose members are Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (Iran’s fellow observers in the group are India, Pakistan and Mongolia), with the Supreme National Security Council’s Secretary Assistant Ali Bageri stating, “We have already submitted a relevant application.” [3]

Slightly over two years ago the U.S, and Israel held the world’s largest-ever live-fire anti-ballistic missile drills in the second country, Juniper Cobra 10. [4]

Over a thousand U.S. and an equal amount of Israeli troops participated in the war games which included three of the four tiers of rapidly the evolving American global interceptor missile network: The Patriot Advanced Capability-3, Standard Missile-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense systems.

Early next year Juniper Cobra 12 will be held in Israel with the involvement of over 5,000 U.S. and Israeli troops, the largest joint military exercise ever conducted by the two nations.

Last summer the Jerusalem Post ran a feature with the title “Israel, US to hold massive missile defense drill next year,” which stated:

“Called Juniper Cobra, the exercise will be held in early 2012 and will include the Arrow 2 and Iron Dome as well as America’s THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) and the ship-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. The exercise will likely include the actual launching of interceptors from these systems.”

The Israeli daily added:

“The purpose of the exercise is to create the necessary infrastructure that would enable interoperability between Israeli and American missile defense systems in case the US government decided to deploy these systems here in the event of a conflict with Iran, like it did ahead of the Gulf War in Iraq in 1991.” [5]

Another major Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, ran a story last week under the title “Israel, U.S. to embark on largest joint exercise in allies’ history,” which cited Andrew Shapiro, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, stating that the upcoming missile drills will represent the “largest” and “most significant” joint military maneuvers ever held by the U.S. and Israel.

The account added:

“‘Our security relationship with Israel is broader, deeper and more intense than ever before,’ said Shapiro, adding that Israel’s military edge was a ‘top priority’ for himself, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. President Barack Obama.” [6]

The intensification of already unprecedented missile interception coordination between two of the world’s main military powers indicates preparation for withstanding potential Iranian retaliation following Israeli, American or joint strikes against Iran.

The deployment of a U.S. Forward-Based X-Band Radar in Israel’s Negev Desert three years ago and this past summer’s first deployment of an Aegis class guided missile warship, USS Monterrey, to the Eastern Mediterranean as part of the U.S.-NATO Phased Adaptive Approach interceptor missile system endorsed at NATO’s summit in Portugal a year ago, which will further entail the stationing of missiles and radar in Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, Turkey and other, as yet undisclosed, countries, are further signs of systematic plans for guaranteeing that the U.S. NATO allies and partners (like Israel) are invulnerable to counterattacks. [7]

The withdrawal of American and allied troops from Iraq and the beginning of a drawdown of their counterparts in Afghanistan can also be seen in this context, as removing targets for possible retaliation should a large-scale attack be staged against Iran.

In the last three weeks features have appeared in two of America’s major newspapers, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, which reveal another source for prospective attacks against Iran: The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). All are close military allies of and recipients of weapons from the U.S. and are linked with NATO through the eponymous Istanbul Cooperation Initiative launched at the 2004 NATO summit in Turkey. [8] A recent headline in Britain’s Guardian alluded to a “mini-NATO” in the Persian Gulf and Voice of Russia featured an article with the title of “US envisions NATO of the Gulf.”

A New York Times report of October 29 mentioned that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently confirmed the Pentagon currently has 40,000 troops in the Persian Gulf region (excluding Iraq), including 23,000 in Kuwait. The daily stated that new U.S. plans could include the deployment of more combat troops to the latter state and a heightened presence of American warships in the area.

The account further detailed that the Obama administration “is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new ‘security architecture’ for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.” [9]

On November 11 the Wall Street Journal revealed that the White House will provide the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with “thousands of advanced ‘bunker-buster’ bombs and other munitions, part of a stepped-up U.S. effort to build a regional coalition to counter Iran.” The weapons will “vastly expand the existing capabilities of the country’s air force to target fixed structures, which could include bunkers and tunnels — the kind of installations where Iran is believed to be developing weapons.” [10] Another source mentioned 500 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles in addition to the other munitions. A news story four days later disclosed that the U.S. Air Force has received “super-heavy bunker buster bombs” from Boeing to be carried by B-2 bombers. The new bunker-busters weigh “13.6 tons and [have] a built-in satellite navigation system, with “experts not[ing] that this type of bomb which is capable of breaking 18-meter-thick concrete walls is a perfect weapon for attacking nuclear facilities in Iran.” [11]

The Wall Street Journal report, echoing that of the New York Times earlier, added:

The Obama administration is trying to build up the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which comprises Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, U.A.E. and Kuwait, as a unified counterweight to Iran.

“In recent months, the U.S. has begun holding a regular strategic dialogue with the GCC bloc. And the Pentagon has been trying to improve intelligence-sharing and military compatibility among the six countries.”

The newspaper reminded its readers of a $67 billion arms deal initiated by the White House with Saudi Arabia in 2010 to supply the second nation with 84 F-15 fighter jets and 2,000-pound bunker-busting bombs, 72 Black Hawk and 70 Apache Longbow attack helicopters, Patriot Advanced Capability-2 and other missiles, and warships. The largest bilateral weapons sale in history. Two years ago a Financial Times feature estimated that Washington plans to sell $123 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

The Wall Street Journal also reported that the U.S. Defense Department plans to supply Stinger missiles and medium-range air-to-air missiles to Oman.

Citing Pentagon officials, the paper added:

“The U.A.E. has a large fleet of advanced U.S.-made F-16 fighters that could carry the bunker-busters. The U.A.E. currently has several hundred JDAMs [joint direct attack munitions/bunker-busters] in its arsenal, and the 4,900 in the new proposal would represent a massive buildup [of] direct attack munitions.”

“Proponents of the deal point to the U.A.E.’s support for U.S. efforts to isolate Iran, and its critical backing to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization air campaign in Libya. Officials said providing JDAMs and other U.S. weapons systems to the U.A.E. will make it easier for the country to participate in similar missions in the future.” [12]

The role of the UAE and its GCC partners this year in NATO’s war against Libya and in interventions in Bahrain and Yemen and against Syria will be addressed later. [13]

A Russian expert, Professor Sergei Druzhilovsky at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, characterized the intensification of American arms sales to its Gulf clients in the following words:

“Clearly, the aim is to provoke Iran to respond by some inadequate moves, which would enable the Americans to justify subsequent violence and military force. Because no further arming of U.S. allies in the Arab Middle East will make them any stronger. It’s not the strength of its allies, which simply doesn’t exist, but its own military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain and its own fleet in the Persian Gulf that Washington relies upon. So, this is a pure provocation.” [14]

The Wall Street journal article also discussed the integration of the six GCC states into U.S. plans for an international interceptor missile system:

“The U.S. has also sought to build up missile-defense systems across the region, with the goal of building an integrated network to defend against short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles from Iran.” [15]

Last year Washington announced the sale of land-based interceptor missiles to Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, mainly of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 model.

With land- and ship-based interceptor missiles in the Persian Gulf, Washington will link the NATO system in Eastern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean with that being developed in the Asia-Pacific region with partners Australia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan and, with what of late has been an initiative of U.S. permanent representative to NATO Ivo Daalder, India joining the NATO missile interception system [16] to increasingly surround Iran, Russia and China.

On November 13 Aviation International News reported that Washington is planning to provide Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries to the United Arab Emirates, adding to nine Patriot Advanced Capability-3 units on order. The Pentagon has deployed two THAAD active batteries to date, both in the U.S., so the stationing of the interceptors (96-144 missiles) in the UAE would be the first time they have been deployed overseas.

The news site supplied these details:

“[T]he UAE was the first export customer to be cleared to receive the system. THAAD has completed 12 successful flight tests, nine of which involved target engagements. The latest test, FTT-12, was undertaken on October 5 at the Pacific Missile Test Range at Barking Sands, Hawaii. Two interceptors were launched successfully against two targets in a near-simultaneous engagement.”

“[T]here is significant interest in upgraded Patriot and THAAD systems [in the region]. Kuwait and Qatar have both reported interest in the latter.

“As well as anticipating finalization of the THAAD contract, Lockheed Martin is awaiting the outcome of another UAE decision concerning an air defense battle management system.” [17]

According to Press TV earlier this month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned that the NATO missile system, particularly the deployment of an X-Band radar unit in Turkey, “jeopardizes the interests of the country and the entire region.”

This year has seen the emergence of Persian Gulf monarchies grouped in the Gulf Cooperation Council as a military adjunct to NATO, as a combat-ready and -proven force ready to collaborate with their Western arms suppliers and allies to intervene and wage war in the Middle East and North Africa.

The United Arab Emirates provided six U.S. F-16 and six French Mirage warplanes for NATO’s Operation Unified Protector and its 26,000 air missions and nearly 10,000 combat flights over Libya. Qatar supplied six Mirage fighter jets and two C-17 military transport planes. News reports at the time remarked that the above represented the first time Gulf Cooperation Council states had joined a NATO combat mission. (Although the UAE has a contingent of troops serving under NATO in the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.)

In June Robert Gates, while still U.S. defense secretary, praised the role of the UAE, Jordan ad Morocco in the war against Libya – Jordan and Morocco have since applied for membership in the GCC – stating, “In Libya, the involvement of Jordan, Morocco, the UAE and others in the Middle East have been hugely important.”

The then-Pentagon chief added this significant comment:

“I am not sure we would have moved forward to the UN, even undertaking this enterprise, had it not been for the vote in the Arab League that then paved the way for the UN Security Council resolutions.” [18]

Gates paralleled repeated statements by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the war citing the Arab League initiative against Libya on February 22 when the organization, then dominated by the GCC as Tunisia, Egypt and Libya were in turmoil and Syria soon to join them, condemned and suspended the membership of the North African country, a move recently repeated in relation to Syria.

The GCC’s participation in NATO’s naval blockade and air war against Libya was accompanied by its first armed intervention in a member state, the deployment of 1,500 Saudi and Emirati troops to Bahrain in the middle of March in an operation called Peninsula Shield. [19]

After Libya, Bahrain and Afghanistan, GCC members, severally and collectively, have been prepared for a military conflict closer to home, in the Persian Gulf.

In May Poland’s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski announced after meeting with his UAE counterpart that the Gulf state will “become the first Arab country to open an embassy at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation,” according to Agence France-Presse.

The following day the Kuwait News Agency quoted a statement from the French Foreign Ministry supporting the initiative:

“The United Arab Emirates has just asked for the accreditation of an ambassador to NATO.

“We fully support this request.

“This is a new step in our relations, which have witnessed an intensity and quality in cooperation between the UAE and the Alliance, notably in the framework of Operation Unified Protector in Libya.”

The Iranian response was, according to Press TV, that “This move by the UAE sets the stage to officially authorize the presence of an uninvited guest in the region.”

The preceding month five NATO warships visited the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait “under the 2004 Istanbul Cooperation Initiative” as an Agence France-Presse dispatch phrased it.

In commenting on the earlier-cited New York Times article on the Persian Gulf, a Voice of Russia commentary stated:

“[W]ith Qatar and the United Arab Emirates participating in the latest NATO-led campaign against Libya, this new ‘security architecture’ will mostly likely expand to carry out a similar function throughout the Middle East.

“[A]s the United States moves towards integrating the six states of the Gulf Co-operation Council into a security alliance that would increase both US and Saudi domination in the region, Iran could very well find itself the next victim of a US-led ‘humanitarian intervention.’” [20]

In addition to the escalation of U.S. military presence in the region, in 2009 French President Nicolas Sarkozy opened a military complex – with a navy base, air base, and training camp – in the United Arab Emirates, his country’s first permanent base in the Persian Gulf. In doing so Paris joined the U.S., Britain, Canada, the Netherlands. Australia and New Zealand in maintaining a military presence in the country. (Canada has since abandoned Camp Mirage in the UAE.)

The UAE has recently reopened negotiations with France for a military surveillance satellite, which “could also be linked to the protracted negotiations to buy 60 Dassault Aviation Rafale multi-role fighter jets, a deal that could be worth up to $10 billion.”

According to a United Press International story of late last month, “On April 24, the emirates launched its fifth communications satellite into orbit, the first to provide secure and independent telecommunications for its armed forces amid a drive by Arab states in the gulf to boost their military capabilities against Iran.

“The Emirates’ Y1A satellite was launched from the European Space Center in Kourou, French Guiana, atop an Ariane 5 rocket.”

Another report by the same agency a month before said that “Dassault Aviation hopes to capitalize on France’s participation with the United Arab Emirates in the air campaign against Moammar Gadhafi’s crumbling regime in Libya to promote the sale of 60 Rafale multi-role jets to the Persian Gulf state.” The story mentioned that “The emirates’ military says it wants missiles capable of reaching targets deep inside Iran,” and offered this description of current UAE air capabilities:

“The United Arab Emirates has built up what is widely viewed as the most formidable air force in the Persian Gulf. It has 184 combat aircraft, including 155 ground-attack fighters, mainly 55 Lockheed F-16E Block 60 Desert Eagles, 25 F-16F Block 60 Eagles and 18 French Dassault Mirage 2000-9DADs and 44 Mirage 2000-9RADs.”

The arming of the GCC by the U.S., France and other NATO powers at an exponential rate is, in addition to providing an economic boon to crisis-ridden Western countries, transparently and exclusively directed against Iran.

The advantages accruing to the U.S. and Israel in having a regional grouping of its neighbors attack Iran in lieu of doing so themselves are sufficiently evident not to warrant being belabored.

Washington is using the Persian Gulf Arab monarchies to act as surrogates for its own interests against Iran as it is with Georgia against Russia [21] and the Philippines vis-a-vis China. (NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the North Atlantic Council just returned from Georgia, the second such visit a NATO chief and the bloc’s 28 ambassadors have paid, the first occurring the month after Georgia invaded South Ossetia in August 2008, provoking a five-day war with Russia. Late last month 2,000 U.S. and 1,000 Filipino marines participated in combat drills near the Spratly Islands, which are contested by the Philippines and China.

Even if the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and their GCC partners don’t launch unprovoked strikes against Iranian nuclear and military sites, a provocation staged, say, by the UAE around the oil-rich island of Abu Musa in the Persian Gulf (frequently referred to by U.S. officials as the Arabian Gulf in a direct affront and challenge to Iran), administered by Iran but claimed by the UAE, will be casus belli enough for the GCC and through it the Arab League it controls. From there, as with Libya earlier this year, the U.S. and its NATO allies will take up cudgels on behalf of the “threatened” Arab Gulf states and enter the lists against Iran.

The Obama Doctrine [22], like the Nixon Doctrine of forty years earlier, emphasizes the role of proxies (identified as allies and victims) in doing what the U.S. chooses not to do, not to do alone or to be seen doing alone. It justifies military aggression in the name of decisions reached by organizations it doesn’t belong to, like the Arab League and the African Union in regards to Libya, and settles geopolitical scores with independent-minded rivals under the guise of intervening on behalf of aggrieved and injured third parties. A lesson that Russia has already learned, China is now learning and Iran may be taught next.

Notes


1) Winds of war start blowing toward Iran, Global Times, November 9, 2011

http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/683060/Winds-of-war-start-blowing-toward-Iran.aspx

2) ‘Russia can prevent military operation against Iran’, RT, November 10, 2011

http://rt.com/politics/nuclear-military-iran-russia-011

3) Tehran applies for full membership in SCO, Trend News Agency, November 11, 2011
4) Israel: Forging NATO Missile Shield, Rehearsing War With Iran, Stop NATO, November 5, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/israel-forging-nato-missile-shield-rehearsing-war-with-iran/

5) Israel, US to hold massive missile defense drill next year, Jerusalem Post, July 26, 2011

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=230974

6) Israel, U.S. to embark on largest joint exercise in allies’ history, Ha’aretz, November 11, 2011

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-u-s-to-embark-on-largest-jo\int-exercise-in-allies-history-1.393878
7) Israel: Global NATO’s 29th Member, Stop NATO January 17, 2010

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/israel-global-natos-29th-member

8) NATO In Persian Gulf: From Third World War To Istanbul, Stop NATO, February 6, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/nato-in-persian-gulf-from-third-world-war-to-istanbul

9) U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit From Iraq, New York Times, October 29, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html?pagewanted=all

10) U.S. Plans Bomb Sales in Gulf to Counter Iran, Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2011

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577030392418491690.html

11) US Air Forces get super-heavy bunker buster bombs, Itar-Tass, November 15, 2011

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/11/15/60453467.html

12) U.S. Plans Bomb Sales in Gulf to Counter Iran, Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2011

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577030392418491690.html

13) Gulf State Gendarmes: West Backs Holy Alliance For Control Of Arab World And Persian Gulf, Stop NATO, May 25, 2011

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/gulf-state-gendarmes-west-backs-holy-alliance-for-control-of-arab-world-and-persian-gulf

14) Profitable provocation, Voice of Russia, November 11, 2011

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/11/11/60236281.html

15) U.S. Plans Bomb Sales in Gulf to Counter Iran, Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2011

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577030392418491690.html

16) NATO and India to build joint missile defense system? Voice of Russia, September 2, 2011

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/09/02/55583082.html

NATO in India overtures, Voice of Russia, September 2, 2011

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/09/02/55583082.html

India may agree to deploy NATO missile system, Pakistan Observer, September 6, 2011

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=112723

17) THAAD on Target for UAE, Aviation International News, November 13, 2011

http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/dubai-air-show/2011-11-13/thaad-target-uae

18) World Tribune, June 12, 2011
19) Bahrain: U.S. Backs Saudi Military Intervention, Conflict With Iran, Stop NATO, March 16, 2011

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/bahrain-u-s-backs-saudi-military-intervention-conflict-with-iran

20) US envisions NATO of the Gulf, Voice of Russia, October 31, 2011

http://rt.com/news/us-military-iraq-iran-171

21) Washington To Rearm Georgia For New Conflicts, Stop NATO, January 14, 2011

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/u-s-to-rearm-georgia-for-new-conflicts

22) Obama Doctrine: Eternal War For Imperfect Mankind, Stop NATO, December 10, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/obama-doctrine-eternal-war-for-imperfect-mankind

Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

STOP THE WAR AGAINST IRAN – BEFORE IT BEGINS

11 November 2011, Communist Party of Israel המפלגה הקומוניסטית הישראלית http://maki.org.il

Written by Uri Weltmann

Intervention in the 18th General Assembly of World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY) by the Young Communist League of Israel (YCLI)

Dear Comrades,

The Young Communist League of Israel thanks the JCP for hosting this assembly. Today's assembly convenes at a time of great political unrest in the Middle East region. There are increasing signs that the Israeli government is preparing a new war of aggression, this time – against the people of Iran.

Last week, Israel conducted a test launch for a new long-range missile. The week before that – the Israeli air force conducted maneuvers with NATO armies, near Italy. The British Head of Military recently visited Israel, and the Israeli Minister of Defense visited Britain, with the question of an attack against Iran on the agenda.

At a time where Imperialism and Zionism begin to beat the drums of war, the Young Communist League of Israel, based on our internationalist commitment to defend peace, calls out -

Stop the war against Iran, before it begins!
No to new wars of aggression against the peoples of the Middle East!

But the Israeli government prepares new provocations not only against the Iranian people, but also against the Arab peoples, most notably – the Palestinian people.
Just recently, we've observed the happy occasion of Palestine's admittance as a full member of UNESCO. The Israeli government responded to this, with a decision to construct 2000 new houses in its West Bank settlements.

Thus, it is revealed that all the talk of the Israeli rightwing government, about "advancing peace", is but an empty talk. The Israeli government claims to support a peace, but in fact – creates facts on the ground, which only deepen the occupation and deepen the oppression of the Palestinian people.

In September, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas spoke in the UN General Assembly, and presented a realistic and just peace program. The Israeli government's response was to reject it, with the backing of US Imperialism. Israel also rejects the Arab Peace Initiative, promoted by the Arab League.

Therefore, we need not have illusions in the Israeli government's talk, nor have illusions in some intervention from the Imperialist powers. The United States government, the European Union, serve not the interests of the people. They will not intervene in defense of the rights of the Palestinians, and we've witnessed this in the UN General Assembly in September.

They are part of tripartite alliance of Imperialism, Zionism and Arab reactionaries, which works against peace, against social progress, against the rights of the peoples.

The ending of the Israeli occupation of Arab lands, remains to be a job of the peoples of the region themselves.

And peace can be achieved. Not imperialist peace, based on the continued oppression of the peoples, but a peace based on respecting the national sovereignty of all peoples of the region:

A peace which is based on the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, alongside Israel, on all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital;

A peace which is based on the dismantling of all Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the dismantling of the Separation Wall;

A peace which is based on the release of all Palestinian political prisoners, held in Israeli jails;

A peace which is based on achieving a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees, according to UN resolution 194, which recognizes the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees, which is an inalienable right.

Comrades,

We must remember that Israel occupies not only Palestinian lands.

We oppose the Israeli criminal occupation of Lebanese Shebaa farms, and support the patriotic and steadfast resistance of its people, especially the kind we've witnessed five years ago, when Israel invaded Lebanon.

We support the struggle of the Syrian people to restore the national integrity of its homeland, and end the Israeli occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights.

We stand completely behind the Arab Spring, the popular revolutionary upheavals and demonstrations for democracy and social justice, we've witnessed in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and elsewhere.

However, we unequivocally reject all Imperialist interference in the Arab countries, under the guise of "helping the Arab Spring". NATO bombings of Libya did not serve the interests of the Libyan people, but harmed it; In Syria, the interference of the United States and France did not serve the interests of the Syrian people, but harmed it.

Comrades,

The Israeli government follows aggressive policies not only in its foreign policy, but also in its domestic policy.

Harsh neo-liberal measures, privatization of public services, cut-backs in social spending – have all harmed the living conditions of the popular strata within Israel. The recent global capitalist crisis made things worse, as the government tried to have the working people pay the price of the crisis.

While the cost of living is on the rise, the wages remained stagnant. Young people, working in precarious jobs, found themselves unable to make ends meet, as food becomes more expensive, as public transportation becomes more expensive, as housing becomes more expensive.

Four months ago, these social tensions gave birth to a massive popular social protest movement, led by young people. This movement was able to mobilize Israelis in demonstrations in an unprecedented way.

The movement, in which comrades from the Young Communist League of Israel have leadership roles, demanded a new social thinking, one that puts social justice on the fore, rather than the profits of a few ultra-rich.

At the height of the mobilization, on September 3rd, half a million of Israelis demonstrated at once – 300,000 thousands in Tel Aviv and 200,000 elsewhere throughout the country - which amounts to about 6% of the country's population.

These developments fill us with optimism and make us more resolute to continue struggling for the rights of the youth.

The Young Communist League, basing itself on Marxism-Leninism, will continue struggling for revolutionary social transformations, for achieving Socialism, which is the only way to solve the social problems created by Capitalism.

The Young Communist League, the sole political youth movement in Israel which has both Jewish and Arab members, will continue struggling against racism, against discrimination, against nationalism and Zionism.

The Young Communist League of Israel is committed to fortify the World Federation of Democratic Youth as a consistent Anti-Imperialist youth organization. The role that WFDY fulfills in this respect is very unique, and most be preserved.

There are many philanthropic and humanitarian international bodies. We don't need another one.

There are many youth forums that have a liberal perspective. We don't need another one.

But there is only one world Anti-Imperialist youth organization, there is only one world youth organization that has a Socialist perspective, and that is WFDY.

This is a legacy we, in the YCL of Israel, are determined to defend.

Comrades,

The Palestinian poet, Mahmoud Darwish, once wrote على هذه الارض ما يستحق الحياة "This land has in it what justifies life". Inspired by these words, and drawing from the overwhelming energy of the recent social protest movement, we in the YCL of Israel will continue to struggle for a better life on this land, for all.

Long Live International Solidarity!
Long Live WFDY!

Delivered by Uri Weltmann, member of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the Young Communist League of Israel (YCLI), Lisbon, Portugal, November 8th, 2011

Organized Political Terrorism: The Norwegian Massacre, the State, the Media and Israel

By Prof. James Petras

31 July 2011, Global Research http://www.globalresearch.ca (Canada)

“So let us fight together with Israel , with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/Multiculturalists”. Anders Behring Breivik’s Manifesto

“. . . two more cells exist in my organization”. . . Ander Behring Breivik in police custody (Reuters 7/25/11)

Introduction:
The July 22, 2011, bombing of the office of the Norwegian Prime Minister, Labor Party Jen Stoltenberg, which killed 8 civilians, and the subsequent political assassination of 68 unarmed activists of the Labor Party Youth on Utoeya Island, just 20 minutes from Oslo, by militant neo-fascist Christian-Zionists, raises fundamental questions about the growing links between the legal Far-Right, the ‘mainstream media’, the Norwegian police, Israel and rightwing terrorism.

The Mass Media and the Rise of Rightwing Terrorism:
The leading English language newspapers, The New York Times (NYT), the Washington Post (WP), the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and the Financial Times (FT), as well as President Obama, blamed “Islamic extremists”, upon the first police reports of the killings, publishing a series of incendiary (and false) headlines and reports, labeling the event as ‘Norway’s 9-11’,in terms, which echoed the ideological motivation and justifications cited by the Norwegian Christian-Zionist political assassin, Anders Behring Breivik himself,. The July 23/24 front page of the Financial Times (of London ), read “Islamist extremism fears: Worst Europe strike since 2005”. Obama immediately cited the terrorist attack in Norway to further justify his overseas wars against Muslim countries. The FT, NYT, WP and WSJ trotted out their self-styled “experts” who debated over which Arab/Islamic leaders or movements were responsible – despite Norwegian press reports of ‘the arrest of a Nordic man in police uniform’.

Clearly, the US mass media and political elite were eager to use the bombing and assassinations to justify ongoing overseas imperial wars, ignoring the burgeoning domestic extremist rightwing organizations and violent individuals who are the outgrowth of official Islamophobic hate propaganda.

When Anders Breivik, a known neo-fascist extremist, handed his weapons over to Norwegian police without resistance and claimed credit for the bombing and massacre, the second phase of the official cover-up took place: He was immediately described as “a lone wolf assassin”, who “acted alone” (BBC July 24, 2011) or as mentally deranged, downplaying his political networks, his American, European and Israeli ideological mentors and commitments, which led to his acts of terrorism. Even more outrageous, the media and officials ignored the fact that this complex, multiphase terrorist attack was beyond the capacity of one ‘deranged’ person.

Anders Behring Breivik had been a dues-paying member of a Far-Right political party, The Progress Party and a collaborator and contributor to an overtly neo-Nazi web site. He frequently focused his hatred on the ruling Labor Party for its relative tolerance of immigrants. He despised immigrants especially, Muslims, and was an ardent Christian-Zionist supporter of Israeli repression and terror against the Palestinian people. His criminal action was political in essence and embedded in a much wider political network.

The political elite and media have scrambled to deny the overlapping links between ‘legal’ ideological Islamophobes, like the American Zionists Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, the Dutch far-right Party of Freedom led by the hate-monger Geert Wilders and their counterparts in the Norwegian Progress Party who rail against the “Muslim threat”. The “direct action” terrorists take their cues from electoral parties, like the Progress Party, who recruit and indoctrinate activists, like Behring Breivik, who then leave the ‘electoral road’ to carry out their bloody carnage, allowing the ‘respectable’ hate-mongers to hypocritically condemn him… after the outrage.

The Lone Assassin: A Fascist Superman Travels Faster than a Speeding Bullet Versus the Police Moving Slower than an Arthritic Turtle:
The case for the “lone wolf terrorist” defies credence. It is a tissue of lies used to cover up state complicity, intelligence malfeasance, and the sharp right-turn in the domestic and foreign policies of NATO countries.

There is no basis to accept Breivik’s initial claim that he acted alone for several outstanding reasons: First, the car bomb, which devastated downtown Oslo, was a highly complex weapon requiring expertise and coordination – the kind available to state or intelligence services, like the Mossad, which specialize in devastating car bombs. Amateurs, like Breivik, with no training in explosives, usually blow themselves up or lack the skill required to connect the electronic timing devices or remote detonators (like the unsuccessful ‘shoe’, ‘underpants’ and ‘Times Square’ bombers have proved) .

Secondly, the details of (a) moving the bomb, (b) obtaining (stealing) a vehicle, (c) placing the device at the strategic site, (d) successfully detonating it and (e) then gowning up in an elaborate special police uniform with an arsenal of hundreds of rounds of ammunition and driving off in another vehicle to Utoeya Island, (f) waiting patiently while armed to the teeth for a ferry boat, g) crossing with other passengers in his police uniform, (h) rounding up the Labor youth activists and commencing the massacre of scores of unarmed youth and finally (i) finishing off the wounded and hunting for those trying to hide or swim away - is not the activity of a lone zealot. Even the combination of Superman, Einstein and a world class marksman could not perform those tasks.

The media and NATO leaders must view the public as passive morons to expect them to believe that Anders Behring Breivik “acted alone”. He is willing to take a 20 year prison sentence if it means, as he maintains, that their collective action is the spark that ignites his comrades and advances the agenda of the violent and legal far rightwing parties. Facing a Norwegian judge on July 25, he publicly declared the existence of “two more cells in my organization”. According to witness testimony on Utoeya Island shots from two distinct weapons were heard from different directions during the massacre. The police say they are… “investigating”. Needless to say the police have found nothing; instead they put on a “show” to cover their inaction by raiding two houses far from the massacre and quickly released the suspects.

The most serious political implication of the terrorist action, however, is the conspicuous complicity of top police officials. The police took 90 minutes to arrive at Utoeya Island , located less than 20 miles from Oslo , 12 minutes by helicopter and 25 to 30 minutes by car and boat. The delay allowed the right wing assassins to use up the ammunition, maximizing the death toll of young, anti-fascist activists and devastating the Labor youth movement. The police chief, Sveinung Sponheim, made the feeblest excuse and cover-up, claiming “problems with transport”. Sponheim argued that a helicopter “wasn’t on standby” and they “could not find a boat” (Associated Press, July 24, 2011).

Yet a helicopter was available; it managed to fly to Utoeya and film the ongoing slaughter, and over half of Norwegians, a seafaring people for millennia, own or have access to a boat. A police force, faced with what the Prime Minister calls the ‘worst atrocity since the Nazi occupation’, moving at the pace of an arthritic turtle to rescue youth activists, raises the suspicion of some level of complicity. The obvious question arises as to the degree to which the ideology of right wing extremism – neo-fascism – has penetrated the police and security forces, especially the upper echelons? This level of “inactivity” raises more questions than it answers. What it suggests is that the Social Democrats only control part of the Government – the legislative, while the neo-fascists influence the state apparatus.

The plain fact is that the police did not save a single life. When they finally arrived, Anders Behring Breivik had run out of ammunition and surrendered turning himself over to the police. The police literally did not fire a single shot; they did not even have to hunt or capture the assassin. An almost choreographed scenario: Hundreds wounded, 68 unarmed, peaceful activists killed and the Labor youth movement decimated.

The police can claim “crime solved” while the mass media prattles about a “lone assassin”. The far right has a “martyr” to mask a further advance in their anti-Muslim, pro Israel crusade. (It is reminiscent of the celebrated Israeli-American fascist mass murderer, Dr. Baruch Goldstein, who slaughtered dozens of unarmed Palestinian men and boys at prayer in 1994).

Only two days before the political murders, the head of the Labor Party Youth Movement, Eskil Pederson, gave an interview to the Dagbladet, Norway’s second largest tabloid, in which he announced a “unilateral economic embargo of Israel from the Norwegian side” (Gilad Atzmon, July 24, 2011).

The fact of the matter is that the Norwegian military has no problem promptly dispatching 500 troops to Afghanistan, half way around the world and providing six Norwegian Air Force jets and pilots to bomb and terrorize Libya . And yet they can’t find a helicopter or a row boat to transport their police a couple hundred yards to stop a domestic right wing terrorist – whose murderous rampage was being described second by second by the terrorized young victims on their cell phones to their frantic parents?

The Imperial Roots of Domestic Fascism: Conclusion
Clearly, the decisions of Norway and other Scandinavian nations to participate in the US imperial crusades against Muslim and especially Arab people in the Middle East have aroused and energized the neo-fascist right. They now want to “bring the war home”; they want Norway to go further, to ‘cleanse the nation’ by expelling Muslims. They want to “send a message” to the Labor Party: Either it must accept a full neo-fascist pro-Israeli agenda or expect more massacres, more elected fascists, more followers of Anders Behring Breivik.

The “Progress Party” is now the second largest political party in Norway . If a “conservative” coalition defeats Labor, neo-fascists will probably sit in the Government. Who knows, after a few years of good behavior, they might find an excuse to commute their ex-comrade's sentence . . . or proclaim him mentally rehabilitated and freed.

Clearly what is needed is the immediate withdrawal of all troops from imperial wars and a systematic, coherent and organized fight against domestic right-wing terrorists and their intellectual godparents, in America , Israel and Europe . Labor youth must go press on with their demand that the Labor Government, under Prime Minister Jen Stoltenberg, recognize the nation of Palestine and implement a total boycott of Israeli goods and services. A national and international political-educational campaign must be organized to expose the links between respectable electoral fascists and violent terrorists. The Labor Youth martyrs of Utoeya Island should be cherished and their ideals taught in all the schools. Their far-right enemies and supporters whether overt, covert or directly complicit, should be exposed and condemned. The best weapon against the renewed neo-fascist onslaught is a political and educational offensive, taking up the anti-fascist, anti-Quisling (Norway ’s notorious Nazi collaborator) fighting traditions of their grandparents’ era. It’s not too late – if the Labor Party, the Norwegian trade unions and the anti-fascist youth act now before the flood of resurgent fascism.

MENSAJE A LOS BRIGADISTAS DE LA FLOTILLA DE LA LIBERTAD

1 Julio 2011, Rompiendo Muros http://rompiendo-muros.blogspot.com (España)

Por Liliane Cordova-Kaczerginski*

El Pulpo: conjugar terrorismo de estado y terrorismo mafioso , jactándose
Las teorías conspirativas creadas con toda honestidad o para manipular a colectivos humanos, no nacieron hoy. Por ejemplo, el panfleto judeófobo archiconocido Los Protocolos de los sabios de Sión:

Ironía de la historia (una más!) que estamos presenciando con una escenografía tentacular cuyos actores están de alguna manera relacionados con este panfleto; me refiero a la puesta en marcha desde hace años de redes tentaculares creadas y/o confiscadas por la estrategia sionista para contrarrestar todo lo que es considerado como "opuesto a sus intereses".

¿Qué es opuesto a sus intereses?

Por ejemplo, la nacionalización del canal de Suez en 1956, conspirando junto a Francia y al Reino Unido para bombardear y eliminar a Nasser; el advenimiento del socialismo en Marruecos, impulsando el secuestro y el asesinato de Ben Barka; un Irak moderno y con fuerza nuclear, Irán ... el proyecto bolivariano, la resistencia popular no violenta en Cisjordania, la campaña internacional del BDS a Israel, y hoy, en vivo , su deseo enfurecido de eliminar las Flotillas que quieren aplicar la legalidad internacional, desbloquear a la población de Gaza que cometió el terrible crimen de ser palestinos y no resignarse al ultraje de la ocupación; legalidad que las instituciones miran hacia otro lado cuando se trata de un tema donde el gendarme del Medio Oriente manda .

Ayer, 30 de junio, gracias a la asociación de amigos de Jenin de Francia, pude asistir a un nuevo espectáculo del Teatro de la Libertad de Jenin, luego del asesinato de Juliano Mer Khamis; la obra lleva el titulo Shu Kaman? y Que mas? compartiendo con los actores los sentimientos generados que son el padecer la opresión militar, política y social , la violencia multiforme que carcome su cotidiano. La obra casi no contiene texto , lo que permite crear un intercambio mas bien emocional con los espectadores.

Conocí muy bien a Juliano y fui amiga y companera de su madre, Arna. Me invitaron a dirigirme al público para aportar mi testimonio de vida; vida de mis amigos y vida mía; Juliano fue asesinado por una de las variadas mafias de lo opresión que deambulan por nuestro mundo; y una de estas mafias sigue su empresa mortífera, hiriendo, por suerte, no a muerte, al "Juliano", el barco bautizado con el nombre de quien fue creatividad, internacionalismo, encarnando sin titubeos, un compromiso íntegro con sus allegados, su entorno concreto.

Este espectáculo de cuestionamiento y en la mejor tradición del director teatral Juliano, me condujo a conectarme con el espectáculo grotesco del Pulpo, que tilda al "Juliano", (barco que transporta una decena de pasajeros y ninguna carga , pasando por toda inspección habida y por haber) albergue de terroristas, abocado a provocar a una de las armadas más potentes del globo ; jactándose, que ha utilizado todos los medios en su poder para barrer o por lo menos, disminuir el tamaño de la flotilla. Como la mafia, a veces deja su huella visible, otras, se esconde tras las conjeturas. Conectándome asimismo con lo grotesco de las acusaciones del Pulpo operando en Francia, acusándonos de "incitación al odio racial" tras nuestro llamamiento a boicotear los productos del estado que practica el apartheid.

Pobre mundo, donde los terroristas de estado llevan adelante los métodos de la mafia para salirse con las suyas.

Pobre mundo, donde gobiernos no escuchan el clamor de la justicia y se dejan intimidar, paralizar, devorar por los banqueros que acompañados por los comandos de la OTAN , del Mossad, etc.... reflejan lo irrisorio de los textos de derechos humanos que tan laboriosamente fueron redactados. Si fueron concebidos para engañarnos, pues han conseguido su objetivo.

No pienso que este mundo esta regido por sectas conspirativas; que existan, nadie duda, y es obvio que quieran controlar al mundo. La vida es demasido dinámica para ser controlable de una vez por todas. Nosotros, los subversivos, tenemos plena consciencia de ello; sabemos que esas redes se tejen pero se pueden deshacer a veces mas rápido, a veces menos.... Los que elaboraron los derechos humanos y el derecho de los pueblos, ¡cuánto papel han gastado! pensaron en un mundo de respeto mutuo, de dignidad para todos ...

Ustedes, los brigadistas de la flotilla nos aportan el mensaje de dignidad, al Karama, desenmascarando a los pulpos, las mafias, los terroristas de estado, los cómplices que de civilizados, se les cae cada día un poco mas, el antifaz.

*Liliana Córdova es cofundadora de IJAN Europa (Red Internacional de Judíos Antisionistas) y de la campaña BDS (Boicot, Desinversiones y Sanciones) en Francia.
MARCADORES

America's next war theater: Syria and Lebanon?

Washington's War against the Resistance Bloc

10 June 2011, Global Research http://www.globalresearch.ca

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Washington and its allies, Israel and the Al-Sauds, are taking advantage of the upheavals in the Arab World. They are now working to dismantle the Resistance Bloc and weaken any drive for democracy in the Arab World. The geo-political chessboard is now being prepared for a broader confrontation that will target Tehran and include Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinians.

Tying Hezbollah’s Hands through External and Internal Pressure
In Lebanon, there is a deadlock in regards to the formation of a Lebanese government. Michel Sleiman, who holds the presidency and the new Lebanese prime minister have been delaying the formation of the cabinet in a political row with Michel Aoun, the leader of the Free Patriotic Movement.

It may be possible that the formation of a new Lebanese cabinet is being delayed deliberately to keep Lebanon neutralized on the foreign policy front.

The U.N. Security Council and several U.N. bodies are all being used by the U.S. and the E.U. to put pressure on Lebanon. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is taking his orders fom Washington. He has contributed to providiing legitimacy to U.S. NATO led wars. Moscow has openly accused Ban Ki Moon of treachery for his 2008 secret dealings with NATO.

It is in this context that the U.N. is being used as a forum for insidious attempts to internationalize the issue of weapons held by the Lebanese Resistance, with a view to disarming it. Despite the fact that U.N. Resolution 1559 is no longer relevant, the Special Representative for the Implementation of Resolution 1559, Terje Roed-Larsen, still remains active and issues reports against Hezbollah.

The envoys of the U.N. to Lebanon resemble colonial figures making uninvited edicts in Beirut and working as agents of Washington, Brussels, and Tel Aviv. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), which has an entire division in the U.S. State Department, is also a loaded political weapon that Washington is planniong on using against Lebanon and Syria.

An international tribunal was formed pertaining to the circumnstances of the the assassination of Rafic Al-Hariri. Hariri at the time of his murder had no official state position, but an international tribunal has been created for his case alone. On the other hand the international community has taken no interest in forming any type of tribunals to investigate the assassination of thousands of people killed in Lebanon. What does this say about the STL and the justice being sought?

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has also been complicit in Israeli violations against Lebanon. Even the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRAW) has been infiltrated with officials that are supportive of Israeli crimes against Palestinians and Lebanese. This was demonstrated by Christopher Gunness, the spokesperson of UNRAW, in a May 15, 2011 interview with the Israeli military. While Israel's IDF was firing on unarmed civilian protesters during Nakba Day 2011, Gunness reaffirmed that UNRAW was working in the interest of Israel's national security, while also accusing the Palestinians of committing terrorist acts against Israel. Even the Israeli siege of the Gaza Strip was whitewashed by the UNRAW spokesperson.

The absence of a new cabinet in Lebanon has also allowed Saad Hariri and the March 14 Alliance to continue having an ominous hand in managing Lebanon’s affairs. This also buys time for the STL, which can move forward without being challenged by a Lebanese government in Beirut that would be hostile to the ISF. In this regard, a new government in Beirut would most certainly question to legitmacy of the STL.

Moreover, the Internal Security Forces (ISF) of Lebanon is also being used by the Saad Hariri government against Hezbollah and the political opponents of Hariri family. The ISF may even have a hand in working against Damascus and helping promote violence in Syria. The ISF takes its orders directly from the Hariri family. The latter also controls the Lebanese government.

Because of the free hand given to Saad Hariri and his cronies (largely due to the absence of a functioning cabinet in Beirut), Ziad Baroud, the acting interior minister of Lebanon, has refused to sign any more papers from his ministry. Baroud has taken this position, because he believes that the ISF is acting covertly and without his approval or supervision. In this regard, the ISF has refused to follow the orders of Ziad Baroud to allow Charbel Al-Nahhas, the acting telecommunications minister of Lebanon, to enter ISF headquarters for a routine check. The ISF was clearly trying to hide its operations and was acting to prevent Al-Nahhas and his team from going to certain floors at ISF headquarters.

It is also no secret that Lebanon is a nest of intelligence agents and operatives from the U.S., the E.U., Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Their objective is to confront and dismantle Hezbollah and its coalition.

In 2006, during the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon the embassies of E.U. members were also collecting data against Hezbollah. The Al-Sauds have helped facilitate the links between Israel and the network of spies in Lebanon. This is demonstrated by the clear link between Sheikh Mohammed Ali Hussein, the Shiite cleric working caught working for Israel, and the Al-Sauds.

In tune with all this, Hezbollah is constantly accused of being an instrument of Iran. Recently, Hezbollah was blamed alongside Iran for stirring protests in the Persian Gulf, specifically in Bahrain and the Shiite-dominated areas of Saudi Arabia. In this regard Lebanese citizens, regardless of their faith in many cases, have also been singled out by the Khaliji regimes and expelled from the Persian Gulf. This is part of a sectarian card to create regional divisions and hate. Within Lebanon it has been used by the Saad Hariri faction to target Hezbollah and its allies. Hariri has ironically accused Iran of interfering in Bahrain at the very moment the Saudi military invaded the island-state to keep the Al-Khalifas in power.

The petro-sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf are now systematically preventing Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, and Pakistani citizens from entering their borders. Kuwait has justified this by saying that there could be trouble within Kuwait due to political instability in these countries.

Destabilizing Syria
Damascus has been under pressure to capitulate to the edicts of Washington and the European Union. This has been part of a longstanding project. Regime change or voluntary subordination by the Syrian regime are the goals. This includes subordinating Syrian foreign policy and de-linking Syrian from its strategic alliance with Iran and its membership within the Resistance Bloc.

Syria is run by an authoritarian oligarchy which has used brute force in dealing with its citizens. The riots in Syria, however, are complex. They cannot be viewed as a straighforward quest for liberty and democracy. There has been an attempt by the U.S. and the E.U. to use the riots in Syria to pressure and intimidate the Syrian leadership. Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, and the March 14 Alliance have all played a role in supporting an armed insurrection.

The Al-Sauds have also helped drown out any authentic calls for democratic reform and marginalized the democratic elements in the Syrian opposition during the protests and riots. In this regard the Al-Sauds have supported both sectarian factions as well as terrorist elements, which quesiton the foundations of religious tolerance in Syria. These elements are mostly Salafist extremists, like Fatah Al-Islam and the new extremist political movements being organized in Egypt. They have also been rallying against the Alawites, the Druze, and Syrian Christians.

The violence in Syria has been supported from the outside with a view of taking advantage of the internal tensions and the anger in Syria. Aside from the violent reaction of the Syrian Army, media lies have been used and bogus footage has been aired. Money and weapons have also been funnelled to elements of the Syrian opposition by the U.S., the E.U., the March 14 Alliance, Jordan, and the Khalijis. Funding has also been provided to ominous and unpopular foreign-based Syrian opposition figures, while weapons caches were smuggled from Jordan and Lebanon into Syria.

The events in Syria are also tied to Iran, the longstanding strategic ally of Damascus. It is not by chance that Senator Lieberman was demanding publicly that the Obama Administration and NATO attack Syria and Iran like Libya. It is also not coincidental that Iran was included in the sanctions against Syria. The hands of the Syrian military and government have now been tied internally as a new and broader offensive is being prepared that will target both Syria and Iran.

Syria and the Levantine Gas Fields in the Eastern Mediterranean
Syria is the central piece of two important energy corridors. The first links Turkey and the Caspian to Israel and the Red Sea and the second links Iraq to the Mediterranean. The surrender of Syria would mean that Washington and its allies would control these energy routes. It would also mean that the large natural gas fields off the Lebanese and Syrian coastline in the Eastern Mediterranean would be out of reach for China and would instead go to the E.U., Israel, and the U.S.

The Eastern Mediterranean gas fields have been the subject of negotiations between the E.U., Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. Aside from the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Pipeline, the existence of the Levantine natural gas fields is also the reason why the Kremlin has created a military foothold in Syria for the Russian Federation. This has been done by upgrading Soviet-era naval facilities in Syria. Moreover, it has been Iran that has agreed to explore and help develop these natural gas fields off the Levantine coast for Beirut and Damascus.

Hamas-Fatah Rapprochement
There is a strong correlation between war in Southwest Asia and increased talk at the official level about Palestinian statehood. Hopes of Palestinian statehood have always been used twice to discharge pressure in the Arab World built from rising tensions from war preparations against Iraq. The first time was by George H.W. Bush Sr. and the second time by George W. Bush Jr., who was praised for being the first U.S. president to seriously talk about a Palestinian state.

Even as he flip-flops on his position, Obama is also now talking about a Palestinian state. Moreover, rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah has taken place as the count-down towards international recognition of Palestinian statehood begins. The Israelis have also released frozen funds to the Palestinians, which they refused to do before due to Hamas.

The rapprochement between Fatah and Hamas has also served to tie the hands of Hamas. Hamas will have to be careful not to effectively become a junior partner in governing Palestine under Israeli occupation. Hamas must effectively now modify its stance in its partnership in a unity government with Fatah. In all likelihood Tel Aviv and Washington will seek to impose Fatah as the senior partner of the Palestinian Authority. In a manner of speaking, Hamas is being domesticated indirectly by Israel and Washington.

Instability in Pakistan
The announcement that Osama bin Laden has been killed by U.S. forces has contributed to a process of covert political destabilization within Pakistan. There has been a calculated effort to present Osama bin Laden as a popular and venerated figure for Muslims. This is with a view of supporting the so-called “Clash of Civilizations.”

At the same time the U.S. government is starting a media campaign against Pakistan. Islamabad has been portrayed as harbouring Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network. In reality any Pakistani involvement with terrorists has been ordered and directed by Washington. There is a much more complicated story to all this, but what is happening in reality is that Pakistan as a nation is being targeted for dismantlement.

The dismantlement and destabilization of Pakistan would serve three objectives.

1. Promoting a scenario of a war with Iran: Pakistan would not be under threat of a takeover by revolutionaries that would side with Iran and its allies.

2. The targetting of Chinese interests in Pakistan, including the energy corridor from Iran to China (the Chinese port in Gwadar), which transits through Pakistan.

3. Regional destabilization in a key area of Eurasia where Southwest Asia, Central Asia and the Indian sub-continent meet. This area extends from Iran and Afghanistan to Pakistan, India, and Western China. At the same time Washington also wants to neutralize the Pakistani nuclear program.

The U.S. has also announced that it has the right to violate the national boundaries of countries which harbour terrorists as well as send troops to these countries as part of the “war on terrorism.” Hillary Clinton has justified Washington stance by saying that U.S. forces would be assassinating terrorists. This is merely an opening door for creating a pretext for military intervention in countries such as Iran or Syria.