Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

How do Iranians ‘Boil a Frog’? Slowly and methodically.

Iran’s apparent restraint in the face of Israeli aggression should not be mistaken for weakness. Tehran steadily applies pressure on Tel Aviv through its own methods, setting the stage carefully for Israel’s unravelling.

By Shivan Mahendrarajah | The Cradle | April 3, 2024

A strategy in asymmetrical warfare is expressed by the “boiling frog” theory:

Legend has it that a frog placed in a shallow pot of water heating on a stove will remain happily in the pot of water as the temperature continues to climb, and will not jump out even as the water slowly reaches the boiling point and kills the frog. The change of one degree of temperature at a time is so gradual that the frog doesn’t realize he is being boiled until it is too late.

While the story is an apologue – a pretty fable meant to convey a meaningful lesson – it is one frequently invoked by militaries and geopoliticians to describe the “long game” of reaching strategic objectives.

Today, it is Iran and its regional allies who are using a measured approach to increase temperatures in West Asia until the water boils the US and Israeli ‘frogs’ to death. Strategy, discipline, and rare patience – the antithesis of western short-termism – will bring Iran victory. To quote the Taliban: “Americans have watches, but we have the time.”

Time is now on the side of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its regional allies. Two connected examples show how the IRGC is calibrating temperatures like scientists in a laboratory.

The Yankee Frog

Following the launch of the Hamas-led resistance operation Al-Aqsa Flood on 7 October of last year, US President Joe Biden deployed US Navy assets to the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean Sea to “defend” Israel.

On 26 November, the USS Eisenhower and its escorts navigated through the Straits of Hormuz, anchoring in the Persian Gulf on the Saudi Arabian side. Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned naval forces initially targeted Israeli ships and Eilat Port with their first shots on 19 October. But by 29 November, their attacks escalated to include vessels bound to or from Eilat, irrespective of flag or ownership.

This pattern culminated in the Pentagon’s announcement of “Operation Prosperity Guardian” on 18 December, aimed at safeguarding Israel’s economic interests at the expense of US military personnel. Subsequently, the Eisenhower and its naval escorts relocated from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, purportedly to “defend” the occupation state.

Instead, the positioning of US Navy assets in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden has left them susceptible to potential attacks from Iranian or Iranian-supplied weaponry, including cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and drones.

Despite efforts from the US Navy (USN) and the US Air Force (USAF), Ansarallah remains undefeated. Previous Anglo–American airstrikes in Yemen have proven ineffective, while the ongoing pace and expanding scope of Yemeni operations are straining naval resources and dampening morale.

Unlike ‘Hollywood guns,’ US Navy vessels do not have unlimited interceptor missiles, nor can they be reloaded at sea. As for the morale of American personnel, it will break in the long run, particularly since many, if not most, sailors and marines are simply not invested in a fight for Israel.

Last month, Captain Chris Hill, the commanding officer of the USS Eisenhower, said: “People need breaks, they need to go home.”

While sailors, marines, and airmen are getting antsy dodging Ansarallah’s drones and missiles on a daily basis, the ‘Yankee Frog’ is merrily paddling about his Washington hot tub, believing the ‘might’ of the USN will defeat the pesky ‘Houthis.’

This was arguably a well-calibrated move supported by Iran that accomplished two objectives: First, it got the carrier battle group out of the Persian Gulf, and second, it sucked the US into an escalatory trap. The Yankee Frog is in the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden hotpot. It cannot win.

It will either jump out and flee in humiliation, further destroying the credibility of the US armed forces following its humiliating 2021 debacle in Afghanistan; or it will remain in the hotpot and be boiled to death—with the loss of ships and lives.

With either outcome, Iran wins. Relatedly, an Iranian defeat of the US will be welcomed by China, Russia, and scores of US adversary states, particularly across the global south. As noted by one astute Twitter/X user, Armchair Warrior (describing Russia’s likely responses to Ukrainian provocations), by its actions, Iran has demonstrated “reflexive control” over Washington’s actions. By this, he means, “If every military action you take gets a symmetrical reaction, then you can control the nature, venue, and tempo of the conflict to your benefit.” This is precisely what the IRGC is cleverly doing.

The Israeli Frog

The wee ‘Israeli Frog,’ meanwhile, somnolent in the warm water, is dreaming of his ‘new Israel’ – the Israel that he will create once he has ethnically cleansed Gaza. He has plans to develop Gaza, build luxury condos along the beachfront, and build housing units for new settlers.

Architects are now drawing up plans. Former President and current Republican contender Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a Netanyahuist and Likud Party benefactor, is measuring drapes for his Gaza waterfront condominium.

However, the Israeli military has not defeated Hamas, which continues to inflict significant damage to Israeli military hardware and human assets. By one estimate, Hamas has only been degraded by 15–20 percent. The occupation army wholly depends on the US and its European vassal states for armaments since its domestic production capacities are limited.

According to one estimate, some 500,000 settlers have returned to their homelands; most will not return. Since 7 October, conscription is no longer a safe yet inconvenient three-year requirement: parents are afraid for their daughters and sons.

The dormant refusenik movement that emerged from the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon has re-awakened. Draftees are refusing to serve and being jailed as a result. The conscription exemption for ultra-Orthodox Jews expired on 1 April; they are threatening to flee Israel, whose very survival is dependent on Jews moving there.

If representatives of ultra-Orthodox Jews quit Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition, it could bring down his extremist government. Internal tensions within Israeli society are escalating, fueled by socio-economic pressures and disillusionment with the government’s handling of the war.

The Israeli economy is in shambles. The shekel is declining. Budget deficits and borrowing have skyrocketed. Moody’s downgraded Israel’s credit from A1 to A2 on 9 February. Israel’s tourism industry has collapsed into crisis. Most major airlines no longer fly to Israel. Israel’s manufacturing and agricultural bases are small. Israel has limited access to natural resources and energy; it depends on overland lifelines to Jordan and Egypt, with Azerbaijani oil and gas coming to Haifa from Turkey.

Iran is doing to Israel just what Israel did to it with economic sanctions. But unlike Israel, Iran has abundant supplies of oil and gas, 85 million literate and educated people who are not planning to flee, and formidable agricultural and manufacturing bases.

Tehran is methodically throttling Israel’s economy. Haifa port is on Hezbollah’s target list. If Haifa is shut down alongside Eilat, Israel will only have overland lifelines for food and energy supplies. Ben Gurion International and other airports may be targeted in the future.

Turning up the heat, one degree at a time

The recent Israeli attack on the Iranian diplomatic mission in Damascus, purportedly in response to an Iraqi drone striking Eilat, mirrors Netanyahu’s apprehensions and frustrations – that “the whole world is ganging up on us.”

Netanyahu’s strategy appears to be to goad Iran into escalating tensions, potentially prompting them to target American military assets in the region, thereby drawing the US into the Gaza War. However, it’s uncertain whether Tehran will take the bait.

While the IRGC is likely to respond, they will look to avoid falling into Netanyahu’s trap. Instead, Iran may opt to tighten its economic stranglehold on Israel, possibly by targeting strategic locations such as Eilat, Haifa, and Ben Gurion Airport.

The IRGC understands that Israel’s economy cannot sustain a prolonged conflict. Therefore, their strategy might involve a gradual escalation – effectively boiling the Israeli frog slowly – through coordinated actions involving Hezbollah, Ansarallah, and various Syrian and Iraqi-based factions.

As the economist Herbert Stein noted, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” While Israel is far from being on the brink of collapse, the disciplined and calculated actions of the IRGC are steadily increasing regional tensions. If left unchecked, this could lead to significant repercussions for Israeli society and its economy – all without it realizing, like the wee boiling frog.

April 3, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

Israel’s Attack on Iranian Consulate Highlights Netanyahu’s Pending Defeat in Gaza

Sputnik – 02.04.2024

Tel Aviv launched a strike against the Iranian diplomatic compound in the Syrian capital of Damascus this week, killing several Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officers in the process.

Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria suggests that it is trying to “widen” the ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip by drawing Iran into it, said Foad Izadi, an associate professor at the University of Tehran’s Department of American Studies.

“They have been trying to start a military confrontation between the United States and Iran for many years. And they think that they have an opportunity to have this done fighting Iran using American soldiers,” he told Sputnik, apparently suggesting that the US would be quick to leap to Israel’s defense if the latter were threatened by Tehran.

Izadi also remarked that Israel displayed a blatant disregard for international law by attacking a diplomatic compound, which is a violation of the Vienna Convention.

“That is what Israelis are trying to do. Netanyahu realizes that he has lost the war in Gaza. He has managed to kill more than 30,000, mostly women and children, without achieving any goals except killing these people and ruining their homes,” Izadi said.

“They say that they want to destroy Hamas, but that’s not a goal they can achieve. Obviously, they would have done that if they could. That’s why criminal acts and genocide in Gaza continue. And Netanyahu realizes that sooner or later this war needs to end. And that would be the end of his prime ministership. And so he’s trying to prolong the war, he’s trying to widen the war,” Izadi added.

Noting that Iran’s attempt to seek justice via the UN Security Council may be unsuccessful due to the likelihood of the US vetoing a resolution critical of Israel, Izadi suggested that Tehran may opt to “cause pain for the Israelis so that these types of actions are not repeated.”

“Because Iranian officials realize that if there is no pain in engaging in this type of activity, then they will continue,” he elaborated. “So I think Iran’s response would be two-fold in a manner that is not satisfying the Israeli aim of widening the war. I think that’s what Iranian leaders will do.”

April 2, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

A potential UAE-Hezbollah thaw?

By Radwan Mortada | The Cradle | March 31, 2024

The veiled details behind the recent visit of Wafiq Safa, head of Hezbollah’s Liaison and Coordination Unit, to the UAE remain undisclosed. Rumors propagated by Saudi media have tried to insinuate that the Lebanese resistance party aims to placate its stance towards Israel, possibly even contemplating concessions.

This narrative seeks to undermine or distort any real achievements gained during the rare trip. Despite all the conjecture, one development is undeniable: there has been a nascent shift in thawing the longstanding hostilities between Hezbollah and the UAE — a prominent Arab ally of both the US and Israel.

Strained relations 

The sudden revelation of Safa’s visit to the Persian Gulf state on 19 March was indeed astonishing — a first by a senior Hezbollah official in many years — particularly given Abu Dhabi’s active role in clamping down on even pro-Hezbollah sentiments within the UAE.

The UAE’s track record includes arbitrary arrests and expulsions of Lebanese nationals under all sorts of dubious charges, often subjecting them to inhumane treatment, exemplified tragically in the case of Lebanese businessman Ghazi Ezzeldin, who was tortured to death while in Emirati custody last year.

News reports suggest that seven Lebanese citizens — four serving life sentences; two others facing 15 years in prison — remain incarcerated in the Emirates under charges of laundering funds for Hezbollah and Iran, and for the spurious claim of having made contact with Hezbollah. All of the detainees deny these charges.

In short, UAE authorities need little justification to accuse Lebanese individuals of ties to Hezbollah, which is designated a terrorist entity in the Emirates.

The UAE, it should be noted, is Tel Aviv’s closest Arab ally in West Asia, marked by Abu Dhabi’s decision in 2020 to normalize relations with the occupation state — with Bahrain, the first Arab state in the Persian Gulf to do so. Despite Israel’s genocidal war against Gaza, economic ties between the UAE and Israel continue to flourish, further entrenching their alliance against common adversaries.

Against this backdrop, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad emerges as an unexpected mediator, leveraging his amicable relations with the UAE leadership, united in their opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Behind the scenes, the UAE has been quietly leveraging its international clout to lift US Caesar Act sanctions on Syria, with an eye on participating in the war-torn country’s reconstruction efforts. As the first Arab state to break Assad’s diplomatic isolation, the UAE has now seized the opportunity to engage with Hezbollah via its renewed Damascus channel.

Preliminary discussions, facilitated by Syrian General Intelligence Director Major General Hossam Louka, bridged the gap between the two parties. These exchanges, held on Syrian soil, involved representatives from both Hezbollah and UAE officials.

Louka also visited Lebanon and the UAE to meet with Emirati officials and the leadership of Hezbollah and convey a detailed message to Assad.

Contrary to the many sensationalized reports in regional media, informed sources tell The Cradle that Safa encountered no explicit demands from UAE officials during his visit. Instead, discussions centered on two pivotal objectives: first, securing the release of Lebanese detainees unjustly incarcerated in the UAE under charges of affiliation with Hezbollah, and second, improving the precarious conditions Lebanese expatriates face in the UAE, where their presence is securitized by the state.

The sources affirm the constructive nature of the meetings and indicate there may be imminent releases of the Lebanese detainees before the end of the holy month of Ramadan.

What do both parties want?

But the timing of Safa’s visit, as Israel escalates airstrikes on Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, raises speculation about the implications of this renewed relationship. Safa himself is on a US sanctions list, while Hezbollah retains its designation as a terrorist organization by both Washington and the Persian Gulf states.

The UAE, having previously subjected Lebanese nationals to unjust treatment, now initiates efforts to mend ties with Hezbollah. Conversely, Hezbollah, having waged a war to free prisoners from Israeli detention, displays a willingness to engage in dialogue, even if the optics of its representative shaking hands with UAE officials may not be well-received back home.

Following the visit, Hezbollah issued a very brief statement:

“The head of the Liaison and Coordination Unit, Hajj Wafiq Safa, visited the United Arab Emirates as part of the ongoing follow-up to address the case of a number of Lebanese detainees there, where he met with a number of officials concerned with this case, and [a solution to this issue will be reached hopefully].”

Nevertheless, the underlying question remains: What does the UAE seek to achieve? Did it initiate this thaw in relations merely to reopen its embassy in Lebanon after years of closure and diplomatic strife? Does the UAE have hidden intentions concealing these superficial objectives — and what role could Hezbollah play in this equation?

Outreach to Iran via its allies 

Early this year, as the regional war expanded, CIA Director William Burns wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine: “The key to Israel’s — and the region’s — security is dealing with Iran.”

Abu Dhabi too, knows that the relationship with Tehran is pivotal to resolving crises in the region. Hence, the UAE has taken a significant stride towards Hezbollah, recognizing its critical regional role. While this unusual meeting could have taken place in Damascus, in secret, the UAE opted instead for a public airing and even arranged for Safa’s transportation via plane to the Emirates.

Moreover, Abu Dhabi’s interest in improving relations with Hezbollah and its leadership could have direct security benefits. The Lebanese party has influence with Yemen’s Ansarallah resistance movement, whose naval operations in the Red Sea and other waterways are impacting international navigation and, thus, Emirati interests from the Persian Gulf to the Horn of Africa.

While a Syrian source tells The Cradle that the meeting yielded positive outcomes and is likely to be followed by further engagements, the visit carries implications that extend well beyond the immediate parties involved.

Beyond improving Hezbollah-UAE or Iran-UAE understandings, it will be essential to monitor the subsequent actions of Saudi Arabia’s leadership after this event.

In essence, these developments could lead to improved future relations between Hezbollah and Arab states of the Persian Gulf, in turn reversing Washington and Tel Aviv’s strategic target of clinching further normalization deals for Israel in West Asia.

March 31, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russian Intelligence Services Kept Eye on West’s Effort to Weaponize ISIS

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 26.03.2024

Over the past two years, Moscow has collected evidence of Western involvement in training and arming jihadi terrorists to weaponize them on the Ukrainian battlefield and Russia’s rear.

The Crocus City Hall terror attack has raised questions about the West’s repeated use of jihadist elements, starting from arming Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Cold War era to most recent reports of Islamists fighting on the side of the Kiev regime.

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) stated on February 13, 2023, that it obtained intelligence indicating that the US military was actively recruiting militants from jihadist groups affiliated with ISIS and al-Qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks in Russia and the CIS countries. According to the SVR, particular attention is paid to attracting people from the Russian North Caucasus and Central Asia to cooperate.

The Russian intelligence service revealed that in January 2023, 60 terrorists with experience of participating in hostilities in the Middle East were recruited by the West, adding that they were undergoing training at the American base in Al-Tanf, Syria, to conduct terrorist and subversive attacks.

The SVR noted at the time that the militants would be dispatched in small groups to the territory of Russia and the CIS countries in cooperation with underground cells of international terrorist groups, including Hizb ut-Tahrir, Jamaat Ansarullah and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

“We see the final loss of any moral principles in the US security forces,” the SVR summarized in its official statement, lambasting Washington’s obsession with inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia by any means possible. “Such actions put Washington on a par with the largest international terrorist groups.”

Intel data confirming the plans described by the SVR started to emerge later in the year. Russian Security Service (FSB) Director Alexander Bortnikov stated at the October 2023 meeting of heads of Russian security agencies and special services that ISIS and other terrorist groups were fighting against Russia as part of the Ichkerian and Crimean Tatar mercenary units in Ukraine. ISIS is also part of sabotage and reconnaissance groups sent to Russian territory to carry out attacks and terrorist attacks, Bortnikov emphasized.

The FSB director pointed out that Western governments were “actively facilitating the movement of militants into the Ukrainian conflict zone.” As of October 2023, the FSB had registered the participation of employees of 13 Western private military companies (PMCs) and members of nine foreign paramilitary proxy forces in the Ukraine conflict on the side of the Kiev regime.

According to Bortnikov, the US and its NATO allies have turned Ukraine into nothing short of a terrorist hotbed.

The FSB chief likewise drew special attention to the US and British intelligence services’ efforts to create a “belt of instability” in Afghanistan near the southern borders of the CIS, where al-Qaeda and the ISIS groups are becoming stronger. To that end, the Western intelligence services were recruiting militants from international terrorist organizations operating in Iraq, Syria, and a number of other Asian and African countries, and transferring them to northern Afghanistan.

“We note the increased role of al-Qaeda, which, in alliance with the IS branch Vilayat Khorasan, takes an active part in the preparation, indoctrination and logistical support of controlled groups,” Bortnikov stressed last October.

Islamic Terror Groups Flocking to Ukraine

From the very beginning of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, reports started to emerge in international media outlets and blogs, shedding light on jihadists of all stripes flocking to the combat zone in Ukraine.

In early March 2022, the BBC quoted Syria-based terrorist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) explicitly expressing solidarity with the Kiev regime. High-profile HTS member al-Shamali al-Hurr took to Telegram to cheer Ukrainian victories by sharing footage and graphic images of damaged Russian military hardware and dead soldiers.

In April 2022, reports emerged claiming that the White Helmets, a Western-backed so-called “humanitarian” Syrian group, had arrived in Ukraine. Prior to this, the group, officially known as the Syrian Civil Defense, pledged to provide “tutorials” to the Ukrainian forces. The group was accused by Syrians of being connected to al-Qaeda offshoots operating in the Middle Eastern country and staging chemical attacks.

What’s more, initial training and financial support to the White Helmets was provided by the Mayday Rescue Foundation, a non-governmental organization established by ex-British Army officer James Le Mesurier. Le Mesurier’s group was instrumental in the West’s long-standing effort to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, according to Grayzone investigative journalists’ account of events in 2016.

The SVR announced in May 2022, citing obtained evidence, that about 60 ISIS terrorists were released from prisons controlled by the US-backed Syrian Kurds a month earlier with the aim of dispatching them to Ukraine as sabotage units. The SVR highlighted that the US Al-Tanf base in Syria’s Homs province was turned into a terrorist hub where militants were trained to be deployed to Ukraine.

“Priority is given to natives of the states of Transcaucasia and Central Asia. The training ‘course’ in Al-Tanf includes training in the use of available types of anti-tank missile systems, reconnaissance and strike drones MQ-1C, advanced communications and surveillance equipment,” the SVR stated.

On October 22, 2022, Al-Monitor reported that it had learned that members of Ajnad al-Kavkaz, a Chechen-led Islamist group, left the Syrian province of Idlib and headed to Ukraine to fight against the Russian military.

Who Masterminded the Crocus City Hall Attack?

The Crocus City Hall terror attack was carried out by the hands of radical Islamists, but it is necessary to find the masterminds and those who benefitted from the hideous crime, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated on Monday.

“The horrific crime committed on March 22 in the capital of Russia is an act of intimidation … and the question immediately arises: who benefits?” Putin said. “This atrocity can only be an element in a whole series of attempts by those who have been fighting our country since 2014 with the hands of the neo-Nazi Kiev regime.”

In the wake of the attack four alleged perpetrators – Dalerdzhon Mirzoyev, Shamsidina Fariduni, Saidakrami Rachabalizoda and Muhammadsobir Fayzov – were caught in the Russian Bryansk region on the way to the Ukrainian border. According to the FSB, the jihadists had connections in Ukraine and sought to hide in the Eastern European country after committing the crime. The fifth suspect, Dilovar Islomov, was detained on March 25.

“We also need to answer the question of why the terrorists tried to leave for Ukraine after committing the crime and who was waiting for them there,” Putin underlined during the conversation with Russian authorities on security measures taken after the terrorist attack.

The Russian president specifically referred to the Biden administration’s effort to divert public attention from Ukraine’s possible involvement immediately after the tragedy.

“We see how the US is taking to various channels to convince its satellites and other countries that according to the data from its intelligence, there is allegedly no Ukrainian trace in the Moscow terrorist attack (…) We already know by whose hands this atrocity against Russia and its people had been carried out. Now we want to know who the mastermind is,” the Russian president emphasized.

March 26, 2024 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: notorious terrorist or American agent?

By William Van Wagenen | The Cradle | March 26, 2024

Ranked second only to Osama bin Laden, the US’s most notorious declared enemy during the so-called War on Terror was Jordanian jihadist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the founder of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

But a closer examination of Zarqawi’s life and his impact on events in Iraq shows that he was likely a product and tool of US intelligence.

Neoconservative strategists within the administration of George W. Bush utilized Zarqawi as a pawn to justify the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003 to the American public.

Moreover, he was instrumental in fomenting internal discord within Iraqi resistance groups opposing the US occupation, ultimately instigating a sectarian civil war between Iraq’s Sunni and Shia communities.

Israel’s plan unfolds in Iraq 

This deliberate strategy of tension in Iraq advanced Tel Aviv’s goal of perpetuating the country’s vulnerabilities, dividing populations along sectarian lines, and weakening its army’s ability to challenge Israel in the region.

It has long been known that the CIA created Al-Qaeda as part of its covert war on the Soviet Red Army in Afghanistan in the 1980s and supported Al-Qaeda elements in various wars, including in BosniaKosovo, and Chechnya in the 1990s.

Additionally, evidence points to CIA support for Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups during the clandestine war in Syria launched in 2011 amid the so-called Arab Spring.

Despite this history, western journalists, analysts, and historians still take at face value that Zarqawi and AQI were sworn enemies of the US.

Without understanding Zarqawi’s role as a US intelligence asset, it is impossible to understand the destructive role the US (and Israel) played in the bloodshed inflicted on Iraq, not only during the initial 2003 invasion but in launching the subsequent sectarian strife as well.

It is also essential to understand the importance of current Iraqi efforts to expel US forces and rid the country of US influence moving forward.

Who was Zarqawi?

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was born Ahmed Fadhil Nazar al-Khalaylah but later changed his name to reflect his birthplace, Zarqa, an industrial area near Amman, Jordan. In and out of prison in his youth, he would become radicalized during his time behind bars.

Zarqawi traveled to Afghanistan to fight with the CIA-backed mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the late 1980s. Upon his return to Jordan, he helped start a local Islamic militant group called Jund al-Sham and was imprisoned in 1992.

After his release from prison following a general amnesty, Zarqawi returned to Afghanistan in 1999. The Atlantic notes that he first met Osama bin Laden at this time, who suspected that Zarqawi’s group had been infiltrated by Jordanian intelligence while in prison, which accounted for his early release.

Zarqawi then fled Afghanistan to the pro-US Kurdistan region of northern Iraq and established a training camp for his fighters in the fateful year of 2001.

The missing link

Eager to implicate Iraq in the 9/11 attacks, it wasn’t long before the Bush administration officials soon used Zarqawi’s presence to shroud Washington’s geopolitical agendas there.

In February 2003, at the UN Security Council, US Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed that Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq proved Saddam was harboring a terrorist network, necessitating a US invasion.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, “This assertion was later disproved, but it irreversibly thrust Zarqawi’s name into the international spotlight.”

Powell made the claim even though the Kurdish region of Iraq, where Zarqawi established his base, was effectively under US control. The US air force imposed a no-fly zone on the region after the 1991 Gulf War. Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, the Mossad, was also known to have a presence there, a reality that Iran actively acknowledges and remains vigilant about.

Curiously, despite Zarqawi’s base being nestled within the confines of Iraqi Kurdistan, the Bush administration opted for inaction when presented with a golden opportunity to neutralize him.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon drew up detailed plans in June 2002 to strike Zarqawi’s training camp but that “the raid on Mr Zarqawi didn’t take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House.”

Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, justified the inaction by claiming “the camp was of interest only because it was believed to be producing chemical weapons,” even though the threat of chemical and biological weapons falling into the hands of terrorists was supposedly the most important reason for toppling Saddam Hussein’s government.

In contrast, General John M. Keane, the US Army’s vice chief of staff at the time, explained that the intelligence on Zarqawi’s presence in the camp was “sound,” the risk of collateral damage was low, and that the camp was “one of the best targets we ever had.”

The Bush administration firmly refused to approve the strikes, despite US General Tommy Franks pointing to Zarqawi’s camp as among the “examples of the terrorist ‘harbors’ that President Bush had vowed to crush.”

As soon as Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq had accomplished its initial purpose of selling the war on Iraq to the US public, and after the March 2003 invasion was already underway, the White House finally approved targeting his camp with airstrikes. But by then, the Wall Street Journal adds, Zarqawi had already fled the area.

Singling out Shiites 

Then, in January 2004, the key pillar of the Bush administration’s justification for war unraveled. David Kay, the weapons inspector tasked with finding Iraq’s WMDs, publicly declared, “I don’t think they exist,” after nine months of searching.

The Guardian reported that the failure to locate any WMDs was such a devastating blow to the rationale for invading Iraq that now “even Bush was rewriting the reasons for going to war.”

On 9 February, as the WMD embarrassment mounted, Secretary of State Powell again claimed that before the invasion, Zarqawi “was active in Iraq and doing things that should have been known to the Iraqis. And we’re still looking for those connections and to prove those connections.”

Two weeks before, US intelligence had conveniently made public a 17-page letter it claimed Zarqawi had written. Its author claimed responsibility for multiple terror attacks, argued that fighting Iraq’s Shia was more important than fighting the occupying US army, and vowed to spark a civil war between the country’s Sunni and Shia communities.

In subsequent months, US officials attributed a series of brutal bombings targeting Iraq’s Shia to Zarqawi without providing evidence of his involvement.

In March 2004, suicide attacks on Shia shrines in Karbala and the Kadhimiya district of Baghdad killed 200 worshippers commemorating Ashura. In April, car bombings in the Shia-majority city of Basra in southern Iraq killed at least 50.

Regarding the Karbala and Kadhimiya attacks, Al-Qaeda issued a statement through Al-Jazeera strongly denying any involvement, but Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) head Paul Bremer insisted Zarqawi was involved.

Zarqawi’s alleged attacks on Iraq’s Shia helped drive a wedge between the Sunni and Shia resistance to the US occupation and sowed the seeds of a future sectarian war.

This proved helpful to the US army, which was trying to prevent Sunni and Shia factions from joining forces in resistance to the occupation.

‘Dividing our enemies’

In April 2004, President Bush ordered a full-scale invasion to take control of Fallujah, a city in Anbar province that had become the epicenter of the Sunni resistance.

Vowing to “pacify” the city, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt launched the attack using helicopter gunships, unmanned surveillance drones, and F-15 warplanes.

The attack became controversial as the Marines killed many civilians, destroyed large numbers of homes and buildings, and displaced the majority of the city’s residents.

Eventually, due to widespread public pressure, President Bush was forced to call off the assault, and Fallujah became a ‘no-go’ zone for US forces.

The failure to maintain troops on the ground in Fallujah had US planners turning back to their Zarqawi card to weaken the Sunni resistance from within. In June, a senior Pentagon official claimed that “fresh information” had come to light showing Zarqawi “may be hiding in the Sunni stronghold city of Fallujah.”

The Pentagon official “cautioned, however, that the information is not specific enough to allow a military operation to be launched to try to find al-Zarqawi.”

The sudden appearance of Zarqawi and other Jihadists in Fallujah at this time was not an accident.

In a report written for the US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) entitled “Dividing our enemies,” Thomas Henriksen explained that the US military used Zarqawi to exploit differences among its enemies in Fallujah and elsewhere.

He writes that the US military maintained the goal of “fomenting enemy-on-enemy deadly encounters” so that America’s “enemies eliminate each other,” adding that “When divisions were absent, American operators instigated them.”

The Fallujah Case Study

Henriksen then cites events in Fallujah in the fall of 2004 as “a case study” that “showcased the clever machinations required to set insurgents battling insurgents.”

He explained that the takfiri–Salafi views of Zarqawi and his fellow jihadis caused tension with local insurgents who were nationalists and embraced a Sufi religious outlook. Local insurgents also opposed Zarqawi’s tactics, which included kidnapping foreign journalists, killing civilians through indiscriminate bombings, and sabotaging the country’s oil and electricity infrastructure.

Henriksen further explained that US psychological operations, which took “advantage of and deepened the intra-insurgent forces” in Fallujah, led to “nightly gun battles not involving coalition forces.”

These divisions soon extended to the other Sunni resistance strongholds of Ramadi in Anbar province and the Adhamiya district of Baghdad.

The divisions instigated by US intelligence through Zarqawi in Fallujah paved the way for another US invasion of the restive city in November 2004, days after Bush secured re-election.

BBC journalist Mark Urban reported that 2,000 bodies were recovered after the battle, including hundreds of civilians.

Conveniently, “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was not among the dead,” having slipped through the US cordon around the city before the assault began, Urban added.

Domestic consumption 

US military intelligence later acknowledged using psychological operations to promote Zarqawi’s role in the Sunni insurgency fighting against the US occupation.

The Washington Post reported in April 2006 that “The US military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq,” which helped “the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the 11 September 2001 attacks.”

The Post quotes US Colonel Derek Harvey as explaining, “Our own focus on Zarqawi has enlarged his caricature, if you will – made him more important than he really is.”

As the Post reports further, the internal documents detailing the psychological operation campaign “explicitly list the ‘US Home Audience’ as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.”

The campaign to promote Zarqawi also proved helpful to President Bush during his re-election campaign in October 2004. When Democratic challenger John Kerry called the war in Iraq a diversion from the so-called War on Terror in Afghanistan, President Bush responded by claiming:

“The case of one terrorist shows how wrong [Kerry’s] thinking is. The terrorist leader we face in Iraq today, the one responsible for planting car bombs and beheading Americans, is a man named Zarqawi.”

Who killed Nick Berg?

Nick Berg, a US contractor in Iraq, was allegedly beheaded by Zarqawi. In May 2004, western news outlets published a video showing Berg, dressed in an orange Guantanamo-style jumpsuit, being beheaded by a group of masked men.

A masked man claiming to be Zarqawi stated in the video that Berg’s killing was in response to the US torture of detainees in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.

Berg was in Iraq trying to win reconstruction contracts and disappeared just days after he spent a month in US detention in Mosul, where he was interrogated multiple times by the FBI.

On 8 May, a month after his disappearance, the US military claimed they found his decapitated body on the side of a road near Baghdad.

But US claims that Zarqawi killed Berg are not credible. As the Sydney Morning Herald reported at the time, there is evidence the beheading video was staged and included footage from Berg’s FBI interrogation. It was uploaded to the internet not from Iraq but from London and remained online just long enough for CNN and Fox News to download it.

Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt also lied about Berg having been in US military custody, claiming instead he had only been held by the Iraqi police in Mosul.

But the video cemented in the minds of the American public that Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda were major terror threats.

Such was the impact in the US, that following the video’s release, the terms ‘Nick Berg’ and ‘Iraq war’ temporarily replaced pornography and celebrities Paris Hilton and Britney Spears as the internet’s main searches.

Sectarianism, a key US–Israeli goal

Large-scale sectarian war erupted following the February 2006 bombing of the Shia Al-Askari Shrine in the Sunni city of Samarra in central Iraq, although the full extent was mitigated thanks to religious guidance issued by the highest and most influential Shia authority in the land, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Al-Qaeda did not take credit for the attack, but President Bush later claimed that “the bombing of the shrine was an Al-Qaeda plot, all intending to create sectarian violence.”

Zarqawi was finally killed in a US airstrike a few months later, on 7 June 2006. An Iraqi legislator, Wael Abdul-Latif, said Zarqawi had the phone numbers of senior Iraqi officials stored in his cell phone at the time of his death, further showing Zarqawi was being used by elements within the US-backed Iraqi government.

By the time of Zarqawi’s death, the neoconservative agenda to divide and weaken Iraq through instigating chaos and sectarian conflict had reached its pinnacle. This goal was further exacerbated by the emergence of a successor group to AQI – ISIS – which played an outsized role a few years later in destabilizing neighboring Syria, igniting sectarian tensions there, and providing the justification for the renewal of a US military mandate in Iraq.

March 26, 2024 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

War on Yemen part of US, UK scenario to reshape region in favor of Israel: Houthi

Press TV – March 26, 2024

The leader of Yemen’s Ansarullah resistance movement has said the Saudi-led war on Yemen is part of a strategy pursued by the US and Britain to reshape the region in favor of Israel.

Abdul-Malik al-Houthi made the remarks in a televised address on Monday night marking the ninth anniversary of the Saudi-led war on Yemen.

“The Yemen war was part of a larger geopolitical strategy pursued by the United States, Britain, and Israel to reshape the region for the benefit of the Zionist regime,” he said.

He condemned the Saudi-led offensive as an unwarranted and deceitful conflict aimed at obliterating Yemen, seizing control, and subverting the people’s entitlement to liberty and autonomy.

Houthi went on to highlight the resilience of the Yemeni nation in overcoming the invading forces and their ongoing progress.

The Ansarullah chief noted that the Saudi-led aggression on Yemen has resulted in the death or injury of over 50,000 civilians, mostly women and children.

He reiterated that the Yemeni nation’s spirit remains unbroken, despite the extensive damage inflicted on the country’s essential infrastructure and high civilian toll.

Houthi also emphasized that the Yemeni Armed Forces will further develop their indigenous military capabilities and that authorities in the Sana’a-based National Salvation Government will strive to boost the economy.

He finally called upon certain countries to rectify their miscalculations and renounce their aggressive policies towards Yemen.

In March 2015, Saudi Arabia and its allies launched the war on Yemen to restore power to the impoverished country’s Western- and Riyadh-allied government.

The war has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Yemenis and turned the entire country into the site of what the United Nations has described as the one of world’s worst humanitarian crises.

March 26, 2024 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Most Americans Believe US Will Be in World War Within Next Decade

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | March 24, 2024

The majority of Americans believe it is likely that the US will be involved in a world war during the coming decade. Under President Joe Biden, the US is preparing for great power wars with Russia and China, engaged in multiple Middle East conflicts, and posturing for a confrontation with Iran and North Korea.

According to a new YouGov poll, 61% of Americans responded that it is very or somewhat likely that a world war would break out in the next five to ten years. About two-thirds of people responding to the poll said they believe the war will turn into a nuclear conflict.

When asked what countries would be aligned against the US, a majority of Americans said that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Russia, and China. Americans identified NATO members such as France and the UK, as well as Israel and Ukraine, as allies in the coming world war.

Americans are not overly optimistic about the potential conflict. A slight majority believe the US and its allies would defeat Russia. While under half of respondents said the US would lose a war with Russia or against an alliance between Moscow and Beijing.

While most Americans believe a global conflict is on the horizon, they are not interested in fighting the war. More than twice as many respondents said they would refuse service even if drafted than stated, they would volunteer if the war broke out. Americans responded that they were more likely to serve in non-combat roles or if the homeland was threatened.

The survey was conducted as President Biden embroiled the US in multiple conflicts, putting America on the brink of war across various global hot spots. The White House is fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. That conflict has escalated in recent weeks as Ukraine is losing territory and lashing out with attacks on Russia. In response, Moscow has launched more attacks on Ukrainian cities and devastated energy infrastructure with a missile barrage last week.

In the Middle East, Biden withdrew from Afghanistan, but in October, he followed Israel into a massive regional war. Washington is shipping thousands of bombs to Tel Aviv. The US is also bombing Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. Three American soldiers were killed in Jordan earlier this year. Even within the halls of the White House, US officials are concerned Biden’s Middle East policy could lead to a broader war with Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

President Biden has also continued a military buildup in the Asia-Pacific, stoking tensions with North Korea and China. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has responded with a rash of missile tests and fiery rhetoric. Beijing has increasingly pushed back against Washington’s support for Taipei and Manila with military drills in the Taiwan Strait, South, and East China Seas.

A growing divide in the world economy is further adding to global tensions. A rising number of countries, including Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Syria, Yemen, and Zimbabwe, face significant US sanctions. Economic warfare has led to a growing number of countries forming blocs outside of Washington’s control.

March 25, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Russophobia, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s Geopolitical Prospects in the Middle East

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – 21.03.2024 

With Russia able to withstand – and virtually defeat – the combined military strength of NATO in Ukraine, its foreign policy and its diplomatic outreach to the rest of the world is bound to gain not only confidence but also become a lot more assertive than it was during the first year of this conflict when Washington launched its so-called “isolate Russia” project. Translating its military gains in Ukraine, Moscow, for instance, recently hosted Palestinian factions to unify them not only for a durable solution to the longest-lasting conflict in the Middle East but also for developing a strong position vis-à-vis Israel. This approach towards Palestine – which also exhibits a visible anti-Israel position – is directly motivated by Moscow’s broad Middle East outreach at a time when the political opinion in the region has turned against Israel and Washington, leaving Israel virtually isolated despite having established ties with several Muslim states in the recent past.

At the same time, this opinion has also become more favourable towards Russia. A recent survey by the Washington Institute showed that a majority of respondents in the UAE (66%), Saudi Arabia (67%), Kuwait (62%), Egypt (57%), Bahrain (68%), Qatar (63%), and Lebanon (72%) agree that the US is no longer a reliable partner and that the Middle Eastern countries “must look more to other nations like Russia and China as partners”.

On top of that is the strong credentials Moscow carries as a security guarantor. Since at least the end of the Cold War, Washington has dominated the region as its key security guarantor, both through its direct military presence and its supply, i.e., sale, of weapons worth billions of dollars to the region. But Moscow dismissed Washington’s dominance via the key role it played in Syria to defeat the US-backed “regime change” operation. Subsequently, it has been successful in helping Syria’s relations with several Arab states, including Saudi and the UAE, to become normal. Moscow, in other words, was successful in translating its military gains into diplomatic victories by becoming a peacemaker in the Middle East. Washington, on the other hand, has not been able to bring peace to the Middle East and/or prevent Israel from committing genocide.

Russia’s Middle Eastern forays are, therefore, in part motivated by Washington’s failures. At the same time, Russia also sees itself as a great military power and a great power needs to have a strong foothold – which does not have to be a military presence – in the region.

If the ultimate objective of any superpower policy is to advance its core interests, non-military means can be very useful too. In the recent past, Russia’s engagement with several Middle Eastern states via the OPEC+ framework has served its key interests well. Via OPEC+, Russia has been able to not only withstand a US-led assault on its economy but also inflict a lot of economic damage on the Western economy. Washington’s inability to break OPEC+ has led to a high inflation rate throughout Europe and North America.

While a lot of Russian ability to accomplish this depended upon the cooperation of other OPEC countries, the latter, including Saudi Arabia, also see Russia as an alternative to Washington. Plus, the partnership with Russia is also paying off. Despite a global growth rate of less than 3 percent in 2023, Saudi’s Aramco earned US$121 billion in 2023, thanks to the careful management of oil supply and prices.

Turkey is another major player in the Middle East that continues to have strong ties with Russia, primarily because of the ways that these ties serve mutual interests. The trade turnover between them increased by more than 80 percent in 2022 to reach US$62 billion. Russia is already Turkey’s biggest source of imports. But this relationship is not costly. On the contrary, Turkey saved US$2 billion on oil imports from Russia by purchasing discounted oil. Ankara was able to do this because it refused to join the US-led regime of sanctions on Russia. As a result, Russia became Turkey’s biggest supplier of energy in 2023.  In 2023, Turkey imported 49.93% of its oil from Russia. A year earlier, the share of Russian oil in the Turkish market was 40.74%. Due to this, the US has been trying for the past few months to impose fresh sanctions on Russia to make Turkey-Russia [trade] difficult. But whether it will have any real impact is not hard to guess due to the increasing availability of alternative channels, i.e., using Central Asian States, to conduct trade and transfer payments.

Still, US efforts to put restrictions on entities from Russia and the Middle East to prevent them from doing trade with Russia itself shows the success Russia has achieved in the Middle East. The US fears that if Russia, like China, continues to expand its relationship with this energy-rich region, it could accelerate US exit from the region, leaving Washington’s efforts to revamp its ties, including via offering strategic defence partnerships to countries like Saudi Arabia, meaningless vis-à-vis Russia.

If even, speaking of a hypothetical scenario, the political opinion in the Middle East were to see a dramatic change to become pro-US, it does not mean an ‘end’ of Russia’s presence in, and relationship with, the Middle East. A core reason for this is the Middle Eastern states’ own desire to reposition themselves in the emerging global order as autonomous players capable of influencing global politics – something that these states can accomplish by, first and foremost, diversifying their foreign policy and reducing, if not fully eliminating, their historical dependence on the US. In this sense, Russia’s engagement with the Middle East is not simply a short-term phenomenon that would just die out the moment Washington offers a deal to the Gulf states that they cannot refuse. It is here to stay, with its prospects of growing brighter than ever.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

March 21, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The West in Decline – John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

The Duran | March 16, 2024

The West in Decline – John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

ALEXANDER: https://www.youtube.com/AlexanderMercourisReal
ALEX: https://www.youtube.com/alexchristoforou

March 17, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Video | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The special military operation, Avdeyevka, and Gaza

By Yuriy Zinin – New Eastern Outlook – 09.03.2024 

The name Avdeyevka, which is known to few in the Arab world, has featured prominently in the Middle Eastern media in recent weeks. Media commentators have examined the battle to liberate this city, its significance, and discussed the opinions of political analysts and observers on the future course of military operations in the conflict, including its international impact.

A number of military observers quoted in the media have referred to this event as “a turning point in the course of the war,” similar in significance to the conquest of Bakhmut by Russian forces last year, with both cities being of similar strategic and symbolic value.

For example, Rizk Al-Hawalda, a retired brigadier general and military expert from Jordan, believes that the capture of Avdeyevka will allow Russian forces to further strengthen their position in Ukraine, and increase their combat capability to defend the territories under their control.  For the Ukrainian forces, however, the capture means that their ability to retake what they have lost has been thwarted, leaving them to face the fact that this land has now become Russian territory, and that this loss is irreversible.

Other authors believe that the capture of this city will allow Russian forces to control the space around Donetsk and create logistical corridors to expand the scope of their operations.

The Egyptian Al Qahera News edition sees the capture of Avdeyevka as an “important victory” achieved by Russian troops just before the second anniversary of the start of the special military operation. They outnumber the enemy on the battlefield, both in terms of troop numbers and equipment, giving them an advantage when attacking Ukrainian formations, which are short on weapons and soldiers amid cracks in the West’s military support for Kiev.

These changes are also evident in the range of media responses from the Middle East. In general, they adopt a balanced tone when discussing the results of fighting after two years of the special military operation, and the political and economic consequences of the combat.

For example, the influential Saudi newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat opines that Washington and its allies have miscalculated. It is referring to the West’s imposition of anti-Russian sanctions, its attempts to undermine Russia’s economy, deprive it of revenues from hydrocarbon exports, and isolate it in the international arena, etc.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s calculations, it suggests, are based on common sense and are absolutely correct. He has carefully avoided the traps laid out for him and been able, with skill and step by step, to dismantle the economic blockade declared against his country, and the authors also admire the undeniable victories of Russian troops on the military frontlines.

A number of other Arab publications take a similar line. A review of the events in Ukraine, as they see it, teaches a number of lessons. One is that a state’s policy should not be based on promises of support from outside, and should be founded first and foremost on its own interests. Now, the West’s promises of support have failed.  The former media rhetoric that Ukraine is bulwark for Europe is on the wane.

Europeans are suffering from interruptions to the supply of Russian gas, supply chain disruption, inflation and interest rate hikes, etc. The European countries see resolving their own economic crises as their priority, and do not wish to suffer because of Ukraine. In short, the credibility of the Western coalition supporting Ukraine has fallen, and, as the present author notes, it looks as if Ukraine will have to go into the third year of the war alone.

Significantly, such assessments are increasingly being reflected in public opinion in the Middle East. Recently, Akhbar Al Aan, a leading news platform in Dubai (UAE) conducted a poll among its readers about Western military aid for Ukraine. To the question: would this help rescue Kiev, 85% of respondents answered “no” and just 15% answered “yes”.

Today, a number of political observers in the Middle East are drawing parallels between the conflict in Ukraine and the war in Gaza and reaching their own conclusions. In particular, they note the similarity of behavior styles of the leaders of the two countries: Volodymyr Zelensky and Benjamin Netanyahu. They conclude that both are characterized by a pathological desire to deny reality and are stubbornly following their chosen courses, despite the obvious failures of their strategies….

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky showed no sympathy for the Palestinian victims of the war in Gaza. He did not hesitate for a second, but supported the Israeli war machine, Akhbar Al Aan claims.

Other authors criticize the “blindness” of those countries that oppose Russia’s “invasion” of Ukraine but are unable to see what Israel has been doing in the Gaza Strip since October 2023.

In their view, one of the lessons of the Gaza conflict involves the issue of trust in the West. It promotes and continues to proclaim its values and principles as universal, applying to all people regardless of religion, race or nationality. But these trumpeted values have not been applied in Gaza.

Many political observers share this view. The disillusionment with Western values that has emerged in the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Gaza Strip has left a deep wound in the hearts and minds of Arab elites who had placed their hopes in an engagement with Western civilization. This will push the Arab nations’ Islamic civilization, and the civilization of the Global South in general, further away from the West, Arab media commentators predict.

Yuri Zinin, senior researcher at the Center for Middle East and Africa Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO).

March 9, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Leave a comment

The conflict in the Red Sea and the reaction of the world community

By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – 04.03.2024 

During the discussion that took place on 14 February 2024 at the UN Security Council meeting, questions were raised about the unlawful shelling by the US and UK in Yemen in violation of all international laws and regulations. This serious issue was discussed in detail due to the violations of international law and human rights that accompany these shellings. The UNSC participants condemned these actions by the US and the UK as illegal and unacceptable. Despite demagogic statements about the fight against terrorism and alleged support for international security, such shelling by Western powers located tens of thousands of kilometres away from the Red Sea basin only exacerbates the humanitarian situation in Yemen and causes irreparable harm to the lives of civilians, including primarily children and women. At the meeting, the panellists rightly raised the need to put an urgent end to this shelling and to return to negotiations for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. It was noted that another wave of violence by Western countries would only exacerbate the situation in that poor Arab country and hinder the achievement of sustainable peace in the region.

Russia’s and China’s opinion

Russia and China have deemed the US and UK bombing of Yemeni territory illegal and contrary to the United Nations Charter, accusing them of illegally attacking Yemen, whose residents support the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip in the face of the Israeli regime’s bloodbath. Russia’s Deputy Ambassador to the UN Dmitry Polyansky and China’s representative to the UN Zhang Jun stressed that the UN Security Council has never authorised military action against Yemen. For his part, the UN special envoy for Yemen, Western representative Hans Grundberg, said that the US and UK attacks and the American declaration of the Ansar Allah resistance movement in Yemen as a “specially designated terrorist group” were merely “of concern.” And what exactly could this so-called envoy, who is entirely on Washington’s payroll and receives all instructions from White House officials, have said.

Mr Polansky correctly emphasised that the root cause of the current situation is Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, which have provoked angry reactions in West Asia, including from Yemenis. “An immediate ceasefire in Gaza will help stabilise the situation in the Red Sea, and de-escalation will in turn unblock the efforts of Special Envoy Grundberg,” he said. The Chinese envoy also expressed concern over the escalation of tensions in the Red Sea region, in particular “the continuation of military operations by certain countries” against Yemen. He called for an immediate halt to the Yemeni hostilities against merchant shipping and stressed the fact that the UN Security Council has not authorised the use of force against Yemen.

“At this critical moment, China hopes that all parties in Yemen will put the interests of the people first, show determination and resolutely push the political process forward to achieve final results,” Zhang Jun added. He also emphasised that “the most urgent task is to immediately promote a ceasefire in Gaza and take responsible measures to prevent further escalation in the region.”

Aggressive actions of the US and UK

For weeks, the United States and Britain have been waging a fierce bombing campaign on Yemeni territory. The reason is well known – this Arab country has boldly declared its open support for the Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip against the Israeli carnage since 7 October last year, in which some 30,000 civilians, especially the elderly, women and children, have already been killed. The US, being one of the leading superpowers and a global factor, has stated its brazen stance on the issue of shelling Yemen. They deny their direct involvement in the conflict, claiming that they are only supporting military assistance and supplies to Saudi Arabia, which in turn is conducting operations to defeat the Houthis. However, human rights advocates and humanitarian organisations have raised accusations of US involvement in human rights and civilian violations during these operations.

Despite strong condemnation of its brutal and aggressive actions, the United States has again “conducted five strikes in self-defence” against areas of Yemen controlled by the Houthi militia, the US Central Command said. It struck three mobile anti-ship cruise missiles, one unmanned underwater vessel and one unmanned surface vessel on 17 February, the statement said. “This is the first observed use of an unmanned aerial vehicle by the Houthis since the attacks began on 23 October,” CENTCOM said in a statement on its X website. Central Command said it had determined the missiles and ships posed “an immediate threat to U.S. Navy ships.” The Houthi attacks in the Red Sea area have been one of the signs of spreading conflict in the Middle East since war broke out between Israel and Hamas after 7 October.

Unlike the US, the UK, its closest ally and most likely a country once with a solid international reputation, chooses not to explicitly support Saudi Arabia, but also does not actively oppose it. Instead, London claims to be providing military assistance centred on training and advice to prepare the Saudi army for its tasks. In these statements, the British demagogically point to the importance of maintaining the stability of the region and fighting terrorism. However, in doing so, they forget to recall that it is they, together with their overseas partners, who are the main disturbers of peace and tranquillity and the main “creators” of the atmosphere of terrorism in the region.

Alongside these states, some delegates from US satellite countries expressed support for the US and UK, arguing that the shelling was in response to acts of terrorism and extremism that threaten world security. They emphasise the need for action to ensure the safety of their citizens and partners. The UN Security Council meeting was by all accounts very tense and controversial, reflecting the complexity of the situation in Yemen and the multifaceted challenges faced by the parties to the conflict. But it was nevertheless called for further discussion and for finding ways to end the violence and restore peace. In conclusion, the UN Security Council meeting emphasised that violators of international law and human rights, including the systematic shelling of Yemen, must be brought to justice and those responsible must be punished accordingly. The decision on further steps and investigations was postponed until all the arguments made during the discussion are recorded, and a relevant document is prepared for further voting.

Ways and means of resolving the conflict in the Red Sea

Human rights advocates and humanitarian organisations object to this position and allege US and UK complicity in human rights and civilian violations in Yemen. Critics also point out that US and UK military aid could be used to commit crimes against humanity and military operations could be disproportionate and indifferent to civilians. The need to resolve the conflict in Yemen is integral to upholding international law and protecting human rights. The world community must continue dialogue, find a political solution and provide humanitarian assistance to end the exclusively military approach and eliminate civilian suffering. So, the position of the US and UK on the shelling of Yemen is causing disagreement and concern among human rights supporters and humanitarian organisations. It is necessary to continue the international discussion in order to achieve peace and stability in the region, calling for respect for international law and the protection of human rights.

Yemen continues to actively target American and other ships that deliver supplies to Israel. The Yemenis’ main argument in favour of shelling ships delivering supplies to Israel is the destruction of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip. In their view, the situation in Palestine remains tense due to Israeli occupation and state policies, leading to regular conflict and violence. In turn, by supporting trade with Israel, American and other ships become indirect contributors to Palestinian suffering. Yemen’s weakened economy and infrastructure put the country in a difficult position. Regular new sanctions and the blockade of the country by international allies make Yemen’s economy extremely vulnerable. For Yemen, the shelling of ships delivering supplies to Israel may be an attempt to gain international attention and launch a dialogue on the Palestinian issue.

In today’s world, the Red Sea remains a key region of geopolitical importance. Along with issues of security and economic stability, emerging conflicts between states and factors in the region regularly attract international attention. However, there are different ways and factors that can play an important role in resolving and preventing conflicts in order to achieve peace and tranquility in the Red Sea.

Above all, the States in which the Red Sea is located must take an active part in finding a way to resolve conflicts peacefully. They should seek dialogue and international cooperation rather than the use of force and military action. Instead of creating tension and threatening security, states should seek common interests and co-operation in the fields of economy, trade, transport and combating international terrorism.

However, in addition to the active role of states, international organisations and forums can play an important role in resolving conflicts in the Red Sea. For example, the United Nations can mediate negotiations and facilitate agreements between states in the region. It can propose mechanisms and strategies to resolve disputes and support dialogue between parties. Also, regional international organisations such as the Arab League or the African Union can contribute to conflict resolution and stability in the Red Sea.

In addition, the role of civil society and non-governmental organisations should not be forgotten. They can play an important role in planting peace and tranquility in the region through engaging in diplomatic efforts, supporting dialogue between the parties and publicly highlighting conflicts. Civil society can give a voice to peace and help to shape public opinion in favour of the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

It is quite clear that conflicts in the Red Sea can and must be resolved in the interests of peace and tranquillity in the region. To that end, the active participation of States, international organisations, civil society and non-governmental organisations is essential. Only through cooperation and dialogue can sustainable peace and tranquillity in the Red Sea be achieved, which will benefit all States and peoples living in the region.

Victor MIKHIN is a Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.

March 4, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Washington’s Wars Eroding its Global Clout

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – 04.03.2024 

If war is politics by other means, Washington’s ongoing wars in the Middle East and Eastern Europe are meant to buttress its global influence on the one hand and undermine its competitors on the other. But the question is: how is this politics by other means working out for Washington? Not so good. Russia’s recent military victories in Ukraine and China’s expansive inroads into the Middle East alongside the growing anti-Americanism in the region (due to Washington’s support for Israel and its inability to prevent a genocide of the Palestinians) indicate an overall American inability to shape global geopolitics in unilateral ways to the exclusive advantage of Washington and its allies in Europe and elsewhere.

Russia’s recent military gains in Ukraine, for example, have very clearly established its military credentials as a power that has been able to withstand the combined military strength of the US and its European allies assembled in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). What does this mean for Washington’s policies in Central Asia? Most certainly, Washington cannot simply present Russia as a ‘weak’ military power that can be simply ‘isolated’. But more than that, Russia is utilising its victories over NATO in various ways.

For instance, when the NATO-backed Russia-Ukraine military conflict began, most reports in the mainstream US media began to spread false messaging about Central Asia potentially moving itself out of the so-called ‘Russian clout’. The US saw in it an opportunity to push itself into the region. But this has turned out to be a fiasco. When the US imposed sanctions on Russia, many Russian companies began to relocate their businesses to Central Asia, directly contributing to Central Asia’s impressive 4.8 percent growth rate in 2023. According to the findings of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the region is forecast to register an even more impressive level of growth at almost 5.7 percent in 2024-25.

In other words, thanks to Washington’s sanctions, the Russian political economy is now more deeply connected with Central Asia than it was before February 2022, which is also strengthening the Eurasian Economic Union. Now that this integration is working for the advantage of Central Asia means that the latter have little to no incentive to pay too much attention to Washington and/or the imperatives of moving decisively to Washington. It means that not only has the Biden administration’s policy of NATO expansion via Ukraine failed so far in Ukraine itself, but the ‘new’ Central Asia policy it inaugurated in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine conflict has also failed to make any impact on the ground. Russia defeated US design also by approaching relations with the Central Asian States in ways that gave them enough space to stay neutral in the conflict. While the West saw this neutrality as a sign of Russian weakness in the region and the Central Asian States’ growing assertiveness, it failed to read how this was part of Russia’s strategy to cultivate its ties in a more balanced way. This balance is also pretty evident in the ways Russia has not objected to, or even resisted, China’s growing footprint in the region, although reports in the Western media often see China’s role in Central Asia at the expense of Russia. But the West seems to have been misreading this region.

As far as Washington’s war in the Middle East is concerned, its military support for Israel plus its inability to stop genocide has eroded its credibility. Suppose Washington has been supporting Israel to maintain its dominance in the Middle East. In that case, Washington’s excessive support is now derailing its objectives, since the Middle East is now exercising a lot more strategic autonomy vis-à-vis Washington than was the case until a few years ago.

In the past few months, a flurry of Chinese activity indicates it much more clearly than anything else. China has convened leadership summits, met with Arab delegates, supported their stance vis-à-vis Israel, and held joint military exercises with one of the US’ most important allies in the region (Saudi Arabia). The UAE, otherwise a close US ally and one of the first states to sign the Abraham Accords to recognise Israel and establish diplomatic ties with it, actually withdrew from the US-led naval task force in May 2023, indicating policy and interest-based differences.

The UAE is also a country in the Middle East that has over 100,000 Chinese living there and involved in many businesses. But when it comes to the Middle East itself, and the fact that many countries in the region are involved in China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI), we see the region’s trade with China registering an overall growth of almost 45 percent in 2021 and 27 percent in 2022.

Given the economic integration, the Middle East is turning out to be a region where Washington’s clout is receding fast, without any signs of recovery in the immediate future at least. Although US strikes in the Red Sea on the Houthis are meant to indicate Washington’s willingness to offer a security umbrella to the Gulf states (against Iran-backed groups), the region appears to be past the point where it must have the US on its side to ensure security. Gulf states’ perceptions of Iran as an enemy are changing, thanks to Beijing’s mediation.

As far as Washington’s support for Israel is concerned and as far as the threat of a wider war in the region it is posing, Gulf states are on the edge of a conflict that might directly undermine their modernization programmes – development projects that mainly involve China in various capacities.

Therefore, if Washington’s involvement in the Israel war was meant to bring back the era of US dominance, the exact opposite is happening, both in the Middle East and Central Asia, which happen to be two of the world’s most energy-rich regions.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

March 4, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment