martes, 31 de diciembre de 2013

US Sponsored “Islamic Fundamentalism”: The Roots of the US-Wahhabi Alliance


The alliance between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia helped spread the ideology of fundamentalist Sunni Islam all over the globe. The majority of its victims are not citizens of Western countries, but citizens of countries that U.S. elites consider a threat to their economic and geopolitical interests. Many victims of Sunni extremism (often called Wahhabism or Salafism[1]) are in fact Muslims (often with a secular leftist or nationalist political background), moderate Sunni or members of Shiʿite Islamic faith.

This article addresses the history of Wahhabi fundamentalism and the examples of Afghanistan in the 80s, as well as the current situation in Syria. Both cases illustrate America’s responsibility for the destruction of secular, socially progressive societies in the Islamic world and elsewhere.

The Origins of Wahhabism

Wahhabi ideology serves U.S. interests for several reasons. Its followers’ archaic perception of society makes them reject any kind of progressive social change. Therefore they are well equipped to push back socialist, secular or nationalist movements, whose independence-oriented policies are a threat to America’s geopolitical agenda. Although Wahhabism certainly is not representative of the majority of Sunni Muslims, Wahhabi Muslims are Sunni extremists, which causes them to maintain an extremely hostile stance towards Shi’te Islam.

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which brought down the secular-nationalist regime of Saddam Hussein (a Sunni), the influence of Shi’ite-dominated Iran increased and caused a certain power shift in favor of Shiʿite Islam in the region. Due to this strengthened Shiʿite representation, American activities in the Middle East in recent years have been almost exclusively directed against Shiʿite interests. The emancipation of deprived Shiʿite masses in Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen or Lebanon are contrary to aspirations from the side of the U.S., whose main allies in the region (next to Israel) consist of repressive Sunni regimes and terror groups.

In the case of Syria, President Bashar Al-Assad (an ally of Iran) and the secular Syrian society particularly evoke the hatred of extremists. The fact that Al-Assad belongs to the Alawite minority (a mystical religious group and a branch of Shiʿite Islam) makes him unacceptable to Wahhabi purists.

Portraying Syria ruled solely by its Alawi minority (as some mainstream journalists tend to do) would nevertheless be wrong. As Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya pointed out, among the Syrian top officials killed by a terrorist attack on July 18, 2012, Sunnis and Christians could be found among the Alawites.[2]

It is therefore worth examining the background of these enemies of secularism, multi-faith society and progress. Wahhabism is a puritanical branch of Sunni Islam that was founded in the middle of the 18th Century by Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab, a theologian who propagated holy war and the “purification” of Islam. One of his inspirations was Ahmad ibn Hanbal (780-855), who opposed any kind of intellectual debate that differentiated between the word of god and its interpretation.

Al-Wahhab and his ideas might have been forgotten by history if he hadn’t made a pact with Muhammad ibn Saud, emir of Al-Diriyah and ruler of the first Saudi state in 1744.

According to Robert Dreyfuss, the Saudi-Wahhabi alliance:

“…began a campaign of killing and plunder all across Arabia, first in central Arabia, then in Asir in Southern Arabia and parts of Yemen, and finally in Rhiadh and the Hijaz. In 1802 they raided the Shiite holy city of Karbala in what is now Iraq, killing most of the city’s population, destroying the dome over the grave of a founder of Shiism, and looting property, weapons, clothing, carpets, gold, silver and precious copies of the Quran.”[3]

In order to keep the faith “pure”, influences from Greek philosophy, Christianity and Judaism had to be exterminated. Intellectuals, artists, scientists and progressive rulers were declared enemies with no right to live.

It goes without saying that the idea of representing the pure teaching of Islam was fanatically pursued; in fact, Wahhabi warriors were fighting in order to spread the most archaic lifestyle that could be found within Arab culture.

In the second half of the 19th century, British imperialism discovered the house of Al Saud as a potentially useful ally in its attempt to gain influence in the Middle-East.

Riadh had been invaded by the Ottoman sultan in 1818. The Al Saud returned to power in 1823, but its area of control was mainly restricted to the Saudi heartland of the Nejd region, known as the second Saudi State. In 1899 the British helped the Al Saud establish a base in its protectorate of Kuwait, in order to reconquer Riadh, at that time ruled by the pro-Ottoman Al Rashid dynasty.

Originally Great Britain’s motivation to gain influence in the Middle-East was caused by their view of Arabia and the Gulf as being “one link in a chain that ran from Suez to India, the two anchors of the empire.”[4] Vast oil reserves would be discovered in the 1930s.

Great Britain became the first country to recognize the new Saudi Arabia as an independent state, establishing its current borders in 1932. A “Treaty of Friendship and Good Understanding” between the British Crown and the Saudi monarch was signed already in 1927. The 1924 integration of the holy sites of Mecca and Medina into the kingdom through military conquest inevitably contributed to firmly entrenching Al Saud’s authority in the Muslim world.

U.S. interest in Saudi Arabia started to grow as well around the same time, and a treaty with the California Arabian Standard Oil Company was agreed upon in 1932. It was the first such agreement created in cooperation with a western oil company.

In the following years and decades, the increasing revenues in oil business enabled the Saudi financing of religious institutions worldwide, propagating extremist interpretations of Islam. The flow of petro-dollars was of great importance to Saudi elites, who adapted a luxurious lifestyle and at the same time maintained an alliance with the Wahhabi base.[5] They also maintained ties to U.S. state officials, who welcomed Saudi oil as well as radical Islam, as long as it was directed against those standing in the way of America’s geopolitical agenda.

“Foreign aid” financed by the Kingdom was tremendous, according to U.S. “anti-terror” expert Alex Alexiev (though he doesn’t acknowledge the U.S. involvement in spreading Wahhabi terror):

“Between 1975 and 1987, the Saudis admit to having spent $48 billion or $4 billion per year on ‘overseas development aid’, a figure which by the end of 2002 grew to over $70 billion (281 billion Saudi rials).These sums are reported to be Saudi state aid and almost certainly do not include private donations which are also distributed by state-controlled charities. Such staggering amounts contrast starkly with the $5 million in terrorist accounts the Saudis claim to have frozen since 9/11.”[6]

A report from September 2009, made by the United States Government Accountability Office, points out the historical relevance of U.S.-Saudi relations:

“Relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia have a long historical context. Since the establishment of the modern Saudi state in 1932, and throughout the Cold War, the governments of the United States and Saudi Arabia developed a relationship based on shared interests, including energy production and combating communism. For instance, both Saudi Arabia and the United States became major supporters of the Afghan Mujahideen’s struggle against the Soviet invasion in 1979.”[7]

Saudi-backed archaic ideology served as an incentive to thousands of confused young men to receive military training in Pakistan in the 1980s, from where they were sent to Afghanistan in order to kill Russians.

America’s ‘Holy War’ against the USSR in Afghanistan

In a famous interview from 1998, former National Security Advisor to President Carter and geopolitical strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, openly admitted that the hidden agenda of U.S. involvement in the war between Soviet troops and Afghan Mujahideen (1979-1988) was about “giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.” He also admitted that American covert support of Islamist fighters in Afghanistan had already started six months prior to the beginning of Soviet intervention in order to create a trap that would eventually lead to the collapse of the USSR. Nothing about this is worth regretting, according to Mr. Brzezinski, not even the U.S. alliance with radical Islam:

“What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”[8]

In addition, the former Pakistani regime under General Zia Ul Haq, whose political program consisted of a plan of “Islamisation” of the country, was the main American ally when it came to training Islamist fighters. This happened under close cooperation between the CIA and the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence). The ideological indoctrination of the people supposed to fight against the Soviets was being delivered by Pakistani madrassas, schools of radical (Wahhabi) Islam, financed by Saudi Arabia.[9]

While U.S. officials justified their support for the Mujahideen by presenting them as some kind of supposed freedom fighters, their Islamist allies showed less restraint in revealing their plans for Afghanistan. One example was the ISI Director General at the time, Akhtar Abdur Rahman Shaheed, who expressed his opinion quite undiplomatically: “Kabul must burn! Kabul must burn!”[10]

While Brzezinski achieved his goal, the fate of Afghanistan is well known: decades of civil war, brutality, analphabetism, the worst possible violation of women’s rights, extreme poverty and sectarian violence. Not to mention pollution by depleted uranium causing a sharp increase in cancer rates thanks to the U.S. bombing campaign from October 2001.

United States and Saudi Arabia against Secular Syria

Many other scenarios involving CIA/Saudi-sponsored terrorism took place in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union (e.g. in Chechnya, Bosnia, Libya etc.).

Currently, Syria’s secular, multi-ethnic and multi-faith society is being targeted by these very same forces, as well as reactionary regimes belonging to the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC) and Turkey. As with the war in Afghanistan in the 80s, U.S. involvement in the Syrian crisis is intended to isolate Iran and, once again, target Russia. In conjunction, Wahhabi extremists are carrying out the same work as their forefathers in the 18th Century, namely fighting all tolerant forms of Islam.

Might this have been the reason why insurgents killed the youngest son of Syria’s highest Islamic authority, Grand Mufti Ahmad Badreddine Hassoun? Indeed, the position of the Grand Mufti is not aligned with Wahhabi extremism, as was clearly shown in last year’s interview with Der Spiegel:

“I see myself as the grand mufti of all 23 million Syrians, not just Muslims, but also Christians and even atheists. I am a man of dialogue. Who knows, maybe an agnostic will convince me with better arguments one day, and I’ll become a non-believer. And if I’m enthusiastic about the opposition’s political platform, I also might change sides.”[11]

In addition, several events that took place on the day this particular interview are worth noticing:

“During the late afternoon, the grand mufti has other appointments: condolence visits with a Christian and a Muslim family. In the evening, he will have to comfort his wife once again, who is completely distraught over the death of Saria. He was the youngest of the couple’s five sons, and the only one still living at home. Saria’s fellow students are holding a vigil at his stone sarcophagus, even now, four weeks after the murder. The young man’s last resting place can be found in the courtyard of a modest mosque. Sheikh Hassoun visits this sad place every day.”[12]

This certainly does not correspond with the Western media’s picture of fanatical Islamists, who consider the death of their sons a sign of honour and martyrdom, as long as they have died under circumstances that caused the death of “infidels” as well. Such behaviour is encouraged by Saudi Arabia, as can be seen on a shocking video available on YouTube. The shocking footage features a father in Jeddah, selling his son to be sent to Syria as a suicide bomber. Even if one questions the authenticity of the video, the ongoing suicide bombings in Syria are undoubtedly real:


To be sure, the religion of Islam poses just as much or little a threat to the world as the religions of Judaism or Christianity. Nevertheless, certain radical pockets exist who use and abuse religion to justify their disgust for dissent and whose totalitarian practices can only be classified as fascist. Their attempts to destroy reason, progress and humanist ideals make them ideal tools for the most aggressive imperialist factions within the U.S. establishment to push for regime change and implement their exploitative impoverishing agendas.


1“Wahhabi” is a term usually used in a critical context by Muslims. Salafi means “ancestor” and is most often a term used by Sunni fundamentalists to describe themselves.


3 Dreyfuss, Robert: “Devil’s Game: How the United States helped unleash fundamentalist Islam”, New York 20

05, S. 37.

4 Ibid.

martes, 24 de diciembre de 2013

Santa Claus fights foreign-backed terrorists in Syria. Israeli parliament bans Christmas tree display

Santa Claus fights terrorists in Syria
Santa Claus fights terrorists in Syria

In recent days photos of fighters clad in Santa costumes posted on social media underscore Syrian Christians’ determination to fight back Takfiri and al-Qaeda-linked terrorists in the Arab country.

Syrian Christian citizens, along with other ethnic Syrians, have mobilized forces and taken up arms to fight back foreign-backed terrorists who stormed the Arab country three years ago.

With the arrival of the cold season and snowfall which are harbinger of Christmas, Syrian Christians remained resolute not to leave their homes but fight back terrorists and celebrate Christmas.

The foreign-sponsored armed groups, including al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front terrorists, recently have stormed several predominantly Christian towns and villages and massacred the Christian residents.

Earlier this month, Bishop Luca al-Khoury, a senior Orthodox Church official, has urged Christians to take up arms in Syria and defend themselves against extremists, condemning the international community for not stopping flow of arms to Syria militants.

Syrian army supported by citizens has taken advantage of the severe weather conditions of winter to push terrorists back.

RA/NJF See more at:

Israeli parliament bans Christmas tree display

A Palestinian boy and his grandmother decorate a Christmas tree on their balcony overlooking Israel

A Palestinian boy and his grandmother decorate a Christmas tree on their balcony overlooking 

Israel's controversial separation barrier in the biblical West Bank city of Bethlehem, the place where Christians believe Jesus was born, on December 16, 2010 ahead of Christmas celebrations.
The speaker of Israeli parliament has denied a request by a Christian lawmaker to display a Christmas tree in the parliament building, a spokesman for the speaker says.

Speaker Yuli Edelstein rejected his colleague’s request to publicly display a Christmas tree, but said he could have one in his office or in his party’s conference room, the Associated Press reported.

A spokesman for Edelstein said on Monday that keeping a tree in Parliament until Orthodox Christmas ends on January 7 would be too long.

This isn’t the first ban on Christmas trees in Israel.

The mayor of an Israeli town bordering Nazareth has refused to allow town-sponsored Christmas trees in the past, despite the fact that the town has some Christian residents.

BA/BA- See more at:

martes, 10 de diciembre de 2013

See the Prawer Plan map Israel's government was keeping secret

Former minister Benny Begin, who helped draft the Prawer Plan, denies saying Israel’s Bedouin support the plan: How could they if they never even saw it?

(Click the map to enlarge.)

Map of the planned land confiscation and compensation as part of the Begin-Prawer Plan (Image: Courtesy of MK Dov Khenin).
Light blue: Jewish town
Orange: Bedouin municipality
Purple: To be expropriated by the state
Green outline: Land to be given to unrecognized villages
Red outline: Land for other uses (pasture, etc.)

Until now, nobody knew the extent of the Prawer-Begin Plan. No government official or statement has detailed how many Bedouin citizens will be displaced, how many unrecognized villages razed and how much land will be expropriated by the state.

MK Dov Khenin (Hadash) on Monday published a copy of a map distributed to members of the Knesset Interior Affairs Committee. The map was prepared by the Prime Minister’s Office for Housing Minister Uri Ariel of the Jewish Home party in an attempt to assuage his party’s fears that too much land would be given to the Bedouin.

Read +972′s full coverage of the Prawer-Begin Plan

According to a report published yesterday on +972, the new map details plans to displace some 40,000 Bedouin and for the state to expropriate 250,000 dunams (61,700 acres) of Bedouin land.

“The government hid this map from the Bedouin. The government hid this map from the Knesset,” MK Khenin wrote on his Facebook page.

It was not clear whether the map was merely an explanatory document meant to swing votes in the Knesset or an actual working document for the eventual implementation of Prawer. MK Merav Michaeli wrote on Twitter Monday afternoon, “[I]t seems the doc the gov presented isn’t the original doc, the gov is still hiding the original and why the changes.”

Another central figure in the formulation of the Prawer-Begin Plan, half of its namesake, former minister Benny Begin, sent a surprising letter to the Knesset Interior Affairs Committee on Monday.

Coalition leader Yariv Levin (Likud) has insinuated and declared that Begin told him the Bedouin community supports the Prawer Plan, or at least that it is a compromise they would accept.

Begin on Monday refuted that he ever made such statements, writing, “I have never said to anyone that the Bedouin accept my plan.”

He couldn’t have made such a claim, he explained, because he never even presented the Bedouin community with his plan, “and therefore I could not have heard their reactions to it.”

“[Because] I was not able to know their level of support for the law, it therefore follows that I couldn’t say that I know anything about their support for the law.”

In addition to Levin’s now-contested Begin quote, Israeli government spokespeople have responded to anti-Prawer protests in recent weeks by making an unsubstantiated claim that 80 percent of the Bedouin population supports the Prawer-Begin Plan.

“How can you claim that 80 percent of the Bedouin population accepts the Prawer Plan when the most basic information about he plan is hidden even from members of Knesset who are voting on it, and certainly hiding from the Bedouin in the Negev,” anti-Prawer activist Huda Abu-Obaid said on Monday.

Read more about the state’s treatment of anti-Prawer activists

“Now it won’t be possible to hide behind vague statements about a plan ‘for the benefit of the Bedouin’,” added another activist, Fadi Elobra. “These documents show anyone who wants to see that this is a plan that will bring about the expulsion of at least 40,000 people from their homes and the expropriation of most of the land under Bedouin ownership in the Negev.”

The activists called on Knesset members to listen to them and their objections to Prawer, vowing to continue protesting against it until the dozens of unrecognized villages in the Negev are recognized and connected to state infrastructure.

Prawer Plan: How the natives became invaders in their own homes
The historical truth about Bedouin expulsion from the Negev

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine'sFacebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

jueves, 5 de diciembre de 2013

حزب الله سيردّ

إسرائيل ضربت... والمقاومة سترد

ابراهيم الأمين

مَن اتخذ قرار الضربة الأليمة واللئيمة التي وجهت أمس إلى المقاومة الإسلامية، عبر اغتيال أحد قادتها الميدانيين؟ من فكر، ومن خطط، ومن اختار التوقيت؟ وعلى أي خلفية فعل ذلك، ولمصلحة من؟ وأية أهداف قرر تحقيقها عبر هذا العمل الأمني ــ السياسي الخطير؟

المؤشرات الخاصة بكيفية تنفيذ الجريمة، تقود كلها إلى إسرائيل. ليس هناك سوى احتمالات ضئيلة جداً، بأن تكون جهة أخرى غير إسرائيل من قام بالعمل. وحتى لو ثبت ذلك، وهو احتمال مستبعد إلى جانب ضآلته، فإن من اختار الهدف ومن قدم المعطيات ومن وفر الخطة هم مجموعة من الاستخبارات النافذة في كيان العدو. ولذلك، لم يكن حزب الله، بحكم خبرته الطويلة في المواجهة مع العدو، بحاجة إلى وقت وإلى جهد قبل تحميل إسرائيل مسؤولية الجريمة، وإنذارها بضرورة تحمل تبعات مثل هذه الأعمال.

بالمعنى المهني، يمكن القول بأن اغتيال قيادي مقاوم، هو جزء من الحرب المفتوحة بين المقاومة والعدو، وبالتالي لا استغراب في ما قامت به إسرائيل. وقد يخرج من يحمّل المقاومة مسؤولية عدم حماية قياداتها. وهو يكون كمن يريد القول بأنه لا داعي لتكبير الموضوع. ومتى ردت المقاومة تكون قد ردت وانتهى الأمر. بالمعنى المهني نفسه، يمكن اعتبار التحليل السابق صحيحاً، لو أن الأمر يقتصر على عمل أمني، أو أنه يقتصر على عمل موضعي لا خلفيات ولا أبعاد له تتصل بكل ما يجري في لبنان وسوريا والمنطقة والإقليم وحتى العالم.

لنضع جانباً ردّ فعل العدو ونفيه علاقته بالجريمة، وبيانات الإدانة والتنديد. لكن ليجرِ التوقف أمام معلومات وردت مساء أمس، عبر قنوات ديبلوماسية، تشير إلى «قلق غربي من أن تكون العملية خطوة إسرائيلية تستهدف ما هو أبعد من اغتيال أحد أعدائها».

القلق الغربي لا يحتاج إلى شرح طويل. فإسرائيل غاضبة فعلاً من الاتفاق القائم بين الغرب وإيران. وإسرائيل غاضبة أكثر من كون الاتفاق وضعها جانباً، وأهمل ـــ من وجهة نظرها ـــ مصالحها الاستراتيجية التي لطالما كانت مقدسة عند الغرب. وإسرائيل غاضبة، لأن الاتفاق قيّدها إزاء ما تراه حقاً في التصرف ضد المشروع النووي الإيراني. وإسرائيل غاضبة، لأن الغرب قدم للمرة الأولى صورة عن تناقض ممكن بين مصالحه ومصالح إسرائيل، وأن ما حصل هو سابقة قابلة للتكرار في أمور أخرى وفي ملفات أخرى.

لكن لنناقش ما الذي فكرت فيه إسرائيل عندما قررت القيام بهذه المغامرة.
واضح أنها تعرف جيداً أنه لا مجال لأن تخوض مغامرة ضد إيران مباشرة. وإضافة إلى العجز عن تنفيذها حرباً من هذا النوع من دون دعم غربي مباشر، فهي تعرف أن من ذهب للاتفاق مع إيران إنما فعل ذلك بعدما فشلت كل الحلول الأخرى. والفشل العسكري قائم، ولو أنه لم يحصل. وإذا ما قررت إسرائيل توجيه ضربة أمنية إلى إيران، فهي عملت طويلاً على الخبراء النوويين. ولو فعلت الأمر نفسه بالأمس، لما كانت قد حققت أي هدف سياسي أو غير سياسي، بل لكانت قد وضعت نفسها في مأزق حقيقي مع حلفائها قبل الآخرين.

تعرف إسرائيل أيضاً، أن معركتها اليوم تفترض منها توجيه ضربة تقول فيها للغرب إنها غير ملتزمة «تماماً» جدول أعمال الغرب لما بعد الاتفاق النووي مع إيران، وإنها تريد «حماية هوامشها الردعية». وهي في الوقت نفسه، تريد أن تقول لإيران ومحورها، إن الاتفاق مع الغرب لا يعني توقف الحرب على مشروعها النووي، ولا على دورها الإقليمي، ولا على وقوفها إلى جانب قوى المقاومة في لبنان وفلسطين. لكن إسرائيل تعرف أنه لا يمكن توجيه الرسالة مباشرة إلى إيران في هذه اللحظات. ومع أن الهجوم الانتحاري على السفارة الإيرانية في بيروت شكل رسالة مزدوجة التوقيع، من قبل إسرائيل ومن قبل حليفتها السعودية، إلا أن إسرائيل لا تكتفي برسائل ملتوية. وفي ذلك دليل ضعف.

تعرف أسرائيل أيضاً أن هناك قراراً كبيراً، في دمشق وموسكو وطهران وبيروت، بأن الغارات التي تقوم بها ضد أهداف سورية بين الوقت والآخر، ليست ذات شأن، قياساً بالحرب الكونية التي تشن على سوريا. وأن القرار يؤجل أي ردّ على غارات إسرائيل، وأن الطرف المقابل يحتفظ بحق الردّ، لكنه لن يخوض المعركة وفق جدول أعمال إسرائيل وتوقيتها.
بناءً على ذلك، وجدت إسرائيل أنها أمام خيارات ضيقة، وهي خيارات حساسة وصعبة، لكنها تفيد في خدمة أكثر من هدف. وقامت بجريمة اغتيال قيادي بارز في المقاومة الإسلامية. وهي قالت لحزب الله عملياً إن يدها الأمنية لا تزال طويلة، وإنها قادرة على توجيه ضربات «جريئة»، و«من دون وسيط» إذا لزم الأمر. وهي تريد إشعار حزب الله ومن خلاله إيران بأن إسرائيل تترجم رفضها لكل ما اتُّفق عليه بين الغرب وطهران. وعندما قررت إسرائيل هذه الخطوة، عرفت أنها قادرة على البعث برسائل إلى «الحلفاء الجدد»، وخصوصاً السعودية، ومفادها أن «عدونا واحد، ويمكنكم أن تتبنوا عملاً نقوم به نحن ضد حزب الله، وها نحن نشد على أيديكم، ونقول لكم، لا تخضعوا لضغوط الغرب بشأن إيران ولا بشأن سوريا، وانتزعوا معنا الهامش الذي نفرض من خلال وقائع على الأرض تمنع تجاهلنا في أي تسوية يعمل عليها في المنطقة. وها نحن نمسّ بالعدو الصلب الذي تشتكون منه هذه الفترة، ونقول لكم إننا إلى جانبكم في الميدان وليس في البيانات فقط».

لكن كيف قدرت إسرائيل موقف حزب الله وردّ فعله إزاء جريمة بهذا الحجم؟
الأجوبة محدودة على هذا السؤال. فإما أن إسرائيل تسعى فعلياً إلى مغامرة تستدرج من خلالها المنطقة، ومحور المقاومة على وجه الخصوص، إلى مواجهة تتدحرج صوب حرب تعتقد إسرائيل أنها مناسبة لها الآن، لأن سوريا منهكة بأزمتها، وإيران منشغلة باحتفالات الاتفاق مع الغرب، وحزب الله منشغل في مساندة الرئيس بشار الأسد، وبالتالي فإن معركتها ستكون أسهل، وربما هي تأمل أن يكون لديها الغطاء الذي بشرنا به ولَيد آل سعود، وأن يكون لديها من يساعدها على الأرض أيضاً في مواجهة حزب الله وسوريا وربما إيران.

أما الجواب الآخر، فهو أن تكون إسرائيل معنية بتوجيه الرسالة فقط، وهي تعتبر أن القيود التي تمنع الحكم في سوريا من الردّ على غاراتها، موجودة أيضاً عند حزب الله، وأنه لن يكون بمقدوره الردّ موضعياً، ولا أكثر من ذلك.
لكن واقع الحال قد يقود إلى نتائج أخرى.

من راقب أمس طريقة إعلان استشهاد القائد البطل حسان اللقيس، والمسارعة إلى دفنه دون مواقف استثنائية، وخصوصاً على لسان الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصر الله، وعدم نشر أي معلومات من جانب الحزب عن الشهيد، بما في ذلك عدم نشر نبذة شخصية أو جهادية عنه، كل ذلك يقود من يعرف عقل المقاومة إلى نتيجة واحدة: ثمة رائحة دماء تفوح من خلف الحدود الجنوبية... ولننتظر!

martes, 3 de diciembre de 2013

Sayyed Nasrallah: Nuclear Deal Wiped Polarization off the World Map

Local Editor

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah stated Tuesday that he Iranian nuclear deal has had significant implications, expressing beliefs that the first winners are the peoples of our region.

"There were regional and international parties during the past years, pushing towards war on Iran. This option is neither easy nor simple for Iran is not a weak or isolated state. This option had serious implications against the region," Sayyed Nasrallah stated during a live interview on the local OTV channel.

"Fist implication was to delay the war on Iran option," his eminence said, ruling out that the Zionist entity may strike the Iranian nuclear facilities without the American green light.

Sayyed Nasrallah also pointed out that the Iran-P5+1 nuclear deal has devoted a new reality of multi-polarization, where there is no single state ruling the world anymore.

" Multi-polarization leadership in the world prevents international domination and dictatorship and gives margins for the third world countries,\" his eminence elaborated.

The U.S. Foreign Policy

Sayyed Nasrallah stated that there are huge turning points in the U.S. world policy, highlighting that even though the nuclear deal is interim, yet some people rushed to say that it is a deal between the Valiye Faqih (Islamic Republic of Iran) and the great Satan (The United States).

"The US war on Iraq had doomed to failure. In Afghanistan, the U.S. reached a deadlock. In Lebanon and Gaza, the new Middle East also failed. They are failing so far in Syria. Iran has withstanded before sanctions and they (the U.S.) were unable to topple the regime. On the contrary, the Financial and economic situation in the U.S. and European countries is critical. Thus there is new U.S.-European situation," his eminence expressed.

Justifying the American sponsorship for the Iran-P5+1 deal, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the Americans do not want to engage in a war, and they are sick of wars. Therefore, a door for nuclear deal has been opened and an interim deal was set.

"Americans requested to tackle more files while negotiating the nuclear issue, while Iranians wanted to tackle the nuclear file only. Iranians have no interest in putting all files on table and they insisted on negotiating the nuclear case alone," his eminence said.

Hezbollah Secretary General indicated that Iran has stated for long that its political view towards the U.S. differs from that towards the Zionist entity, and that's why the Iranian position on Israel is definite and has not changed.

"Iranian was saying that when the Americans admitted our rights and be ready to give the peoples of the region theirs, we will be ready then for dialogue with them," Sayyed Nasrallah made it clear.

"There is a U.S. shift but the Iranian party still stands in place. It is too early to taclk about normalization between the two countries and there are a lot of pending files. I don't predict near normalization," he added.

Regarding the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif's last visit to the Gulf states, Sayyed Nasrallah said that Iran hasn't cut relations with neighbor countries ever, but the problem lies with the other party, noting that the Iranian FM wants to reassure the Saudis that nothing has been agreed upon against their interests.

More To Follow ...

Source: Al-Manar Website 03-12-2013

Datos personales