History is kicked aside in preparation for next catastrophe, by Willy Wimmer /

US-American demands: Germany should also take military lead /

 

It’s about our dignity. Fundamentals of the stock market and preparation for war, by Karl Müller /

“War and peace in the media”, by Rainer Schopf /

The Good Services – foreign policy instrument par excellence of neutral Switzerland, Interview with Toni Frisch /

Sweden is a de facto NATO member, and Switzerland will soon be? /

Why a framework agreement cannot work. Switzerland is wired differently, by Robert Seidel /

VW Dieselgate: Economic war or fraud?, by Ernst Pauli /

Educational reforms and “Change Management” put to the test. Conference Report: Time for Change?, by Karl-Heinz Dammer.

 

http://www.voltairenet.org/article199974.html

Tony Benn would be 93 years old today, and in tribute to greatest Prime Minister Britain never had, we publish this video, showing at once how right he was in his predictions, and how little the political scene has really changed.

He cites America fabricating a pretext for war in the Middle-East, the dangers of acting outside the UNSC, the hypocrisy of supporting Saudi Arabia whilst condemning alleged human rights abuses in other countries and the vile hate propaganda creating a fever for war in the press.

He talks about America’s history of brutality and the consequent lack of moral authority, the profit of the military industrial complex and their real motivation being oil and energy supplies.

He was speaking in 1990.

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2018/04/03/watch-tony-benn-speaks-to-parliament/

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=139&v=Q5e5byjOQU8

US President Donald Trump says there will be a "big price to pay" for a chemical attack against a besieged rebel-held town in Syria where medical aid groups reported dozens of people were killed by poison gas.

Key points:

• Syria has denied government forces launched any chemical attack
• Last year, the US attacked a Syrian air base in response to a gas attack
• A top Trump adviser said the US would not rule out another missile attack

 

The Syrian state denied government forces had launched any chemical attack and Russia, President Bashar al-Assad's most powerful ally, called the reports bogus.

A joint statement by the medical relief organisation Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS) and the civil defence service, which operates in rebel-held areas, said 49 people had died in the attack late on Saturday in the town of Douma. Others put the toll even higher.

The United Nations Security Council is likely to meet Monday afternoon over the chemical attack at the request of the United States and several other members, diplomats said.

Writing on Twitter, Mr Trump hit out at Russia and Iran for their support of Mr Assad's government.

Read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-09/donald-trump-says-big-price-to-pay...

 

For a few weeks now, Russia has warned about fake "gas attacks" set up by some rebels. At this stage, there is as usual "no independent" assessments of the "circumstances". It's another case of "Saddam has weapons of mass destuction" at a different level to give the moral authority for the US to bomb Damascus. The USA has lost all senses, all common sense in their Empire fascist views, now propped by that most dangerous man in the world, John Bolton.

ISIS is Finished So We Should Leave Syria Now
GIL BARNDOLLAR

Instead Donald Trump’s team is inflating the threat, worried he’ll rush away from war.

 

-----------------------

 

Syria and the Cult of Resolve
Apr. 8 2018 2:25 pm 

If Trump does what Graham wants, he will be trampling on the U.N. Charter and the Constitution again.

 

-----------------------

 

In John Bolton, Trump Gains the Swamp
PAUL GOTTFRIED

The idea that Bolton will help Trump beat back official Washington is absurd.

 

-----------------------

Bolton’s Terrible Ideas for Syria
Apr. 5 2018 10:00 am 

It’s a terrible plan that would mire the U.S. in new open-ended conflicts for no good reason, but then what else would you expect from Bolton?

 

---------------------

 

Whatever war the USA are going to do, the Syrian people will suffer some more. The USA are on the side of the bad guys in Syria. Why don't they recognise this? Because that would make the Ruskies victorious... and this is unacceptable in the mind of the idiot generals in Washington.

-----------------------

 

All wars end with winners and losers. The seventeen years we have just lived through in the "Greater Middle East" is no exception. Yet, while Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi have been eliminated and Syria is winning, the only real losers are the Arab people.

At the most, one can pretend to believe that the problem concerns only Syria. And that in Syria, it is circumscribed to Ghouta. And that in Ghouta, the Army of Islam has been defeated. Yet, this episode will not be enough to declare the end of the hostilities that have ravaged the region, destroyed entire cities and killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children.

Nevertheless, the surviving myth that "civil wars" spread by contagion [1] allows the 130 states and international organizations that participated in the "Friends of Syria" meetings to shirk their responsibilities and to hold their heads high. Furthermore, since they will never admit failure, they will continue to perpetrate their abuses in other theaters of operation. In other words: their war will soon be over in this region, but it will resume elsewhere.

From this point of view, what has played out in Syria since the US declaration of war nearly 15 years ago - i.e. when the Syrian Accountability Act was passed into law in December 2003 - will have shaped the world Order that is currently emerging. Indeed, while almost all the states in the "Greater Middle East" have been weakened or completely wrecked, Syria is the only one still standing and independent.

Consequently, the strategy of Admiral Cebrowski, designed to destroy the societies and states of non-globalized countries while compelling the globalized ones to ensure the security of the US military, allowing it to plunder the raw materials and energy sources in the destroyed areas, can not be implemented by the Pentagon either here or in any other region. Ajouter footnote de ton article! [note: this means footnote coming]

Under President Trump’s leadership, the US Armed Forces have gradually ceased to support the jihadists and have begun to withdraw from the battlefield. This does not mean they have become philanthropic overnight , but simply realistic. This development should mark the end of their interventions against foreign states. [Gus Note: stop dreaming, Thierry: the USA are going to stay in Syrian under any fake pretext they can create]

In the spirit of the 1941 Atlantic Charter in which London and Washington agreed to jointly control the oceans and world trade, the United States is now preparing to sabotage the trade of its Chinese rival. Donald Trump is reforming the Quad (together with co-members Australia, Japan and India) to limit the movements of the Chinese merchant fleet in the Pacific. Simultaneously, he named John Bolton as National Security Advisor, whose great achievement under the Bush Jr. Administration was to involve NATO Allies in the military surveillance of the oceans and global trade.

China’s grand "silk road" project on both land and sea is not likely to materialize for some time. Now that Beijing has decided to move its goods through Turkey instead of Syria and through Belarus instead of Ukraine, we should expect "disorders" to erupt in these two countries.

Already in the fifteenth century, China had tried to reopen the Silk Road by building a huge fleet of 30,000 men under the command of the Muslim admiral Zheng He. Despite the warm welcome received by this peaceful armada in the Persian Gulf, Africa and the Red Sea, the undertaking failed. The emperor had the whole fleet burned and China withdrew into itself for five centuries.

President Xi drew inspiration from this illustrious predecessor to envisage "the Road and Belt Initiative" but, like Emperor Ming Xuanzong, he could be led to scuttle his own initiative, notwithstanding the risk of losing the huge amounts already invested by his country.

For its part, the United Kingdom has not renounced its plan to instigate a new "Arab revolt", a scheme which in 1915 served to bring the Wahhabis to power, from Libya to Saudi Arabia. However, the so-called "Arab Spring" of 2011, which this time was meant to install the Muslim Brotherhood in power, was snuffed out by the Syrian-Lebanese resistance.

London intends to exploit the US "pivot to Asia" strategy to recover the influence it wielded during its former empire. The UK is poised to leave the European Union and has directed its armed forces against Russia. It has tried to secure the largest possible number of allies by manipulating the "Skripal case", but has suffered several setbacks, including New Zealand’s refusal to continue playing the docile "dutiful Dominion". Logically, London should redirect its jihadists against Moscow as it did during the wars unleashed in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Chechnya.

Russia is the only great power to have emerged victorious from the Middle East conflict, thereby achieving the goal set by Catherine the Great to gain access to the Mediterranean and save the cradle of Christianity, the bedrock of Russian culture.

Moscow is now expected to enlarge the Eurasian Economic Union, to which Syria applied to join in 2015. At that time, its membership had been suspended at the request of Armenia, reluctant to introduce a state at war into the common economic space, but now the order of things has changed.

The new world balance has been bipolar from the moment Russia unveiled its new nuclear arsenal. It is very likely that the world will be divided in two, not by an iron curtain, but by the will of the Western powers who are already in the process of separating the banking systems and will soon try to do the same with the Internet. On the one side, it should be based on NATO and, on the other, no longer on the Warsaw Pact but on the Collective Security Treaty Organization. In a period of about thirty years, Russia has turned the page of Bolshevism and has shifted its influence from the center of Europe towards the Middle East.

In a pendulum movement, the West - the former "free world" – has morphed into a set of coercive and falsely consensual societies. The European Union is endowed with a bigger and more oppressive bureaucracy than that of the Soviet Union. And Russia becomes once again the champion of International Law.

Thierry Meyssan

read more:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article200519.html

Meanwhile the USA will stop at nothing, to prevent peace... Read from top.

A-list film director Oliver Stone has attended a press conference at the 36th International Fajr Film Festival (FIFF) in Tehran, where he delivered a rant on US foreign policy.

When Iranian journalists asked Stone who he would compare US President Donald Trump to in cinema, the three-time Oscar winner picked a graphic metaphor – Beelzebub, the biblical demonic figure.

READ MORE: Demonizing Putin Unlikely to Relieve International Tensions — Oliver Stone

Stone went on to slam the political course the United States has taken, particularly in the Middle East.

“The wars continue because America says to itself, ‘ha, well we made a mess of Iraq maybe, but you know what, that works. Because if we make a mess out of Syria and we make a mess out of Libya, and we have terrorists everywhere, and we have migrations of massive amounts of people, it’s okay. It’s okay. We’ll wreck the Middle East. […] And it doesn’t matter who’s president whether it’s Mr. Bush or Mr. Obama, or Mr. Trump,” the director told reporters.

He proceeded to say that the United States would “break any treaty it has to, to get what it wants,” adding that “we’re doing something that is outlawed internationally, we had no permission to invade Iraq from the UN, we did it, and we continue to do this.”

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/us/201804261063918600-oliver-stone-trump-devil/

 

Read from top.

Despite the good will of some of the participants, the Paris conference for Libya did not have the desired effects. For Thierry Meyssan, this can be explained by the double language of NATO and the United Nations, who are pretending to want to stabilise the country while their actions in fact continue the Cebrowski plan for the destruction of state structures. The spectacle in Paris was steeped in a profound ignorance of the particularities of Libyan society.

Since the annihilation by NATO of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, in 2011, the situation in Libya has deteriorated alarmingly: its GDP has been halved, and entire groups of the population live in misery – it is impossible to circulate in the country; insecurity is ever-present. Over the last few years, two thirds of the population have fled overseas, at least temporarily.

Writing off the illegality of NATO’s invasion, the United Nations is trying to re-stabilise the country.

Attempts at pacification

The UN is represented by the UNSMIL (United Nations Support Mission in Libya), which is an exclusively political organisation. Its true character was clear from its inception. Its first Director, Ian Martin (ex-Director of Amnesty International), organised the transfer of 1,500 Al-Qaïda jihadists, registered as « refugees » (sic), from Libya to Turkey in order to create the so-called « Free Syrian Army ». While it is true that the UNSMIL is now directed by Ghassan Salame [1], it is still under the direct command of the Director of Political Affairs for the UN – none other than Jeffrey Feltman. This ex-assistant of Hillary Clinton at the US State Department is one of the masters of the Cebrowski-Barnett plan for the destruction of states and societies in the « Greater Middle East » [2]. It is Feltman himself who supervised the diplomatic foundations for the aggressions against Libya and Syria [3].

The UN begins with the idea that the current disorder is the consequence of the « civil war » of 2011, which set Mouammar Kadhafi’s régime against its opposition. However, during the NATO intervention, this opposition was limited to the jihadists of al-Qaïda and the Misrata tribe. As an ex-member of the last Libyan Arab Jamahiriya government, I can testify that the initiative of the Atlantic Alliance was not a response to the Libyan conflict, but a long-term regional strategy for the whole of the Greater Middle East.

During the general elections of 2014, the Islamists who had fought the ground war on behalf of NATO gained only mediocre results. They then decided not to recognise the « House of Representatives » (based in Tobruk) and to constitute their own assembly (based in Tripoli) which they call the « High Council of State ». Considering that these two rival assemblies could form a bicameral system, Feltman set up the two groups as equals. Contacts between them took place in Holland, and then the Skhirat (Morocco) agreements were signed, but without the assent of both assemblies. These « agreements » instituted a « government of national union » (at first based in Tunisia) designated by the UN.

In order to prepare the general and Presidential elections and the elaboration of a new Constitution, France, taking over from the efforts of Holland and Egypt, organised a summit at the end of May between the four men presented by the UN as the principal leaders of the country, in the presence of the representatives of the main states implicated on the ground. This initiative was energetically criticised in Italy [4]. In public, the discussion was political, while in secret, work was being done to define the structure of a Central Libyan Bank which would wipe away any sign of the theft of sovereign Libyan funds by NATO [5], and centralise oil money. In any case, after the signature of a common declaration [6] and the usual hugs and kisses, the situation on the ground suddenly turned sour.

French President Emmanuel Macron acted from his experience as a business banker – he gathered together the main Libyan leaders chosen by the UN; examined with them how to protect their respective interests with a view to creating a government which would be recognised by all; verified that foreign powers would not sabotage this process; and thought that the Libyans would applaud this solution. However, since Libya is totally different from Western societies, nothing of sort occurred.

It is clear that France, which had been, together with the United Kingdom, a spearhead of the NATO attack on Libya, is now attempting to recuperate the dividends of its military intervention, of which it has been deprived by its Anglo-Saxon allies.

In order to understand what is happening, we have to step back and analyse the way that Libyans live in terms of their personal experience.

The History of Libya

Libya has only existed for 67 years. At the fall of fascism and the end of the Second World War, this Italian colony was occupied by the British (in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica) and by the French (in Fezzan, which they divided and attached administratively to their colonies of Algeria and Tunisia).

London favoured the emergence of a monarchy controlled from Saudi Arabia, the Senussi dynasty, which reigned over the country from its « independence » in 1951. Of the Wahhabite religion, it maintained its territory in a state of absolute obscurantism, while favouring Anglo-Saxon economic and military interests.

It was overthrown in 1969, by a group of officers who proclaimed true independence and expelled the foreign forces. At the level of interior politics, in 1975, Mouammar Kadhafi drew up a programme called the Green Book, in which he promised this desert people that he would satisfy their most important dreams. For example, while every Bedouin nurtured the ambition to possess his own tent and his own camel, he promised each family a free apartment and a car. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya also offered water [7], free education and health care [8]. Progressively, the nomad population of the desert settled along the coast, but the links of each family with their tribe remained closer than their relations with their neighbours. National institutions were set up, inspired by the experiences of the utopian Socialist phalansteries of the 19th century. They set up a direct democracy at the same time as they co-existed with the ancient tribal structures. In this way, all important decisions were first of all presented to the Tribal Consultative Assembly before being deliberated by the General People’s Congress (National Assembly). On the international level, Kadhafi swore to resolve the secular conflict between the Africans, Arabs and black-skinned people. He ended slavery and used a large part of the country’s oil revenues to help the development of the sub-Saharan countries, notably in Mali. His activity woke the Western powers, who began to create aid policies for the development of the continent.

However, despite the progress that was made, thirty years of Jamahiriya were not enough to transform this African Saudi Arabia into a modern secular society.

The current problem

By destroying this régime and once again raising the flag of the Sanussis, NATO has set the country back to what it had been before 1969 – a collection of tribes living in the desert, cut off from the world. In the absence of a state, and without a supreme leader, the population has fallen back on their tribal structures. Sharia, racism and slavery reappeared. In these conditions, attempting to re-establish order from the top down is ineffective. On the contrary, it is indispensable to begin by pacifying the relations between tribes. It is only when this operation is successfully concluded that it will become possible to envisage democratic institutions. Until that time, everyone’s safety will be guaranteed only by their tribal membership. In order to survive, Libyans will therefore refrain from thinking autonomously, and will always refer to the position of their group.

The repression brought to bear by the inhabitants of Misrata on the people of Tawarga is a clear example. The Misratas are the descendants of the Turkish soldiers of the Ottoman army, and the people of Tawarga are the descendants of the ancient black slaves. Working with Turkey, the Misratas participated in the overthrow of the Jamahiriya. As soon as the Sanussi flag had become mandatory, they turned on the black people with racist fury. They accused them of all sorts of crimes and forced 30,000 of them to flee.

It would obviously be very difficult to find a personality comparable to Mouammar Kadhafi who would first of all be recognised by the tribes, then by the People. But in reality, this is not what Jeffrey Feltman is looking for. Contrary to the official declarations concerning an « inclusive » solution, in other words a solution which integrates all the components of Libyan society, Feltman has imposed, via the Islamists with whom he had collaborated in the State Department against Kadhafi, a law which forbids a post in public service to anyone who once served the Guide. The House of Representatives has refused to apply this text, which is still in force in Tripoli. This strategy is comparable to that of the de-Ba’athification that the same Feltman imposed on Iraq, when he was one of the directors of the « Coalition Provisional Authority ». In both cases, these laws deprive the countries of the majority of their elites, and force them into violence or exile. It is clear to see that Feltman is still pursuing the objectives of the Cebrowski plan, while he pretends to be working for peace.

Contrary to appearances, Libya’s problem is not so much the rivalry between its leaders as the absence of pacification between tribes and the exclusion of Kadhafists. The solution can only be negotiated between the four leaders united in Paris, but only within and around the House of Representatives of Tobruk, whose authority now covers 80 % of the territory.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation 
Pete Kimberley

 

Read more:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article201387.html

 

Read from top.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi has just published a brochure presenting his programme for the Libyan Presidential Election.

At a time when there is no legitimate political authority in Libya, four personalities, which rely on support from the countries that destroyed the Libyan State, have undertaken to organize legislative elections and a presidential election on 10 December 2018 [1].

The tribes which constitute the foundation of Libyan society have vociferously called for elections to take place, provided the Gaddafistas can participate in them. This is something that the Western Powers want to prevent at all costs. This explains why the International Criminal Court continues to charge Saif al-Islam Gaddafi of different crimes. Their evidentiary basis? Nothing but Western press cuttings. Yet an international arrest warrant against him is still very much in force.

Several opinion polls carried out in Libya show that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the second son of the assassinated Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi is by far the most popular political figure in his country. During the time of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Said al-Islam represented his father and demonstrated that he had genuine negotiating and leadership skills.

Translation 
Anoosha Boralessa

 

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | 9 JULY 2018 

 

Read more:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article201902.html

 

Read from top.

The Disposition Matrix, informally known as a kill list, is a database of information for tracking, capturing, rendering, or killing suspected enemies of the United States.[1] Developed by the Obama administration beginning in 2010, it goes beyond existing kill lists and is intended to become a permanent fixture of U.S. policy.[1] The process determining criteria for killing is not public and was heavily shaped by National Counterterrorism Director and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John O. Brennan.[2]

Though White House, National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), and CIA spokespeople have declined to comment on the database, officials have stated privately that kill lists will expand "for at least another decade", if not indefinitely. One official stated "it’s a necessary part of what we do".[1] Paul R. Pillar, the former deputy director of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, has stated, "We are looking at something that is potentially indefinite".[1]

The database's existence was revealed in a three-part series published by The Washington Post newspaper. It noted that as of their publication, the number of civilian and militant casualties resulting from U.S. drone strikes would soon exceed the number of people killed in the September 11 attacks.[1]

 

Read more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix

 

Read from top.

"NATO Go Home!"

by Thierry Meyssan

For two decades, US troops have been imposing their law on the broader Middle East. Entire countries are now without a state to defend them. Populations have been subjected to the dictatorship of the Islamists. Mass murders have been committed. There have been famines as well. President Donald Trump has forced his generals to repatriate their soldiers, but the Pentagon intends to continue its work with NATO soldiers.

President Trump will spend the last year of his first term in office bringing the Boys home. All U.S. troops stationed in the broader Middle East and Africa are expected to withdraw. However, this withdrawal of troops will in no way mean the end of US governance in these regions of the world. Quite the contrary.

The Pentagon’s strategy

Since 2001 - and this is one of the main reasons for the 9/11 attacks - the United States has secretly adopted the strategy outlined by Donald Rumsfeld and Admiral Arthur Cebrowski. This strategy was mentioned in the Army Review by Colonel Ralf Peters two days after the attacks [1] and confirmed five years later by the publication of the staff map of the new Middle East [2]. It was detailed by Admiral Cebrowski’s assistant, Thomas Barnett, in a popular book The Pentagon’s New Map [3].

It is about adapting the missions of the US armies to a new form of capitalism giving primacy to Finance over Economics. The world must be divided in two. On the one hand, stable states integrated into globalization (which includes Russia and China); on the other, a vast area of exploitation of raw materials. This is why the state structures of the countries in this zone must be considerably weakened, ideally by destroying them and preventing their resurgence by all means. This "constructive chaos", as Condoleeza Rice put it, should not be confused with the homonymous rabbinic concept, even though the supporters of the theopolitics have done everything in their power to do so. It is not a question of destroying a bad order in order to rebuild a better one, but of destroying all forms of human organization in order to prevent any form of resistance and to allow transnationals to exploit this area without political constraints. It is therefore a colonial project in the Anglo-Saxon sense of the term (not to be confused with a colonization of settlement).

In beginning to implement this strategy, President George Bush Jr. spoke of a "war without end. Indeed, it is no longer a question of winning wars and defeating opponents, but of making them last as long as possible, "a century" he said. In fact, this strategy has been applied in the "Broader Middle East" - an area stretching from Pakistan to Morocco and covering the entire CentCom theatre of operations and the northern part of the AfriCom theatre of operations. In the past, the IMs guaranteed US access to oil from the Persian Gulf (Carter doctrine). Today, they are present in an area four times larger and aim to overturn any form of order. The state structures of Afghanistan since 2001, Iraq since 2003, Libya since 2011, Syria since 2012 and Yemen since 2015 are no longer capable of defending their citizens. Contrary to official discourse, there has never been any question of overthrowing governments, but rather of destroying states and preventing their reconstitution. For example, the situation of the people of Afghanistan did not improve with the fall of the Taliban 19 years ago, but is getting worse and worse by the day. The only counter-example could be that of Syria, which, in accordance with its historical tradition, has kept its state despite the war, absorbed the blows, and although ruined today, has weathered the storm.

It should be noted in passing that the Pentagon has always considered Israel as a European state and not as a Middle Eastern state. It is therefore not affected by this vast upheaval.

In 2001, the enthusiastic Colonel Ralf Peters assured that ethnic cleansing "it works! "(sic), but that the laws of war forbade the USA to carry it out itself. Hence the transformation of Al-Qaeda and the creation of Daesh, which did for the Pentagon what it wanted but could not undertake publicly.

To understand the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy, it should be distinguished from the "Arab Spring" operation, imagined by the British on the model of the "Great Arab Revolt". The idea was to put the Muslim Brotherhood in power, just as Lawrence of Arabia had put the Brotherhood of the Wahhabites in power in 1915.

Westerners in general have no vision of the broader Middle East as a geographical region. They know only certain countries and perceive them as isolated from each other. In this way, they convince themselves that the tragic events that these peoples are enduring are all due to special reasons, in some cases civil war, in others the overthrow of a bloodthirsty dictator. For each country, they have a well-written history of the reason for the tragedy, but they never have one to explain that the war lasts beyond that, and they certainly do not want to be asked about it. Each time, they denounce the "carelessness of the Americans" who could not end the war, forgetting that they rebuilt Germany and Japan after the Second World War. They refuse to acknowledge that for two decades the United States has been implementing a pre-stated plan at the cost of millions of lives. They therefore never see themselves as responsible for these massacres.

The United States itself denies that it is pursuing this strategy with regard to its citizens. For example, the inspector general investigating the situation in Afghanistan wrote a report lamenting the countless missed opportunities for the Pentagon to bring peace when precisely the Pentagon did not want peace.

The Russian intervention

In order to pulverize all the states of the broader Middle East, the Pentagon organized an absurd regional civil war in the manner it had invented the pointless war between Iraq and Iran (1980-88). Eventually President Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini realized that they were killing each other for nothing and made peace against the West.

This time it was the opposition between Sunnis and Shiites. On one side, Saudi Arabia and its allies, and on the other, Iran and its allies. It does not matter whether Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and Khomeini Iran fought together under NATO command during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-95), or whether many troops of the "Axis of Resistance" are not Shiite (100% of the Palestinians of Islamic Jihad, 70% of the Lebanese, 90% of the Syrians, 35% of the Iraqis and 5% of the Iranians).

No one knows why these two camps are fighting each other, but they are asked to bleed each other.

In any case, in 2014, the Pentagon was preparing to recognise two new states in accordance with its map of objectives: "Free Kurdistan" (fusion of the Syrian Rojava and the Kurdish Governorate of Iraq to which part of Iran and all of eastern Turkey were to be added at a later date) and "Sunnistan" (composed of the Sunni part of Iraq and eastern Syria). By destroying four states, the Pentagon paved the way for a chain reaction that would in turn destroy the entire region.

Russia then intervened militarily and enforced the borders of the Second World War. It goes without saying that these are arbitrary, stemming from the Sykes-Picot-Sazonov agreements of 1915, and sometimes difficult to bear, but changing them by blood is even less acceptable.

The Pentagon’s communication has always pretended to ignore what was at stake. Both because it does not publicly assume the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy and because it equates the Crimea’s accession to the Russian Federation with a coup de force.

The moult of supporters of the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy

After two years of fierce fighting against President Trump, the general officers of the Pentagon, almost all of whom were personally trained by Admiral Cebrowski, submitted to him under conditions. They agreed not to 

   create a terrorist state (Sunnistan or Caliphate); 

   change borders by force; 

   maintaining US troops on the battlefields of the Broader Middle East and Africa.

In exchange, they ordered their loyal prosecutor Robert Mueller, whom they had already used against Panama (1987-89), Libya (1988-92) and in the 9/11 attacks (2001), to bury his investigation into Russiagate.

Then everything unfurled as smoothly as a player piano roll.

On 27 October 2019, President Trump ordered the execution of Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the main military figure in the Sunni camp. Two months later, on January 3, 2020, he ordered the execution of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the main military figure of the Axis of Resistance.

Having thus shown that he remained the master of the game by eliminating the most symbolic personalities of both sides, claiming it, and without incurring any significant retaliation, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo revealed the final scheme on January 19 in Cairo. He plans to pursue the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy no longer with the US armies, but with those of NATO, including Israel and the Arab countries.

On the 1st of February, Turkey made its break with Russia official by assassinating four FSB officers in Idleb. Then President Erdogan went to Ukraine to chant the motto of the Banderists (the Ukrainian legionnaires of the Third Reich against the Soviets) with the Ukrainian National Guard and receive the head of the International Islamist Brigade (the anti-Russian Tatars), Mustafa Djemilev (known as "Mustafa Kırımoğlu").

On February 12 and 13, the Defence Ministers of the Atlantic Alliance noted the inevitable withdrawal of US forces and the forthcoming dissolution of the International Coalition Against Daesh. While stressing that they were not deploying fighting troops, they agreed to send their soldiers to train those of the Arab armies, i.e. to supervise the fighting on the ground.

NATO trainers will be deployed primarily to Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq. For example:

- Libya will be encircled in the west and east. The two rival governments of Fayez el-Sarraj -supported by Turkey, Qatar and already 5,000 jihadists from Syria via Tunisia- and Marshal Khalifa -supported by Egypt and the Emirates- will be able to kill each other forever. Germany, happy to regain the international role it has been deprived of since the Second World War, will play the gadfly by talking about peace to cover the moans of the dying.

- Syria will be surrounded on all sides. Israel is already a de facto member of the Atlantic Alliance and bombs whoever it wants whenever it wants. Jordan is already NATO’s "best global partner". King Abdullah II came to Brussels on January 14th for lengthy talks with the Secretary General of the Alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, and attended a meeting of the Atlantic Council. Israel and Jordan already have permanent offices at Alliance Headquarters. Iraq will also receive NATO trainers, although its parliament has just voted to withdraw foreign troops. Turkey is already a member of the Alliance and controls northern Lebanon through the Jamaa Islamiya . Together, they will be able to enforce the US ’Caesar’ law forbidding any company from anywhere to help in the reconstruction of this country.

Thus, the pillaging of the wider Middle East, which began in 2001, will continue. The martyred populations of this region, whose only fault is to have been divided, will continue to suffer and die en masse. The United States will keep its soldiers at home, warm and innocent, while the Europeans will have to take responsibility for the crimes of the US generals.

According to President Trump, the Alliance could change its name to NATO-Middle East (NATO-MO/NATO-ME). Its anti-Russian function would take a back seat to its strategy of destroying the non-globalized zone.

The question arises as to how Russia and China will react to this redistribution of the cards. China needs access to raw materials from the Middle East in order to develop. It should therefore oppose this Western takeover even though its military preparation is still incomplete. On the contrary, Russia and its huge territory are self-sufficient. Moscow has no material reason to fight. The Russians may even be relieved by NATO’s new orientation. It is likely, however, that, for spiritual reasons, they will not let Syria down and may support other peoples in the wider Middle East.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation 

Roger Lagassé

 

Read more:

https://www.voltairenet.org/article209223.html