Re: Middle East
FORMER FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER: THE WAR AGAINST SYRIA WAS PLANNED TWO YEARS BEFORE "THE ARAB SPRING"
19-06-2013 06:16:46 | | World News
In an interview with the French TV station LCP, former French minister
for Foreign Affairs Roland Dumas said:
" I'm going to tell you something. I was in England two years before
the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British
officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something
in Syria.
This was in Britain not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion
of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer
minister for foreign affairs, if I would like to participate.
Naturally, I refused, I said I'm French, that doesn't interest me."
Dumas went on give the audience a quick lesson on the real reason for
the war that has now claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people.
"This operation goes way back. It was prepared, preconceived and
planned... in the region it is important to know that this Syrian
regime has a very anti-Israeli stance.
Consequently, everything that moves in the region- and I have this from
the former Israeli prime minister who told me 'we'll try to get on with
our neighbours but those who don't agree with us will be destroyed.
It's a type of politics, a view of history, why not after all. But
one should know about it."
Dumas is a retired French foreign minister who is obliged to use
discretion when revealing secrets which could affect French foreign
policy. That is why he made the statement 'I am French, that doesn't
interest me'. He could not reveal France's role in the British plan
as he would be exposing himself to prosecution for revealing state
secrets.
There have been many disinformation agents in the British and
French press, many of them well known 'leftist' war correspondents
and commentators, who have tried to pretend that Israel secretly
supports Assad. Those who make such arguments are either stupid,
ignorant or deliberate disinformation agents of NATO and Israel.
Israel's support for Al Qaeda militants in Syria has even been admitted
by the mainstream press. For example, Germany's Die Welt newspaper
published a report on June 12th on Israel's medical treatment of the
Al Qaeda fighters.
Israel planned this war of annihilation years ago in accordance with
the Yinon Plan, which advocates balkanization of all states that pose
a threat to Israel. The Zionist entity is using Britain and France
to goad the reluctant Obama administration into sending more American
troops to their death in Syria on behalf of Tel Aviv.
Of all the aggressor states against Syria, Israel has been the
quietest from the start. That is because Laurent Fabius, Francois
Holland, William Hague and David Cameron are doing their bidding by
attempting to drag Israel's American Leviathan into another ruinous war
so that Israel can get control of the Middle East's energy reserves,
eventually replacing the United States as the ruling state in the
world. It has also been necessary for Tel Aviv to remain silent so
as not to expose their role in the 'revolutions', given the fact that
the Jihadist fanatics don't realize they are fighting for Israel.
This is the ideology of Zionism which cares no more for xxxs than it
does for its perceived enemies. The xxxish colony is determined to
become a ruling state in the Middle East in the insane delusion that
this will enable it to replace the United States as a global hegemon,
once the US collapses fighting Israel's wars.
Israeli Prime Minister once told American talk show host Bill Maher
that the reason why Israel always wins short conflicts, while the
United States gets bogged down in endless wars. " The secret is that
we have America", he said.
But Israel is itself slowly collapsing. If one excludes the enslaved
Palestinian population, the xxxish state still has the highest level
of poverty in the developed world with more and more xxxs choosing
to leave the 'promised' land, a garrison state led by mad men,
an anti-Semitic entity threatening to engulf the world in war and
destruction. Israel cares no more about its own working class xxxs
than any other ethnic community.
In fact, if the Likudnik crooks running the Israeli colony get their
way, working class Israelis will be among the first to pay as they are
conscripted to fight terrorists created by their own government. With
orthodox xxxs protesting in the streets of New York against Israel and
Haredi xxxish minority opposing Israel's rampant militarism, Zionism
is coming under increased attack from xxxish religious authorities and
non-Zionist xxxs both inside and outside of the occupied territories.
This is not the first time that Roland Dumas has spoken out against
wars of aggression waged by successive French regimes. In 2011 he
revealed that he had been asked by the United States when he was
foreign minister in the Mitterrand administration to organize the
bombing of Libya. On that occasion the French refused to cooperate.
Dumas, a lawyer by profession, offered to defend Colonel Gaddafi,
at the International Criminal Court in the event of his arrest by Nato.
Dumas was also vocal in condemning France's brutal neo-colonial bombing
of the Ivory Coast earlier in 2011, were death squads and terrorists
similar to those later deployed in Libya and Syria were unleashed
upon the Ivoirian population in order to install a IMF puppet dictator
Alassane Quattara in power. Gbagbo was described as one of the greatest
African leaders of the past 20 years by Jean Ziegler, sociologist and
former member of the Advisory Committee of the UN Human Rights Council.
Gbagbo had plans to nationalize banks and wrest control of
the country's currency from the colonial finance institutions in
Paris. He also wanted to roll back many of the worst effects of IMF
restructuring by nationalizing industries and creating a functioning,
universal free health service. All of this threatened the interests
of French corporations in the former French colony. So, the Parisian
oligarchy went to work to find a suitable replacement as caretaker
of their Ivoirian colony.
They sent in armed terrorist gangs, or 'rebel's in the doublespeak
of imperialism, who murdered all before them while the French media
blamed president Gbagbo for the violence that ensued. Gbagbo and
Gaddafi had opposed Africom, the Pentagon's plan to recolonize Africa.
That was another reason for the 2011 bombing of their two African
countries.
The formula is always the same. Imperialism backs 'rebels', whenever
its interests are threatened by regimes that love their country
more than foreign corporations. One should not forgot that during
the Spanish Civil War of 1936, General Franco and his cronies were
also 'rebels' and they, like their counterparts in Libya in 2011,
were bombed to power by foreign powers, replacing a progressive,
republican administration with fascism.
There are pro-Israeli fanatics in France who have used the analogy of
the Spanish Civil War as justification for intervention in Libya and
Syria. The pseudo-philosopher Henry Bernard Levy is one of them. Of
course, the ignoramus Levy doesn't realize that the reason France,
England and the USA did not officially intervene in the Spanish Civil
War is because they were covertly helping the 'rebels' from the start.
They enabled arms shipments to the Francoist 'rebels' while preventing
arms deliveries to the Spanish government, who, like Syria today,
were helped by Moscow. Anyone who has studied the Spanish Civil War
knows that all the imperialist countries wanted Franco as a bulwark
against communism.
There is nothing imperialism loves more than a rebel without a cause.
What imperialism hates, however, are revolutionaries. That is why the
'rebels' which imperialism sends into other countries to colonize them
on behalf of foreign banks and corporations, have to be marketed as
'revolutionaries' in order to assure the support of the Monty Python
brigade of petty-bourgeois, ' leftist' dupes such as Democracy Now!
and their ilk.
Dumas is not the only top French official to denounce the New World
Order. Former French ambassador to Syria Michel Raimbaud wrote a book
in 2012 entitled 'Le Soudan dans tous les etats', where he revealed
how Israel planned and instigated a civil war in South Sudan in
order to balkanize a country led by a pro-Palestinian government. He
also exposed the pro-Israeli media groups and 'human rights' NGOS who
created the 'humanitarian' narrative calling for military intervention
by the United States in the conflict.
The subject was covered extensively by African investigative journalist
Charles Onana in his 2009 book, Al-Bashir & Darfour LA CONTRE ENQUÊTE.
There are many more retired French officials who are speaking out
about the ruinous policies of this French government, including
the former head of French domestic intelligence Yves Bonnet. There
have also been reports of dissent in the French armed forces and
intelligence apparatus.
After the assassination of Colonel Gaddafi in October 2011, the
former French ambassador to Libya Christian Graeff told French radio
station France Culture that it was responsible for the diffusion of
lies and war propaganda on behalf of Nato throughout the war. Graeff
also warned the broadcasters that such disinformation could only work
on the minds of serfs but not in a country of free minds.
The power of the Israeli lobby in France is a subject rarely discussed
in polite circles. In France there is a law against questioning or
denial of the holocaust. However, denial of the Korean holocaust,
Guatemalan holocaust, Palestinian holocaust, Indonesian holocaust
and the dozens of other US/Israeli supported genocides is not only
perfectly legal but is the respectable norm.
The same lobby which introduced the Loi Gayssot in 1990, effectively
ending freedom of expression in France, would also like to ban any
independent investigations of genocides whose narratives they have
written, such as the Rwanda genocide, where Israel played a key role
in supporting the 'rebels' led by Paul Kagame, who invaded Rwanda from
Uganda from 1991 to 1994, leading to the genocide of both Tutus and
Tutsis. Many serious scholars have written about the Rwandan genocide,
which the Israel lobby repeatedly uses as a case study to justify
'humanitarian' intervention by Western powers. The Zionist thought
police would like to see such authors prosecuted for 'negating'
imperialism's disgusting lies on African conflicts.
Now, the Israeli Lobby is forcing the (their) French government to
prosecute twitter messages which the lobby deems 'anti-Semitic'. This
is one further step towards the creation of a totalitarian state
where any criticism of imperialism, foreign wars, racism, oppression,
perhaps eventually capitalism itself could fall under the rubric of
'anti-Semitism'.
These people are sick, and those who cow down to them are sicker.
Perhaps the etymology of sickness, a word cognate with the
German Sicherheit (security) according to dictionary.com, is not a
coincidence. For what is particularly sick about our society is the
cult of security, endless surveillance, ubiquitous cameras, the cult
of the all seeing eye, the prurient gaze as part of the incessant
discourse on terrorism by those who specialize in the training of
the very terrorists they claim to be protecting us from. Whether
or not the words security and sickness are linguistically related,
they are certainly cognate in a philosophical sense.
Roland Dumas and others like him should be highly commended for
having to guts to say what so many others are too morally corrupt,
too weak and cowardly to admit.
As the French government and its media agencies drum up hysteria
for war on Syria, Roland Dumas, now in the twilight of his years,
is warning people of the consequences of not understanding where
Israel is leading the world. Will enough people heed the warning?
http://www.globalresearch.ca - World News News from
Armenia and Diaspora - Noyan Tapan - See more at:
-
Re: Middle East
The Cold War Between Turkey And Iran - Analysis
By: Published by the Foreign Policy Research
Institute<http://www.eurasiareview.com/author/fpri/>
June 21, 2012
By Can Kasapoglu
With American clout in the Middle East on the decline, the historic power
struggle between Turkey and Iran has intensified, each attempting to fill
the vacuum in the region by expanding its influence. Syria and Iraq have
become the battlefields between Turkey and Iran. In Syria, a proxy war is
underway, with Iran supplying weapons to its Alawite client and Turkey
actively arming the opposition. In Iraq, Turkey and Iran vie for political
influence along Sunni-Shiite fault lines. In neither arena is Turkey seen
as the regional leader it aspires to be.
NEO-OTTOMANS VS. PERSIANS ON A MIDDLE EAST CHESSBOARD
[image: Iran - Turkey Relations]
Iran - Turkey Relations
The US withdrawal from Iraq, and its corresponding decline in regional
influence, has left a power vacuum in the Middle East. Two historic rivals,
Turkey and Iran, have stepped into the fray; each hoping to extend its
influence at the expense of the other. With Syria and Iraq serving as the
battlefields, the lines of battle have been drawn mostly along Sunni-Shiite
sectarian divisions.
In Syria, where the Sunni majority is struggling to overthrow the Alawite
Assad regime, Turkish-Iranian differences can have dire consequences for
Arab lives. A proxy war has effectively developed, with the Iranians
supplying weapons to their Alawite clients and Turkey actively arming the
opposition.
The victims of the recent massacre in Houla, who numbered more than 100,
half of whom were children, served as pawns in the regional game between
the ancient rivals. Tehran sided with the Assad regime in claiming that the
murders were perpetrated by terrorists and foreign forces. Whereas Ankara
demanded that Syria withdraw its diplomats from Turkey within 72 hours. The
Turkish foreign ministry also threatened to take further `measures' if
such
crimes against humanity continued in Syria.
In contrast with the Syrian scenes of carnage, the Turkish-Iranian showdown
in Iraq includes less bloodshed and more political maneuvering. Ankara and
Tehran each has its favored political groups and personalities. The pro-
Iran Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the pro-Turkish Sunni Vice
President Tarek Hashimi each serves as a respective `man in Baghdad.'
Under pressure from the Iran-aligned Maliki, an arrest warrant was issued
for Hashimi on charges of running death squads against Iraqi Shiites.
Interpol subsequently issued its own arrest warrant for Hashimi. However,
the erstwhile vice prime minister has found refuge in Turkey, and Ankara
has made clear that it is not about to hand over its man in Baghdad.
Clearly, a Cold War has developed between Turkey and Iran in the Middle
East. While so far tensions have remained relatively stable, there is a
real possibility of things heating up.
SYRIA: THE PROXY WAR
In Syria, the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad is coming under increasing
pressure from an expanding insurgency. Ankara has offered sanction and
armed and moral support to the opposition.
Turkey's Hatay province has become the headquarters of the Free Syrian
Army, while the Friends of Syria, which is critical of Assad held a meeting
in Istanbul on April 1, 2012.
Turkey's Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, has told the Turkish Parliament
that Damascus has the blood of innocents on its hands, and that Turkey
`would not offer its hand to such a regime unless it cleans itself up.'
In contrast, Iran continues to support the Baathist regime politically and
militarily. Iran even acknowledges that its Quds Forces, the arm of the
Revolutionary Guards tasked with overseas operations, has conducted
operations in Syria. Ismail Gha'ani, the deputy head of the Quds force, has
claimed<http://www.eurasiareview.com/21062012-the-cold-war-between-turkey-and-iran-analysis/#>that,
`Before our presence in Syria, too many people were killed by the
opposition but with the physical and non- physical presence of the Islamic
republic, big massacres in Syria were prevented.'
There is also reason to believe that Iran's Lebanese ally, Hezbollah, has
played a supportive role in the bloody crackdown.
Syria has become the test field of Ankara's and Tehran's proxy war
capabilities. Iran is much more experienced in waging proxy wars in a wide
array of areas, ranging from Afghanistan to Lebanese Hezbollah and
Palestinian radical Muslims. However, as atrocities similar to the Houla
massacre continue to mount, there is increasing risk that the low intensity
conflict could provoke a military intervention.
The scenario of an intervention would be a game changer. Currently, Iran
can leverage its superior experience in proxy warfare. However, Turkey
holds the advantage with regard to conventional warfare capacity. Thus,
Iran can have the upper hand as long as the Syrian crisis does not force a
military intervention by the West and/or Turkey.
IRAQ: THE POLITICAL CONTEST
Ever since the American departure from Iraq, Turkey and Iran have each
tried to use their weight to affect the political makeup of the country and
extend their influence. The competition first surfaced in the parliamentary
elections of 2010 when Ankara supported the relatively secular and Sunni
dominated Iraqiya party, which included Hashimi's Renewal List. Tehran on
the other hand, stood behind the State of Law Coalition, which included
Maliki's Islamic Da'awa Party, and other Shiite Islamist groups which
gathered under the National Iraqi Alliance bloc.
Although the Sunni Iraqiya garnered two seats more than the State of Law
Coalition in the elections, Maliki managed to keep his position as prime
minister by consolidating his power with the more radical, pro-Iran Shiite
groups of the National Iraqi Alliance, including the Sadrists and Supreme
Iraqi Islamic Council. Maliki has gradually seized greater personal control
over the country by simultaneously retaining multiple critical posts, such
as acting interior minister, defense minister and national security affairs
minister.
It was under these circumstances that the pro-Ankara Vice President Hashimi
was forced to flee the country. Hashimi first took refuge with the regional
government of Northern Iraq, and then travelled to the Sunni Gulf states
before settling in Turkey.
In Iraq, the regional Sunni-Shiite fault lines are clearly visible. Baghdad
has aligned itself with Iran in support of the Alawite regime in Syria. It
has blocked an attempt by the Arab League to adopt a harsh resolution
against Assad's crackdown.
The formation of a Shiite bloc has corresponded with a Turkish-Iraqi
divergence, which peaked in April 2012, when Maliki labeled Turkey `a
hostile state.' This statement was made in response to Prime Minister
Erdogan's accusation against the Maliki administration of fomenting
sectarian tensions in Iraq.
Ankara responded to the Shiite bloc by deepening its ties with Sunnis and
with Kurds in northern Iraq, in addition to hosting Tarek Hashimi in
Istanbul.
Turkish-Iraqi, and sectarian, tensions have simmered to the point that they
have been manifest on the street. On May 19 there were anti-Turkey
demonstrations and a burning of the Turkish flag in Basra, a Shiite
province. These acts infuriated the Turkish public.
TURKISH REGIONAL LEADERSHIP?
Adherents of the Turkish foreign policy doctrine, the so-called Davutoglu
Doctrine, wish to see Turkey as the rising star of the region; as the
leader of a regional `spring.' Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu has
declared that, `Turkey will lead the change in the Middle East as its
master and servant.'
However, in Syria and Iraq the `Arab Spring' has turned into the sectarian
winter of the Islamic world, with Turkey as a problematic protagonist, not
a leader. Early on, Davutoglu promoted a 'zero problems with neighbors'
foreign policy, which aimed to enhance Turkey's power in the historical
Ottoman territories and promote integration for making national borders
meaningless -all in an attempt to restore Turkish (Ottoman) regional
hegemony. Yet Turkey's involvement in Shiite-Sunni conflicts renders this
doctrine an unattainable utopia. None of the local players see Turkey as
the regional leader it aspires to be.
Author:
Can Kasapoglu, who holds a Ph.D. from the Strategic Research Institute at
the Turkish War College, is a visiting post-doctoral researcher at the
Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. This essay is reprinted with
permission from BESA Perspectives, No. 172, June 11, 2012, published by The
Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.
About the author:
Published by the Foreign Policy Research
Institute<http://www.eurasiareview.com/author/fpri/>Leave a comment:
-
Middle East
This is one of the most complete assessments i have read on the middle east and it actually is reasonable unlike most others.
Leave a comment: