"Are we headed for a Bay of Pigs in Iran?"

Amid the western mainstream media propaganda-like coverage of Iran comes this clairevoyant analysis by Gary Sick.

About 15 years ago, when the United States was first experimenting with wide-ranging sanctions against Iran, an Iranian acquaintance remarked to me, "I certainly hope Iran doesn't become another Cuba."
At that point, the U.S. had imposed a total embargo on Cuba for more than three decades. As he said it, I detected that part of him could not believe that a rich and cultured nation on the other side of the globe could ever be treated like an island dictatorship off the American coast. But I also saw a glint of apprehension in his eyes as he considered for the first time how America's vision of its own national interests could change when viewed through the prism of raw domestic politics.
The cases are not at all the same. Yet today, Cuba has been under U.S. embargo for 50 years, and Iran has passed the 16-year mark. Cuba experienced a U.S.-sponsored invasion before the sanctions began. Iran is still waiting for its Bay of Pigs.
When the Obama administration came into office, talk was all about "smart sanctions." President Obama's foreign policy advisers had seen what indiscriminate sanctions had done to Iraq. Ordinary lives were destroyed and, in the words of a friend whose family was in Iraq, the entire middle class was criminalized, driven to smuggling and black-market dealings just to survive.
The sanctions also created a sympathetic backlash with the Iraqi population and visceral anti-Americanism throughout the world. We were not going to make that mistake again. Instead, we would target sanctions only against the decision-makers and abusers.
Yet today, the sanctions regime in Iran is resembling, more and more, the Iraqi and Cuban cases. We have arrived by a very different route. Instead of controlling all goods going into the country, we have ingeniously found ways of manipulating Iran's banking system. That, together with regional boycotts, has the prospect of blocking a large proportion of Iran's oil sales.
In Iran there has been a run on the currency, food prices are soaring, and every single person is beginning to experience some form of economic pain. That has been the source of considerable public satisfaction in Washington and elsewhere. It is also reminiscent of the early stages of the Iraqi experience. Add to that the serial murders of civilian scientists, cybertampering with Iran's centrifuges, flyovers of U.S. drones, and covert assistance to Iranian separatist groups.
Forget the euphemisms. What would we think if a nation were doing all of this to us? The benign image of sanctions as graduated pressure has been transformed. In reality, it is war with Iran in all but name.
Until now, the threat of escalation has been a tool for promoting sanctions. I remember vividly my own experience in the White House during the original Iranian hostage crisis. At that time, President Carter and his National Security Council staff quite deliberately used the threat of a possible U.S. military action against Iran to encourage Europeans and other allies to adopt sanctions against Iran. The purpose of the sanctions was to persuade Iran to release the American diplomatic hostages. It didn't work.
The threat of military action was, however, very effective in getting allies to take economic actions that were contrary to their own national interests. The thinking was that economic sanctions and boycotts, however disagreeable, were less costly than the outbreak of a military conflict in the oil-rich Persian Gulf.
The same tactic was used by the George W. Bush administration to twist the arms of reluctant allies. The presence of such uber-hawks as Vice President Dick Cheney, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and others, as well as the formal security doctrine of the administration to launch pre-emptive military attacks, gave the argument credibility.
Upon the arrival of the Obama administration and its initial policy of engagement with Iran, the role of enforcer shifted to Israel. The first major media storm about an Israeli attack on Iran came in the final months of the Bush administration, when John Bolton predicted without qualification in an interview with The Daily Telegraph that Israel would launch its attack before Bush left office, on the grounds that the incoming administration would be less sympathetic to the idea.
Since then, such predictions have become almost an annual event. Jeffrey Goldberg, writing in the Atlantic Monthly in September 2010 after extensive interviews with key Israelis, concluded that "there is a better than 50 percent chance that Israel will launch a strike by next July," 2011.
That date came and went. Then about a month ago, Israeli commentator Ronen Bergman wrote in The New York Times magazine that "After speaking with many senior Israeli leaders and chiefs of the military and the intelligence, I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012."
It is a bit ironic that Bergman spoke to the same individuals who had previously convinced Goldberg that a strike was coming in 2011. Moreover, many of those interviewed openly expressed great doubt about the feasibility and wisdom of any such attack. This included the recently retired Mossad chief Meir Dagan and the former Israeli chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi, who said that "the Iranian threat was not as imminent" as some had suggested and that "a military strike would be catastrophic." But the article resonated powerfully, especially in an election year.
Congress has been extremely active in trying to prevent the administration from pursuing negotiations. H.R. 1905 -- the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 -- proposes to ban U.S. diplomats from contact with "any Iranian official who poses a threat to the United States." There is scarcely anyone in Iran who has not chanted "Death to America"; does that constitute a threat and disqualify that person from contact with American diplomats?
More recently, a proposed Sense of the Senate resolution tries to define the terms and acceptable objectives of any United States policy dealing with Iran:
• It rejects "any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat," thus ruling out a policy that the United States used successfully against the Soviet Union.
• It defines the U.S. "red line," where we would consider the use of force, not as Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon, but rather as an Iranian "nuclear weapons capability," which by many calculations Iran already has.
• Finally, it sets as the objective of any negotiations "the full and sustained suspension" of uranium enrichment by Iran. But Iran regards enrichment for peaceful purposes as a right conferred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that principle is supported by a vast majority of the Iranian population, including even the reformist opposition.
This resolution is not binding, and it does not yet have majority support in the Senate. However, it is apparently intended to be used as a centerpiece in the pro-Israeli AIPAC meeting that started this weekend in Washington. And it comes just at the moment when it appears that negotiations between Tehran and six major powers are likely to resume.
There is an inevitability about sanctions imposed for political reasons. Serious negotiations and compromise are precluded, and the appetite for ever-stronger sanctions grows with the realization that past efforts were a failure. If you set an impossible objective and then begin imposing sanctions to achieve it, the result is always more sanctions, until you arrive at the point where there are no more sanctions and only force remains.
We are approaching that point.

Bashar El Assad and Legitimacy, Updated

One must recognise that Bashar El Assad is still, after four months of unrest, hugely popular in Syria. This is a fact, not an Al-Jazeera fabricated story. This is the fourth pro regime rally in Syria since March. The Syrian revolution 2011 has never been able to rally as much.

If one adds to this three other facts:

1. The hijacking of the Syrian Revolution 2011 by USrael and the Muslim Brotherhood;
2. The first USrael influence free government in Lebanon since years. The Lebanese government has been chosen by a majority of Lebanese who want to break free from USrael's influence and who wouldn't certainly like to see this influence resurrect in Syria with the toppling of the Assad regime;
3. The Syrian Revolution 2011 inability to present a united front against the Assad regime;

It is unlikely that we will see any change in the balance of support for the regime and the revolution 2011, from internal and external actors, any time soon. The balance might even shift in favour of the regime.

It is fair to say that right now Bashar El Assad still has the legitimacy of the majority of Syrians and there is no reason for this fact to change anytime soon. Also, people who are trumpeting a change in the fortunes of the regime through the faltering of the Syrian economy are undermining their own chances of success by overlooking the fact that putting extreme pressure on the Syrian economy can also eliminate the possibility of a successful and peaceful transition of power through the collapse of Syrian institutions and therefore make less likely a change in the current support for the regime from China and Russia which is based on the refusal of an Iraq like upheaval in Syria.

But the most important fact that is overlooked right now is, ironically, the support for the Assad regime in Lebanon across all sects, a support made possible by the overt enmity of March 14 toward Bashar El Assad and the little popularity this movement has right now in Lebanon (note that the recent support for the 'Syrian people' from Hariri masks a long history of abuse and killing of Syrian workers by Hariri's and March 14th militia in Lebanon).

UPDATE:

ALASTAIR CROOKE: Unfolding the Syrian paradox

Obama's strategic failure in Syria

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

The Special Tribunal For Lebanon: Justice For All Or Justice For The Cedar Niggers?

Days after the nth leak, the Special Tribunal For Lebanon (STL) announced his indictments on July 2nd accusing, what we now know at least since 2009, four members of Hezbollah. The announcement coincides with the new Lebanese government's statement of principle on the STL going for a confidence vote in the Lebanese parliament soon, and with the positive developments for Assad in Syria coming after an intense diplomatic and political activity in which the Syrian president met with representatives from the US and the UK, and in which the regime and the internal opposition seem to be willing to find a way out of the crisis.

Hezbollah reacted immediately yesterday with a speech from its leader Hassan Nasrallah aired on major Lebanese tv channels.

Nasrallah's speech after the indictment.

The STL has been biased and politcised from its inception and a tool against the Lebanese resistance. It is no coincidence that he first leaks pointing to a possible Hezbollah role in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri were published in the Figaro just after Israel's defeat in the 2006 war against the Lebanese resistance. This was an indication that the tribunal became very quickly a tool for the US and Israel to achieve against the Lebanese resistance what they were not able to achieve with the July 2006 war.

Nasrallah spoke of the flaws in the investigation at lenght and provided new disturbing material about the corruption, politicisation and the infiltration of the tribunal by Israel and the CIA. here are some points:

1. The lonely trail of the investigation or the mono rail.  While Brammertz, the second UNIIC chief prosecutor who came unde fire fromm March 14th, pursued more than one trail of investigation, the focus of the investigation of the first and third prosecutors (Mehlis and Bellemare) was alternatively on Syria and Hezbollah.  They never pursued the business trail and never considered seriously that Israel might have interest at throwing the country in civil war again.  This is despite the fact that Hezbollah provided evidence that Israelis were monitoring the site of the bomb that killed Hariri and his daily route days before and on the day of the assassination. The evidence was judged circumstancial and was not investigated.

2. The tight cooperation between Israel and the tribunal. Not only Israel was not investigated but the tribunal sought information from Israel. It also tranferred its computers and files through Israel when it moved its operations center from Lebanon to the Netherlands, instead of transferring them through Beyrouth airport. This last information was obtained thanks to Hezbollah intelligence and Al-Manar aired a picture of the Israeli customs authorisation as a proof. Israel has its footprints all over the tribunal up to its president, Antonio Cassese, 'a great friend of Israel'. Al Manar aired a video in which one of cassese colleagues was paraising him as a great friend of Israel at the 2010 annual Herzilya conference where Cassese was due to attend.

3. The role of foreign western intelligence agencies in the investigation, unsavoury characters. Hezbollah, once again, was able to gather information on some key individuals who worked for Daniel Bellemare, the chief prosecutor at the STL. There is Najib Nick Keldas, australian, ex CIA, had a role in the massacre of Bir El 'Abd (one has to be aware here that most western sources consider Imam Fadlallah, the target of the bomb that killed more than eighty, erroneously as the spiritual guide of Hezbollah, which is not true, Fadlallah was the spiritual guide of the Shia community in Lebanon). Than there is Robert Baer, the much talkative ex-CIA, who was a special agent assigned to track Mughniyyeh and failed to kill him. Mughniyyeh was a high ranking Hezbollah operative who was later killed in Damascus. Baer also had a role in Bir El Abd Massacre. Then there is Michael Taylor, who worked for Scotland Yard on Islamist terror. Dorede Bcherraoui (Lebanese living in France), who had a role in the false witnesses who previously misled the tribunal to accuse Syria and the four Lebanese generals. And finally, Darrel Mandir, who continues to work for the CIA.

4. The corruption of prominent members of the tribunal. As in the case of the Israeli customs document, Nasrallah's speech was interrupted with a video showing Gerhard Lehman, deputy to ex chief prosecutor of the UNIIC, a UN commission for the assassination of Hariri on which premises the STL was created, taking bribes for solding files, infos and documents produced by the UNIIC. It is known in Lebanon that some of this material was sold to local TV stations. The STL is also famously known for its leaks, many of which were sold to the media. This was a damning moment for which the March 14 parliamentary minority in lebanon who were behind the creation of the STL had nothing else to say to the media after the video was aired other than the video only showed that Lehman was being bribed but it did not show who was bribing him! Then there was the false witnesses testimonies. It was very damaging to the UNIIC and made the STL irrelevant. It was the first scandal to be widely known by the Lebanese public. It is since this scandal and ensuing video aired by New TV showing Saad Hariri, the son of the murdered, discussing one the false witnesses testimonies in the presence of Gerhard Lehman that Lebanese started to look at the STL with great suspicion. But this did not affect the current chief prosecutor of the tribunal, not only he did not investigate the false witnesses but he also prevented personally the tribunal form prosecuting one of them, Zuhair Siddique.

5. The non confidentiality of the investigation and the politicisation of the tribunal. Every leak in the press concerning the indictments, and there were many, were timed to influence local politics. There were leaks by members of the tribunal for money, there were leaks by March 14th in order to attack Hezbollah and other Lebanese parties who are not members of their coalition, and there were leaks by the STL, the last of them being the release, days before the official indictment, of the complete names of the accused. The last leaks and the indictment were timed to hinder the confidence vote in parliament for the new Mikati government which put March 14th, for the first time since the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, out of the government and in the opposition.  Initially, March 14th thought that the Miakti government will not reach a consensus on how to deal with the tribunal, but when the consensus was reached and the new government was heading for a confidence vote, the accused names appeared in full and the indictment was issued promptly days after the leak. Where is justice? There were leaks in 2009 before the elections, and then during the formation of Saad Hariri's government where Hezbollah were asking to be officially recognised as the national resistance. There were leaks when Saad Hariri's government fell. All these leaks served politically one party in Lebanon, March 14.

This is a very one sided, politicised tribunal controlled by Israel and the US and aimed at one party in Lebanon, the resistance. The tribunal is presided by Antonio Cassese, 'a great friend of Israel' who consider the resistance as terrorists. How justice can be done with such a tribunal?

The Israelis now are saying that Lebanon is in the eye of the tempest. That's their hope and the hopes of some in March 14th that Sunnis will fight Shias, that by accusing a Shia group, Hezbollah, of the assassination of a Sunni prime minister, Lebanon will descend into civil strife. But there will be no such a strife. Lebanese want to live in peace. They have more urgent priorities, the economy that was neglected by the former corrupt government, jobs, electricity, basic needs. The Siniora and the Saad Hariri governments are obsessed by Hezbollah and put this obsession first as their government priority at the expense of more urgent priorities. Hariri could not even tolerate alternance in Lebanon, he sees himself as PM for life.

Hezbollah does not recognise the legitimacy of the STL and will not let this corrputed and politicised government arrest his accused members. March 14th should not ask the current government to deliver the accused to the STL, they could not ask from the Mikati government what they cannot ask from themselves. Saad Hariri signed a document recognising the special status of Hezbollah as the national resistance. Even a pure March 14th government could not comply with the STL's demands. The Mikati government should be given the chance to work for all Lebanese and Lebanon, and Lebanese should be protected from civil strife. The STL is just a stage in the war waged at the Lebanese resistance and at the Arab resistance in general since 1948. When the Lebanese resistance was created in 1982, it was small and without allies. Today the resistance is strong. Lebanese should not worry.

Indeed, the reactions to the STL indictments were only seen among March 14. Lebanese are busy fighting a difficult economic situation and the STL has been discredited in their eyes a long time ago. There was no surprise when the indictments were announced. Lebanon's debt is equivalent to Greek debt, a debt created by Hariri father and son, and Siniora who is a member of their Future movement, who ruled the country while enriching themselves. This is while the cost of the STL payed for by the Lebanese government is projected to be around the 200 millions and counting, millions that serve as a tool in a war waged by the enemies of Lebanon.

The STL is a farce. If it were to operate in the same way in any other country it will be judged differently under different judicial standards. It will be scrutinised. So why the UN and USrael want this kind of justice for us? Who do they think we are? Cedar niggers perhaps.


"Pffft" went the UN special tribunal for Lebanon

Friday Lunch Club summarising the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

March 14 to the US, Gulf states: Help us regain power in Lebanon through the STL (this link as well as links to screen shots in this post were produced by FLC)

UPDATE: More proof of the transfer of the tribunal documents through Israel.

UPDATE: Omar Nashabe (Al Akhbar) speaking on the STL at the LSE in Januray 2011.
UPDATE: Robert Parry: Troubled History of the Hariri probe

Flash update: follow the latest developments about the Hariri tribunal (STL) on my twitter account.

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

The Muslim Brotherhood: The Trojan Horse Of The Counter Revolution

By As'ad Abukhalil for Al Akhbar. The article is in Arabic but I will try in the coming days to translate some of it if not all.

In a way what is happening in Syria is at the same time a revolution and a counterevolution because the syrian revolution has already been hijacked by the Syrian revolution 2011 which is the baby child of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). That's why it is very difficult to understand what is going on in Syria right now. One has to understand that the MB is a transnational organisation and it is not only the Syrian MB who has hijacked the Syrian revolution but also its allies in the region. So there is a basis to the allegations of the Syrian regime about foreign interference.

Western countries, as well as some Syrians, Academics and activists have already made their Faustian bargain with the MB to get themselves rid of Bashar El Assad.

Some personal thoughts on Syria

Photo credit: Voirlemonde

I have not been posting on Syria because the state of this country is a very personal thing to me.   I grew up during the Lebanese civil war.  I saw the savagery of my fellow men and women.  I saw people who used to be friends denounce and kill each other out of fear and under coercion.  Militia in Lebanon were intent at destroying each other.  Only the presence of the Syrian army prevented one ethnic sect from annihilating the other.  Many Lebanese accuse Syrians of  having participated, in their own way, with their intelligence and army, in the Lebanese civil war.  But Syria didn't start the Lebanese civil war.  It was started by Lebanese.  Syria watched and made sure no sect triumphed.  It was in Baathist and secular Syria's interest that Lebanon kept its religious mosaics.  I left Lebanon in 1982 and forgot about it, married a foreigner and threw myself in the pursuit of the ordinary life without ever thinking of even visiting Lebanon.  When in 2005 Rafic Hariri was assassinated, I told my husband and children that it was time to visit Lebanon because the country was probably going to enter a new period of unrest.  It was also time for me to face up to my repressed fears and my pain.  Memories came back.  Days and nights were spent with anxiety only at the thought of revisiting the country that I left ravaged by civil war.  To calm my fears, my husband decided to give this visit a context that will make it less stressful by including Cyprus and Syria in our itinerary before arriving to Lebanon.  We were in Cyprus when the London subway was bombed.  Greek Cypriots love Bashar El Assad as much as they hate Turks.  In Syria, despite the tensions on the Syrian Lebanese border, we were welcome.   I felt free, I felt secure.  I loved Damascus and the harmony between the communities.  All these years I was outside Lebanon and unable to think about it, it was there before my eyes.  I know this might seem an insult because many Syrians consider their government as oppressive and themselves as lacking freedom.  But Syria in 2005 reminded very much of Lebanon before the civil war, it was my country lost and found again.  Finally we went to Lebanon, and only because I visited Syria before and saw the possibility of different religions living together I was able to see Lebanon again without fear and negative feelings.  This is my personal connection to Syria.

I have not been posting on Syria on this blog because there is so much disinformation.  The revolution, in the beginning, seemed genuine to me. But also right from the beginning, there was evidence of lies and biases in Arab and western coverage of Syria. The Guardian for instance has been misrepresenting the events from day one, even though they pretended to have a reporter on site in Damascus. They had Katherine Marsh, and now they have Nidaa Hassan. For some reason, Brian Whitaker who has written well on the Middle east and the Arab world, has been openly anti Syrian regime right from the beginning of the events (Whitaker who is in charge of the middle east section at The Gaurdian wrote directly only rarely on Syria since the beginning). The big elephant in this small room of information is Al-Jazeera who has been litteraly lashing out at the Syrian regime and not only presenting unreliable information from eyewitnesses but also manipulating the information.

There is also the gay girl in damascus story and it has come to represent the level of lies and manipulations in the information on the Syrian revolution 2011 to the point that soon enough Syrian auhtorities will be accused of the disappearance of a fictional character. This is kafkaesque!

Serious analyses are lacking.  The left leaning Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar has published some useful articles on Syria but they are not making their way into other news oultets and they are not cited.

Here are two of them that caught my attention:

The Syrian Ikhwan, between piety and murderous errors.

What the geopolitics of the protests tell us about the Syrian revolution 2011?

And there are facts and analyses by journalists, political analysts and political scientists which were never mentioned in the blogs and Syria news aggregators that are read by Syrians anxious to find a way out to the turmoil in their country:

Protesters' weaponry, a contentious issue, never confirmed, never refuted by Syrian opposition figure, like Israel's nukes.

Syrian christians under attack from anti-government protesters

The weak foundations of Arab democracies: the author puts the blame on Islam and its inability to foster a vital civil society, a necessary condition for democracy, the real one, not the one that is being crafted by the neoliberal cons for Syria and the Arab world.

Understanding Syria's unrests: the author mentions, as early as April 11th, the danger of armed gangs

A third way on Syria is possible, but nobody is listening...

Syria's regional role offers a way out.

Syria petition for political change: a dramatic missed opportunity

Syria and US imperialism.

Who is behind the protest movement in Syria?

Nir Rosen: Prospects for the sectarian terrain in the middle east, part 1, part 2.

When dictators fall who rises?

The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood by Gary Gambill (an article from 2006 but of some interest to what is happening today in Syria).

As Islamists flex muscle, Egypt's Christians despair.

The Syrian Baath by Eric Rouleau (1967, English). Sometimes, it is useful to have a look back.

The confrontation in Syria has also changed rapidly. The so called Syrian revolution 2011 has mutated into an armed insurgency against the regime. They have strong elements from the neighbouring Muslim Brotherhood and from external powers including Israel who have stakes in fomenting a civil war in Syria. External powers, especially Israel, have no interest in the emergence of a vibrant Syrian economy and Syrian society, I wonder how those Syrians who are monitoring the Syrian revolution 2011 from Washington DC, Maryland, or Sweden cannot see this, but they are blinded by their hate for Assad. There is no opposition in Syria today if one means by opposition a unified assembly of people having common goals for the country, there is only chaos powered by hate for the Assads and organised by ennemies of Syria in which a minority of Syrians are participating taking hostage some 70% of the population in Damascus and Aleppo. This is not to say that there isn't a need for genuine reforms in Syria and a transition to social justice and freedom (you will never hear the word democracy in my posts because the term, as it is promoted by Neo Liberal Cons and western powers as an excuse to invade Arab countries is now in disrepute), this is to say that the Syrian revolution 2011 is the perfect example of organised chaos, far from being a platform for reforms, social justice and individual freedoms.

One has to feel responsibility for the country and the people when trying to change the order of things. I am not seeing this in any known representative of the Syrian revolution 2011 and the people they are sending to protest are poor and desperate people. So far, this revolution is represented in the outside by people funded by external powers who are not friends of Syria and inside by disenfranchised people. There are no women, no families, no students, no businessmen, no professionals, no intellectuals in these protests. Meanwhile the traditional opposition sits silent and departs from its silence only to mention that it is up to the Shabab (youth) on the streets to assume the revolution. Only Bassam El Kadi, who is younger than your average traditional Syrian opposition figure, has been vocal and I like what he writes.  It makes me sad,  these old revolutionaries would like to think that there is a real revolutionary spirit on the streets.   There is.  But sadly, there is also a foreign funded armed insurgency which nobody knows for sure how it will end.

Today is the 'Day Of The Clans' of the Syrian opposition who is hoping to rally the clans of Syria. Just the title makes me suspicious of this opposition. If  clanism is going to be part of the new Syria then you can say goodbye to reforms with this opposition (not to mention democracy of course, even their democracy and not mine). They are only going to topple Assad by replacing him with another dictatorship, fragilise the country's ethnic mosaics, its economy,  put an end to the last secular regime in the Arab world, and open the door to a more docile Syria.  That's the price of freedom, if only they would get their freedom, and if only it will end there but it won't.  By ending secular governments in favour of sectarian and theocratic governments, the conditions are set for more tensions in the region.  I hope Syrians will find a way out of this mess and wish them well.

A road map to a peaceful solution in Syria.

Making peace with the Talibans

Britain and the United States are pressing for United Nations sanctions against 18 former senior Taliban figures to be lifted later this month in the strongest indication yet that the western powers are looking for a negotiated peace with the Taliban.

Candidates include the controversial former head of the regime's religious police, Mohammed Qalamuddin, whose officers were responsible for some of the worst atrocities under the Taliban regime.

The US and UK have strained economies and they cannot wage wars in different parts of the world. This was an expected measure after the killing of Osama Bin Laden because they could not just walk out from Afghanistan without killing Bin laden.

But what will happen with the sunni militants if the US and NATO will leave Afghanistan? They will probably be unleashed in the coming sectarian civil wars between Sunnis and Shias that the US and its two regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, have been cooking for a while now in the ME.

"Why Palestinians Have Time On Their Side"

I agree with most of what Mr. Goldberg writes here, although I do not agree with his main premise, his concern for the survival of the state of Israel as a Jewish state. But is it possible that people like Netanyahu don't see things the way Mr Goldberg sees them? It is quite possible that Israeli politicians, like other politicians in other countries, see only for the short term and think in electoral terms, so this is why they are locked in a short term vision. And while Israel could not afford to be a country like others, it is acting like any other country. Does this mean that they don't see Palestinians as an existential threat, as Mr. Goldberg sees them (and this is quite racist because he is alluding to Palestinian demographic and rights as an exitential threat to Israel)? Of course they see things the same way but they think that as long as they have international support, they will deal with any threat, or any pressure to engage in peace and concessions, the way they dealt with until now: more bloodshed and brute force while Israel will explain to the world that its existence as it is now: without peace, without definite borders, without justice for Palestinians, and with brute force and political instability in the region, is a natural an biblical right for the Jewish people that tremples any other right. And it will take another holocaust for the world to understand.

Meanwhile, Palestinians should take their matters in their own hands, strictly speaking.

By Jeffrey Goldberg

If I were a Palestinian (and, should there be any confusion on this point, I am not), and if I were the sort of Palestinian who believed that Israel should be wiped off the map, then I would be quite pleased with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s performance before Congress this morning.

I would applaud Netanyahu for including no bold initiatives that would have suggested to the world that Israel is alive to the threat posed by its seemingly eternal occupation of the West Bank.

In fact, I would make support for Netanyahu the foundation stone of my patient campaign to dismantle the world’s only majority-Jewish country. I would support not only Netanyahu, but the far-right parties of his governing coalition, the parties that seem uninterested in democracy and obsessed with planting more Jewish settlements on the West Bank.

The settlements would have my wholehearted backing. I would encourage my brother Palestinians to help build settlements at a brisk pace. I would ask the Israelis to build an even more intricate system of bypass roads on the that would connect Jewish settlements to one another and to Israel proper. I would ask my ostensible allies among the Arab nations to provide interest-free mortgages to Israelis in Tel Aviv, so they could move out to the settlements for some fresh air and a little more yard. And, while I was at it, I would insist that my leaders abort their campaign for United Nations recognition of an independent state of Palestine.

Entanglement

My goal: To hopelessly, ineradicably, entangle the two peoples wedged between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Then I would wait as the Israeli population on the West Bank grew, and grew some more. I would wait until 2017, 50 years after the Six Day War, which ended with Israel in control of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. I would go before the UN and say the following:

"We, the Palestinians, no longer seek a homeland of our own. We recognize the permanence of Israeli occupation, the dominion of the Israeli military and the power of the Israeli economy. So we would like to join them. In the 50 years since the beginning of the ’temporary’ occupation, we have seen hundreds of thousands of Israelis build communities near our own communities. We admire what they have built, and the system of laws that governs their lives. Unlike them, many of us live under Israeli military law but have no say in choosing the Israelis who rule us. So we no longer want statehood. We simply want the vote."

And this, of course, would bring about the end of Israel.

Apartheid State

Either the Jews of Israel would grant the Palestinians the vote, at which point their country would lose its Jewish majority and its identity as a refuge for the Jewish people, or it would deny them the vote, and become an apartheid state. The latter option is untenable, of course: Many Jewish Israelis would be repulsed by this thought; other nations that already consider Israel a pariah would now have just cause; and Israel would lose its last remaining friend, the U.S., because no American -- including and especially young American Jews -- would identify with a country reminiscent of pre-Mandela South Africa

If Netanyahu had been thinking strategically, he might have realized this when he went before Congress this morning. And he might have done something bold: Acknowledge that the age of Jewish settlement is over. He did mention, fleetingly, that certain settlements would be set adrift in a theoretical peace deal. But he seemed unaware that he was delivering a speech that could easily have been given 10 years ago.

It is not 10 years ago. Israel is now 10 years closer to achieving full pariah status. And -- in part because the Palestinians lack the patience to pursue a strategy of gradual, irreversible entanglement -- a moment of truth for Israel is rapidly approaching.

UN Vote

The Palestinians are seeking a UN vote in September on independence. They will prevail in the General Assembly, though not in the Security Council Barack Obama, with whom Netanyahu just picked a fight, will have to spend a good amount of political capital to stymie the Palestinian campaign, even though he appears to have nothing but contempt for Netanyahu’s lack of vision.

But American opposition to this unilateral declaration will be in many ways immaterial. Israel will soon enough be seen by most of the world as the occupier not of disputed territory but of a foreign country. The Palestinians will wake up to find that a General Assembly vote did not, in fact, give them true independence. And then there will be an explosion.

The Palestinians who are watching Yemenis, Libyans and Syrians fighting for their freedom will soon be inspired to once again take up their own fight.

Existential Threats

Netanyahu, who understands the existential threat posed by Iran, does not seem to understand the nature of this other existential threat. His five predecessors as prime minister -- including Ariel Sharon, whose heart did not bleed for Palestinians -- understood it. President Obama understands it, too.

"The number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories," Obama told members of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, on May 22. "This will make it harder and harder, without a peace deal, to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state."

An eternal truth of Middle East politics is that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Lately, though, this has become an Israeli specialty. If Israel misses the chance this year to set the Palestinians on a course toward independence, it will jeopardize its future as a Jewish democracy.

A Magnanimous Vision

Yes, it will be dangerous for Israel to return to its 1967 borders, or anything close. The potential merger between Hamas and the more moderate Fatah is cause for despair, but it should spur Netanyahu to try to split the moderates from the radicals by offering a magnanimous vision for peace. He should realize that it will be fatal for Israel to maintain control over millions of Palestinians who seek what the people of Yemen and Libya and Syria seek: freedom.

Absent any hope of progress, the Palestinians will do what they can to undermine Israel. But all they have to do is wait.

US congress controlled by Israel

At the beginning of the video a pro-AIPAC activist snatches the camera from a reporter.

Bibi has received today more standing ovations in the US congress than BO, some allege the number was 28 for Bibi and 25 for Obama when he last spoke to the US congress. People at Syria comment were joking that the people's assembly in Syria gives its president Bashar the same treatment, except that he is not the president of a foreign country. The only thing that was missing in the US congress today for Bibi to have the same treatment as Bashar El Assad was someone reading him poems.

Video link thanks to FLC.

Watch here the ignorance of AIPAC delegates about Palestine and the Palestinians, from Max Blumenthal.


Veni, Vidi, Vici: Netanyahu's pyrrhic victorious speech at the US congress according to the Israeli press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OBL Dead

Osama Bin Laden is dead killed by a special unit of US forces in Pakistan. He was killed in his compound located in an urban area 30 miles from Islamabad.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan must have known about his whereabouts during all these years. Saudi Arabia is in a difficult position now in the ME, with all those revolutions at its door, and badly needs US protection for the survival of its backward monarchy. Bin Laden is the price for this unconditional protection.

Bin Laden leaves behind him a trail of murders, wars, violence and multiple religious sectarianisms: Muslims versus Christians, Sunnis versus Shias. He discredited Muslims and Arabs all over the world and served well the US and Israel's imperial interests in the 'greater middle east area'.

UPDATE
US special forces told to kill, not capture, Bin Laden.

Reactions: 'Sunni Hamas condemns killing of Arab holy warrior'. Palestinian resistance movements are all corrupted by Saudi Arabia's money. Deprived of support and having to sustain a harsh occupation, Palestinian leaders turn to the wrong country, wrong ideology and wrong man...Ismail Hanyia's statement on Bin Laden is confirming what zionists say about Hamas. How dumb of him to call Bin Laden 'Arab holy warrior'. We need an Arab spring in Palestine now!
Sunni Lebanese Muslim preachers, Saudi kooks and Hariri tools, hail Bin Laden for attacking at the heart of the US. These people feel no shame. Bin Laden was fabricated by Saudi Arabia and the US, then served to us, and we should feel relieved at his death, not mournful and not a bit proud about his criminal enterprises.

Some perspective:

Angry Arab on the celebrations.

Angry Arab on OBL and his sponsors.

More from Angry Arab (this is an extract and I took the liberty to put it in paragraphs, it is known that Angry Arab doesn't like paragraphs):

Now, turning to the US, I also believe that in the wake of any US military operation, we are fed a large amount of lies, fabrication, sc fi scenarios, and exaggerations.  

I mean, other than Bin Laden has been killed by US troops, I am skeptical of the rest.  

Let us begin with the one about that Bin Laden received a "Muslim burial at sea."  I mean, do they think that Arabs/Muslims are idiots?  Burial at sea? Is that a new military term for tossing his body from the air?  Burial at sea? Who are you kidding? Just say what happened: most likely, soldiers scrawled slogans on his body, and then yelled: Allahu Akbar, you motherfucker, and then tossed his body in the water.  

Then the story that I instantly wrote about yesterday: the notion that the find was the product of painstaking hard work and research by US intelligence agents. I remember that we were told how US intelligence agents in Iraq did a family tree and complicated charts of the relatives and bodyguards of Saddam to locate him.  Later we learned that: a bodyguard of Saddam turned himself in to US troops and asked for the bounty.  There is now a beginning of insinuations US troops found him due to a tip.  Here is the beginning of the story in the US press.  First we were told that a courier was spotted by US agents.  Now we are told that Pakistani agents were the first to spot him.  

We were first told that a man in the compound took a woman as a human shield and that she was killed.  When I now hear a "human shield" story, I know that I am about to be lied to by Israeli or US military to justify yet another killing of civilians.  Later we were told that Bin Laden was the one who took a woman as a human shield.  I am sure that the human shield story will disappear later. Just remember the original early story of Pat Tillman: I mean some in the US military are experienced in movie scripts.  

To their credit, Politico has noticed the various inconsistencies and lies and the changes in the early accounts.   And `Abdul-Bari `Atwan of Al-Quds Al-`Arabi, who knew Bin Laden and liked him says in his editorial today that an aide to Bin Laden said that he requested that his bodyguards shoot him if he ever faced killing by enemies.  `Atwan leans to that theory for his killing: that his own bodyguard shot him.  I think this is very likely and may emerge later.  Is that why the body was thrown in the sea? Because Americans want to believe that an American bullet killed him?  Does this matter? Well, yes.  

The US has lied so much that it is understandable that it is not believed by Muslims especially that Arabs/Muslims can't celebrate the American celebrations of their killings, even if the person killed is Bin Laden: who may not be loved by Arabs and Muslims (and who clearly failed to win support among the masses) but any US president is hated more than Bin Laden. That is the key element to help you understand the complicated Arab/Muslim attitudes to Bin Laden and his death.  This explains the stupid foolish statement by Isma`il Haniyyah who called Bin Laden "mujahid" (holy struggler).  

Oh, and now Fox News is giving credit where it is due: it crediting torture for locating Bin Laden.  

And the stupidity can be seen in Arab media too: New TV who I generally like, yesterday aired a report on the possible successors to Bin Laden.  It said that Abu Zubayda is the most likely to emerge as the key commander of Al-Qa`idah. Can some one tell New TV that Abu Zubyayda won't be able to assume his duties because he is sitting in Guantanamo? 

Why Bin Laden might have been dead for years and why the US chose to announce his death now.

Prospects for the sectarian terrain in the middle east

By Nir Rosen.

Part 1

Part 2

My comment on this later.

Hariri in Wikileaks: ''The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood supports peace with Israel''

Here, Saad Hariri, who is trying to convince the US to get rid of Bashar El Assad by replacing his rule with a sunni Muslim brotherhood rule, paints a rosy picture of the worst brotherhood in the history of the ME (after Saudi Arabia):

They would accept a woman as a president in Syria

They would accept civil government

They would accept a christian as a president of Syria

They would support peace with Israel

YNET NEWS (as of today): Saudi Arabia is a natural ally to Israel.

Opposition and conspiracy in Syria

When I listened to Bashar El-Assad's speech, I first thought that his outside conspiracy accusations were exaggerated. I thought this is classic talk by leaders when they are challenged by their own people.

After all, Mubarak also claimed that the Egypt uprising was also an outside conspiracy. But in his case, he could hardly blame anyone from the outside, Mubarak was like a violent man who beats his wife but is absolutely charming and docile with everybody else except of course his own people and Hezbollah whom he sees as challenging Saudi hegemony. But how could Hezbollah mobilize women and children and millions to protest against him? What we saw in Tahrir square was a genuine popular movement by all classes and age range of the Egyptian society, men and women.

I was thinking recently that this is what is exactly missing in the protests in Syria. The protests in Syria are not reaching a critical mass and are not comprised of men, women, children, and all classes of the Syrian society, from the whole age range. And they are sparse...

Moreover, when I heard recently that Syrian security were shooting at the army because the army refused to shoot at protesters, I thought this is gross propaganda. If you want to intimidate a group, you kill one of them, not in the back, but in the front, and one, not 9! And on Joshua Landis blog, there is a picture of a document supposed to be an order to shoot at the army. The document was sent to the blog's author and it has blood stain. The staging and the fabrications were becoming more and more ridiculous.

There are also the videos circulating on the web and propagated by 'protesters'. I devoted a night watching all of them. I could not believe what I saw, few agitated men shouting and very little information. Most of these videos seem staged.

I believe there is indeed an outside conspiracy in Syria and it is not difficult to imagine who is behind. There are the classic enemies of Bashar himself, Rif'at and Khaddam. There are also enemies in Lebanon who are experienced in sowing sectarian discord and financing militias to spread rumors and kill in the streets. There is also the regional context. The regional context, since the fall of Mubarak is unfavorable to the Saudi-US-Israel axis and tipping in favor of the Hezbollah-Syria-Iran axis. An overthrow of the Syrian regime might give the former axis some gains.

But beside all this, there is clear malaise in Syria and real need for reforms. I am not sure what started first, the opposition expressing this malaise or the agitators. But I believe that given the regional context for a possible sectarian flare that will certainly spread to Lebanon, the real Syrian opposition, the one that vies for reforms and not destruction, has a responsibility. It cannot sit and watch hopping for the balance to tip in their favor. This is destructive not only for Syria and the region but also for the Syrian opposition. If the true opposition in Syria makes itself passively accomplice with conspirators, it discredits itself as a movement representative of the true aspirations of the Syrian people.

Saudi Arabia and the counter revolution in the middle east: Part 2

It is not only Israel that is freaking out at the thought of the Arab spring. The rulers of Saudi Arabia are in a state of panic. They invaded Bahraïn, they are maneuvering to influence the Egyptian revolution, and they are fomenting trouble through their proxy March 14 in Lebanon and they are trying their best in Syria. Saudi Arabia is leading the counter revolution in the middle east and there is so much to write about this (you can read here Part 1). However, Syria and Lebanon, because of their religious mosaics, are the sensitive part of this counter revolution. I think Saudis are playing with fire here. The fire that was ignited in Iraq will find fertile ground in Syria and Lebanon.

I don't mean here to diminish the true aspirations of the syrian people to freedom, democracy, prosperity, and more importantly, a corruption free country. However, one has to be aware that the gloves are off between Saudi Arabia and its Israel ally on one side and Syria, Hezbollah and Iran on the other side. This is very dangerous terrain that SA is willing to take in order to reign in on the aspirations of the Arab people. Remembering the king's words from the Wikileaks cable asking the US to bomb Iran and to cut the 'head of the snake', I am inclined to consider that Saudi Arabia's moves resemble a suicide mission that will bring with it the entire middle east.

Here are some links on the subject:

The Arab Spring And The Saudi Counter Revolution

From Jadaliyya: Saudi Hegemony Versus The Arab Spring

Angry Arab about the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and its subserviance to Saudi Arabia

Angry Arab about Saudi's takeover of the Egypt revolution

And finally, from Syria Comment, the story of the tragic death of the author's wife's cousin in Banyas shot by protesters in Banyas: The revolution strikes home. Nobody knows for sure who is shooting military personnel watching and monitoring the protests in Syria but this is not typical of freedom loving people, this is an indication of a civil war fomented by Saudi proxies in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria through the Syrian muslim brotherhood and through Saudi national Saad Hariri as well as the Syrian brotherhood ally in opposition to Bashar el Assad, Abdel-Halim Khaddam, and their kooks.

Arab dictators and USrael: some thoughts on the Arab spring

Some argue that Arab dictators who are against US policies in the ME, which is mainly safeguarding Israel's interests first, seem to be more immune to popular uprisings against them because they have the approval of the people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause which they perceive as being the product of an injustice perpetuated by Israel and the US.

I think the argument has no basis because it alludes that Arabs can be totally distracted by the Palestinian issue and that the Palestinian issue was used by Arab dictators to divert the public attention from reforms. This is absolutely false because revolutions are happening in both USrael friendly and USrael hostile regimes.

It is not the Palestinian cause that is at issue here, it is rather the reliance of some of these dictators on outside protection from the US and Israel that paved the way to revolutions and rapid change in leadership. The US sponsoring of these dictators generated internal tyrannies backed by outside powers and worked efficiently to keep the Arab street silent by doubling the power of the internal tyranny by an external one. But it also made these dictators vulnerable from the decline of the external powers who backed them. And I think it is the decline of the US power and credibility in the ME*, as well as the decline of Israel's war capabilities following the 2000 and 2006 defeats by Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the rise of a new power represented by Iran and Turkey, that made the uprisings possible. Revolutions rise when what prevent them from happening does actually decline or disappear. Revolutions size on a vacuum or a shift in the power balance. And that's what I believe is happening in the Arab world.

That's why I believe, even though there are common features to the aspirations of the Arab people, be it in Syria, Bahrain, Tunisia, Lybia, SA, Egypt, Yemen, etc...the leaderships who are most vulnerable right now are the ones who are backed by the declining powers that are the US and Israel.

There are also geopolitical considerations to predict the success of the revolutions.

Thanks to the US and its war on Iraq, a new geopolitical bloc and power center formed by Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria, is emerging in the region. This bloc of countries is preparing an agreement for the free circulation of merchandise and citizens in an area that will extend from the Meditterranean to the Perisan gulf, to the Black and Caspian seas. Should countries to the west of this bloc like Egypt and countries in the east like Pakistan and Afghanistan, wish to join, Israel and the US will see their regional power severely diminished, despite Saudi backing.

What strikes me is that, contrary to what is being written or said in the US, these revolutions are not the vindication of the neo-con doctrine. What the neo-cons did, in my opinion, with their war in Iraq, resulted in the creation of a local power shift and power vacuum, which reverberated across the region and made possible the revolutions in their puppet regimes, revolutions they could not expect nor prevent...

For the time being, revolutions in countries whose leadership is backed by the US and Israel have a better chance of succeeding. Other revolutions might have to wait...

From the NYTimes, The larger game in the middle east: Iran

* I think Wikileaks had an enormous impact by showing the emperor without clothes. The cables from US embassies across the world and especially across the ME demonstrated that the empire does not have the moral authority nor the means to lead the world. The perception that stemmed from the cables on the Arab world is of servile Arab dictators serving a declining and weak empire. Arab revolutions vindicated Wikileaks as a powerful democracy tool (not Facebook please...)

The Syrian Time Bomb

A fairly reasonable assessment of the implications of what is happening in Syria.

By Patrick Seale.

The Arab Spring Is Being Hijacked

I know that this title seems to be in contradiction with the other below but even if I believe that in the long term the Arab spring will endure, because the West and USrael have shown their hypocrisy to the Arab public more then ever (they are not even trying to hide it), they are trying to hijack the Arab spring and they seem to be succeeding in the short run.

The secretary of the Arab league, Amr Moussa, who voted for the no-fly zone over Lybia to 'protect civilians', has not called for such a no-fly Zone over Bahrain where peaceful protesters are being killed by the Bahraïni ruling family's and Saudi armies. Also, this fellow, who seems to be preparing for the presidential candidacy of Egypt, wants to have it both ways. He criticized the allied bombings of Lybia after having approved it.

Sticky Mubarak

He won't go.

The US was first to speak of an 'orderly transition'. I want to scream when I hear this word. 'Orderly' like military maybe...Or 'orderly' like giving Mubarak some time to organize his assets...Or 'orderly' like giving USrael some time to think of an Israel friendly alternative...They won't find it. They only have dictators on their side...

Slavoj Zizek: Miracle in Tahrir square

Either the entire Mubarak power edifice falls down, or the uprising is co-opted and betrayed.

Wikileaks: Israel is most comfortable with the prospect of Egypt's Suleiman

The cable quoted the adviser to Israel's defense ministry, David Hacham, as saying an Israeli delegation led by Defense Minister Ehud Barak was "shocked by Mubarak's aged appearance and slurred speech," when it met him in Egypt. "Hacham was full of praise for Soliman, however," it said. Suleiman was spelled Soliman in some of the leaked cables.
Hacham added that he sometimes spoke to Suleiman's deputy several times a day via a "hotline," according to the cable.

USrael really hearts Arab dictators and torturers-in-chief

Israeli government officials started out urging the Obama administration to back Mr. Mubarak, administration officials said, and were initially angry at Mr. Obama for publicly calling on the Egyptian leader to agree to a transition.

“The Israelis are saying, après Mubarak, le deluge,” said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator. And that, in turn, Mr. Levy said, “gets to the core of what is the American interest in this. It’s Israel. It’s not worry about whether the Egyptians are going to close down the Suez Canal, or even the narrower terror issue. It really can be distilled down to one thing, and that’s Israel.”

A White House spokesman, Tommy Vietor, said on Friday that administration officials were reassuring the Israelis that “we fully understand Israel’s security concerns, and we’re making clear that our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable.”

More obscenely, the US seems to be backing Omar Suleiman, newly appointed vice-president and torturer-in-chief, as a gesture toward protesters...

A portrait of Omar Suleiman form The Atlantic showing that Suleiman is no newcomer in the Mubarak regime (october 2003).

Mubarak's masters are trying to buy time

If Mubarak has any dignity left at all, he should resign now and give the power to the people of Egypt. But he is still listening too much to his Israeli and US masters who want an 'orderly transition'.

His speech today promising not to run for reelection in September is simply made to give the US and Israel more time to influence the process.

Dictators who spend their political life terrifying others are in fact very weak people and, from the beginning, Mubarak, USrael's 'strong' man, showed only his weak side. These people have no compass to guide them through moral dilemmas. After all, they are puppets...

The US is definitely cooking something. Israel is freaking out at the prospect of Egypt without Mubaraks. The interests of the small Israeli nation are at the heart of the US self-suicidal and murderous policy in the region, not the hundred millions of Arabs, not the hundred millions of US citizens.