|Israel ruled out on Tuesday that the Syrian regime would fall anytime soon, pointing out that Israel did not favor Bashar Al-Assad over Al-Qaeda, as the first formed an “axis of extreme evilness”.
Speaking to Yedioth Ahronoth, Head of the Diplomatic-Security Bureau in the Zionist Defense Ministry, Amos Gilad, indicated that the “deterioration in Syria has allowed groups such as Al-Qaeda to establish itself in the country,” yet highlighted that he did not favor Assad because he is in an “axis of extreme evil.”
On the Zionist entity’s relation with Turkey, Gilad considered that “reconciliation agreement” between both parts was important due to “Iran’s nuclear situation”.
“Turkey has been enemies with Iran or Persia for 1,000 years; it (Turkey) cannot allow them to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Turkey is not ready for Iran to go nuclear,” Gilad told the Zionist daily.
The “Israeli” official further emphasized that “even if Israel’s relations with Turkey did not return to their previous level, the importance of the reconciliation agreement was in that it stopped the deterioration of relations between the two countries.”
Archive for the ‘Iran’ Category
If the lies about Iraq taught us anything, it is that we must pay attention to the massive campaign of lies about Iran
An expert says the United States is pursuing a path of madness by imposing sanctions on Iran on charges of developing fantasy nuclear weapon.
Tom Engelhardt wrote in an article for Alert Net website that the fantasy nuclear weapon allegedly developed by Iran “endangers no one because it doesn’t exist.”
“Most observers don’t think that Tehran is in the process of preparing to build one either,” he said.
Engelhardt criticized US President Barack Obama for his refusal to mention “anything of significance about the only genuine nuclear arsenal in the vicinity: Israel’s.”
He noted that Israel is believed to possess “100-300 nuclear weapons’ worth or enough destructive power to turn not just Iran but the Greater Middle East into an ash heap.”
“We continue to obsess about fantasy weapons, base an ever more threatening and dangerous policy in the region on their possible future existence, might conceivably end up in a war over them, and yet pay remarkably little attention to the existing nuclear weapons in the region,” wrote Engelhardt .
The US, Israel, and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program.
Iran rejects the allegations, arguing that as a committed signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
In addition, the IAEA has conducted numerous inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities but has never found any evidence showing that Iran’s civilian nuclear program has been diverted toward nuclear weapons production.
Discovery of 14 oil basins in Syrian territorial waters, .. Information revealed by Dr. Imad Fawzi Shuaibi
دام برس – اياد الجاجة :
يكشف الدكتور عماد فوزي الشعيبي رئيس مركز الدراسات والمعطيات الإستراتيجية في دمشق عن اكتشاف 14 حوضاً نفطياً في المياه الإقليمية السورية، في ظل تعتيم على نتائج المسح الذي أجرته شركة نرويجية.
وضمن حلقة من برنامج “حوار الساعة” على قناة “الميادين” قال الشعيبي “إن مسحاً تأشيرياً لمنطقة الساحل السوري لما يقارب 5000 كيلو متر مربع قامت به شركة نرويجية تدعى “انسيس” توصل إلى اكتشاف 14 حقلاً نفطياً”.
الشعيبي كشف أن من بين الحقول الـ 14 “هناك أربعة حقول من المنطقة الممتدة من الحدود اللبنانية إلى منطقة بانياس تضم إنتاجاً نفطياً يعادل إنتاج دولة الكويت من النفط، ومجموعه يتخطى ما هو موجود في لبنان وقبرص وإسرائيل مجتمعين”.
واعتبر الشعيبي أن هذا المخزون النفطي هو “نقمة”، متابعاً “السؤال هو هل من المسموح أن تمتلك دولة واحدة كل هذا؟”.
كلام الشعيبي يطرح تساؤلات حول دور المخزون النفطي والغازي الموجود في سورية والغير مستثمر في الأزمة التي تشهدها البلاد، حيث تم اكتشاف آبار غاز في منطقة ريفي حمص ودمشق باحتياطيات كبيرة، بالإضافة إلى ما يحكى عن حرب انابيب الغاز وموقع سورية الاستراتيجي لمد هذه الخطوط.
سورية تتهم المجموعات المسلحة المعارضة بمهاجمة آبار النفط وسرقتها في سياق ميداني، أضرمت مجموعات مسلحة النار في ثلاثة آبار نفطية في منطقة دير الزور، حيث أعلن مصدر مسؤول في وزارة النفط السورية أن “ذلك يتسبب بخسارة يومية، تقدر بأكثر من أربعة آلاف برميل من النفط و52 ألف متر مكعب من الغاز” موضحاً أن “هذا التعدي يأتي بهدف سرقة النفط وبيعه”.
أما الإحراق بحسب المصادر السورية الرسمية فكان نتيجة فتح المسلحين بعض الآبار عشوائياً، ما أدى إلى نشوب خلاف بينهم على تقاسم النفط المسروق منها فقاموا بإشعال النيران فيها.
أضرار الإعتداء بحسب المصدر الرسمي يتعدى الخسائر الاقتصادية، فالبلد الذي يعيش أزمة دموية تجاوز عمرها العامين، قد يكون أمام آثار بيئية سلبية على الرغم من مسارعة شركة الفرات للنفط على معالجة الأمر، حيث قالت إنها نجحت منذ بداية الأزمة في إطفاء ستة من أصل تسعة آبار تم إحراقها.
المصدر : الميادين
سورية الان – العرب اليوم
Mar 27 2013 / 9:12 pm
In the ugly panorama that is the contemporary Middle East a light hardly flickers on the horizon. Iraq has been destroyed as a unitary Arab state and jihadis unleashed in Syria are burning out another room in the Arab house. Lebanon has again been brought to the brink of implosion through the intrigues of outside governments and local proxies incapable of putting the interests of their country ahead of their sectarian and power intrigues. The Palestinians are divided between those who live under the authority of one man who has bound himself to Israel and the US and two others who have bound themselves to Egypt and Qatar.
Fitna – the spreading of division and sowing of hatred amongst Muslims – is being fanned across the region by governments brazen enough to call themselves Muslim. Whether in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, Shiism is the enemy. Ceaselessly stirring this pot from the outside are governments that feast on division in the Arab world.
That the Syrian system needs changing goes without saying. In Syria possibly no-one understands this better than the much reviled Bashar al Assad. He could go tomorrow but that would solve nothing because the system would stay the same; for those who hate him, someone worse might take his place. Bashar has made serious mistakes, including the adoption of free market policies which have enriched the merchant class while further impoverishing the peasantry, who are now said to be many of the foot soldiers of the armed groups, but Syria is an easier place than it was under his father.
The abolition of the Baath as the central pillar of state and society and the multi-party elections held last year were a start to political reforms. The elections were not perfect but if anyone is looking for perfection in the Middle East, they should look somewhere else. These are threads that could have been teased out if the collective calling itself ‘The Friends of the Syrian People’ had any serious interest in the best interests of the Syrian people. A process of national dialogue has begun in Damascus but this has been ignored, too, because these ‘friends’ want nothing less than the destruction of a government which is a strategic ally of Iran and Hezbollah and forms with them the ‘resistance axis’ to US-Israeli hegemony.
The achievements of this axis need to be set against the record of collaboration of those Arab governments who are now bent on destroying it. Iran and Syria have been solid in their support for the Palestinians, hosting resistance movements and working together to provide Hamas with the weapons it needed to defend Gaza. No weapons came from the direction of Saudi Arabia or Qatar.
It was Hezbollah, the non-state partner in this alliance, that finally drove Israel from occupied southern Lebanon after nearly two decades of struggle involving not just the bravery of part-time soldiers but the mastery of electronic warfare, enabling Hezbollah to penetrate Israeli communications, including drone surveillance, as was made clear when Hasan Nasrallah produced intercepted film showing that an Israeli drone had been shadowing Rafiq Hariri for three months and was overhead when he was assassinated in February, 2005. When Israel tried to take revenge in 2006 it was humiliated. Hezbollah stood firm, destroyed its supposedly invincible Merkava tanks, disabled one of its warships in a missile attack and prevented its ground forces from advancing north of the Litani river. At the time, it might be remembered, both Egypt and Saudi Arabia vilified Hasan Nasrallah for bringing on this war, as they saw it.
It was Hezbollah which scored another triumph by breaking Israel’s spy network in Lebanon, now in the public eye because of the revelations that an Australian-born Mossad agent, Ben Zygier, had provided it with the names of two of its agents. The official Israeli version of the Zygier affair is that he handed over this information with the ultimate intention of setting up the assassination of Hasan Nasrallah. However, as the case is regarded as one of the most serious threats to national security in Israel’s history, much more might be involved than the collapse of a spy network. It is hard to imagine any agent who was not in fact a double agent doing what Zygier is reported to have done. What other information he might have passed on is a matter of conjecture but Israel’s nervousness about this affair could be a sign that far darker secrets are involved than the exposure of two spies.
Both Iran and Syria have been targeted with economic sanctions because of their disobedience. Iran has been threatened with military attack ever since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and now that the attempt to destroy the government in Damascus through armed proxies has clearly failed, if more than two years of trying qualifies as failure, the US is sending out signals that it is prepared to intervene directly despite the regional and global risks. The collapse of the Syrian National Council last year has now been followed by the disintegration of the Syrian National Coalition, with ‘president’ Mu’adh al Khatib resigning and the chief of its military wing refusing to recognize the authority of new ‘prime minister’ Ghassan al Hitto. Riad al Assad, the displaced former commander of the self-styled Free Syrian Army, has just been carried back across the border into Turkey with only one leg, the other having been blown off by a roadside car bomb. Some sources say it was only a foot but either way he is out of action for a long time to come. As the leading armed groups do not recognize the authority of Mr Assad or the squabbling coalition of which the FSA is supposed to be the military arm, his absence from the scene is not going to make a great deal of difference.
For Muadh al Khatib to be given the Syria seat at the recent summit of the Arab League in Doha is farcical in more than one respect. Al Khatib is no longer even a member of the group Qatar is trying to set up as an alternative government. The group itself is in a state of complete collapse, with al Khatib walking out and other members rejecting the appointment of Hitto, a Syrian-born American who has not visited the country of his birth for decades. That Al Khatib should demand that his ragged, motley crew be given Syria’s seat at the UN goes beyond preposterous.
The government of Syria sits in Damascus, not Doha, and Bashar al Assad is still its president, not the former imam of the Umayyad mosque. Compounding this theatre of the absurd, it was the ruler of Qatar who directed that Al Khatib be given the Syrian seat at the Doha summit, underlining the degree to which the Arab League has become no more than an instrument of this gentleman’s drive for regional dominance. That King Abdullah should have stayed away from Doha is a sign of the deepening rivalry between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, especially over how to manage Syria. The determination of the ruler of Qatar to persevere with this chaotic bunch of exiles is the measure of his determination to destroy the government in Damascus.
On the ground the armed groups are taking a beating at the hands of the Syrian army but like an irresponsible trainer sending a punched-out boxer out from his corner for the next round, their outside sponsors are pouring arms into Syria to keep them on their feet.
The tactics of these groups include bombings aimed at civilians that in other circumstances their backers would not hesitate to call terrorism but steadfastly refused to call terrorism when Syrians are the victims and their proxies are the perpetrators.
Al Khatib’s dissatisfaction with his ramshackle coalition was possibly brought to a head by the assassination in Damascus of Sheikh Muhammad Said Ramadan al Bouti, a former colleague and a man he greatly admired. Al Bouti and close to 50 other worshippers were murdered in the Iman mosque by a suicide bomber. Two days earlier an armed group had loaded CL 17 chlorine – an ingredient normally used in swimming pool cleaner – into the warhead of a small missile and fired it at a Syrian army checkpoint, killing 26 people. Soldiers were among the dead and the army was there to look after the survivors, so the claims of activists that ‘the regime’ was responsible had even less traction than usual. Having warned of direct intervention in Syria should chemical weapons be used, the US had little to say now that such a weapon had been used, not by the Syrian army, but by the ‘rebels’ it has been supporting.
Hezbollah, Syria and Iran’s record of resistance has to be compared with the long Saudi and Qatari record of collaboration with the US and Israel. Having deserted Damascus in its hour of need, what does Khalid Mishaal think he is going to get from the ruler of Qatar besides money and somewhere to stay?
What is Ismail Haniyeh expecting from Muhammad Morsi, who began his presidency by blocking off the tunnels into Gaza and confirmed where he intends to take Egypt with his letter calling Shimon Peres ‘my dear friend’?
Is it forgotten already, apart from his record in violence and destruction going back to 1948, that it was Peres who authorized the attack on southern Lebanon in 1996 which took the lives of more than 100 people sheltering inside the UN compound in Qana?
If the friend of my enemy is my enemy, where does that leave Haniyeh, Misha’al and Abbas?
The beneficiaries of intervention in Iraq, Libya and Syria are outside and regional governments who have combined forces to reshape the Middle East in their own interests. As Ibrahim al Amin has remarked (‘Partitioning Syria at the Doha summit’, Al Akhbar English, March 25, 2013), they are fighting a global war against Syria in the name of bringing the people freedom and justice. In truth, western governments only intervene in their own interests and the people always end up being sliced and diced on the chopping board of their grand designs. There has been no exception to this rule. Civilization, liberation, freedom, democracy, the rights of the people and the responsibility to protect are the unctuous phrases that have rolled off the lips of western prime ministers, foreign ministers and presidents for two centuries. This is the rhetorical buildup to a self-assigned ‘duty’ to intervene: the only real difference between intervention in the 19th century and intervention in the 21st lies in the vastly increased killing power of western governments and the development of weapons that would have been regarded as science fiction until only recently.
As they always get away with it, there is no reason for them to stop. Iraq was a terrible crime but while the UN Security Council or the International Criminal Court points the finger at Robert Mugabe, Umar al Bashir or Saif al Islam al Gaddafi it never points the finger at western politicians whose crimes are infinitely greater. Slobodan Milosevic was a rare exception but even his crimes do not measure up to what George Bush and Tony Blair authorized in Iraq in and after 2003 – not to speak of the horrors that Bush senior, Clinton and Blair authorized through the decade of sanctions which followed the attack of 1991. Because they are protected by a world system which is highly selective about who it punishes, the politicians who follow them feel free to repeat the experience. They know that whoever suffers, whoever is bombed, whoever has to look at the faces of dead parents, children, aunts, grandfathers and neighbors being dug out of the rubble of bombed cities and towns, it is not going to be them. William Hague is perfectly comfortable in his desire to give more weapons to the ‘rebels’ because he knows that the calamitous consequences of decisions he takes are never going to bounce back on his own doorstep.
It is obvious but needs to be said anyway that the first priority of people across the Middle East should be solidarity rising above ethnic and religious divisions. No problem can be solved without it and certainly not the core issue of Palestine. In his recent Edward Said memorial lecture, Noam Chomsky drew attention to what is going on while the world’s attention is diverted by the ‘Arab spring.’ In 1967 the Jordan Valley had a Palestinian population of 300, 000. The policy of ‘purification’ pursued by the Israeli government has now reduced that population to 60,000. On a smaller scale the same policy has had the same results in Hebron and elsewhere in the occupied territories. There is nothing accidental or incidental about this. Netanyahu is no more than faithful to the racist policies set in motion by Theodor Herzl and David Ben-Gurion. Continuing without letup for 65 years these policies are neither forgettable nor forgivable.
It is not surprising that Israel’s strongest supporters always have been similar colonial settler states. There are no exact parallels but the Zionist settlers in Palestine and the American colonists both turned on the mother state while setting out to crush the native people. Thomas Paine had much to say about the American ‘war of independence’ that is relevant to Palestine. First of all, it was it was an ‘independence war’ being fought on land long since inhabited by another people.
The colonists wanted to be independent of the mother country, which planted them in this foreign soil in the expectation that they would maintain it as part of the king’s domains. A loyal colony was what the British also sought in Palestine but the American settlers and later the Zionists had other ideas. The war between Britain and the American colonists was brutal, generating deep hatreds on both sides, just as the Zionist war against the British did in Palestine.
Paine was writing of settler feelings towards the savagery of the mother country but the words equally apply to the people who were the victims of double colonialism in North America or, nearly two centuries later, in Palestine:
‘Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of Great Britain and still hoping for the best are still apt to call out come, come, we shall be friends against for all this. But examine the passions and feelings of mankind; bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature and then tell me whether you can hereafter love, honor and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land. If you cannot do all these then you are only deceiving yourself, and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connections with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honor, will be forced and unnatural and being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say you can still pass the violations over, then I ask hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or child by their hands and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then you are not a judge of those who have. But if you have and can still shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy the name of husband, father, friend or lover; and whatever may be your rank or title in life you have the heart of a coward and the spirit of a sycophant.’
Paine was a democrat within the limitations of his time. He was writing for the settlers and had no thought of admitting the indigenous people of North America to representation in the colonies.
Except for the passage of almost 250 years Paine might be a Zionist today, but the two and a half centuries make all the difference. Israel was an anomaly from the beginning, a colonial state arising at the tail end of colonialism. It would be no more possible to imagine Thomas Paine supporting an America in which native and Afro-Americans did not have the vote now than it would be to imagine him supporting a situation where a people not only did not have the right to vote but had been denied the right to live on the land where they or their forebears had been born.
In today’s world Paine could not support an Israel built on blatantly racist and discriminatory lines. Everything he says in the passage quoted above applies to Israel. The wounds it has inflicted have gone deep and far from making any attempt to heal them Israel has endlessly inflicted new wounds. The state of Israel – to be differentiated from those pockets of its citizens who oppose its brutal mindset – is not interested in any kind of genuine settlement with the Palestinians. It is not interested in them as a people. It is not interested in their stories of suffering. It is not interested in its own guilt because it is blind to its own guilt. It has no humility and would scoff at the idea of penance for crimes it refuses to admit it has committed, like the worst recidivist offender hauled before a court. It is interested in the Palestinians only as a problem to be solved and the solution is for them somehow to disappear or to be made to disappear. Hence the ‘purification’ in the Jordan Valley and the daylight oppression of the Palestinians in Hebron and the racist demographic war being waged in East Jerusalem. These are crimes against humanity.
If we substitute Israel and the Oslo process for the reconciliation proffered by the British monarch the result is the same: the policy, wrote Thomas Paine, is there ‘in order that he may accomplish by craft and subtlety in the long run what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one’. His conclusion that ‘reconciliation and ruin are nearly related’ sums up the consequences for the Palestinians of the Venus fly trap known as the ‘peace process.’ Violence works but ‘peace’ has a deadly potency of its own: whatever the means employed, the Zionist aim of reducing the Palestinians to dust that will eventually be whirled away by history has not changed in 100 years.
By themselves, however bravely they have resisted, the Palestinians have never had the power to fend off the forces arrayed against them. This has been true from the time Britain implanted the Zionist project in Palestine until the present day. Britain and the US were not just any countries but the two most powerful states of their time and with their support both Zionist success and Palestinian failure were assured. Never have the Palestinians been able to draw on anything like such sources of strength despite the immense potential in their own backyard. Israel’s dominance as a regional power is still sustained by the US while being continually replenished by Arab weakness: Arab weakness is built on chronic Arab disunity, now being promoted in sectarian form by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. As long as there is no way out of this trap the Palestinians will remain stuck in their trap.
Sectarianism is a powerful weapon but would be useless if people were not susceptible to it. A people divided are doomed to be dominated. George Antonius prefaced The Arab Awakening with a quote from Ibrahim Yaziji: ‘Arise Arabs and awake!’ That was in 1938. An Arab awakening did follow and while it would be tempting to say the Arab world has gone back to sleep, in reality what is happening is far worse than sleep. A fire is raging and it is hard to see how and when it will be put out.
– Jeremy Salt is an associate professor of Middle Eastern history and politics at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
الجمعة، 29 آذار، 2013
لماذا صالح أردوغان الأكراد فجأة??
من ينظر الى المشهد بعين الثور ويحلل بعقل الثورجي يعتقد أن الثورة قاب قوسين أو أدنى من الوصول الى غايتها وأن أعداء سورية يحاصرونها من كل جانب وسيطبقون عليها بين عشية وضحاها .. فأردوغان الذكي المغامر البطل مناور سياسي رفيع وهو يهيء الساحة لمغامراته وفتوحاته بالتخفف من اثقاله الكردية .. لكن الحقيقة هي أن اردوغان بعروضه السخية على الأكراد انما يقرأ الواقع الحقيقي المفاجئ ولو كانت قراءته متأخرة .. وهي أن مشروع تحطيم الدولة السورية وتبديل نظامها قد ذهب بلا رجعة باعتراف أردوغان غير المباشر عبر تحركه السريع نحو الأكراد واسرائيل وتقهقره في المسألة الكردية .. ويجب عليه منذ الآن اتخاذ الاحتياطات لمرحلة مابعد الثورة السورية وليس لمرحلة مابعد الأسد – كما يحب الاعلام العربي أن يردد – بل لمرحلة الشرق الأوسط مع الرئيس بشار الأسد ومحوره .. فالباشا رجب قدم تنازلات لحزب العمال الكردستاني لم يقدمها رجل في تاريخ تركيا .. والرجل فجأة ودون سابق انذار ارتمى في حضن الأكراد وبدأ مصالحة معه وشرع يقدم هذه التنازلات للأكراد رغم أنه نادى باعدام أوجلان قبل سنتين من الآن ورفض الاعتراف بالأكراد عبر عقود وحاربهم عقودا وفجأة ترنح عناده وهوى .. والرجل ليس مضطرا لكل هذا التقهقر في الملف الكردي لو أنه كان يجني الانتصارات في الملف السوري الذي يبدو أنه سيغلق دوليا .. المنتصر في سورية سينتصر في كردستان .. والمتقهقر في سورية سيتقهقر في كردستان ..
اسرائيل التي تتبجح كل يوم وتسرب أن الجيش السوري قد خرج من المعادلة وتزغرد معلنة قدوم عهد مابعد الأسد تتصرف بعكس هذا المنطق تماما .. فهي تسور نفسها بالجهاديين والاسلاميين .. وقد ساعدت في رسم حزام جهادي رفيع بطول 25 كم بين القنيطرة والجولان آملة أن يمتد الى مسافة 80 كم هي طول الحدود الجولانية .. ثم عززت ذلك بنصب بطاريات باتريوت .. والسؤال هنا .. هل بطاريات الباتريوت في الجولان لاسقاط صواريخ جبهة النصرة أم صواريخ الجيش الحر الذي تعهدت قياداته بالتخلص من المخزون الصاروخي والكيماوي السوري وقصم ظهر عديد الجيش السوري في حال وصولها الى السلطة !!
لاصواريخ تخيف اسرائيل الا صواريخ الجيش العربي السوري الذي تروّج اسرائيل أنه قد خرج من المعركة فاذا بها تستعد لملاقاته بالباتريوت !! واذا كانت اسرائيل تريد الهبوط عن الهضبة نحو دمشق لاسقاطها في عملية منسقة مع تركيا أو الناتو مستقبلا فلماذا تسور نفسها بالجهاديين ان كانت تخشاهم بدل ترك المنطقة خالية من كل شاغل لها؟؟ ..هذا الحزام الجهادي هو نسخة طبق الأصل عن نسخة جيش لبنان الجنوبي الذي شكلته اسرائيل في الماضي لأنها تستعد لمرحلة بقاء الأسد الذي سيستدير اليها حال انتهائه من المسلحين .. ليجد في وجهه جيش سورية الحر الجنوبي .. وهو المنطقة العازلة التي تنوي اسرائيل بناءها ..
هذا أيضا دليل قاطع على أن اسرائيل تهيء نفسها ليس لمرحلة مابعد الأسد بل مابعد انتهاء الثورة .. ثورة الأرملة السوداء ..
بل وربما سيفاجأ الجميع أن السوريين أحسوا بالاعتزاز بدولتهم ورئيسهم بعد مؤتمر القمة العربي في الدوحة لأنه ان كان هناك من وصف يستحق أن يطلق على قمة العرب الأخيرة رغم مافيها من “عقود النكاح الجهادي” فانه بلا شك (قمة الرئيس بشار الأسد) .. طبعا لاداعي للاشارة الى ان كل الديكورات اللفظية عن القضية الفسطينية والمليارات والتنديد باسرائيل هي من لزوميات بيانات الجامعة العربية .. وغيابها عن ثرثرات العرب هو مؤشر على غياب النفاق لدى العرب وهذا محال .. لأن العرب لايتخلون عن نفاقهم .. وهم لايتخلون عن شراشف فلسطين للتغطية على الغاية النهائية من هذا المؤتمر .. والغاية هي الرجل الذي ملأ قصور الخليج العربي هما وغما .. ودخل في كوابيسهم .. وتسبب في تعكر أمزجة السلاطين والدول .. هذا الرجل الذي تقف أنابيب الغاز العالمي والخرائط الجيوسياسية وسنوات نفوذ القرن الواحد والعشرين لتعرف طريق رحلتها .. تنتظر اذنه لتعرف طريق سيرها وموانئها.. وبسبب هذا الرجل لايستقر ربيع العنكبوت..
In a sever violation to Article 8 of the Charter of the Arab League, the Arab League summit in Doha has granted Syria to the so-called SNC, and given the green light on Tuesday to its members to send arms to the terrorists fighting the Syrian government, the legitimate representative member-state at the AL and the United Nations.
The move complicated the internal crisis and blocked efforts for a peaceful negotiated solution. Qatar and Saudi Arabia who has called and supported the coalition in taking up the seat are sparing no efforts to divide Syria,
Ahmad Moaz al-Khatib called during the summit to extend the Patriot missile protection into northern Syria, few hours later, the United States said that NATO had no intention to military intervene in Syria.
The Syrian government considered Wednesday that the Arab League decisions made it “part of the crisis and not part of the solution,” and warned states that support the Syrian “opposition” that they will not be secluded from the Syrian “fire”.
The Syrian government added, in statement published by SANA, that the AL decision eliminated any role that it could play in finding a political solution to the Syrian crisis, warning of the “decision’s repercussions on the League’s future and on the Arab national security.”
As Damascus pointed out that the resolution was “unprecedented” and “it blatantly violated the AL Charter”, it considered that “it targeted Syria’s role, position and approach of resistance” and “contributed in increasing the bloodshed in Syria, encouraging terrorism and terrorists and hindering the last real efforts exerted by states and groups concerned with finding a political solution in Syria.”
The Syrian government warned states “playing with fire – by arming, funding, training, and sheltering terrorists – that this fire will spread to reach their countries.”
On granting Syria’s seat in the Arab League to the “opposition”, the Syrian government said: “The Arab League’s irresponsible acts allowed it to give Syria’s seat at the summit to an illegitimate part, and to raise a flag other than the Syrian national flag in a flagrant violation to the AL Charter and bylaws concerning a founding member.”
The statement reassured that this decision was “a dangerous and destructive precedent to the League, as it made it lose its credibility, and diverted it from its normal path.”
Moreover, the Syrian government considered that this “formed a threat to the Arab system, for targeting Syria will be followed by targeting other countries,” and warned of this step’s dangerous repercussions on the Arab security.
From here, Damascus stressed that it will “continue to work on providing security, stability, and protection to the Syrian nation and citizens, and on countering terrorism and terrorists in order to preserve Syria’s unity, sovereignty, and independence.”
Russia slams the Arab League decision to grant Syria at the Arab League to the opposition as illegal and indefensible.
“In terms of international law, the League’s decision on Syria is illegal and indefensible because the government of the Syrian Arab Republic was and is the legitimate representative member-state at the United Nations,” the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement released on Wednesday.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi criticized Wednesday the Arab League’s decision to grant Syria’s seat to the “Syrian opposition”, considering this step a “dangerous precedent… which will complicate the crisis in the country”.
Speaking before reporters after a cabinet meeting, Salehi said “handing Syria’s seat to the so-called provisional government is a dangerous precedent by the members of the Arab League.”
“Such mistakes will only add to the problems,” he further stated, reassuring that the Islamic Republic had constantly called for ending violence in Syria.
“We should join efforts to find a logical and legitimate solution to the Syrian crisis,” Salehi further stressed.
In this context, the Iranian foreign minister demanded “western governments to stop sponsoring violence in Syria,” and to rather “encourage warring parts to restore peace and tranquility with democratic means.”
The Syrian opposition parties slammed the external interference in the Syrian affairs, accusing regional countries of hegemony over the opposition body group, Syrian National coalition.
In a letter addressed to the Arab League, which is meeting in Doha for the Arab summit, a group of prominent opposition figures warned that the opposition was experiencing a crisis as a result.
It criticized “the conflicts between the leaders of the coalition, the dictatorial control exercised by one of its currents over its decisions and actions, and the flagrant hegemony of diverse Arab and regional players.”
The signatories, who include several liberal activists such as Michel Kilo, Abdel Razzak Eid, Walid al-Bunni and Basma Kodmani, called instead for the creation of an executive body or consensus government chosen by a broad spectrum of the opposition.
The letter also urged “restructuring the Coalition to balance it and keep it beyond the control of any one party or current.”
Earlier another opposition party, Building Syria State slammed the coalition move to form an interim government and take up the country’s long-vacant seat at the Arab League.
It described the action as “brazen”, saying “the establishment of a provisional government was a prelude to fragmenting Syria and pitting the Syrian people against each other.”
Whoever took Syria’s seat in such a fabricated way would be conspiring with external forces who wanted to see Syria divided, as the move complicated the internal crisis and blocked efforts for a peaceful solution, the Damascus-based Building Syria State party said Monday.
“Countries who support the coalition in taking up the seat are sparing no efforts to divide Syria,” Building Syria State said in a commentary, apparently referring to the Coalition’s key backers, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
- حظيرة أصحاب اللحية والعمامة .. وقمة الحضيض والقمامة
- دول “بريكس”في بيانها الختامي : نعارض عسكرة النزاع في سورية
- نشر مجموعات ارهابية للسيطرة على حزام جغرافي على الحدود مع هضبة الجولان
- مقتل صهر حمد بن جاسم وهو المسؤول عن تجنيد المرتزقة في اليمن للقتال في سوريا
- Syria Opposition in Disarray: Khatib Resigns, Hitto Unaccepted
- A Zionist Friendly, Right-wing Texan Islamist to Lead Syria?
- CRIMINALS GATHERING / TRAIT OR TREAT
- THE SYRIAN CHAPTER OF THE BATTLE OF PALESTINE
1) ترميم العلاقات مع نتنياهو في “اسرائيل” و اعادة ضخ منشطات جديدة في شرايينها و تعزيز الثقة و الحميمية بينهما بحيث يسقط اي مراهنة على نزاع او خلاف ، و يبلور التحالف الاستراتيجي العميق بين اميركا و اسرائيل و يدفع هذا التحالف الى مستوى غير مسبوق ، مستوى جعل كل المتابعين يدركون مدى التماهي و الاتحاد بين اميركا و اسرائيل ما يجعل اي قوة اميركا هي قوة لاسرائيل ، و ان اسرائيل ” كانت و ستبقى اقوى دول المنطقة التي لن يتغلب عليها احد ” على حد قول اوباما اولا لانها هي قوية بذاتها ثانيا لان كل مصادر القوة الاميركية موضوعة بتصرفها .
2) ترميم العلاقات بين تركيا و اسرائيل من اجل تحصين الجبهة الداخلية لحلفاء اميركا و تمكينهم من الانصراف بكل قواهم باتجاه المواجهة المرتقبة مع سورية في جولة المواجهة الحاسمىة التي يحضر لها في الاشهر الثلاثة المقبلة بعد ان تم تأجيل انطلاق المفوضات الاميركية الروسية بحثاً عن حل سلمي . و فجاء اعتذار نتنياهو من اردغان بمثابة فرصة للاخير ترفع معنوياته و تجعله يفاخر بها امام الشعب التركي ليقول بانه قادر على تحقيق ما يريد و بانه مستمر في سياسة توسيع الفضاء الاستراتيجي لتركيا ما يمكنه من الانخراط اكثر في الازمة السورية – رغم انه العامل الرئيسي فيها حتى الان – و هنا ينبغي الالتفات الى الدور المرتقب لتركيا في المستقبل القريب .
3) وضع حد للمواجهة بين تركيا و الاكراد و صياغة علاقة جديدة و متطورة بينهما علاقة تريح تركيا و و تضع الاكراد معها في خندق واحد ضد سورية ، علاقة توجه رسالة الى ايران ايضا مفادها بان العامل الكردي لن يستمر في حالة اغفاءة و خمود بل سيكون رأس الحربة في تحريك الوضع الداخلي الايراني قبل الانتخابات الرئاسية و بعدها في حزيران المقبل و على ضوء نتائج الهجوم على سورية .
4) استقالة حكومة لبنان التي يسميها اتباع اميركا ” حكومة حزب الله ” و كان واضحا كيف استجاب رئيس هذه الحكومة نجيب ميقاتي للطلب الاميركي بسرعة و اختلق ذريعة تافهة من اجل تبرير استقالة يعلم المتابعون انها جاءت استجابة للاوامر الاميركية و ترمي لاخراج حزب الله من السلطة و دفع لبنان للانخراط اكثر في العدوان على سورية . و مع ان لبنان يؤدي الان دورا كبيرا خدمة للعدوان هذا – رغم ما يعلنه زورا من سياسة النأي بالنفس – فان اميركا تريد من لبنان في خطة الهجوم المقبل على سورية ان يلعب دورا اكثر فاعلية دون ان يكون هناك عائق رسمي او غير رسمي في الامر .
5) طمأنة النظام الاردني على مستقبله في حال انتصار العدوان على سورية و رشوته بمبلغ 200 مليون دولار لمتابعة دوره في الازمة السورية و زيادة انخراطه فيها . و يبدو ان اميركا لن تكتفي باتخاذ الاردن مكان تدريب و ايواء للمسلحين و الارهابيين بل انها تتطلع لدور اكبر يشارك فيه الجيش الاردني بشكل مباشر او غير مباشر ، امنيا و عسكريا ، يذكر بدورها في الهجوم على العراق .
6) ارهاب الجسم الديني السوري لحمله على التراجع عن مواقفه الداعمة للعملية الدفاعية التي يقوم بها الجيش العربي السوري ، و قد جاء اغتيال العلامة الشيخ محمد سعيد البوطي مع جمع كبير من طلاب العلم الديني من المشايخ و غيرهم ، جاء في اطار عملية الترهيب تلك ، في عملية ارهابية اراد مخططها ان يوصل رسالة بانه لا حصانة و لا قداسة و لا مراعاة لسن او علم او شيبة او طفولة في سبيل انجاح العدوان على سورية .
7) الضغط على العراق و تحديدا على الرئيس نوري المالكي لحمله على الالتحاق بجبهة العدوان من اجل اقفال الطوق حول سورية كون العراق و بعد المتغيرات التي تقدم ذكرها سيكون الثغرة الوحيدة برأي قيادة العدوان او المتنفس الاساسي الوحيد لسورية بعد الانقلاب اللبناني . و لهذا جاءت الزيارة – الغارة التي نفذها جون كيري بشكل مفاجئ على العراق بالامس لوضع رئيس وزرائها امام حل من اثنين : اما انخراطه في المشروع الاميركي و اما اسقاطه كما اسقطت حكومة الميقاتي في لبنان .
لقد بات جليا بان اميركا و عبر اوباما شخصيا تلقي بورقتها الكبرى و تلجأ الى سلاحها الثقيل لزجه في الحرب العدوانية ضد سورية و تقوم لان بحشد المنطقة كلها من اجل الانتصار في هذه الجولة التي تراها الاخيرة ، جولة اما ان تحقق الربح فيها او ان تذهب بشكل نهائي الى التفاوض حول حل سلمي يفسر هزيمة لها , و ان السعي الاميركي الاخير و من باب الجولة الرئاسية لاوباما يتجاوز ما كنا نقوله به من سعي لاعداد الاوراق التفاوضية و تحشيدها ، و ينقلب الى محاولة ميدانية حاسمة وفقا للتقدير الاميركي . فهل سيكتب لاميركا النجاح في سعيها هذا ؟
في الاجابة على هذا التساؤول نقول انه لو كانت سورية اليوم كعراق الامس ، أو لو كان العالم اليوم كعالم 11 ايلول 2001 ، لكنا سارعنا للقول بان احتمالات نجاح اميركا في هجومها الذي تعد له ،هي احتمالات مرتفعة جدا ، لكن واقع اليوم مختلف كليا عما كان في الماضي ، و ان اميركا التي تحشد المنطقة مع ما يقترب من نصف العالم ، تتناسى بان عوائق كبرى و كثيرة تمنعها من تحقيق النجاح المطلوب على اكثر من صعيد ، و ان كنا نحجم الان عن الخوض في تفاصيلها فاننا نكتفي بذكر عناوين و مواقف معلنة تتقاطع مع مستلزمات المعركة الدفاعية التي تديرها سورية و معها حلفاءها خاصة :
2) ايران التي هددت و توعدت على لسان قائدها و مرشدها الامام الخامنئي بانها ستسوي تل ابيب و حيفا بالارض ان حاولت اسرائيل الاعتداء عليها ، و هو تهديد جاء رغم علم يقيني لدى ايران و كل متابع للمسألة الايرانية بان احدا بما في ذلك اسرائيل و اميركا ، احد لن يجرؤ على مهاجمة ايران ، و رغم ذلك جاء هذا التهديد الذي فهم الخبراء خلفيته و ربطوه بشكل وثيق بما يحضر الغرب ضد سورية .
3) حزب الله الذي بعد فهمه جيدا للدور الخبيث الذي يلعبه بعض المسؤولين في لبنان خدمة للمشروع الغربي و في مقدمتهم نجيب الميقاتي ، احجم عن التمسك بالحكومة و لم يمانع في سقوطها للتحرر من العبء الذي كانت تشكله عليه و بات الان اكثر حرية و قدرة على خوض المعركة الدفاعية حيث يقتضي و قد كان التسريب الصحفي الاخير عن تواجد معين لرجال الحزب هنا او هناك اول الغيث في السلوك الجديد .
و عليه نقول ، اذا كانت اميركا تتجاوز شرذمة ما يسمى معارضة سورية و تنافر مكوناتها و تساقط اوراقها بين استقالة هذا و اعتراض ذاك و شتيمة ذينك و تستمر في حشد القوى لتزج بكل ما هو متاح لها في الميدان من اجل خوض معركتها الفاصلة ضد سورية فان القوى المدافعة عن سورية بدءا بالشعب و الجيش العربي السوري ، وصولا الى القوى الاقليمية و الدولية الحليفة يبدو انها تتجاهل بان تلك القوى ترى في معركة سورية معركتها الدفاعية الذاتية ، و ان هذه القوى ليست في وضع يمكن العدوان من تحقيق اهدافه ، و لذا فاننا نعتقد بان الاشهر الثلاثة المقبلة التي ستشهد التصعيد في المواجهة ستحمل الجواب الاكيد لاميركا ، جواب نراه نصرا للمدافع رغم الكلفة و الثمن الباهظ الذي يدفع من اجل هزيمة العدوان
سورية الآن – الثورة
( الاثنين 2013/03/25 SyriaNow)
76 Senate Warmongers
On February 28, 2013, Sen. Lindsey Graham introduced Senate Resolution 65, which is currently referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where I hope it dies. If it passes, it becomes an important step on the road to war with Iran, as Pat Buchanan explains:
“SR 65 radically alters U.S. policy by declaring it to be ‘the policy of the United States … to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and to take such action as may be necessary to implement this policy.’
“Obama’s policy – no nuclear weapons in Iran – is tossed out. Substituted for it in SR 65 is Bibi Netanyahu’s policy – ‘no nuclear weapons capability’ in Iran.”
“Now, as Iran already has that ‘capability’ – as does Germany, Japan, South Korea and other nations who have forsworn nuclear weapons – what SR 65 does is authorize the United States to attack Iran – to stop her from what she is doing now. Yet, according to all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, Iran does not have a nuclear bomb program.”
Senators have many reasons for signing on to bills and resolutions as co-sponsors, because they constantly make deals with one another. A signature does not always imply a supportive vote on a bill. But since war with Iran has such large implications for all Americans, on all fronts – such as moral, political, and economic – I think that a single-issue focus is called for.
Graham is a warmonger. A senator who signs on to Graham’s warmongering resolution identifies himself or herself as a warmonger. Co-sponsoring SR 65 identifies a senator clearly as making one of the most serious possible misjudgments that a legislator can make. Very few matters rise to the importance of launching an aggressive war against another nation without justification.
Americans should remove these warmongers from office, no matter what the other votes of these senators may be and no matter what other contradictory statements they may mouth about peace and threats. As signers, they know what this resolution says. They are fully responsible for signing it. After all, these signers are supposed to be Senators. They are supposed to be wise, mature, seasoned men and women who understand what the Public Good requires and who support it. They are supposed to be immune to factions, interest groups, temporary emotions, biases and political dealing. They are supposed to understand that the business of America is primarily its own business, not butting into the politics of other states, not creating and extending an Empire, not being the world’s self-appointed policeman, not making aggressive wars, not acting on behalf of factions in America, and not linking the fortunes of Americans to selected governments or peoples overseas.
No senator worthy of the title should ever have signed such a resolution.
Removing these warmongers from office is easier said than done since the two major political parties own and control the nominating processes. It is a measure of how far off the path of any conceivable Public Good this nation has strayed that a resolution like this could attract so many signatures.
Let us at least identify who these bad apples are, even if the whole barrel is rotten. Let us at least point them out for what they stand for and tell them in whatever ways we can think of “No”, “No”, and again “No”. “No more wars. No more aggressions. No more lies. No more propaganda. No more exaggerations. No more kowtowing to Israel or to certain subsets of American voters. No more capital siphoned off from productive ventures into phony wars, military spending and bureaucracies ginned up by the war and terrorism complex.”
Who are these 76 senate warmongers? They are
- Sen Ayotte, Kelly [NH] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Barrasso, John [WY] – 3/6/2013
- Sen Baucus, Max [MT] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Begich, Mark [AK] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Bennet, Michael F. [CO] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Blunt, Roy [MO] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Boozman, John [AR] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Burr, Richard [NC] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] – 3/18/2013
- Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Coats, Daniel [IN] – 3/18/2013
- Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – 3/12/2013
- Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] – 3/18/2013
- Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Coons, Christopher A. [DE] – 3/6/2013
- Sen Cornyn, John [TX] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Cruz, Ted [TX] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Donnelly, Joe [IN] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] – 3/13/2013
- Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] – 3/22/2013
- Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] – 3/12/2013
- Sen Fischer, Deb [NE] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Flake, Jeff [AZ] – 3/11/2013
- Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Hagan, Kay [NC] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] – 3/14/2013
- Sen Heitkamp, Heidi [ND] – 3/11/2013
- Sen Heller, Dean [NV] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Hirono, Mazie K. [HI] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Hoeven, John [ND] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] – 3/6/2013
- Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Johanns, Mike [NE] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Johnson, Ron [WI] – 3/20/2013
- Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] – 3/11/2013
- Sen Kaine, Tim [VA] – 3/11/2013
- Sen Kirk, Mark Steven [IL] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Klobuchar, Amy [MN] – 3/11/2013
- Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] – 3/19/2013
- Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Lee, Mike [UT] – 3/12/2013
- Sen Manchin, Joe, III [WV] – 2/28/2013
- Sen McCain, John [AZ] – 3/13/2013
- Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] – 3/5/2013
- Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] – 3/18/2013
- Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Moran, Jerry [KS] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] – 3/12/2013
- Sen Murray, Patty [WA] – 3/11/2013
- Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] – 3/14/2013
- Sen Portman, Rob [OH] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Pryor, Mark L. [AR] – 3/13/2013
- Sen Risch, James E. [ID] – 3/18/2013
- Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Rubio, Marco [FL] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] – 2/28/2013
- Sen Scott, Tim [SC] – 3/11/2013
- Sen Shaheen, Jeanne [NH] – 3/19/2013
- Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] – 3/18/2013
- Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Tester, Jon [MT] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Thune, John [SD] – 3/19/2013
- Sen Toomey, Pat [PA] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Vitter, David [LA] – 3/13/2013
- Sen Warner, Mark R. [VA] – 3/11/2013
- Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] – 3/11/2013
- Sen Wicker, Roger F. [MS] – 3/5/2013
- Sen Wyden, Ron [OR] – 2/28/2013
How can any U.S. senator who has a sworn responsibility for the well-being of Americans declare
“…that the United States has a vital national interest in, and unbreakable commitment to, ensuring the existence, survival, and security of the State of Israel, and reaffirms United States support for Israel’s right to self-defense…”
Such a declaration is the height of irresponsibility! The U.S. has no vital and inflexible interest whatsoever in the State of Israel. The U.S. is supposed to have a vital interest, not in any given State anywhere, but in JUSTICE for Americans. It is in the interest of every American to get what is his or her due. For the government of the U.S. to provide justice domestically is a huge and ongoing challenge that it has not been meeting for decades. There are many reasons for this failure, and one of them is the misbegotten attempt to link that justice to the fortunes of a foreign state like Israel. Israel has its own politics, its own foreign relations, its own religious basis, its own conflicts, and its own ideas of justice. Israel is not a state of the Union. There is no good reason to single out the State of Israel either for preferential treatment or for a special relationship, anymore than there is to single out any other of the many States, peoples, nations and factions in this world. There are no clear and known connections between justice for Americans and assuring that the State of Israel exists, survives and is secure.
It is singularly imprudent for the U.S. government inflexibly to commit to this or any other such foreign political configuration. It not only does not guarantee justice, but it easily involves the U.S. and Americans in endorsing and supporting injustices in foreign lands over which it has little or no control.
I dare say that if 76 Americans were chosen at random who did not face voting blocs and did not receive campaign contributions from them, they would not judge it to be in their interests or those of the American public to link up to Israel in such a way that Israel, by its own actions, could get Americans into a war with Iranians. The likelihood is small that they would urge, as does SR 65
“…that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.”
No one of the 50 states of the Union can drag Americans into a war by an attack of its own, but it can happen that an attack on one state by a foreign power causes Congress to declare war against an aggressor. But if Israel should happen to make a case, as it already has, that it is necessary to its self-defense to attack Iran if Iran has a “nuclear capability”, then SR 65 commits the U.S. to joining in a war on Iran as an ally and partner with military and economic support. No state of the Union can push the war button on its own for the United States, but SR 65 says that Israel can push that button.
Should a member of the U.S. Senate who signs on to such a proposition be allowed to remain a U.S. senator?
The same document says in so many words that Israel is justified in attacking Iran in self-defense. It asserts that Congress
“deplores and condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the reprehensible statements and policies of the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran threatening the security and existence of Israel;
“recognizes the tremendous threat posed to the United States, the West, and Israel by the Government of Iran’s continuing pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability;”
Have these 76 senators not clearly identified themselves in SR 65 as ready and willing to commit Americans to a war against Iran if Israel initiates it and calls it self-defense? Indeed, they have – unambiguously.
Is such a judgment even remotely sensible? Not at all!
The 76 senators who have so far signed on to SR 65 are warmongers. A warmonger is “someone who is eager to encourage people or a nation to go to war.” Their supposed reasons and motivations, and a number of them are listed in SR 65, are either faulty or beside the point. I will not go into them. Instead, I point out that the main points are simple.
Iran has no nuclear weapons and has no nuclear program to build them. Even if it had them, they pose no necessary or imminent threat of attack on America. Certainly right now Iran is in no position to attack either Israel or America. It not only has no nuclear weapons, it has no way to deliver them if it did have them. Israel and the U.S. possess both nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.
These two states pose far more of an imminent threat to Iran than the opposite.
The U.S. has been organizing as much of the world as it can to strangle Iran with sanctions. This evil policy is having some success in harming Iran and Iranians. The U.S. and Israel have engaged in both computer sabotage and assassinations. To all of this, Iran has actually responded with restraint. It has even made offers that the U.S. has rejected.
However, the U.S. and Israeli actions and threats have not dislodged the Iranian government, have not overturned its mode of government, and have not created another revolution in Iran.
This is the background reason why these 76 warmongers want to move right up to the war-making line and then cross it. They have not got their way by these other means, so they are eager for an outright war.