Iran’s
unapologetic self-determination, including its ballistic missile and
nuclear energy program as well its resistance to economic
imperialism, make it a constant thorn in Washington’s side
by
Randi Nord
Part
3 - Syria as a breaking point and the curious case of Yemen
Syria
has manifested as a breaking point for relations between Tehran and
Washington.
The
United States launched its proxy war against Syria for a variety of
reasons, one of which included replacing Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad with an Israeli-friendly regime. As part of warming
relations with Israel, Washington’s ideal Syrian government would
cease relations with Iran and cut off cooperation with Hezbollah.
An email
published by WikiLeaks reveals an exchange between Hillary Clinton
and her aides which includes the subject line “an interesting
proposal from Bruce Riedel re: how Israel could help get Assad out of
office.”: “Ephraim Halevy, the former head of Israel’s
secret intelligence service, Mossad, has rightly argued that toppling
Assad and weakening Hizbullah is a far more important and strategic
opportunity for Israel today than a military strike on Iran’s
nuclear facilities.”
Isolating
Iran was always one of Washington’s primary objective in its war
against Syria.
The
email describes hypothetical negotiations that include Syria gaining
full control of the Golan Heights on the condition Assad step down in
favor of a government that recognizes Israel while ceasing support
for Iran and Hezbollah.
That
plan didn’t work out as hoped.
In fact,
it drastically backfired: Syria has strengthened its relationship
with Iran and Hezbollah, and those entities are now battle-tested.
Iran’s
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hezbollah, and
Iranian-backed militias played a crucial role in supporting the
Syrian Arab Army against U.S.-backed proxies. Indeed, if it weren’t
for Iran’s support, the Syrian landscape would look vastly
different today.
Not only
has Iran supported the Syrian Arab Army against U.S.-backed proxies,
but its militias have dislodged and nearly eliminated ISIS and other
terrorist groups throughout Syria and Iraq. Osman had this to say
about Washington’s reaction to Iranian policy in the region:
“Nowhere is Iran projecting its regional power more broadly than
in Syria. … This only made Trump push for a further aggressive
approach to try to contain Iran. I think what worries the Trump
administration is that, with these gains, Iran and its allies will
carve out what the U.S. calls a ‘Shia crescent’ extending from
Iran, through Iraq and Syria, and into Lebanon, where Hezbollah is
the most powerful political and military force. Such a viewpoint
appears threatening not only for the Trump Administration, but also
its allies in the Arab world, especially the KSA and the Israeli
entity. According to the recent developments this past week, combined
with Tillerson’s statement, it’s obvious that the next line of
attack is going to be the northern border of Syria with Turkey.”
Syria
and Lebanon are obvious hotspots, but Washington’s vilification of
Iran through its purported support of rebel fighters in Yemen raise
far more pressing questions.
No
tangible evidence exists to prove Iran supplies Ansarullah (the
Houthis) with weapons, as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations,
Nikki Haley recently asserted. Nonetheless, the United States
recently labeled Ansarullah an “Iranian-backed militia” in nearly
every media report (or simply a “Shiite militia” to imply Iranian
influence).
The New
York Times went so as far as to call Ansarullah an extension of
Hezbollah: “The network Hezbollah helped build has changed
conflicts across the region. In Syria, the militias have played a
major role in propping up President Bashar al-Assad, an important
Iranian ally. In Iraq, they are battling the Islamic State and
promoting Iranian interests. In Yemen, they have taken over the
capital city and dragged Saudi Arabia, an Iranian foe, into a costly
quagmire. In Lebanon, they broadcast pro-Iranian news and build
forces to fight Israel.”
The
Times does not, however, explain Tehran’s ability to smuggle
weapons into Yemen during a U.S.-enforced land, sea, and air
blockade.
The
United States knows it is operating in a bipolar world: a nation or
group in the Middle East that doesn’t ally itself with the United
States and Saudi Arabia will likely build relations with the opposing
axis, which effectively means Iran, Syria, and now Qatar. Although
Ansarullah began as a Zaydi-Shia movement, it has since morphed into
a broad coalition consisting of Sunnis, Shias, as well as various
local tribes and political parties that oppose U.S. imperialism,
Zionism, and economic exploitation.
This
prospect troubles the United States and Saudi Arabia. If a small
Yemeni movement can resist and become self-determined, what’s to
stop citizens in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and elsewhere from getting
such ideas? The mere possibility that Ansarullah could ally with Iran
is enough for the United States to allege the relationship already
exists, and to carry out a devastating military response.
Over
35,000 civilians have been killed or wounded by Riyadh’s
U.S.-backed military aggression and siege against Yemen, based on
nothing more than the idea that they could possibly make their own
choices.
Source,
links:
The USA assassinates Solomon-I, in Iraq, in a Quasi-Shia State, in the wee hours of the morning - Part 1
ReplyDeleteY would a Iranian Gen – who is anti-Israel and America, fly from a Commercial/ Military Airport in Iraq – when the US embassy was firebombed just a few days ago ? He would have known that all his e-signatures would be tracked by the Americans,second by second,and there would be no dearth of spies at the hangar,ATC,Airport who would ply the Americans with precise coordinates of the General’s flight patterns ?
Surely after the US embassy bombing the Good General would have been told by his team to exit Iraq ? Could a general be so careless or foolish – that he would think that he could exit from a designated airport,after the US embassy escapade – and with another designated terrorist (designed by USA) – with makes it a double prime target – and with no collateral baggage ? In ISIS days – he was fighting with the Americans – and those days are over.
Persian Shia’ism is not a suicide cult – it appears to be one – but it is not.So the general was misled into complacency and entrapped by some , in the Iraqi state, to take that flight – and the US embassy firebombing might also have been a false flag operation as the US troops shot no one – id.est., no firebomber was killed.But the sons of Xerxes and Cyrus cannot be so naive and foolish.The General would not have boarded that plane unless he was secured by the Russians and Tehran.2000 years ago, the Jews inserted a fake verse into the Old Testament and Talmud – to state that Cyrus was the messiah- and showed it to Cyrus – who like a fool, believed it, and rebuilt the Temple !The General had read the Torah,Talmud,Hebrew Bible and the History of the Jews and the Nassara
CNN portrays the killing as a “Trump rash reaction” – but it is not.Ultimately,the USA will go to war with Iran – as the Americans do not trust the Persian Shias – on the N-Bomb,and the Persians do not trust the Jews or the Nassara. Soleimani was just the catalyst to push the Persians into the N- Suspension, and go full N-throttle – which is what the Persians have done – and which is what the Americans wanted.
Iraqi govtt will kick out the US troops and the US troops will not leave – as that is what the Americans (and Kurds,Nassara,Sunnis) really want.To be precise, the Kurds,Suniis do not want the Yankii to leave – but that they be asked to leave – so that their mortal fears of living under Persian Shias is brought to the fore – for a partition of the Iraqi state
What the Americans want is to trifurcate Iraq – which will happen inevitably post Soleimani – and which is what the Persians also seek,although the Persians would like to Shia-ise the whole of Iraq.Persian security interests are preserved by destabilising and burning Iraq to create a “sea of fire” between them and the US/Israel and satellite Hezbollahs all over the Gulf,especially encircling the Saudis (The Soleimani Doctrine).But now,they will be happy with a trifurcation
After trifurcating Itaq the Persians will export their franchise and the brand to all Shia regions in GCC and Africa (where the USA has lesser troops and even lesser interest).Even the EU/PRC will be pleased – and this will look like an amicable solution (already crafted) – after creating a well planned disaster (assassinating Soleimani)dindooohindoo
Soleimani - Part 2
ReplyDeleteThere was no inpending attack by Soleimani – just lies and deception of the American state.There are many heads of Terror Groups in the Gulf who can be killed, with or w/o collateral impact – but they are never taken out – not even by Israel or ISIS (Israel Secret Intel Service).The Americans chose a Persian Shia,when the whole Sunni world hates Persia and the Persia Shian, and killed him in a Quasi Shia State – and so there is no empathy or support for the Persians – even after the assassination – not even from Russia and PRC.
Obviously,the Russians,PRC,EU would have known – and they did not tip off the Persians and the Americans shot off 4 Hell Fire’s – and THERE WAS NO COLLATERAL PRESENCE AT THE AIRPORT AT THAT TIME. A marked man would travel in the presence of ample collateral baggage – like the Hamas and Hezb, do in Gaza – to provoke Collateral damage,and then the Christian empathy,by Amanpour on CNN
The Persians have launched a muffled attack at a site which it knows, hosts no Americans, using missiles which have the capacity to hit US barracks,and knowing that the site hosts Iraqis – where the Iranians had ample intel and time to affix missile coordinates for the terminal descent – and they did not.The Persians used BM with intent, SO THAT THE AMERICANS could track their launch and loading and set up – AND THE AMERICANS did NOT TAKE OUT THE LAUNCHERS AND SILOS – before take off.
Not only that,the American ADS did not intercept the missiles - via BMD or Interceptor aircrafts. They say that they believed that the Persians would NOT hit the US Army barracks ! Is this love or a dream ? Or a Happy ending - Bangkok style ? Not 1 Iraqi killed ! The BM flew over LONG Distances - to give enough time for the Yankii to
triangulate the possible targets - and still the Yankii did not shoot it down !What is GOING ON HERE ! We have a Hollywood movie here !
The whole story stinks and if it ends with the Persian missile strike – it will stink even more.Odds are there will be more strikes by the Persians and US will make 1 strike (at least) on Persian soil – to further aggravate the Persians into the N-Bomb – and then disaster will come when either side hits civilians by plan or strategy
What is the Shia thinking here ? What is to stop the USA to take out more Iranian Generals and leaders outside of Iran and then as the US polls get close,the Mossad and CIA will have the same car/bike bonbs INSIDE IRAN to kill Iranian N-Scientists and leaders and then provoke a Tehrir square ?
A few days ago,the Iranian media mentioned the US blowing up of a Iranian Airliner long ago.Coincidentally,a NATO nation – Article 5 nation – had its commercial aircraft blown up in Tehran- with no survivors – at take off time – with all tanks full,Ukraine is a nation that Trump and the USA have sworn to protect.
Just providence of coincidence and incidence.No one is reporting on the passenger list – surely there would no Shias on the plane.Now it seems that the Persians shot down the plane via ADS at Tehran.They say that they thought it was a Cruise missile (low altitude missile!).More lies .The Cruise missile would cross the land border of Iran and so would be detected 4-500 kilometers away - flying at Mach 4 to 8.A plane at take off stage would be at sub Mach 1 ( a sitting duck).dindooohindoo