ISIS: An expression of imperialism in Iraq.

While recent developments in Iraq are being portrayed as spontaneous “spillover” from the imperialist war on Syria – still commonly referred to as an uprising, or “revolution” – they are in fact nothing of the sort and in reality represent a culmination of years of covert planning and premeditated imperial policy.

Yet before we come to any concrete conclusions on the renewed insurgency and its wider ramifications, it is first important to concretely demarcate the political actors involved, their aims and objectives, their fleeting alliances and contradictions, and in turn their concrete historical moments of unity. After all, it is not as if we are fooling ourselves with the theories of “headless capitalism” here.

On the contrary. The national classes making conscious decisions and building years of conscious planning to uphold, maintain, and increase their dominant social condition do not act in solely abstract manner under the whims of theoretical “market forces”, bumbling their way into wars of aggression in resource-rich areas; they act consciously, definitively, yet also opportunistically, using all means available – primarily violence and reaction. In turn building decades of objective history and current realities that we can, and must, learn from. It is therefore vital that we first acknowledge and incorporate the concrete history of these competing classes, their actions and aims, into the current objective situation. Then, and only then, can we start to address the many contradictions and interconnections  between these classes and come to the correct conclusion with regard to those aims, actions and culpability, within the Iraq equation.

To achieve sound conclusions, we must first eliminate the white supremacist ideology that permeates the majority of western political commentary [1]: the idea that the western empire, led by the United States, is an inherently altruistic force, begrudgingly acting as global arbiter for the good of all mankind. Simple history proves this twisted ideology to be nothing other than a (white) bourgeois invention. Monopoly capitalism – imperialism – is the never-ending search for profit and domination at the expense of competing productive forces; the fundamental contradiction of capitalism at its highest stage. For imperialism to survive and expand, it must consciously subsume, devour, and dominate all the productive forces in competition with it.

As Lenin said, “the supplanting of free competition by monopoly is the fundamental economic feature, the quintessence of imperialism.” [2] Translated to the modern era, this means that fascism forms the vital expression of the desperately decaying (ie: the moribund, parasitic capitalist, the imperialist) capitalist class; the class that uses extreme violence, reaction and demagogy as replacement for its gradual yet fluctuating loss of strictly economic ability to bribe, extort, extract and control resources, to monopolise markets for profit “peacefully”; to avert the inherent contradiction within its ever-diminishing – yet still superior – social condition. In this regard, we can and must view the United States as the ultimate fascist state from the international perspective, the historic examples of extreme American violence and demagogy employed by the American capitalist class in the conscious aim of upholding superior economic position on the world stage are long and plentiful, and should not need repeating.

When viewed in this historically concrete way, perceptions and the concepts formed regarding US imperial objectives – in Iraq or elsewhere – immediately begin to transform and detach themselves from the false ideological structures avowed to furnish western capitalism its unwarranted moral platform, endlessly recycled in all avenues of western culture. The harsh reality that “political reaction all along the line is a characteristic feature of imperialism” [2] becomes most evident.

Once this historically concrete concept of US imperialism is applied, it becomes necessary to further analyse the various capitalist classes and states that are both in competition with US imperialism and those that are temporarily united, or more specifically, dominated by it. As there is no unity without contradiction, it would be folly to believe that any state or class currently or previously allied to the dominant imperialist class is a permanent static feature, or that contradictions may not exist even during long periods of perceived unity.

In this context, the alliance of states currently allied under US imperialism in its attack on Iraq are primarily its long-held and loyal clients, those of the Gulf Cooperation Council, led by Saudi Arabia, alongside Israel, Turkey, and western Europe, this alliance will be referred to as the NATO/GCC axis. It is by no means a permanent static alliance, and has historically found many contradictions along the road to its temporary current unity on Iraq, but the fundamental feature of this alliance is the American imperialist class holding it together, dominating it, and dividing it for its own benefit.

The opposing force of this contradiction is the Iraqi state, or more broadly speaking, Iraq and its regional allies, namely: Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and a subdued yet resurgent Russia acting in a minimally supportive role, this alliance will be referred to as the Resistance axis. As with the imperialist alliance, there are many historical contradictions within that of the Resistance, but it is imperialism itself that produces its current fundamental aspect: in that its social condition and temporary unity is predicated on the necessity of its battle against imperialist predation. Any sound historical analysis of the economic stature, features, and all other aspects leading from the economic particularities of this alliance shows that it cannot be classed as imperialist, and is therefore the oppressed party in the equation when correctly conceived from the totality of the international perspective.

Analysing the political actors involved in crises, processes and conflict in their international totality using such concrete dialectical methods is a fundamental starting point if we are to reach sound conclusions on any of todays antagonisms.

From this starting point, we must then address the specific aims of the NATO/GCC axis as opposed to those of the Resistance axis. On the one hand, the imperialists and their allies (clients) are consciously employing militarism – the “vital expression” of capitalism – upon Iraq, Syria, Iran, and all other “lesser” nations in the inevitable quest for domination to expand their superiority and avert their imperial decay – this is the quintessential feature of predatory imperialism. On the other hand, as a consequence, the far weaker, yet competing productive forces of the Resistance axis are forced to defend their social condition from the threat of imperialist annihilation.

Now that the political forces are correctly conceived and the relationship between the opposing aspects of the contradiction is apparent, we must address the perceptions being promulgated to form false concepts that obscure and even work to reverse this objective balance of forces. One such critical false concept, that of an empire as impartial benevolent peace broker between the antagonism of a “Sunni and Shia” divide – peddled endlessly by western media, commentariat and culture – has three distinct purposes in its current usage: firstly, to detach imperialist (NATO/GCC axis) culpability for the insurgency and its inevitably reactionary sociopolitical ramifications; secondly, to further incite the Iraqi Sunni population by portraying the Shia-dominated Maliki government and its ally Iran as cozying-up to imperialism against percieved Sunni foes; thirdly, and subsquently, this helps to conflate the insurgency as a natural expression of legitimate Sunni discontent, affording false equivalence and a moralistic smokescreen, therefore removing culpablity from the NATO/GCC axis and placing it at the door of the “sectarian policies” of the Maliki government, supported by Shia Iran. This false concept enables the NATO/GCC axis to exert the required pressure to achieve its goal of partition and the subsequent domination of the Iraqi state, while upholding the crucial image of impartiality.

Yet contrary to all such critical imperialist false concepts, a correct analysis reveals the antagonism within Iraq is in fact entirely political and a result of the principal aspect of the contradiction: the age-old imperial policy of fomenting and excacerbating sectarian and ethnic antipathy to divide, destroy, and dominate the productive forces – a policy employed with varied, yet invariably brutal and reactionary results in Iraq since the US invasion of 2003. The political actors that have implemented this deepening of the sectarian divide since the occupation departed with its tail between its legs are the clients of the United States, primarily Saudi Arabia, and it is this dominant aspect of the contradiction that drives the antagonism in Iraq. To conclude: “the principal aspect is the one playing the leading role in the contradiction. The nature of a thing is determined mainly by the principal aspect of a contradiction, the aspect which has gained the dominant position.” [3]

The forces allied to, and aiding the ISIS insurgency further expose this concrete reality. The Naqshbandi militia, the General Military Council for Iraqi Revolutionaries (MICR), the former Ba’athists, Sunni politicans and defecting Iraqi army officers are largely the proxies and stooges of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, ergo: the NATO/GCC axis. The Kurdish regional government – now calling for de facto partition in the anticipation of gaining the oil-rich province of Kirkuk, and making deals with the very actors tied to the ISIS insurgency – is also in alliance with NATO-member Turkey and Israel, ergo: the NATO/GCC axis. The actors responsible for the historic rise of ISIS et al in neighbouring Syria are of course the NATO/GCC alliance, as has been thoroughly documented [4,5,] and objectively proven regardless of the propaganda and misinformation [6,7,] that aims to depict otherwise.

These actors primarily responsible for the fall of Mosul and the anticipated partition of Iraq are the de facto regional clients of dominant imperialism – ISIS are merely the shock-troop proxies that implement such policy, creating “facts on the ground” when diplomacy and old-fashioned economic coercion no longer suffice. To deny this rational knowledge is to deny concrete analysis, deny historical materialism, the totality of imperialism, to suggest it does not exist beyond the abstract, and that there are no classes employing all means available to uphold it.

In addition, the narrative of the spontaneous rise of ISIS, and its apparent takeover of the western and northern regions of Iraq is a fantastically ahistorical concept built from years of media misinformation and propaganda. ISIS, its former incarnations and confrère across the region – particularly those of the last three years operating in Libya and Syria – are most definitely not abstract spontaneous expressions of Sunni discontent or a “Sunni-Shia divide”; nor the Iraqi governments mismanagement and corruption; nor the alleged “sectarian policies” or the threat of Iranian “Shia expansion”. While there may well be minimal truth within such malformed and distorted perceptions promulgated by the lackeys of imperialism, they are secondary to the fundamental reality that ISIS et al are the organised, concrete manifestation of western imperial policy and its reactionary clients who implement it; they represent nothing more than the corollary of the extremist-dominated Syrian insurgency, in turn nothing more than a tool of imperial machinations. They are mercenaries, private military contractors, intelligence operatives, thrill-seekers and deluded zealots, hoodwinking the desperate and vulnerable subjects of social immiseration; a paramilitary force that is by no means autogenous and whose social condition is reliant upon the imperial class that has engineered and now sustains it.

Sensational tales of bank robberies and extortion rackets that span entire cities represent crass exaggerations and propaganda built to extricate the imperial sponsors of reaction in Iraq. To posit the absurd theory that a “rag-tag militia” has built an illegal cross-country organisation capable of producing billions in revenue from Syria’s dilapidated and war-ridden oil industry is a fantastical sophism detached from reality. In similar vein, we must also ask how exactly this “rag-tag militia” has not only successfully sustained itself during a war, but has superseded the imaginary “moderates” that have received billions of dollars, thousands of tons of arms and logistical support from the NATO/GCC axis – while fighting right alongside them. Are we supposed to believe that the allies (clients) of US imperialism are openly funding and arming such reactionaries against the will of their imperial sponsor, and that it is impotent to stop them? Can anyone but an utter simpleton, charlatan, or partisan hack posit such an apolitical reductionist absurdity?

The argument against this analysis of ISIS and its allies in the insurgency will inevitably be made that it is somehow “denying the agency” of Iraqis – in this case ISIS – exposing an “inverse Orientalism”, and this argument will grow as the insurgency is increasingly conflated and transformed into a “Sunni revolution” akin to its predecessor in Syria. But we have addressed this fallacy before [8] when the opportunists attempted to use it to whitewash their support for the imperialist contras in Syria, we should not need do it again.

The ISIS-led insurgency currently gripping the western and northern regions of Iraq is but a continuation of the imperialist-sponsored insurgency in neighboring Syria. The state actors responsible for arming and funding said insurgency hold the same principal objectives in Iraq as those pursued in Syria for the last three years, namely: the destruction of state sovereignty; weakening the allies of an independent Iran; the permanent division of Iraq and Syria along sectarian lines establishing antagonistic “mini-states” incapable of forming a unified front against US/Israeli imperial domination.

 

 

1. White Blindness and Smiley Faces – John Steppling: http://john-steppling.com/white-blindness-smiley-faces/

2. Imperialism and the Split in Socialism – V.I. Lenin: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm

3. On Contradiction – Mao Tse-tung:  http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm

4. The Reactionary essence of the Syrian insurgency: https://notthemsmdotcom.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/the-reactionary-essence-of-the-syrian-insurgency/

5. The Army of Islam: Saudi Arabia’s finest export: https://notthemsmdotcom.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/syria-the-army-of-islam-saudi-arabias-finest-export/

6. Syria Analysts. impartial? Not likely: https://notthemsmdotcom.wordpress.com/?p=633&preview=true

7. Brown Moses and “new media”; same as the old media: https://notthemsmdotcom.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/brown-moses-new-media-same-as-the-old-media/

8. Western left-opportunism and “denying agency” in Syria: https://notthemsmdotcom.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/867/

9. Arabs, Beware the “Small States Option”. – Sharmine Narwani: http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/16566

10. ISIS in Iraq – Patrick Higgins: http://catsnotwar.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/isis-in-iraq_14.html

11. A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties – Oded Yinon: http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0005345.html

12. The Redirection – Seymour Hersh: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=all

13. America’s Covert Re-invasion of Iraq – Tony Cartalucci: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/americas-covert-re-invasion-of-iraq.html

14. Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East” Mahdi Darius Nazemroya: http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882

15. A Clean Break: A Strategy for Securing the Realm – The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Martin Chulov and the Guardian: at the forefront of Balkanising Syria.

Since the onset of the Syrian crisis, Martin Chulov of the Guardian has continuously been one of the most prominent “journalists” whose coverage, to put kindly, has been skewed beyond any recognition of objective journalism. His narratives have systematically relied on sectarian overtones and cherry picked “activist” quotes from such bastions of objectivity as the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Chulov has gone to great to lengths to portray the conflict in simplistic and sectarian terms: “Assad the Alawite, versus the Sunni majority.”

The large part of Syrian society that ardently support their president has gone largely unmentioned in his coverage. The larger still part of Syrian society that simply want the war to end, and the militants to leave their towns and villages so they can attempt to rebuild their lives have been callously brushed aside by war-profiteers such as Chulov; who willingly ignore the much larger sections of Syrian society that don’t abide his bias narrative. Chulov perniciously attempts to lead the reader to believe the whole Syrian public is fighting against a regime and its security infrastructure. The simple fact that the majority of men fighting the Salafi/Jihadi dominated rebels within the Syrian Army itself are Sunni Syrians belies his whole false sectarian narrative.

Chulov’s latest article is no exception. The sectarian melodrama is set in the title: “Sunnis fear Assad wants to ethnically cleanse Alawhite heartland”, in usual fashion, Chulov plays on manufactured sectarian fear and a growing western narrative that Assad is planning on building an “Alawite enclave” in the western provinces of Syria reaching to the Mediterranean coast, the heartland of Assad’s Alawite sect.

The sub-title, illuminates Chulovs simplistic rendering and the basis for his “Alawite enclave” theory:

“Homs land registry fire and handing out of arms to villagers fuel concerns that an Alawite-Shia enclave is being formed in Syria.”

Chulov lays the foundations of his theory with these basic facts, Assad is arming “farmers and villagers”, ie: Syrian men of military age, that are willing to fight the extremist dominated insurgency Chulov has propagated and promoted for the best part of two years. Yet Chulov is eager to portray these farmers and villagers (Syrians) as “evil Shabiha” intent on sectarian cleansing.

And, lo and behold, the land registry in Homs has burnt down! It seems Chulov has forgotten Homs has been a conflict zone for quite some time, constantly under bombardment from either rebels, or the SAA attempting to remove them. This includes a massive air and artillery campaign on the SAA’s part. Again, it is beyond Chulov’s wildest imaginations that this particular building may well be under government auspices, therefore a prime target for his beloved rebels. Indeed, since the very first week of the crisis in Daraa, militants attacked Government buildings and offices – often setting them ablaze. In Chulovs investigative mind, there is only one explanation: “the “Shabiha” set the land registry ablaze to remove proof of land-ownership, his anonymous source, in an almost Sherlock-Watson moment of journalistic drama confirms Chulovs suspicions: (my emphasis)

“What else could be going on?” asked one resident who refused to be identified. “This is the most secure area of the city and it is the only building that has been burned. A conspiracy is underway.”

Once more Chulov relies on anonymous sources and vague rhetoric to underline that the fire was undoubtedly set by “regime forces”. Chulov tells us “eyewitnesses” (no names of course) and “employees” (employees of who exactly he is not clear) recall seeing flames in the upper floors of the ministry and regime forces in the floors below. The regime forces couldn’t possibly have been stationed there, inside a government building, or maybe even attempting to put the flames out. No, the only plausible explanation is that regime forces set the blaze then dutifully stood around in the floors below waiting for the ceiling to collapse, in public view of everyone, even “employees”!

Chulov takes us on his sectarian fantasy of Homs, he leads us to believe that regime controlled areas are no longer multi-ethnic towns under the auspice of government, (as they have been for decades) these towns have morphed into “Alawite only” areas. Chulov fails to even mention that since the onset of the crisis it has been predominantly the “rebels” that have ethnically cleansed virtually every town or village they have entered, the examples are long and numerous. On the odd occasion rebel “liberated” towns and villages haven’t been completely emptied of civilian residents, the rebels have quickly laid sectarian demands upon Christian and Shi’a communities; engaged in summary executions, torture, imprisonment, and forced displacement, all on the basis of sect.

The oft-referenced town of Qusair is possibly the prime example of the duplicity inherent in reports from western “journalists” such as Chulov. He failed to show an ounce of “concern” back in 2012 when rebels entered Qusair and immediately forcibly removed all Christians living there (the vast majority of residents left at the same time, as has been the case in most rebel “liberated” areas). Indeed, he failed to even report on the rebel cleansing of Qusair. Chulov would find it extremely difficult to find a single town or village “liberated” by the extremist dominated rebels that hasn’t seen some form of ethnic cleansing, but these uncomfortable truths do not fit with his skewed narrative.

In fairness Chulov does attempt to offer some “balance” in his article, one whole sentence alludes to the mass exodus of Alawite’s from rebel held areas in the north of Syria (he doesn’t mention the thousands of Christians and Shi’a that have also been ethnically cleansed, nor the thousands of Sunnis that have left rebel-held areas due to the fundamentalist doctrine of the Salafi/Jihadi rebels forced upon them). Chulov explains this minimal episode of ethnic cleansing as a result of northern Syria being dominated by jihadists, giving the reader the false impression that rebels in other regions are not the jihadi type.

Literally every piece of information Chulov uses to bolster his “Alawite enclave” narrative is a source form a rebel leader/militant, an activist, or an anonymous source. He again tells us that the whole of the north of Homs has been “emptied of Sunni’s” and replaced with Alawites, the empirical evidence he provides? “Local leaders claim”. Leaders of what and whom Chulov fails to reveal. The sectarian narrative Chulov has relied upon bears fruit once more, and again in the form of  an “activist” account: (my emphasis)

“There have been obvious examples of denominational cleansing in different areas in Homs,” said local activist, Abu Rami. “It is denominational cleansing; part of a major Iranian Shia plan, which is obvious through the involvement of Hezbollah and Iranian militias. And it’s also part of Assad’s personal Alawite state project.”

One must seriously take this man for his word, obviously an “activist” (a common euphemism for armed opposition rebel in western media) is in a prime position to understand the workings of “Iranian Shi’a plans” and Assads “personal projects”. Maybe the Syrian Observatory told him, just after Assad and Ayatollah Khamenei relayed their plans to the man in Coventry. Chulov once again offers zero empirical evidence to back these claims and is quite literally engaging in opposition stenography. (a favourite pastime of Chulov’s; going by his work on Syria for the past two years.)

Chulov spends the remainder of the article theorising and speculating on the regimes alleged sectarian motives, all on the basis of his vague and anonymous “sources”. He tells us, quite incredibly and with no shame in the lack of journalistic integrity that “diplomatic sources in the region” – presumably the same “diplomatic sources” that have erroneously declared such falsehood as “Assads days are numbered”, which Chulov has dutifully repeated in his articles ad nauseam – have relayed that Assad is not only planning an “Alawite rump state” in the west of Syria, but the first countries Assad is making overtures toward to secure this “rump state” are his biggest enemies: (my emphasis)

Over the past six months, diplomats in the region have claimed that contingency planning for a rump state to protect Syrian Alawites has involved diplomatic contact being made by senior Syrian officials with enemy states. A mediator – a well-known diplomatic figure – is understood to have been asked by Assad to approach the former Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, late last year with a request that Israel not stand in the way of attempts to form an Alawite state, which could have meant moving some displaced communities into the Golan Heights area.

It seems Chulov is unwilling to acknowledge, or realise, that Israel is the only regional state that has overtly and opportunistically attacked Syria since the crisis erupted. It makes absolutely no sense for Assad to make overtures and relay plans to one of his biggest threats, and a state that actively conspires with the jihadi dominated opposition. Chulov also conveniently omits the fact that the “plan” he so eagerly propagates Assad is intent upon is the exact “optimal scenario” Israeli military leaders have put forward for their ideal outcome of the Syrian crisis.

How very convenient that the “optimal scenario” for Israel (and its allies in their attack on the Syrian state) just happens to be the precise narrative Chulov and others are going to great lengths to propagate. Let me be clear, Western/Israeli media is propagating the idea that Assad is attempting to build an “Alawite enclave”, because that is the exact scenario the west and its allies who are attacking Syria are intent upon. If Assad cannot be removed – which is becoming more and more unlikely without overt western intervention – then the US, Israel and their Gulf allies will attempt to “Balkanise” the Syrian state.

Ahmed Al-Assir, the pawn in Lebanon.

This weeks conflagration near Sidon, a majority Sunni city in the South of Lebanon has been on the cards for some time. Sheikh Al Assir, the instigator of the street battle’s with the Lebanese Armed Forces, (LAF) has been on a concerted campaign to incite sectarian strife and division between the Sunni and Shi’a sects in Lebanon, with one major goal: to draw Hezbollah into a sectarian-based conflict.

Many commentators on Lebanon have pointed out that contrary to his overt actions and rhetoric, Al-Assir does not enjoy a wide following or support base in Lebanon, he is effectively a pawn that is being fomented and most likely funded by outside actors. These actors share the common goal of removing or weakening Hezbollah, a goal that is also synonymous with certain global actors’ desires and covert policies in the region – primarily France, UK, US, GCC, Israel and Turkey – the results of which have been ongoing in Syria for the best part of two years.

The street battles that occurred in Saida were undoubtedly planned in advance. There have been several attempts in the last few weeks by Al-Assir and his armed Salafi followers to deploy in the streets of Saida, this can be seen as a test of reactions and capabilities to withstand an armed uprising of sorts, a reaction from both the Lebanese Army, and from Hezbollah. In public speeches and rallies, Al-Assir and his followers have been actively attempting to incite a reaction from Hezbollah, who to the time of writing have refrained from openly hostile retaliation against Al-Assir. In Nassrallah’s latest speeches, he specifically called upon his followers and the people of Lebanon to refrain from sectarian language, in efforts to curb the growing resentment of incitement against the party and its majority Shi’a supporters.

The usual suspects: Western corporate journalists and think-tankers alike, immediately jumped at the opportunity when the fighting occurred to spout totally baseless claims such as: “hundreds of Hezbollah fighters attacking Al-Assirs mosque” and “Hezbollah ‘leading the battle'”. Again such stenographers and “analysts” relay false declarations with no evidence to hand, and no possible way of verifying them. Their claims have since (two days later) been thoroughly debunked, and it appears Hezbollah played no major role in the fighting in Sidon. Both the LAF and several leading Lebanese political figures – including those hostile to Hezbollah – have denied any Hezbollah involvement. There are many reasons (that even the occasional observer could point out in almost real-time) to refute these dubious claims. If Hezbollah’s own media outlets are not privy to their military objectives, why would Hezbollah fighters, or “sources” relay military maneuvers to reporters that work for outlets that are hostile toward them?

Sheikh Al-Assir has made his name in Lebanon through being directly and openly hostile to Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. This direct and public targeting is what sets him apart from other Salafi clerics in Lebanon. There is undoubtedly a rising current of such ideologues that have been bolstered in recent years in several areas of Lebanon, and this proliferation can be explained by a myriad of factors, but the militant aspect, and specific sectarian and anti-Shi’a/anti-Hezbollah rhetoric, can be explained primarily due to outside actors such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar trying to assert dominance over political bodies that are tied to Iran’s sphere of influence, as opposed to their own.

It is no coincidence the Syrian insurgency, aka “revolution”, was fomented and is still backed primarily by the same actors that support radical clerics in Lebanon. The proliferation of such ideologues inciting sectarian hatred and division – in order to create chaos, strife and destabilization to marginalize the targets of their paymasters – is synonymous because it is part of an overriding Saudi-led GCC policy in the Levant. Needless to say, this policy is fully backed by the United States and the western nations in their “special relationship” with the Gulf autocrats of Saudi Arabia, and new kid on the block Qatar.

This joint “Redirection” policy and its desired outcome upon Hezbollah and Lebanon are specifically cited by anonymous US intelligence officials in Seymour Hersh’s oft-referenced piece from 2007, the results of which can be seen on the streets of Sidon today: (my emphasis)

The United States has also given clandestine support to the Siniora government, according to the former senior intelligence official and the U.S. government consultant. “We are in a program to enhance the Sunni capability to resist Shiite influence, and we’re spreading the money around as much as we can,” the former senior intelligence official said. The problem was that such money “always gets in more pockets than you think it will,” he said. “In this process, we’re financing a lot of bad guys with some serious potential unintended consequences. We don’t have the ability to determine and get pay vouchers signed by the people we like and avoid the people we don’t like. It’s a very high-risk venture.”

American, European, and Arab officials I spoke to told me that the Siniora government and its allies had allowed some aid to end up in the hands of emerging Sunni radical groups in northern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and around Palestinian refugee camps in the south. These groups, though small, are seen as a buffer to Hezbollah; at the same time, their ideological ties are with Al Qaeda.

As we have found since the battles in Sidon ceased, the majority of the militants that attacked the LAF were of this very type; small radical Sunni groups, aligned to the Syrian insurgency, including Jabhat al Nusra (Al Qaeda). From McClatchy: (my emphasis)

The worst fighting in Lebanon in years, which wracked this coastal city one hour south of Beirut this week, was touched off by an influx of foreign fighters from Syria, Palestinian camps and other Arab countries into the compound of a radical Sunni cleric, according to knowledgeable people on both sides of the conflict. The foreign fighters included members of Jabhat al Nusra, a Syrian rebel group also known as the Nusra Front, which is affiliated with al Qaida, according to the accounts, including that of a Lebanese military official. Nusra is considered the most effective rebel group fighting to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, and its presence inside Lebanon, if confirmed, would provide evidence not just that the Syrian conflict has spread, but that Nusra fighters have extended their influence outside Syria and Iraq.

The Salafi militants causing the current strife in Lebanon are a direct result of the above “Redirection” policy, as former MI6 officer Alistair Crooke pointed out in Hersh’s piece back in 2007, it would be a dangerous and risky strategy to foment and enable such ideologues, and would result in what we are seeing in Lebanon today: (my emphasis)

Alastair Crooke, who spent nearly thirty years in MI6, the British intelligence service, and now works for Conflicts Forum, a think tank in Beirut, told me, “The Lebanese government is opening space for these people to come in. It could be very dangerous.” Crooke said that one Sunni extremist group, Fatah al-Islam, had splintered from its pro-Syrian parent group, Fatah al-Intifada, in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, in northern Lebanon. Its membership at the time was less than two hundred. “I was told that within twenty-four hours they were being offered weapons and money by people presenting themselves as representatives of the Lebanese government’s interests—presumably to take on Hezbollah,” Crooke said.

The largest of the groups, Asbat al-Ansar, is situated in the Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp. Asbat al-Ansar has received arms and supplies from Lebanese internal-security forces and militias associated with the Siniora government.

Al-Assir was joined in his camp in Sidon by up to 60 members of Jabhat al Nusra (Al Qaeda), and up to 30 members of Jund al-Sham, another radical group based in the Ain el Hilweh refugee camp. Some reports suggested up to 300 militants were encamped in Al-Assir’s compound. This undoubtedly accounts for the heavy losses the LAF incurred during the first hours of their attempts to storm the stronghold. As the Syrian Arab Army have found to their detriment for the best part of two years; these radical militant groups are well armed, well-funded, and above all, trained in paramilitary expertise. Such battle experience is not gained in a classroom, they are the product of the Syrian insurgency and its supporters. According to the above McClatchy report, Jabhat al Nusra members were leading Assir’s men, and enabled him to escape once the LAF had overcome his compound. Assir’s current whereabouts are yet to be verified, but various reports have suggested he has fled to his fellow ideologues inside Syria.

The proliferation of  radical Sunni clerics in Lebanon should be seen in a much wider context than domestic Lebanese politics alone. Saad Hariri’s Future Movement camp is inextricably tied to Saudi Arabia’s regional policy and their efforts to assert Saudi dominance and curb Iranian expansion, and through Hariri and the Future Movement the joint US/GCC/Israeli “Redirection” policy finds its prominent outlet in Lebanon. Hariri’s Future Movement stance against Hezbollah in Lebanon is an extension of the policies of Washington and Riyadh.

Furthermore, recent developments in Lebanon also shed light on at least part of the motivation behind Hezbollah’s “intervention” in the Syrian/Lebanese border town of Qusair, and their growing alliance with the Syrian government. The incitement from radical clerics and ideologues tied to, and facilitating the Syrian insurgency from within Lebanon and the border regions have posed both a strategic, and ideological threat since the start of the Syrian insurgency – a threat that Hezbollah could no longer ignore, nor Syria fight alone.

The toll that small groups of militants inflicted upon the Lebanese Army in Sidon within two days, and the tens of thousands of Syrian soldiers that have been killed in the last two years, are a testament to the reality of the monster the GCC has unleashed upon the Levant. The “Redirection” has well and truly landed upon Hezbollah’s doorstep.

Syria: How far will Obama go to save the insurgency?

The Obama administration has yet to publicly reveal any of its ‘evidence’ to prove the Syrian Government or armed forces have used Sarin, or any other chemical weapon. This can simply be put down to the administration not having have any credible evidence. Sarin, or a similarly abhorrent chemical weapon may have been used to some extent inside Syria, but by whom, why and how is most definitely undetermined. Indeed, the UN itself has pointed the finger directly at the Gulf proxies fighting on behalf of Obama and his Gulf allies, and several leading chemical weapons experts, along with the Russian Government have immediately cast doubt upon the claims. If the Obama administration had the physical evidence they derive their “belief” from, it would have been on the front page of every newspaper by now.

Yet Obama seems determined to hold his line of intransigence against the Syrian Government, this could be explained because the US has no way back without ‘losing face’ within the ‘International Community’, Obama declaring ‘red-lines’ has effectively backed himself into a corner. The US is the world’s arbiter after all, once lines are set, the pride of Empire and the need to uphold the false image of the world’s ‘moral’ judiciary take hold, and any relinquishing of geo-political dictate is a sign of weakness. The paranoid war-careerists within the Pentagon and State Department establishment cannot allow this to happen, and are eager to continue to attempt to inflict damage on Iran and Hezbollah (whether this is even attainable or true remains to be seen). It seems to US militarists and their many allies, defeat and concession to the Syrian government and their respective allies; would be far worse a blow than dragging Syria through yet more years of warfare and death.

The US Governments militaristic hubris knows no bounds, they shall not be defeated, even if the whole Levant is destroyed; The US image of strength and unbeatable military power must not be shown for the self-perpetuating hollow monolith it has become. No doubt Obama wants out; but only from self-interest and on the terms that appease the rest of the US political and military establishment (after all, his public decision to arm rebels came immediately after Bill Clinton called him a wimp). His ‘legacy’ is almost in tatters; another overt US war in the middle east is off the cards until Obama’s presidency comes to an end. Or so we are led to believe; lets not forget, almost every overt, large-scale war the US has engaged in over the past 60 years have all been predicated on outright lies. Do the ‘Presidents’ incumbent at the time of these murderous lies ever suffer as a consequence? Does anyone?

In essence, Obama’s recent rhetoric and statements of intent to directly arm extremist dominated militants could be seen as self-serving and outright obscurantism. In efforts to salvage his ‘dove’ persona and Nobel Peace Prize image; Obama must uphold the illusion of the US coming to the aid of “freedom fighters” and “good rebels” in order to justify the fact that the US has been arming and funding the “freedom fighters” for nigh on two years. Current public opinion, along with the mass of public evidence and reportage that reveals the true nature of the ‘rebels’ is making this task more and more difficult. The Recent build-up of US patriot batteries, a new fleet of F-16 fighter-jets, along with increased military manoeuvres in Jordan and Turkey suggests muscle-flexing for the benefit of Russia, and also alludes to the US working on new proxy forces; minus the extremists. The sectarian and extremist core of the militant dynamic of the ‘revolution’ has been acknowledged by the world. This nuance can no longer be hidden by false declarations of freedom and democracy.

Towards and during the recent G8 summit, Vladimir Putin’s rhetoric has become increasingly disparaging toward the ‘rebel’ movement. But his remarks are not mere hyperbole. As David Cameron found out to his horror and embarrassment (which many a Brit took delight in watching), Putin is not about to let the West and its propaganda war walk over Russia’s only foothold in the Middle East. Putin was quick to question Cameron’s false intent, and did it in spectacular and public fashion. Cameron, the PR man, was lost, bewildered and knee-deep in his own Orwellian mindset. There was no answer ready for Putin’s straightforward question: “Do you want to arm those that eat the organs of their enemy on camera?”

The US has been ‘in’ Syria from the start, obfuscation and media narratives have done much to subvert the US, and its Gulf clients’ leading role in the creation and vital support of the plethora of militants fighting the Syrian Government. This policy is not an anomaly, it is a recurrence of a tried and tested US tactic across the globe. From early on we learnt of who, and exactly what, the Syrian ‘opposition’ was. Its multiple diplomatic creations have formed nothing more than Chalabi-esque outfits engaged in fractious power-struggles in five-star hotels. Furthermore, in what proves to be an ominous precedent, previous US/GCC covert escalation’s during the crisis have been synonymous with drastic increases in both death toll and displacement. When based upon this logic, Obama’s policy directly contradicts the reasoning he professes. Indeed, the age-old war for peace oxymoron springs to mind. The blatant relationship between death toll and increased militarism has been noted by several major observers during the Syrian crisis, including the UN, who call for a cessation of all arms being sent into to the conflict. Yet this causality seems to evade the highest echelons of Western diplomacy.

Obama’s current policy seems to be to continue the proxy insurgency at a steady rate in order to keep what pressure it can on the Syrian Government, appearing to be a dove is obviously important to Obama’s image. But, Obama has also taken the decision knowing that Putin will react in kind and aim to shore up his ally in Syria and avert a US attack, so is Obama playing a false hand? Diplomatic brinkmanship with Putin is one thing, but if Putin is openly being resilient towards the West, Obama could be retroactively declaring he will provide arms, simply to cover the now almost two-year old policy of doing exactly that. These public declarations of military plans also come at a time when Obama is under increased domestic pressure. Some  analysts have suggested this could be the perfect time for a US war,  insofar as to say that certain domestic pressures may be being put upon the Obama administration to force its hand and avert the publics attention; nothing like a war and the rallying cry of ‘patriotic’ Generals and Senators repeating falsehoods about ‘chemical weapons’ and ‘evil dictators’ to subvert public scrutiny.

The state of Israel is again suspiciously quiet, considering they are the closest western ally to have overtly attacked Syria several times – all acts of war and illegal under international law – there has been rare mention of Israeli Government policy within Western media. Investigative journalist Jonathan Cook recently noted that the Israeli military put forward an “optimal scenario” of Syria breaking up into three separate states. An effective ‘balkanization’ of Syria, who at times, though not consistently, nor through entirely altruistic intention, has been a key bulwark in the face of Israeli expansion, and a crucial ally to the resistance movements of Lebanon and Palestine. Moreover, the Israeli leadership will see the benefit of Hezbollah and Iran becoming enveloped in a long, protracted war, depleting morale and Hezbollah’s capabilities to defend any future Israeli aggression. None of this is to suggest that Israel particularly want an outright loss for Assad. Broadly speaking, the ultimate Israeli objective is to weaken any opposition to Israeli dominance in the region, by whatever means necessary.

The UK and France are now isolated within the EU, if arms are sent to ‘rebels’ in Syria, or if they already have been and evidence is found; the UK will be in breach of International Law. Cameron has pledged a vote in the Commons to determine whether any future shipments of weapons are to be sent to the rebels; the British public, aswell as the majority of British MP’s, including the Mayor of London and the Deputy Prime Minister, are firmly against arming Cameron’s idea of ‘freedom fighters’. Boris Johnson, in an article titled “Don’t arm Syria’s maniacs” vehemently rejected the idea of the UK arming so-called ‘rebels’, and seemed to be calling on his old chum to call off the charade.

Just last week, a former French foreign minister, who has a penchant for being liberal in the press with certain snippets of information, claimed the UK Government was plotting a ‘rebel’ insurgency in Syria two years before the so-called “Arab Spring”. This may well be true, and it coincides directly with US/GCC/Israeli covert plans of the same nature that have been covered and reported on thoroughly. To suggest the UK would not be involved or ‘in the loop’ in such a covert policy with such close allies is naive in the extreme. But the same caveat applies to France, during the former ministers employment or not; it is also highly doubtful that the French Government or intelligence services would choose to be ‘out of the loop’ in taking apart their former colony. Particularly considering their direct role in recent colonial-era ‘humanitarian intervention’s’ in Mali and Libya.

It remains to be seen if Obama has truly swayed toward overt US intervention, or whether other regional or international actors will act without the US, this seems highly unlikely. It is also highly doubtful the current President would be foolish enough to deploy US troops into Syria. But many other willing players – including influential members of the US Government – are heavily involved, and have much vested interest in seeing both Syria and its allies at least partially weakened, and otherwise occupied for at least some time to come. But, the SAA, along with Hezbollah, are on the offensive and winning, as that trend continues and Russian support solidifies, there will be nothing left for Obama to bargain with; without the extremist dominated insurgency there is no longer a US stake remaining in Syria, how far will Obama go to save it?

Tony Blair continues to push the Neo-Con agenda.

Tony Blair, one of the Chief architects of the wholly illegal, and barbaric act of aggression put upon the state of Iraq and its population in 2003 – resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians – has once again been given a platform to further the West’s Imperial agenda and designs for the Middle East.

A recent article in the Mail on Sunday penned by Mr. Blair, reveals how very little this man truly thinks of the public’s collective and individual ability to see straight through his “liberal” veneer and blatant war propaganda. The man British citizens twice voted into the office of Prime Minister, is now, a de-facto figurehead for the vast apparatus’ of the Western Corporate Military Industrial Complex (MIC), and a fully fledged leader of the MIC’s quasi-humanitarian facade. Can one honestly believe this man – thought by many of his own former constituents to be a proven war criminal – holds the title of Middle East Peace Envoy? One looks on at this scenario and see’s nothing more than a sickening insult to the Palestinian’s and their brethren. You want peace? The right of return? Your indigenous land? And compensation for the brutality the UK and the rest of the Western world has encouraged and abetted israel to commit unhindered? Here, have “our” Tony; a proven war criminal responsible for the death and suffering of millions of Arab’s, a man so despised in the region he is supposed to be helping, that he dare not step foot in it outside of Zionist control or with a small army in tow.

The simplistic narrative Mr. Blair is trying to force onto readers is that, contrary to all available evidence and the vast majority of informed scholarly opinion, even indeed, contrary to his first paragraph in which he uses his charm and “liberal” facade to portray an understanding of peaceful Islam; that there is an “ideology” behind the brutal murder of Lee Rigby by extremists on the streets of London, and that this ideology is “profound and dangerous”. Tony then veers straight into the Neo-Con/AIPAC dominated western narrative on the Middle East, casually inferring that the “ideology” he speaks of is “out there”: (my emphasis.)

However, we are deluding ourselves if we believe that we can protect this country simply by what we do here, the ideology is out there, it isn’t diminishing.

This one sentence alone, is complete Neo-Con fantasy. In 2012 – and this is a recurring statistic – more American’s died as a result of being crushed by their TV or furniture (16) than by “terrorism” (10). When is Tony going to warn the Western world of the imminent danger and “profound ideology” which is inherent in every Panasonic superstore or large furniture outlet? I for one agree, we should do all we can to combat such a “profound” threat. Three-piece-suite “terror cells” are currently gathering at Ikea superstore’s across the whole of  Britain. The country must be prepared for this imminent, pernicious “ideological” attack from sofa’s, TV’s and extremist chaise lounge alike.

Tony takes us on a tour of the current conflagrations erupting throughout the Middle East, yes, of course, this man has the right to opine and the status to gain platform, who is to stop him? The millions across the globe that strongly feel he should be prosecuted for his murderous actions don’t have a say, the Corporate Elite that run the editorial boards of Western media outlets willingly parade this man’s opinion as credible. Tony asks us, subservient citizens of the west, to “consider the Middle East”. Has this man ever considered the Middle East in any other context than an oil-well, for him and his corporate cronies and warmonger’s alike to rape and pillage? Yet we, as hapless subordinates should “consider the Middle East”?

Of course Tony’s considerations fall alongside such prominent peace activists as US Senator John McCain, currently to be found posing with Islamic extremists guilty of war crimes. On Syria, Tony tells us:

Many in the region believe that the Assad intention is to ethnically cleanse the Sunni from the areas dominated by his regime and then form a separate state around Lebanon. There would then be a de facto Sunni state in the rest of Syria, cut off from the wealth of the country or the sea.

Again, this could not be further from reality, or even come close to the Syrian Governments intention’s. The intention of his great friend George Bush and his administration on the other hand, dutifully carried out by Obama and their GCC partners, is exactly what has transpired inside Syria and is now engulfing Lebanon. This intention through covert policy was a de-facto sectarian division and destruction of the Syrian state, Hezbollah, and Lebanon along with it, to ultimately lay the ground for the “Path to Persia”. Western and Gulf nations sponsorship of supposed “rebels” fighting for democracy has done nothing but bolster Al Qaeda affiliated ideologues and groups that openly espouse sectarian hatred against Shia Muslim’s, Christians, and any other minority sect residing in Syria or on this planet.

Yet Assad, whose domestic popularity has apparently never been higher according to NATO sources, and the President of a secular and multi-ethnic state is now willingly dividing his own country to escape a sectarian extremist takeover that has the support of around a meagre 10% of Syria’s population? It beggars belief, and Tony is turning the conflict on its head. Since the very start of the Syrian conflict it has been the groups that espouse this sectarian agenda that have directly received the most support, arms and funding from Western and Gulf donors, and has undoubtedly resulted in the vast amount of extremist dominated militia currently waging war on the Syrian state, its whole social fabric, and its once tolerant and peaceful population.

“The Syrian opposition is made up of many groups. The fighters are increasingly the Al Qaeda- affiliated group Jabhat al-Nusra. They are winning support, and arms and money from outside the country.

Surely the question Tony should be asking himself is: who is sending “support, arms and money from outside the country“? He doesn’t seem to be able to determine that it is his own allies in the region and across the Atlantic that have poured billions of dollars into the insurgency. Qatar alone, have thrown $3 billion dollars at the Salafi/Jihaddi dominated “opposition”, along with thousands of tonnes of arms. Yet the spread of extremism is the fault of the Syrian Government?

In Tony’s eye’s, the billions of dollars provided by the West, along with thousands of tonnes of western coordinated arms sent to “rebels” in Syria has absolutely no relevance to the proliferation of extremists. Western intelligence agencies training the very same militia for the last two years simply doesn’t correlate. Does he think the CIA, MI6 and their Turkish, Qatari, Saudi and Jordanian counterparts are training Greenpeace activists in Mafraq and Incerlik to go and wage war against the Syrian Army? Or do these “freedom fighters” only become radicalized once set-loose from their Western/GCC mentors and trainers the minute they cross the Syrian border?

Of all those least qualified to make an assumption about chemical weapons, Tony provides his readers with another Golden Nugget of complete falsehood:

“Assad is using chemical weapons on a limited but deadly scale.”

The man has absolutely nothing to back this claim, he probably has less “evidence” than the first time he used the “chemical weapons” Cassus Belli to wage war on Iraq. UN investigator Carla Del Ponte, may well like to correct him, as it was her – along with many other analysts and informed individuals – that pointed the finger directly at the “freedom fighting” rebels Tony and his ilk have been supporting for over two years. Not to mention the fact that just this week, Syrian militant cells tied to Jabhat al Nusra (Al Qaeda) – the prominent opposition fighting force in Syria – were arrested in possession of Sarin Gas canisters in neighboring Iraq and Turkey. False flag anyone?

Tellingly, Tony tells us: “we are at the beginning of this tragedy”. Revealing his true desire in such a way as to say: look, I told you so, we should have intervened and bombed them back to the stone age two years ago. Again, his cognitive dissonance and ability to whitewash any western culpability for the increase in sectarianism, destruction and conflict spread throughout the Middle East goes far beyond ignorance or hypocrisy. Blair uses “we” to pull in readers as if he is a spokesperson for the world, when in reality he is a willing public relations shill for Western-led aggression. He says “we are at the beginning” just at the point of him addressing Iran, at which he offers another complete fear-factor falsehood to his readers:

Then there is the Iranian regime, still intent on getting a nuclear weapon, still exporting terror and instability to the West and the east of it.

Without even bothering to address the Neo-Con-led lie that Iran is “intent on getting a nuclear weapon”, we should simply sit back and take a look at the current reality of the situation. Israel has had for years, an illegal and rather huge nuclear warhead stockpile. Has Tony ever thought about challenging that illegality in his efforts as “Middle East Peace Envoy”? – of course not. It goes without saying that Iran have every right to engage in their nuclear energy program; they are a party to the IAEA and comply regularly with US-led invasive measures, not to mention Iran is also party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Israel on the other hand, are not a member of either, yet it is often Israel found at the forefront of allegations against Iran.  All the while Israel sit on a huge illegal nuclear stockpile; engage in decades long occupation and land theft; apartheid; and multiple acts of violent aggression including invasion of several neighbouring states, all of which is only possible with the enablement and approval of hegemonic Western states. But of course, Iran is the threat in the Middle East. And Israel’s security is of utmost importance.

Tony must be so fearful of his security within the occupied territories, or anywhere else in the Arab world for that matter, that he is failing to speak to the people he claims to know so much about. It would only take a quick review of the plethora of polls held in the region for him to realise, it is not Iran or Syria that Arabs fear. In the vast majority, Arab’s think of the United States and Israel as the two main threats to peace in the region. It is not in Tony’s or his paymasters interest’s to point this out.

But as Blair warns himself “lets not get carried away”. This isn’t all down to Iraq and Israel after all. No, the policy of fomenting and using radical Islam for geopolitical gain runs far deeper and wider, decades at least. Blair touches on an enlightening subject when he states:

The Taliban grew out of the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and made the country into a training ground for terror.

To some extent, this is true; but what Tony is wilfully omitting is the fact the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was a result of the US-led proxy war against it. Tony knows full well that the US was arming the very same ideologues he pretends to rally against in Afghanistan, often with the tacit coordination of British military and intelligence agencies. It was the West that enabled, funded and armed Osama Bin Laden, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the Haqqani network and many other extremists during the eighties, all for the value of “giving Russia its Vietnam”. It was US and UK military trainers, alongside their Pakistani and Saudi counterparts, that armed and trained these men in the finer arts of warfare and terrorism. According to official documentation, much of these western-led efforts commenced long before the Russian’s decided to invade. Furthermore, thousands of Islamic extremist’s were given billions of dollars and armed to the teeth during the Yugoslavia break-up, this had far more relevance to economic designs for the region than the West enabling “freedom and democracy”. A policy which the US, along with its NATO ally Turkey has continued along Russia’s North Caucasus, the blowback of which can be seen on the streets of Boston today. Much the same happened in Libya when that “Dictator” got above his station and actually dared to provide his people independence from the Western economic stranglehold. And has also been happening on Syria’s borders since at least the original protest movement kicked off in March 2011.

These are just a few example’s of the plethora of evidence that proves outright Western leaders are in no rush to defeat fundamentalism. While western domestic populations are whipped into Islamophobic fever and their civil liberties encroached upon through false “National Security” measures, whole populations of “others” are dehumanized and demonized to enable Western-led military aggression. Coddling extremist and reactionary autocrats and their ideological militant proxies  has for decades provided the Western Elite the ultimate subversion tool abroad, from Gamal Abdel Nasser, to the Soviet Union itself, using radical Islamists as foot soldiers in proxy wars in the Arab World is but one of the Capitalist elites weapon’s of choice.

To further the point of Tony’s glaring moral expediency, it just so happens the West’s biggest ally in the region since its UK-designed inception: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, garners not a single mention in Blair’s article, of course, this is the nation we have supplied and armed throughout its existence to wage war on our behalf. Saudi Arabia is the state that oppresses its population through archaic and barbaric interpretations of Islam. But Tony’s wallet will not allow a harsh word to be said.

While the Saudi Arabian absolute monarchy indocrinate, fund & arm Islamic extremists all over the Middle East, and pour billion’s into Madrassa’s all over the world to spread the brutal Saud monarchy’s Wahhabi abomination of Islam; western Governments such as Blair’s are more than happy to sell them billions of dollars worth of war materiel at knock-off prices, and indeed, have used Saudi Arabia as a key conduit and enforcer of all things “terror” in the region, on the West’s behalf, for decades on end.

Lets not pretend we don’t know why these counterintuitive dynamics continue to occur. One has to take a serious look at the disparities that are inherent within Western Governments to understand the very nature of the real “threats” and establishment “ideologies” that are forced upon us. It is not Islam, nor any other religion that is the threat, it is not even the extremist marginal ideologies that our leaders use to entrap and enslave us at home, or promote and foment war and subversion abroad. Neither can compare to the destruction and death Western leaders have willingly caused. It is Tony and his ilk that have proven to be the biggest detriment to mankind and peace.

The UK’s intransigence in the EU shows the West’s true intentions in Syria.

The UK Foreign secretary William Hague, and his French counterpart Lauren Fabius, are leading an isolated charge within the EU to lift a supposed arms embargo to self-described ‘rebels’, hitherto destroying Syria for over two years. Several underlying factors need to be addressed before these diplomatic (some would say military) manoeuvres are put into context.

Firstly, the most obvious issue with allowing the UK and France to freely arm ‘rebels’ of their choosing inside Syria is that this policy is against all international law, and will, as proven already to be the case, continue to vastly exacerbate the growing death toll and displacement in Syria. As the head of arms control at Oxfam noted:

“Transferring more weapons to Syria can only exacerbate a hellish scenario for civilians. If the UK and France are to live up to their own commitments – including those set out in the new arms trade treaty – they simply must not send weapons to Syria.”

Acting under the auspices, or “consultation” of Western intelligence services, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and non-state actors sending thousands of tonnes of arms and funds to extremist militants in Syria; is directly synonymous with both a huge increase in casualty numbers and civilian displacement; and the huge rise and proliferation of extremist militants operating in Syria. This highlights, as previous conflicts in the region have shown; that further Western military intervention is not about to bring peace and harmony to a nation already engulfed in the throes of war (much of which western powers promoted and enabled). But peace and harmony are not on either France, nor the UK’s list of priorities in the region; removing President Assad and weakening the state of Syria, Iran’s staunch ally, most certainly are. It seems the less Imperial-minded states of the EU, and indeed, those less attached to US militarism and designs for the Middle East, were incensed by Hague and Fabius’ stubborn attempts to stifle the popular opinion within the EU that sending yet more military equipment to a disparate melee of extremist rebels may be of dire consequence. Hague, with his vast intellect, failed to acknowledge this most obvious of pitfalls, and seems more eager than war-mongerer/profiteer US Senator John McCain is to feed into the western public the idea that ‘moderate’, or ‘secular’ minded ‘rebels’ in Syria actually exist.

To quote an equally moral and intelligent Western statesman, the UK is acting on the policy of “unknown unknowns”. Hague et al claim to know of ‘moderate’ and ‘secular’ fighting forces wishing to take up arms against the Syrian Government; yet literally no one in Syria or analysing the conflict from afar is able to find them. As the weapons flow increased and the funds from Gulf donors magnified, it has been the most extreme sectarian elements of militia that have been bolstered by such support, and indeed, further encouraged by Western diplomatic cover and the dutiful Western mainstream media’s glowing appraisals of freedom fighters and ‘rebel’ propaganda. This has only enabled the Jihaddi/Salafist elements hell-bent on sectarian violence and destruction to gain in recruits and popularity. As in Central America, Afghanistan, Libya, Serbia, Kosovo, etc: these extremist elements form the ‘Shock Troops’ of a Western designed subversion model; used to great effect by Western powers to enable the social and structural destruction of a nation “outside the West’s sphere of influence”, in order to bring about regime change.

Libya, again, provides us with a recent, and very much relevant example of how the UK and France are free to manipulate what are, when first employed, supposedly ‘humanitarian’ measures to fit their own military and Imperial advantage. When the No Fly Zone resolution over Libya was first passed in the UN, it was designed to enable ‘rebel’ forces in Libya to “protect the civilian population” from air and armour attacks from the Libyan Army. What ensued almost immediately after the resolution passed was nothing of the sort: the UK and France – under US direction – took it upon themselves, in almost 10,000 airstrike sorties within six months, to not only destroy all of Libya’s meagre air-force and armour, but destroy the vast majority of the infrastructure Gaddafi had built. This ran alongside a targeted assassination campaign against Gaddafi himself to bring about the desired regime change, which just by chance, also happens to be completely against international law. The results of which were neither in the interest of civilians or humanitarianism. As former MI5 officer Annie Machon put it:

“They’ve had free education, free health, they could study abroad. When they got married they got a certain amount of money. So they were rather the envy of many other citizens of African countries. Now, of course, since NATO’s humanitarian intervention, the infrastructure of their country has been bombed back to the Stone Age,”

This “bombing back to the stone age” is what Imperialist apologists might term: holding down the competition. As previously noted by many a statesman and scholar, the last thing any Western government desires is the self-determination and independence of resource-rich, strategically placed nations.

Furthermore, as candidly revealed by Hague himself, the UK and France’s pressure to lift the embargo is solely designed to pressure the Assad government to meet their demands, stating: (my emphasis)

“[it is] important for Europe to send a clear signal to the Assad regime that it has to negotiate seriously, and that all options remain on the table if it refuses to do so”.

One thing is certain, Hague does not speak for Europe. 25 of the 27 European nations were against the lifting of the embargo. The French and British refusal to accept the popular consensus meant that no decision or required extension of the current embargo could be made, resulting in its expiration. This in turn allows EU states to act as they please, as Hague said himself, this was the exact outcome the UK was hoping for. Once more, Hague is speaking with no authority, only 16% of the UK population agree to sending arms to ‘rebels’ in Syria: UK democracy in action.

The desired outcome of the lifting of the EU embargo will be increased military support to what the CIA, and NATO aligned governments describe as “vetted moderate” rebel forces. Which for all intents and purposes, simply don’t exist. The more likely outcome will be to create further reluctance of the Syrian ‘opposition’ elements within the SNC to negotiate with the Assad Government; further encouraging them and the extremist elements on the ground in Syria to continue their futile quest for a military solution. This policy will embolden extremist rebels fighting the Syrian Army in the hope they are to receive further Western support, with the ultimate desire of Western intervention just around the corner.

As Hague warns of “conflict spread”, which is evidently already occurring in Northern Lebanon, and inextricably linked to increased sectarian strife in Iraq; his Orwellian mindset seems unable to realise that adding more arms to this conflict ridden region will result in anything other than further destabilization. Surely Western powers cannot uphold this pretence any longer, it is glaringly obvious to many that Western involvement and “concern” over Syria has nothing to do with the civilian population and everything to do with regime change by all means necessary, including  the tacit arming, funding and diplomatic support of extremist Al Qaeda affiliated ‘rebels’.

Furthermore, while the UK was desperate to lift the arms embargo on Syrian ‘rebels’. It was at the forefront of attempts to uphold the crippling economic sanctions put in place against the Syrian Government. These sanctions, as applied to devastating effect many times before, are again, solely designed to punish the civilian population in attempts to create civil unrest and discord against the Syrian government to bring about regime change, a wholly illegal act in itself. Hague, in another world-class show of diplomatic cognitive dissonance, candidly admitted the failure of these sanctions as a reason to lift the arms embargo, stating: “The EU arms embargo must be lifted because the current economic sanctions regime is ineffective.” If the economic sanctions aren’t working, yet evidently punishing the civilian population, why is the EU keeping them in place? Simply as a tool to further pressurize the Syrian Government and push the civilian population into chaos, poverty and revolt.

Whilst the UK government declares a “battle against terrorism” on its own soil, its Foreign Policy wilfully follows the Western trend of fomenting, arming and supporting the very same ideologues abroad. All to suit the pernicious Western establishment agenda of economic and military dominance throughout the Greater Middle East and beyond.

Why is the UK pushing the EU to designate Hezbollah as a “terrorist” group?

A distinct increase of negative coverage has been forming in Western and Gulf press, specifically regarding Hezbollah’s direct involvement in the battle currently raging to take control of the Syrian town of Qusair, the partys’ overall role in Lebanon and the region, and its ties to both Syria’s President Assad, and the government of Iran.

As the Syrian conflict has gone on, Salafi/Jihaddi fighters from at least 30 different nationalities have poured through Syria’s borders, with the tacit approval of various state sponsors of the Syrian “opposition”. In turn, and for the best part of two years, compliant media have obliged in their attempts to subvert the Salafi/Jihaddi fundamentalist dynamic that has formed the core of the opposition’s fighting force, finally relenting and admitting the fact not a single secular force is fighting against the Syrian Government. Contrary to this wilful ignorance and blatant subversion of facts; Western and Gulf media outlets now deem it their utmost priority to highlight not only Hezbollah’s direct involvement, but indeed, go to great lengths to highlight every single Hezbollah death, injury, movement or sneeze inside Syria.

Several issues need to be addressed in this somewhat disparate state of so-called ‘independent’ media when it comes to coverage of Hezbollah. The first and most glaring point is that demonizing Hezbollah and its supporters falls straight into the propaganda program of Israel and the United States, in their attempts to block resistance to US/Israeli/GCC occupation and expansion. The reasons behind this demonization are clear: the US and Israel are not now, or anywhere in the future willing to allow Hezbollah to operate on Israels’ northern border unimpeded, and both actors wish to see the resistance group annihilated. The news media will dutifully oblige its paymasters with the required public demonization through assumption of guilt and propaganda.

The Burgas Bombing and implicating Hezbollah.

Since the Bulgarian Government announced its findings into the bombing of a tourist bus that killed five Israeli’s, and a Bulgarian bus driver in July 2012, the western press, AIPAC , neo-con associated DC “think tanks”, and western government officials have gone into propaganda overdrive. Using somewhat vague statements from the Bulgarian Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov, in a quite liberal manner, these parties with vested interests have determined culpability for the bombing fall’s on Hezbollah. One fundamental issue should be cleared before drawing any conclusion, that is, the Bulgarian Interior Minister’s statement on the issue post-investigation: (my emphasis)

“A reasonable assumption, I repeat a reasonable assumption, can be made that the two of them were members of the militant wing of Hezbollah,”

This is by no means a definitive statement, leaving room for interpretation suggests the Bulgarian minister is not so sure of his convictions. In this New York Times article ,we learn of the supposed damning “evidence” that has led western officials and lackey media alike, to conclude Hezbollah’s’ guilt: (my emphasis)

With help from the United States and Israel, investigators here broke the case — and linked it to Hezbollah — using a tip from a secret source and some old-fashioned detective work, tracing the printer that had produced two forged licenses back to Lebanon….Europol determined that a fake Michigan driver’s license recovered at the scene had come from Lebanon….The identity of the Australian was the second major breakthrough. In September, a European intelligence service tipped off the Bulgarians about an Australian bombmaker of Lebanese descent, the former senior Western official said. The intelligence service said he had moved to Lebanon to join Hezbollah’s military wing. Mr. Tsvetanov said Tuesday that the Australian and the Canadian moved to Lebanon, one in 2006 and one in 2010.

These snippets of anonymous information are quite literally all the evidence that has been provided to date of Hezbollah association in the Burgas bombing. So because the fake ID’s were produced in Lebanon: that proves Hezbollah made them. And because the bombers alleged and, as yet unidentified, accomplices were from Lebanon: that also proves they are “tied to” Hezbollah. Clearly, the evidence provided to date is circumstantial, at best. This lack of clear evidence will not stop either western, nor Israeli government officials, and, again, their lackey media and ‘think-tank’ counterparts in apportioning sole responsibility to Hezbollah, giving the ultimate desired outcome of guilt without trial, or indeed, any public evidence.

As investigative reporter Gareth Porter noted in February, the whole Bulgarian report is based on no more than an “assumption” or, “hypothesis” for Hezbollah complicity, yet this report form’s the basis for calls in the EU to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist group. Porter goes on to state: (my emphasis)

Major revelations about the investigation by the former head of the probe and by a top Bulgarian journalist have further damaged the credibility of the Bulgarian claim to have found links between the suspects and Hezbollah….The chief prosecutor in charge of the Bulgarian investigation revealed in an interview published in early January that the evidence available was too scarce to name any party as responsible, and that investigators had found a key piece of evidence that appeared to contradict it.

Karadzhova revealed how little was known about the two men who investigators believe helped the foreigner killed by the bomb he was carrying, but whom Tsvetanov would later link to Hezbollah. The reason, she explained, is that they had apparently traveled without cell phones or laptops…..Only two kinds of information appear to have linked the two, according to the Karadzhova interview, neither of which provides insight into their political affiliation. One was that both of them had led a “very ordered and simple” lifestyle, which she suggested could mean that they both had similar training.

The other was that both had fake Michigan driver’s licenses that had come from the same country. It was reported subsequently that the printer used to make the fake Michigan driver’s licenses had been traced to Beirut.

But Karadzhova’s biggest revelation was that investigators had found a SIM card at the scene of the bombing and had hoped it would provide data on the suspect’s contacts before they had arrived at the scene of the bombing. But the telecom company in question was Maroc Telecom, and the Moroccan firm had not responded to requests for that information.

That provenance of the SIM Card is damaging to the Hezbollah “hypothesis”, because Maroc Telecom sells its cards throughout North Africa – a region in which Hezbollah is not known to have any operational bases but where Al-Qaeda has a number of large organisations.

Morocco is also considered a “staunch ally” of the United States, so it is unlikely that the Moroccan government would have refused a request from the United States to get the necessary cooperation from Moroccan Telecom.

Clearly, anyone claiming Hezbollah as responsible for the Burgas bombing is pushing a somewhat skewed and misinformed agenda. Not only is the evidence both flimsy and circumstantial, the chief prosecutor laid doubt on any possible Hezbollah role on live television. Why would Israel, or the US choose not to follow the SIM card? Or even bother to request the Moroccan telecoms company release the information?

Britain launches campaign in the EU.

This brings us to recent reports of the British governments renewed attempts to persuade the EU to designate Hezbollah’s military wing a terrorist organisation. The UK is now pushing the EU for this designation to enable possible sanctions, and the Burgas bombing is a key component in the case against the organisation; the bombing is mentioned in virtually every article on the issue, and has been cited as a reason for Germany’s apparent sway in the UK’s direction.

For Israel, the United States and their GCC partners, the timing could not be better. Again, the hypocrisy is blatant. None of the NATO states that are pushing for terrorist designations against Hezbollah have a single negative word to say regarding the plethora of militant Salafi/Jihaddi groups they have abetted into Syria; (*other than Jabhat al Nusra*) these groups have not only attacked Syria’s security infrastructure and Government personnel, they have also openly committed massacres, hundreds of car bombings in built-up civilian areas, extra-judicial killings, rape, torture, and looting. But these are the good guys the west are supporting in their valiant fight for democracy in Syria, or perhaps strict Sharia?

As these western/GCC proxies start to lose more and more ground against the Syrian Army, (and Hezbollah have been a key factor in that) Israel pursues illegal military airstrikes against supposed “game changing” weapons, and the NATO states dutifully push their “diplomatic” pressure in the UN and the EU against Hezbollah under dubious allegations. These dynamics are inextricably linked to the Western/Israeli/GCC efforts to block the “Shiite crescent”.

In Lebanon itself, the US/UK et al accuse Hezbollah of being responsible for the current conflagration on the Syrian border, which is also flaring up in northern Tripoli, without mentioning the fact Lebanon has been a key route for opposition militants to enter Syria. Since the very start of the Syrian crisis, northern Lebanon and the town of Qusair have been a rebel transit point and stronghold; allowing the free flow of heavily armed militant Salafi/Jihaddi fighters. But this seems to be what western leaders promote, and are indeed making great efforts to support. William Hague talks of “conflict spread” and propagates the falsehood that Hezbollah pose a threat to Lebanese internal security, while the UK and its allies arm, fund, promote, and provide diplomatic cover to the very Salafists Hezbollah is busy defending Shiite villages and Syrian civilians from. The West is supporting the very same democracy spreading Salafi/Jihaddi proxies that completely expelled all Christians from Qusair upon their arrival. Are the west and its allies, in their determination to overthrow the Assad government, and by extension destroy any resistance Hezbollah can muster against Israeli aggression, now supporting ethnic cleansing?

If Hezbollah, who up until the Syrian crisis peacefully co-existed in a country belonging of 18 different sects no less, whilst being an active member of Lebanese government and its security infrastructure, are supposed terrorists, then one has to ask: what are the extremist, sectarian militants the west is supporting supposed to represent? Freedom Fighters? Furthermore, and, considering the insurmountable volumes of evidence of western state-sponsored terror, one must also ask: what purpose, other than further “legal” UN-endorsed western-led military aggression, does the designation of Hezbollah as “Terrorist” ultimately serve?