Tag Archives: Saudi Arabia

Germany and the UNO against Syria, by Thierry Meyssan

Source: Voltairnet

The neo-conservatives and liberal hawks who have been preparing the war against Syria since 2001 have been relying on several states from the UNO and the Gulf Co-operation Council. While we know about the role played by General David Petraeus in launching and pursuing the war until today, two personalities – Jeffrey Feltman (number 2 at the UNO) and Volker Perthes (Director of the main German think tank) – have remained in the shadows. Together, with the support of Berlin, they have been using and are still manipulating the United Nations in order to destroy Syria.

The German academic Volker Perthes has been working with the CIA in the preparation of the war against Syria since 2005. He directs the most powerful European think tank, the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP).

The German academic Volker Perthes has been working with the CIA in the preparation of the war against Syria since 2005. He directs the most powerful European think tank, the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP).

In 2005, when Jeffrey Feltman – then the US ambassador in Beirut – supervised the assassination of Rafic Hariri, he relied on support from Germany, both for the assassination itself (Berlin supplied the weapon) [1], and for the UNO Commission charged with accusing Presidents el-Assad and Lahoud (prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, police commissioner Gerhard Lehmann and their team). The international campaign against the two Presidents was notably led by the German political analyst Volker Perthes [2].

Volker Perthes studied in Damascus, Syria, in 1986 and 1987, funded by a German research grant. He then went on to pursue a career as professor of political science in Germany, with the exception of the period between 1991 and 1993, during which he taught at the American University of Beirut. Since 2005, he has been the Director of the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), the main German public think tank, which employs more than 130 specialists, half of whom are university professors.

However, when Feltman organised the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006, he implicated only the United States, hoping that once Hezbollah was beaten, Syria would come to its rescue in Beirut, which would provide an excuse for US intervention. Finally, Berlin sent only its marines to participate in the United Nations Forces (Finul).

During the annual meeting of the Bilderberg Group, between the 5th and the 8th June 2008 – five years before the war – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave a presentation which underlined the necessity of overthrowing the Syrian government. She was accompanied in this task by the Director of the Arab Reform Initiative [3], Bassma Kodmani (future founder of the Syrian National Council), and the Director of the SWP, Volker Perthes. The Bilderberg Group is a NATO initiative, and NATO directly handles security for these meetings [4].

According to a cable revealed by Wikileaks, Volker Perthes advised Ms. Rice concerning Iran. He believed that it would be dangerous to launch a military operation which could have unpredictable regional consequences – it was, however, more efficient to sabotage its economy. Volker Perthes’ advice was followed, in 2010, with the destruction of the software of Iranian nuclear plants by the Stuxnet virus [5].

In March 2011, Volker Perthes published an opinion column in the New York Times mocking President el-Assad’s speech to the People’s Chamber, during which the President had denounced a « conspiracy » against Syria [6]. According to Perthes, the « revolution » was under way in Syria, and el-Assad had to go.

Continue reading Germany and the UNO against Syria, by Thierry Meyssan

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn

Towards a reversal of the situation in the Near East, by Thierry Meyssan

Source: Voltaire Network

The days of the « Arab Spring » are almost over. As of now, the White House and the Kremlin are redesigning the contours of the « Greater Middle East ». However, their agreement, which was concluded before the Russian military intervention in Syria, could still be modified by the changes in the balance of power. There is no proof that Moscow will accept the stabilisation of Syria or ignore the partition of Turkey and Saudi Arabia which are soon to begin. In any event, the coming upheaval will modify the status quo which has been in place for the last five years. Most of the powers implicated are therefore scrambling to change sides before the other players.

————————————————————————————-

1_-_1_3_-24-fe6a5

Whatever its home country, the Press is currently too occupied with analysing the position of its own State in the Near East conflict to take any note of the ongoing global negotiations between the White House and the Kremlin [1]. As a result, it is misinterpreting certain secondary events. In order to clarify the current diplomatic agitation, we have to revisit the USA-Russian agreement of last September.

The public part of this agreement was formulated by Russia in a document distributed on the 29th September at the UN Security Council [2]. It indicates that in order to re-establish peace and stability in North Africa and the Near East, it is essential – and sufficient –

(1) to apply the resolutions of the Security Council – which notably implies the retreat of Israël to its 1967 borders – and

(2) to combat terrorist ideology – in other words, to fight the Muslim Brotherhood, created by the United Kingdom and supported by Turkey, and the Wahhabism propagated by Saudi Arabia.

It had originally been planned that Russia should call for the adoption of a resolution to this end during the Security Council meeting of the 30th September. However, the United States opposed this initiative less than one hour beforehand [3]. Sergey Lavrov therefore presided over the talks without mentioning his project. This major event can only be interpreted as a tactical disagreement which must not block a strategic agreement.

On the 20th October, at the Kremlin, President Vladimir Putin received his Syrian counterpart, Bachar el-Assad, in the presence of his Ministers for Defence and Foreign Affairs, the General Secretary of the Russian Council for National Security and the head of the secret services. The meeting concerned the application of the Russia-US plan, including the agreement of the Geneva Communiqué of 30th June 2012 [4]. President el-Assad pointed out that he was following the instructions of this Communiqué, and in particular, that he had integrated into his government the opposition parties who had requested participation, as required by the description in the Communiqué of a Transitional Governing Body.

Continue reading Towards a reversal of the situation in the Near East, by Thierry Meyssan

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn

The world after the Washington/Teheran agreement, by Theirry Meyssan

Source: Voltaire Network

The cease-fire decreed between the United States and Iran redefines the conflicts in the Near East and moves the war towards the Black Sea. Even though it is yet too soon to predict the way in which the rivalry between Riyadh and Teheran will evolve, and also what will become of Turkey, it is already clear that we are moving towards peace in Yemen and Syria.

————————————————————————————-

1_-_1_1_-47-be756

The opposition between the United States and Iran, which had dominated Near-Eastern politics since the speech given by Imam Rouhollah Khomeiny at Teheran cemetery on the 1st February 1979, to the signature of the bilateral agreement with the government of Cheikh Hassan Rohani on the 14th July 2015, no longer exists. As from now, Washington and Teheran are both pusuing the interests of the same global ruling class.

At the time, President Jimmy Carter and his National Security Council advisor Zbigniew Brzeziński had to deal with the desertion of Iran, which, until then, had been Washington’s «local police force ». They reacted first by soliciting the Saudis for help in countering the Imam’s revolutionary, anti-imperialist message – this signalled the beginning of the Wahhabisation of world Islam – then by deciding to control the Near Eastern reserve of hydrocarbons.

During his « State of the Union » speech of the 23rd January 1980, Jimmy Carter declared – « Let our position be absolutely clear – any attempt by a foreign power to take control of the Persian Gulf region will be considered as an attack on the vital interests of the United States of America, and any such attack will be resisted by all necessary means, including military force. »

With this objective, the Pentagon organised a regional command for its army, the Central Command (CentCom), whose zone of competence included all the states in the region with the exception of Israel and Turkey.

[Please click below to continue reading]
Continue reading The world after the Washington/Teheran agreement, by Theirry Meyssan

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn

ISIS in Afghanistan: Proxy War against Iran and China, by Eric Draitser

Source: New Eastern Outlook

OB-TM227_0622af_P_20120622083316-300x200

The nature of the war in Afghanistan has shifted dramatically in recent months. While the US and NATO continue to be actively involved in the country – their strategic objectives having changed very little since the Bush administration launched the war nearly a decade and a half ago – the complexion of the battlefield, and the parties actively engaged in the war, has changed significantly.

The emergence of ISIS in Afghanistan, along with the impending withdrawal of US-NATO troops from the country, has driven the Taliban into a marriage of convenience, if not an outright alliance, with Iran. What seemed like an unfathomable scenario just a few years ago, Shia Iran’s support for the hardline Sunni Taliban has become a reality due to the changing circumstances of the war. Though it may be hard to believe, such an alliance is now a critical element of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. But its significance is far larger than just shifting the balance of power within the country.

Instead, Afghanistan is now in many ways a proxy conflict between the US and its western and Gulf allies on the one hand, and Iran and certain non-western countries, most notably China, on the other. If the contours of the conflict might not be immediately apparent, that is only because the western media, and all the alleged brainiacs of the corporate think tanks, have failed to present the conflict in its true context. The narrative of Afghanistan, to the extent that it’s discussed at all, continues to be about terrorism and stability, nation-building and “support.” But this is a fundamental misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the current war, and the agenda driving it.

[Please click below to continue reading] Continue reading ISIS in Afghanistan: Proxy War against Iran and China, by Eric Draitser

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn

UNTOLD SUFFERING IN FOUA AND KAFARYA: TWO NORTHWESTERN SYRIAN VILLAGES UNDER SIEGE AND ASSAULT BY NATO’S TERRORISTS

-by Eva Bartlett

Source: In Gaza

Rimas-Foua
Rimas Al-Nayef, killed by terrorist shelling of Foua village on August 10, 2015

Part One of Two

Infant Rimas Al-Nayef was one of at least 5 children killed by NATO-backed terrorists’ shelling on August 10, 2015 in the northwestern Syrian village of Foua. Another 25 residents were killed by the up to 1,500 rockets and mortars which Jebhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) and other terrorist factions rained down on Foua and neighbouring Kafarya village, just north of Idlib. Scores more were injured on that day alone. Yet, scarcely a peep in the corporate media, as massacres committed by western-backed “moderates” do not merit media coverage, do not suit the war agenda.

The attack was waged by a number of different factions, primarily al-Nusra, Jaysh al-Fattah (the so-called “Army of Conquest”), and Ahrar al-Sham (Liberation of the Levant Movement) along with other “moderates” of the umbrella organization Jabhat al-Islamiyah (the Islamic Front).

Crescent International reported: “The barrage of rockets has intensified; Western, Saudi and Turkish-supplied 500 kg rockets are fired at the villages accompanied by incursions with the clear aim to capture them.”

Kafarya-and-Fuah1

The villages, less than 10 km northeast of Idlib, had already been suffering an over 4 year long siege by al-Nusra and affiliates.

Until late March, residents—although surrounded by militant factions—still had an access road, thus supplies for their survival. With the militants’ occupation of Idlib at the end of March, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) had to withdraw forces from bases in the province. Foua and Kafarya became utterly isolated.

[Please click below to continue reading] Continue reading UNTOLD SUFFERING IN FOUA AND KAFARYA: TWO NORTHWESTERN SYRIAN VILLAGES UNDER SIEGE AND ASSAULT BY NATO’S TERRORISTS

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn