At the moment, the United States has great difficulty in retaining its hegemony in the Middle East. Its troops have been declared unwanted in Iraq; and in Syria, the US and their foreign legion of terrorists lose terrain and positions every month. The US has responded to this with a significant escalation, by deploying more troops and by constant threats against Iran. At the same time, we have seen strong protest movements in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran.
By Pål Steigan
February 01, 2020 “Information Clearing House” -When millions of Iraqi took to the streets recently, their main slogan was «THE UNITED STATES OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!»
How should one analyze this?
Obviously, there are a lot of social tensions in the Middle East – class based, ethnic, religious and cultural. The region is a patchwork of conflicts and tensions that not only goes back hundreds of years, but even a few thousand. There are always many reasons to rebel against a corrupt upper class, anywhere in the world. But no rebellion can succeed if it is not based on a realistic and thorough analysis of the specific conditions in the individual country and region.
Just as in Africa, the borders in the Middle East are arbitrarily drawn. They are the product of the manipulations of imperialist powers, and only to a lesser extent products of what the peoples themselves have wanted.
During the era of decolonization, there was a strong, secular pan-Arab movement that wanted to create a unified Arab world. This movement was influenced by the nationalist and socialist ideas that had strong popular support at the time. King Abdallah 1 of Jordan envisaged a kingdom that would consist of Jordan, Palestine and Syria. Egypt and Syria briefly established a union called the United Arab Republic. Gaddafi wanted to unite Libya, Syria and Egypt in a federation of Arab republics. In 1958, a quickly dissolved confederation was established between Jordan and Iraq, called the Arab Federation. All these efforts were transient. What remains is the Arab League, which is, after all, not a state federation and not an alliance. And then of course we have the demand for a Kurdish state, or something similar consisting of one or more Kurdish mini-states. Still, the most divisive product of the First World War was the establishment of the state of Israel on Palestinian soil. During the First World War, Britain’s Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour issued what became known as the Balfour Declaration, which «… view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.»
But what is the basis for all these attempts at creating states? What are the prerequisites for success or failure?
The imperialist powers divide the world according to the power relations between them
Lenin gave the best and most durable explanation for this, in his essay «Imperialism – the highest stage of capitalism«. There, he explained five basic features of the era of imperialism:
- The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
- The merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;
- The export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
- The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves; and
- The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
But Lenin also pointed out that capitalist countries are developing unevenly, not least because of the uneven development of productive forces in the various capitalist countries. After a while, there arises a discrepancy between how the world is divided and the relative strength of the imperialist powers. This disparity will eventually force through a redistribution, a new division of the world based on the new relationship of strength. And, as Lenin states:
“The question is: what means other than war could there be under capitalism to overcome the disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the other?“
The two world wars were wars that arose because of unevenness in the power relationships between the imperialist powers. The British Empire was past its heyday and British capitalism lagged behind in the competition. The United States and Germany were the great powers that had the largest industrial and technological growth, and eventually this misalignment exploded. Not once, but twice. …
Hidden US-Israeli Military Agenda: “Break Syria into Pieces”
aus aktuellem Anlass aus dem Archiv…
A timely article in the Jerusalem Post in June brings to the forefront the unspoken objective of US foreign policy, namely the breaking up of Syria as a sovereign nation state – along ethnic and religious lines – into several separate and “independent” political entities
– Michel Chossudovsky
The article also confirms the role of Israel in the process of political destabilization of Syria. The JP article is titled: “Veteran Kurdish politician calls on Israel to support the break-up of Syria‘ (by Jonathan Spyer) (The Jerusalem Post (May 16, 2012). The objective of the US sponsored armed insurgency is –with the help of Israel– to “Break Syria into Pieces”.
The “balkanisation of the Syrian Arab Republic” is to be carried out by fostering sectarian divisions, which will eventually lead to a “civil war” modelled on the former Yugoslavia. Last month, Syrian “opposition militants” were dispatched to Kosovo to organize training sessions using the “terrorist expertise” of the US sponsored Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in fighting the Yugoslav armed forces.
Sherkoh Abbas, President of the US based Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria (KNA) has “called on Israel to support the break-up of Syria into a series of federal structures based on the country’s various ethnicities.” (Ibid) One possible ”break-up scenario” pertaining to Syria, which constitutes a secular multi-ethnic society, would be the formation of separate and “independent” Sunni, Alawite-Shiite, Kurdish and Druze states: “We need to break Syria into pieces,” Abbas said. (Quoted in JP, op. cit., emphasis added). “The Syrian Kurdish dissident argued that a federal Syria, separated into four or five regions on an ethnic basis, would also serve as a natural “buffer” for Israel against both Sunni and Shi’ite Islamist forces.” (Ibid.).
Ironically, while Islamist forces are said to constitute the main threat to the Jewish State, Tel Aviv is providing covert support to the Islamist Free Syrian Army (FSA).
(…) It is worth noting, in this regard, that the creation of a “Greater Kurdistan” has been envisaged for several years by the Pentagon as part of a broader “Plan for Redrawing the Middle East”. (See map below)
The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006
This option, which appears unlikely in the near future, would go against the interests of Turkey, a staunch ally of both the US and Israel. Another scenario, which is contemplated by Ankara would consist in the annexation to Turkey of parts of Syrian Kurdistan. (See map above). “Greater Kurdistan” would include portions of Iran, Syria, Iraq and Turkey as conveyed in Coronel Ralph Peters (ret) celebrated map of “The New Middle East”…
Nabucco, Iran, EU und Russland
Die Patriot-Raketen-Entscheidung des Bundestages mit der Entsendung von bis zu 400 deutschen Soldaten in die Türkei ist in einem größeren Zusammenhang zu sehen, der die gesamte Region in den Blick nimmt…