“OPERATION KICK ASS”

Las acusaciones de intento de Golpe de Estado contra Donald Trump no solo son increíbles sino buscan otra finalidad

Por Charles H. Slim

En enero pasado, cuando Donald Trump se dejo convencer por sus consejeros de la inteligencia sobre las bondades de asesinar al General iraní Qassem Soleimani y a sus socios iraquíes de las Milicias Populares “Hashd Al Shaabi” que combaten en Siria, seguramente se sintió en la cima del mundo al ver que estos personajes del bajo mundo de la inteligencia se congraciaban con su “magnanimidad y valor” para advertir a la República Islámica de Irán de que abandonara sus expectativas geopolíticas en la región (que incluyen su desarrollo nuclear).

Benjamin Netanyahu y la ultraderecha israelí también aplaudieron ese magnicidio[1] ya que en cierta medida, beneficiaría a los intereses israelíes.

Pero cuando las consecuencias de ese hecho fueron demasiado costosas para los EEUU y ello se volvió un urticante tema de discusión pública, esos consejeros se desentendieron de sus consejos y sus opositores que se habían replegado, se reorganizaron y volvieron a la carga. Lo mismo con el apoyo del Lobbie pro-israelí que había entrado en una fractura interna por las contrariedades que desataba Trump ante ciertos temas que pese beneficiar a Israel (Como fue la contradictoria e ilegal declaración oficial de Jerusalen Capital del estado judío), no les dejaba bien parados ante el público norteamericano.

A un año exactamente de aquellas jornadas, muchos de esos personajes parecen haberle dado la espalda e incluso podrían estar trabajando con las huestes de Biden para una salida oprobiosa de la Casa Blanca. Las manifestaciones que culminaron con la toma del Capitolio y la muerte de cuatro de esos ciudadanos el 6 de enero pasado, están siendo editadas a modo de un relato que salve la imagen del “Sistema” y justifique un “impeachment express” que destituya a Donald Trump de forma inmediata. Pero a pesar de que la prensa del Establishment trata de argumentar que “Trump ha destruido la democracia” o exageraciones semejantes, cierto es también que sus predecesores –en especial George W. Bush en 2000[2]- también llegaron al poder en circunstancias harto discutibles y que estos mismos medios han optado por olvidar.

El sistema electoral norteamericano está diseñado para el fraude y ello se advierte en que un candidato pese a obtener la mayoría de votos, ellos no serán quienes determinen su elección. Sin dudas esto no puede ser más que la demostración cabal de una democracia poco democrática.

Pero lo que estamos viendo ahora, es el intento despiadado de ajustar cuentas con ese despreciable Outsider de la política estadounidense que -según su razonamiento- les ha robado cuatro valiosos años y con ellos, el retraso de los planes por persistir en sus intentos por penetrar en Eurasia, similar política en el Mar Meridional de la China y en consolidar la hegemonía norteamericana en Oriente Medio mediante la propagación del caos y la inestabilidad en el mundo árabe-islámico.

Al frente de la cruzada están los medios conservadores y el amplio espectro de las Corporaciones de Medios quienes no escatiman en epítetos y argumentos que pinten a Donald Trump como un lunático que los EEUU han debido soportar. Esta imagen no se limita a los medios estadounidenses y de sus repetidoras en todo el continente. En países aliados al proyecto de la hegemonía militar, también se han puesto manos a la obra para sumar argumentos que centren las culpas de todos los males de América a una sola persona[3]. Los planteos y acusaciones que se ponen de manifiesto en estos medios son tan fantásticos que son dignos de convertir a Trump en un nuevo villano de los Comics de Marvel. Pero, no aclaran que éste mandatario no llegó por la ventana o por la gracia de los viejos políticos que se enquistan en Washington. Tampoco por la supuesta manipulación informática de los rusos que Hillary Clinton y su gente acusaron en su momento. Su gestión surgió de un hartazgo y la indignación de una buena parte de la población estadounidense ante los manejos y desmanejos de la crema político-financiera (indistintamente republicanos y demócratas) que enquistada en Washington, había convertido a EEUU en un ente vaciado de sus valores patrióticos originales al servicio de intereses ajenos a ellos.

Tras aquella violenta jornada del 6 de enero, el FBI ha comenzado una investigación para determinar las implicancias  de toda índole en estas manifestaciones y para prevenir la producción de nuevos posibles eventos de violencia que los grupos supremacistas blancos y los círculos de la ultra derecha estarían preparando para boicotear la asunción de Biden-Harris. Según un informe del FBI de 2006 ya advertía la “infiltración” de miembros de las agrupaciones supremacistas en cuerpos policiales y agencias gubernamentales que exponen la vulnerabilidad al sabotaje y a episodios de abusos con vinculaciones raciales. Esto último surge muy conveniente a los fines de tratar de deslindar las responsabilidades y limpiar la imagen político institucional de los EEUU por oprobiosos casos como el de George Floyd y de muchos otros ciudadanos que por ser de un color diferente, fueron asesinados en la vía pública. Muchos se preguntan ¿Cuántos otros ciudadanos habrían sido asesinados por fuerzas gubernamentales en recintos cerrados?  Estos casos de flagrantes violaciones a los derechos humanos no comenzaron con Donald Trump, solo basta señalar como horrorosos antecedentes la deleznable infraestructura del terror montada por George W. Bush y Dick Cheney para “combatir el terrorismo” que cierto vale aclarar, nunca apunto a combatir estos grupos extremistas domésticos (DVE)[4].

Por lo pronto el Establishment comenzó por silenciar al “molesto mandatario” quitándole el derecho a usar el Twitter y cualquier otra red social, una medida que vuelve a demostrar que significado y alcance tiene la democracia para Washington.

Al mismo tiempo organismos y asociaciones de derechos civiles han comenzado a pedir informes sobre lo que habría ocurrido previo y a posterior a darse comienzo con estas revueltas en el Capitolio en algunos casos, tratando de determinar la complicidad o la incitación del presidente en el desarrollo del asalto al Capitolio.

El caso de la La Ley de Libertad de Información (FOIA)[5] es uno de ellos por medio del cual se pretende determinar mediante un registro documental de lo que el gobierno sabía y no sabía u ocultaba de lo que estaba por ocurrir. Como lo señalan varias fuentes que se fundan en  publicaciones  de medios como The Washington post, Trump habría incitado a los “mafiosos” a que se dirigieran al Capitolio para que lo tomaran por asalto, aunque otras fuentes aseguran que ello no es cierto y que se adulteraron los dichos del mandatario. Según algunas fuentes ya se han redactado más de 75 solicitudes FOIA para requerir informes a varias Agencias Federales del gobierno. Entre algunas de las informaciones que se estarían requiriendo está cuál fue la determinación y quiénes la impartieron para que tardíamente interviniera la Guardia Nacional en torno al Capitolio. Ello demostraría que se le permitió a la “turba” que pudiera pasar sin obstáculos hacía el edificio cuando el cordón policial no tenía la capacidad de contenerlos.

Se ha criticado de forma continua que durante la gestión de Trump se habían restringido varias fuentes de información que debían estar a disposición de cualquier ciudadano que quisiera conocer. Para los defensores de FOIA Trump arengó y permitió que esta turba tomara el Capitolio algo que es secundado por la línea editorial de los medios pero, en realidad el problema interno de los EEUU es mucho más profundo y estructural que este episodio.

Sin dudas se montará un gran circo que disfrazará lo ocurrido y la justicia caerá con todo su peso contra los manifestantes de aquel día pero una pregunta quedará sin responder ¿Hasta cuándo se esconderán los reales problemas que movilizaron a estos manifestantes? Y otra sería ¿Acaso el Sistema cree que son los únicos manifestantes que están en desacuerdo con el Status Quo que Biden intentará revitalizar?

 

 

 

---

[1] CLARIN. COM. Israel celebra la muerte de Qasem Soleimani…https://www.clarin.com/mundo/israel-celebra-muerte-qasem-soleimani-iran-miles-salen-calles-repudiar-ataque_0_se51r1_5.html

[2] Se dio cuando la Suprema Corte de los EEUU se negó a intervenir en el pedido un nuevo conteo de votos en el Estado de Florida gobernado por Jeff Bush quien consagró como ganador al candidato republicano, su hermano George W. Bush.

[3] Esto es lo que se vió en publicaciones australianas como en el “The West Australian” que llegó al paroxismo de comparar a Trump con Hitler.

[4] Terminología que significa aparece en el Informe del FBI

[5] Ley de Libertad de Información que permite a los ciudadanos solicitar por medio de formularios preestablecidos, información sobre actos llevados adelante por agencias federales y del poder ejecutivo.

 

“REGIÓN LIBERADA”

Qué antecedentes y significancia tiene la penetración de la OTAN en America Latina y su desembarco en Colombia ¿Peligra la soberanía de los estados?

Por Charles H. Slim

Los últimos acontecimientos que se han registrado en el centro del poder imperial (El Capitolio de los EEUU), demuestran que la lucha por el poder está atomizada a tal punto, que podría dar lugar a nuevos e imprevistos escenarios que debilitarán o al menos retrasaran los planes globalistas de la administración demócrata Biden-Harris.  

Dentro de esos lineamientos internacionalistas se halla el definitivo control del Caribe y Sudamérica con especial objetivo a Venezuela, algo que se comprueba con aquel acuerdo firmado en 2013 por el entonces presidente colombiano Juan Manuel Santos que se concretó con el efectivo desembarco de la OTAN a mediados de 2018 y que trajo como inmediatas consecuencias los intentos fallidos por derribar al gobierno de Nicolás Maduro Moros.

Más allá de las increíbles justificaciones del gobierno de Santos para permitir ingresar a la organización atlántica (“como compartir información sobre el crimen organizado y el narcotráfico”), su presencia tiene la finalidad de absorber a la región para evitar que los estados caribeños establezcan relaciones multilaterales libres y amplias con Rusia y China. Y aunque Santos solo obró como la máscara de Washington y sus aliados, la decisión de ingresar a Colombia como un “colaborador” de segunda de la OTAN, se fundó en las determinantes políticas de acercamiento y cooperación entre Caracas y Moscú que fueron impulsadas por el entonces presidente Hugo César Chavez a comienzos del 2000.

Pero la presencia de la OTAN no es nueva en el continente. Desde mediados de 1982 se dieron dos eventos que vislumbrarían el momento oportuno para entrar al continente. En marzo de ese año se llevaron a cabo las primeras maniobras navales de la OTAN en aguas del Golfo de México denominadas Safe Pass 82 bajo la excusa del peligro del “intervencionismo” soviético materializdo en la Cuba Castrista. El segundo evento se dio cuando la Argentina perdió la guerra por recuperar las islas Malvinas, Sandwiches y Georgias del sur, Londres vio abierto el camino para fortificar las islas y establecer allí instalaciones con propósitos que excedían la supuesta contención de alguna amenaza de la Argentina. Incluso cabe recordarlo, durante la guerra la OTAN colaboro de forma discreta (proporcionando inteligencia satelital) con Londres para que pudiera sobreponerse a un colapso de su Task Force ante los intrépidos pilotos argentinos.

Sabido es que Gran Bretaña es uno de los miembros de la OTAN y tras el final de aquella guerra tuvo la excusa y oportunidad de ampliar el mapa de influencia y el control estratégico del Atlántico sur. Fue de ese modo que la organización instaló una de sus bases estratégicas de inteligencia hemisférica sita en la base aérea de Mount Pleasant. Allí donde funciona la Unidad Conjunta de Comunicaciones -Joint Communications Unit (JCU)-  se instaló una antena del Sistema Automatizado de espionaje de alcance global ECHELON que se intercomunica con una red de inteligencia electrónica de la denominada agrupación “Cinco ojos” (compuesta por los servicios de inteligencia de Australia, Canadá, New Zeland, Reino Unido y los EEUU) que cubre todo el hemisferio.

Como antecedente del alcance y misión de este sistema de espionaje electrónico masivo fue el escándalo que se registro por finales de la década de los ochentas (1988) cuando se reveló por un artículo publicado por el investigador Duncan Campbell, que los gobiernos anglosajones espiaban de forma indiscriminada y sin objetivos clarosa todos sus ciudadanos sin permiso alguno. Aquello causó una oleada de indignación popular en la Unión Europea que fue convenientemente morigerada por los medios estadounidenses. 

A cargo de estas actividades invasivas estaban (y siguen estando) la inteligencia electrónica de Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) británico y sus colegas estadounidenses de la National Security Agency (NSA) quienes mantienen junto a las Malvinas un estratégico eje de redes de escucha con bases en las islas de Ascensión en el Atlántico y Diego García en el Indico que entre otras funcionalidades tuvo la de ser parte en las operaciones para la invasión de Afganistán en noviembre de 2001 de Iraq en marzo de 2003.

Durante años las actividades de la organización se vieron encubiertas por la desinformación y la ridiculización que impulsaban desde Londres y que los medios acataban al pie de la letra. Las informaciones oficiales y los trascendidos era que solo había un destacamento militar británico para garantizar la seguridad de las islas ante otro posible intento argentino. En tanto, desde las instalaciones de Mount Pleasant y en coordinación de la Navy Intelligence Division (NID) se llevaron adelante operaciones de interceptación y escucha de las comunicaciones del continente sin que las autoridades civiles y militares argentinas se dieran cuenta de ello.

Cuando el gobierno de Carlos Menem decidió en 1990 alinearse a la aventura en el Golfo Pérsico que desemboco en la calamitosa guerra contra Iraq, se suponía que la Argentina pasaría a ser considerada como un socio extra OTAN, algo que jamás ocurrió. Tal como lo fueron los argumentos para involucrar a su país en aquella contienda, las expectativas de Buenos Aires de convertirse en parte de la Alianza atlántica por esta participación dejo entrever la candidez política y credulidad de aquel gobierno. Incluso esa pretensión no era posible de concretarse en la realidad dado que el país no se hallaba ni se halla aún al presente, en las condiciones de poder aspirar a un posicionamiento (aunque segundón) de esa clase.

Sumado a ello, los gobiernos argentinos y mucho menos sus ciudadanos sabían que los británicos y la OTAN estaban usando su espacio para lanzar operaciones de inteligencia, contrainteligencia  y ataque contra objetivos en terceros países calificados de “terroristas” enmarcados en las actividades de la “Homelad Security”, un oscuro departamento de la inteligencia creado por Washington y costeado por insondables presupuestos tras el 11 de Septiembre de 2001.

A partir de aquel entonces y bajo aquel argumento, el rastreo, escucha y grabación de las comunicaciones telefónicas, electrónicas y digitales por el internet fue el inicio de una realidad encubierta a costa del derecho a la intimidad y la confidencialidad de los actos del gobierno argentino y de todos sus ciudadanos implicando sin dudas a todo el continente. La silenciosa guerra cibernética de satélites, Drones espía y salas comando desde donde se monitorean las redes de internet de un país, es una realidad a la cual la Argentina se halla inmersa pero que –por acuerdos secretos- se encuentra lejos de poder contrarestar.

Actualmente Argentina no es un objetivo a considerar ya que no representa una amenaza a las políticas de la Organización atlántica y mucho menos a los despliegues militares de Londres en la región. Si es una plataforma geográfica de colaboración estratégica para las agencias gubernamentales anglosajonas que encuentran muy fácil operar en un país donde reina el caos político, la nulidad institucional y una corrupción administrativa que no tiene limites.

En lo que respecta a la relación de Buenos Aires con la OTAN es inexistente e innecesaria ya que –a diferencia de Colombia- para los cerebros en Bruselas, Argentina no posee una infraestructura militar propia de sofisticación útil y menos aún, un peso geopolítico propio que pueda aportar una colaboración cualificada para los objetivos que se buscan en el Atlántico sur. Si necesitan de esa colaboración tienen a los británicos en Mount Pleasant y a los chilenos de la FACH en Punta Arenas.

Caso diferente es el Caribe y Venezuela en particular, donde existe un proceso político que además de oponerse a la hegemonía político-comercial y militar anglosajona, se ha convertido en una opción política –que además de desplazar a las ambiciones de Cuba- es digna de emular sin por supuesto, correr los riesgos de ser blanco de agresiones solapadas desde Washington.  Este mismo proceso además, ha demostrado tener una trascendencia hemisférica de peso que lo ha llevado a establecer nexos de cooperación con la Federación rusa, China e Irán que preocupan de sobremanera a los intereses occidentales.

Es por ello y más allá de las complicaciones del gobierno de Maduro en política domestica, el sostenimiento y profundización de una geopolítica audaz que se apoya en una estrategia de contrapeso para limitar las acciones intervencionistas de Washington y la OTAN, le dará chances a que el proceso Bolivariano pueda sobrevivir  e ir progresando con el tiempo. Además, tras la clara exposición de la profunda crisis política que transita los EEUU, la región y en especial Venezuela tienen la oportunidad de ir aflojando las cadenas que desde el norte y con la ayuda de sus socios de la OTAN han tendido en rededor de toda la región.

  

 

 

“GEOPOLITICAL POLARITY”

How Israel is progressing in its expansive project in the Middle East and Iran's role in stopping it

 

Por Charles H. Slim

Since the second half of the 20th century, the Middle East scenario has become permanently more complex demonstrating how the main political actors in the region behave and are influenced by the arbitrary insertion of de facto situations, such as the state of Israel undoubtedly was in 1948.

As antecedent to this influence was the arbitrary and we could even say obscene distribution of the Middle East, carried out in 1916 by the French and the British with the so-called “Sykes-Picott Agreement” by which and under considerations of which the Arabs did not participate, both Colonial powers divided geopolitical influence by creating Arab kingdoms and nation states that would obviously be subject to the orbit of Paris and London respectively.

In this way, just as they “created” these young nation-states, they saw that they could pave the way for the aspirations of European Zionist groups who, since the end of the 19th century (inspired by their mentor Theodor Herzl) had been pressuring the United Kingdom to be will grant territories in Biblical Palestine to make a Jewish nation-state a reality. This is how in 1923 they achieved that “Declaration of Balfour.”

From a distance, it is clear that from the West (understand the US and Europe), the governments of the centers of power were always manipulating the situation board against Arab interests (even when apparently they had fabulous relations with them on the issue of oil) and in favor of a political entity composed of cadres of Jewish citizens from European countries such as Poland and of course Germany. This was how it was possible to establish a Jewish nation-state through deception, terrorism and the use of military force (financed by unfathomable funds).

Despite the fact that the United Nations had been founded in 1945 to prevent precisely the arbitrariness that had given rise to the second war, Israel was able to carry out its nationalist aspirations through aggression and the war of conquest thanks to the complicity of Western nations triumphant led by the USA. Just as the Third Reich had done, a group of Jewish nationalists would claim with blood and fire "vital spaces" for the development of a "Jewish homeland" on Arab territories with arbitrary limits based on messianic eschatology.

But as soon as that great war ceased, a new hemispheric confrontation called the “Cold War” began, which would end up splitting the world into two great blocs that would try (each on its own) to attract nations that had no other option than to recline on any of those powers. In this way, it was convenient for Israel and the monarchies of the Persian Gulf to be the western agent in the region, while Arab nations with strong nationalist and revolutionary sentiments (Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen), who had committed to fight for the The liberation of the territories occupied by Israel leaned towards the support of the Soviet Union.

From that Zionist intrusion that continued with the gradual dispossession of Arab territories in Palestine and the displacement of thousands of its native inhabitants to perpetual refugee camps, the struggle of the Palestinian Arabs (through resistance) against the violent imposition of a political entity that had been born, planned and supported from Europe and that, taking advantage of the circumstances of a horrible war (including the Holocaust), tried to establish the legitimacy to be able to proceed as they did. With this it is clear that it was not “Yahweh” in fulfillment of some prophecy of Moses -as argued by Messianic Zionists and Christian neo-Zionists - who carried out this undertaking. Even more. Its permanence as a state surrounded by hostile Arab neighbors, was sustained and continues to be sustained by the fabulous cooperation (monetary, political, diplomatic and military) of the United States and Great Britain that allowed it to access an offensive nuclear development (with more than 500 nuclear warheads in its arsenals) and to maintain a highly technical army.

Beyond the illegality represented by that military conquest of 1948, from a distance it is very clear that much less such action can have a divine or “blessed” aspect, as many still claim to argue. The war, the massacre and the theft -of Palestinian territories and properties- are an inconsistency to the commandments of the same prophet (Moses) that they usually invoke (victimization by means of) to cover the bestialities committed. The true colonial nature behind -among many others- large real estate deals has long been revealed. It is in this, that a part of Judaism around the world, embarrassed by these shameless and aberrant crimes, rejects and refuses that an earthly political entity like Israel says that it represents them.

But going to the pragmatic and in what is reflected today in the regional political reality, Israel, a nuclear power (with the beginning of its development in 1950) that rests on a gigantic conventional arsenal, aspires to be the ruling power of the entire Middle East with a projection to spread over Asia. The road in that sense has not been easy. The rise of the Khomeini Islamic Revolution in 1979 marked the beginning of a new political position outside the Arab world (influencing the Arab Shiites) that opposed and still continues to oppose his expansionist policy.

Likewise, its path would be paved from 1991 after the end of the war against Iraq[1] and from then on carrying out all kinds of actions  -mostly covert- against its Arab rivals with the accession or rather, the gradual laundering of political relations with the monarchies Arabs of the Gulf and the Kingdom of Jordan (close collaborator of the USA) that does not mean the acceptance of their peoples.

But those aspirations are hampered by the presence of Iran, which unlike the Arab monarchies and pro-American regimes in the region, is the only Islamic state that firmly and unconditionally supports the Palestinian cause. That is why Tel Aviv and the international Zionist network that operates mainly in the US, see Iranian nuclear development and its advances in the field of missiles not as a threat to peace (tearful argument to try to move global opinion) but a strategic obstacle to its expansionist ambitions.

After September 11, 2001, the Anglo-Saxon “Think Tanks” linked to the neocon sector and the pro-Israeli US lobbies took the opportunity to deepen their Islamophobic arguments in favor of intervening in the Middle East that would benefit Tel Aviv's policy, especially in the one directed to crush legitimate Palestinian claims while cutting off aid from countries like Iraq, Libya and Syria, and increasing pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Israel has reached these instances thanks to the destruction of Iraq and Libya, Arab countries that, before the -convenient- Western interventions (NATO), in addition to supporting the Palestinian cause, had the political and military potential to condition Israeli movements throughout the region. Currently with Syria distracted in an asymmetric aggression of western origin (in which Tel Aviv collaborates) and Iraq weakened by a known Status Quo and the reestablishment of relations with the oil monarchies, the way to extend to the Gulf is paved[2].

It is in this context that Iran has become fully aware of the Israeli position and intentions and has not missed several episodes in the Gulf waters that occurred in June 2019 that left Tel Aviv's black hand evident with the deductible collaboration of Emirati elements. The so-called “Abraham agreement” concluded between Israel and the United Arab Emirates in August 2020 and the secret meetings between senior Israeli and Saudi officials appear to have whitewashed this pre-existing cooperation between these regimes.

That gave Tel Aviv more airs to tighten the rope around Iran. It should not be forgotten that after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, its intelligence and attack cells operated freely on the Iraqi borders with a special point of penetration through Kurdistan. The assassination of General Qassem Soleimani (orchestrated between the CIA and Mossad) on leaving the Baghdad airport in January 2020, was conclusive proof of the intentions of Washington and Israel. Despite the evidence of continuous incursions and terrorist actions perpetrated on behalf of Tel Aviv, international organizations have not taken action on the matter. The assassination of nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh at the end of November 2020 (days after Netanyahu met his intelligence chief Yosi Cohen and King Salman in the resort town of Neom) evidenced the involvement of the Mossad, reissuing before public opinion the tactic of Israeli terrorism. Despite this, it is worth asking where was the United Nations?

It is clear that the Arab monarchical regimes have put business and the advantageous profits that an economic-financial partnership with Israel can bring forward, who in return will claim them, forget about the lawsuits for the Palestinian cause and all the crimes that were committed (that they seek to be investigated by the ICC) and are continually committed to subjugate them. On the contrary, Iran, aware of its geopolitical position and particularly of its strategic importance -of controlling the oil route through the Strait of Hormuz - does not intend to give in to this and has even taken the lead in supporting the Palestinians and the axis of Arab-Islamic resistance.

Currently it is in Syria where the rivalries between the two poles are being measured. Precisely there and since 2011 is where the plans of Washington and its allies (including Israel) to destroy the Syrian nation-state to turn it into a failed state like Iraq with the clear intention of keeping it in chaos and dependent on of “foreign aid”. In this sense, the support of Tehéran (framed in the Russian intervention) has been conclusive not only to defeat the proxies gangs that are mere pawns of the Pentagon, but also to expel those that operate with the support of Tel Aviv in the limits of the Golan Heights and the province of Quneitra.

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Pensamiento Estrategico y Politico. “Leave Saddam”, By Dany Smith https://pensamientoestraegico.blogspot.com/2017/02/veteranos-de-ayer-leave-saddam-n.html

[2] The Washington post.com, Israel deploys submarine to Persian Gulf in message of deterrence to Iran, Dec. 23, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-israel-fakhrizadeh-nuclear-assassination/2020/12/23/fca9e0fe-44e8-11eb-ac2a-3ac0f2b8ceeb_story.html

 

“THE DEMAGOGY OF IRAQ”

Anything outside of democracy is what governs the Arab country. Who really rules in Iraq?

 

By Ali Al Najafi

Today more than ever Iraqis realize that the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 did nothing but bring the perpetual calamity and the end of the social peace that they had enjoyed until the arrival of the Westerners. Many will be able to argue all kinds of questions against Hussein and the Baath Party but, in addition to having been a legitimate government and adapted to the idiosyncrasies of the Iraqis, they could never find a single antecedent in its entire period, which reflects the permission of anarchy, the progress of organized crime and much less obscene political corruption such as that which from April of that year to the present has plagued the spoils of what was a model of Arab development.

Washington never had in mind to promote democracy or anything like that, and that was experienced firsthand by the Iraqis themselves. Even more. They speak rather of being under a "dimaghujia" (ديماغوجيا) "Demagogy", than of the much promoted democracy.

The US believed that by cleaning up opponents of its presence and putting in local collaborationist politicians, paid for from black CIA budgets, it would build a pro-Western Iraq and completely controllable from Washington to prevent it from being absorbed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. But the calculations were wrong and despite the carnage orchestrated against the entire population ("Shock and awe"), the support of an administration made up of representatives of criminal groups with no merit other than serving the invaders, the Iraqis in support they bowed. What then was the next step taken by the Americans? Further foment internal discord, creating the political and social conflict between the Shiite and Sunni parties that would end up justifying the appearance of the pseudo-Sunni hoax of "Al Qaeda-Iraq" and later replacing it, the "Islamic State".

By means of this lie, Washington played two points with the famished stability of Iraq, taking advantage of the misery and access to information sources outside the occupation, created by its intervention and the great discontent of the Sunni populations that were being brutally oppressed by the regime collaborator from Baghdad. Thus, the media such as CNN intermittently brandished reductionist and misleading slogans that would be summarized as "good Shiites, bad Sunnis." But the lie did not last long and it was there that large masses of Iraqi Shiites, adherents of Moqtadar Al Sadr, went on to fight the occupation and its collaborators of the "Dawa" Party.

Not only did the Sunni mosques become forums for denouncing the invaders and their puppet government; Al Sadr's Shiite clerics became as insidious and combative as their Sunni brothers and soon began to suffer fierce persecution from the occupying forces as well as the collaborationist Shiite brigades. Even the failed assassination attempt by the Americans against Moqtada Al Sadr further strengthened the opposition of his followers to the regime.

From the press, it was made known to the public that Washington supported the unpleasant –but necessary- regime of the “Dawa” party led by Nouri Al Maliki, but behind the scenes their efforts were aimed at trying to establish new ties with former members of the Baath Party who they were scattered and operating in armed groups throughout "Al Anbar" in northwestern Iraq and especially in the "Sham" region. How could it be otherwise, US intelligence would rely on its Saudi connections and its cells of pimps on the ground who had already been working in Syria to undermine the "Alawite" government of Bashar Al Assad.

In short, while Barack Obama clapped his right hand on the back of Al Maliki, he extended his left hand to the opposition that had already risen in 2011 in a great revolt that threatened the Status Quo of Baghdad. Once again, Washington would manipulate the anger and despair of the Iraqi Sunnis to manipulate them with false promises and then use them with the sudden appearance of "ISIS."

For John Kerry's State Department, keeping the factor of sectarian hatred as the visible element of what was happening was essential to cover up what they were really looking for. In this sense, the work of the great media emporiums such as CNN, FOXNEWS and the large graphic media, was transcendent to disseminate this story that sought to cushion the effects and psychological impact on public opinion of what was to come.

During the nineties George H. Bush and Clinton secretly supported the Iraqi parties of Shiite extraction and of course the Kurds of the Barzani Clan, fomenting and supporting the insurrection against the government of the Baath Party led by Saddam Hussein. And not because Washington aspired to build a democracy but, to establish a strategic point to project against Iran and of course, control the oil resources of Kirkuk. For this, billions of dollars were used to finance CIA operations for the recruitment of deserters, corrupt officials and criminals of the most varied kind who would be in charge of the purchase, trafficking of weapons and explosives that would later end up killing others thousands of Iraqis.

From these black efforts came those who would be the administrators of the occupation. Thus subjects such as Ahmed Chalabi, Noruri Al Maliki, Jalal Talabani and Ayad Alawi, complete strangers to the Iraqi population overnight, became the advocates of facilitating the occupation and therefore the main visible responsible for ordering (in collaboration with the American occupying forces) countless crimes against their own people. The scandals that these henchmen of the occupation carried out became so undeniable and annoying for officials in Washington that there were many problems in trying to establish some legal and justifiable nuance in the aberrations that were being committed (Case of systematic torture). It was very difficult for the White House to try to whitewash such a bloody and corrupt regime led by a guy like Al ​​Maliki who also seized aid money for his population.

That the militias and special "Brigades" of Shiite parties were kidnapping, torturing and murdering fellow citizens (men and women) who had belonged to the Baath party, or were suspected of belonging to the resistance, or were plainly opposed to the occupation was something that the Americans knew by heart for the simple reason, that those dark groups worked for them. It was in this framework that Mr. Nouri Al Maliki was placed at the head of a "Special Committee" by which he was charged with carrying out the "Debaathification" plan and, due to this, he climbed to the government palace within the "Green Zone" in Baghdad. Some sources even revealed that George W. Bush himself was so pleased with the task he was carrying out that in that sense he often expressed "seeking to be his friend." He would also have expressed that "if he (Al Maliki) did not succeed," I will not succeed "making it clear that Al Maliki had been given a dirty task that would gravitate to Bush's political career.

The placement of Nouri Al Maliki was nothing more than that of an executioner to administer and make sure that he would "cleanse" Iraq of opponents.

Here there are no euphemisms or double standards that can hide the responsibility of the officials and the US state who elected this criminal and therefore are as complicated as the Iraqi officials who executed these plans. This is where Washington's resentment lies with the claims of the International Criminal Court.

Never forget that before the US invaded the country, there were never tensions between the Shiites and the Sunnis. On the contrary, there were no divergences in the social treatment or even the occupation of the government posts of Saddam Hussein that demonstrated a composition marked by the confession. It was the same Americans who, in secret, were in charge of feeding suspicion and providing the means to the pro-Iranian groups that for years operated against the Baath Party. Facing the public, the media and its inscrutable sources were the ones who created the hoax of that "sectarian war" that in Iraqi society had never existed until the arrival of the invaders.

But the "Special tasks" of the occupying intelligence did not end there. The operation of private groups (Contractors) subordinate to the directives of the CIA and the Pentagon was another of the dirty faces that represented the so-called "Iraqi Freedom." Officially, these security companies came through contracts with the western oil companies that had taken control of the main oil fields in the country. But for a few extra dollars, these groups made up of mercenaries of various nationalities and all kinds, knew how to execute all kinds of black actions, especially counterintelligence and brutal attacks aimed at creating false attacks of the national resistance.

In the end, it was the pressure of the Shiite resistance groups such as “Kataib Hizb allah Iraq” (Hesbolla Brigades of Iraq) and “Asaeb Aleh Alq” (Order of Righteous Men) who defined the withdrawal of the invaders in 2011. When in 2014 appeared the lie of the "Daesh" (ISIS) took a fundamental role to extirpate that false Caliphate with capital in Mosul. Today, some of these groups included in the “Hashad al-Shaab” (Iraqi People's Militias) continue to be preponderant actors for the liberation of a country that is still occupied and administered by Washington agents. Accused from Washington of being "pro-Iranian", there is actually a fear of their excessive growth especially due to their successful operations in Syria.

Obviously, this is a serious mess for the Americans and it was for this reason that Mustafa Al Khadimi, an Iraqi of British citizenship recruited by the CIA, was placed at the head of the government who (in addition to hardening the repression against opponents), initiated a campaign to deal with to dismantle these groups and allowed - and even would have collaborated - the execution of the assassinations of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al Muhandis in January 2020.

A few days ago the regime's ISOF Special forces carried out several raids in the offices and base camps of "Hashad al-Shaab" from where they arrested senior leaders of accused of being directly connected with the Iranian IRGC. Nothing new that has not been seen since 2003. In the current context for some it is a power struggle between pro-US and pro-Iranian collaborators. For others, Washington's simple commission to the Kahimi puppet government to -with the supervision of the CIA- dissolve these groups that support Iran in its support of Syria, something that is also unacceptable for the neoconservatives and their Zionist partners in Congress. , complicate the strategic landscape of Israel.

In the midst of this, false flag rocket attacks on the “Green Zone” have been denounced by resistance groups accusing the Americans themselves with the complicity of the regime of being responsible.

Be that as it may, once again, the demonstration before the Iraqis that there is nothing democratic in the procedures advised by Washington, reveals the fiasco of its foreign policy. The ideological uniformity demanded by the Americans (and which the hired gangsters take advantage of) is contrary to any canon of freedom. Simply and as happened to those who fought in the resistance against the occupation, whoever does not respect the guidelines of the puppet regime will be imprisoned or eliminated.