Heading for War on Syria by Stephen Lendman
الكاتب الصحفي الأمريكي يكتب في مقالة له بعنوان “الاتجاه نحو حرب على سورية”
سياسية واشنطن طويلة الأجل هي تغير النظام في كل من سورية وإيران. ما يهم في الأمر هو استبدال أنظمة بأنظمة تابعة لتأمين التحكم بمصادر الشرق الأوسط ذات القيمة العالية. في الرابع من شباط قمت كل من روسيا والصين باستخدام حق النقض الفيتو ضد قرار أحادي الجانب معادي للأسد. وفي مقالة سابقة قمت بتسميته بأنه ضحية أكثر منه شريرا. مع ذلك فقد اتهم و أدين زورا ولعدة شهور بارتكاب عنف ناجم عن تحريض خارجي.
في الحقيقة لقد واجه الأسد مجموعات مسلحة مدعومة من الغرب تحاول أن تقلد النموذج الليبي وبمواجهته هذه فقد تصرف الأسد بمسؤولية ضد تخريب مسلح تسليحا ثقيلا.
تخيل سيناريو مشابه في أمريكا! شرطة محلية وقوات الحرس الوطني وقوات من البنتاغون ستقوم بمواجهتها بعنف. كلها مجتمعة سوف يتجاوزون بالتأكيد ردة فعل الأسد
Washington’s longstanding policy is regime change in Iran and Syria. At issue is replacing independent regimes with client ones and securing unchallenged control of valued Middle East resources.
On February 4, Russia and China vetoed a largely one-sided anti-Assad resolution. A previous article called him more victim than villain. Yet he’s falsely blamed for months of externally generated violence.
In fact, he confronted a Western-backed armed insurgency replicating the Libya model. By so doing he acted responsibly against a heavily armed insurrection.
Imagine a similar scenario in America. Local police, National Guard forces, and Pentagon troops would confront it violently. Combined, they’d way exceed Assad’s response.
Mass killing would follow. Western media scoundrels would approve. In contrast, the New York Times calls Syria’s self-defense state-sponsored “butchery.”
Its position substitutes disinformation for truth and full disclosure. They’re scrupulously avoided to misinform, misrepresent and betray readers. It’s longstanding major media policy. The Times featured it longer than others.
Since violence erupted last March, Syria was blamed for Western-backed insurgents against him. It’s part of Washington’s “New Middle East” project to control North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia to Russia and China’s borders.
For over a decade, regime change plans targeted Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria, and other countries outside the region.
Replicating Libya’s model is Washington’s template for future NATO aggression. Whether it’s employed fully in Syria remains to be seen.
So far, heavily armed insurgents entered from regional countries. Anti-government violence followed. Trapped between warring sides, civilian casualties mount. No end of conflict approaches. In fact, the worst is yet to come.
On February 5, Israel’s Mossad-connected DEBKA/file said Russia put “Rapid Reaction Force (aka Spetsnaz) units in Black Sea bases on (alert) to set out for Syria to defend Damascus.”
Russia’s determined to avoid another Libyan-style intervention. In response, Obama said Washington, key NATO partners, and Gulf allies will (in DEBKA/file’s words) “redouble their efforts to unseat Bashar Assad.”
On February 4, an official White House statement said:
“Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now. He must step aside and allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately.”
Since WW II, no combination of nations caused more slaughter, destruction, and human misery globally that America. Moreover, Washington won’t tolerate democracy at home or abroad.
“Assad has no right to lead Syria, and has lost all legitimacy with his people and the international community. The international community must work to protect the Syrian people from this abhorrent brutality.”
International law prohibits interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, including determining the legitimacy of their leaders. Moreover, Syria’s “abhorrent brutality” is entirely Western-backed. It was absent until Washington, key NATO partners, and rogue regional despots intervened, notably Saudi Arabia, and of course, Israel’s very much involved.
“We must work with the Syrian people toward building a brighter future for Syria….The suffering citizens of Syria must know: we are with you, and the Assad regime must come to an end.”
Long-suffering Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Somalis, Bahrainis, Yemenis, Palestinians, and many others elsewhere understand the horrors when America intervenes. So do Syrians. They abhor Washington led meddling in their internal affairs and want no part of it.
In fact, a mid-December Qatar Foundation-funded YouGov Siraj poll found 55% of Syrians back Assad. It contradicts Western discourse of majority opposition. Except for the London Guardian, the findings were unreported in the West.
في الحقيقة وفي منتصف كانون الأول قامت مؤسسة (YouGov Siraj) الممولة قطريا باستطلاع للرأي حيث وجدت أن 55% من السوريين يدعمون الأسد. وهذا يناقض الخطاب الغربي من أن المعارضة هي الغالبية وباستثناء “الغارديان” اللندنية فأن اكتشافات من هذا القبيل لم يأتي على ذكرها أحد من الغرب.
On February 4, Global Research editor Michel Chossudovsky explained “armed opposition groups” operating in Syria. They include the Western-backed Syria Free Army (FSA) “involved in criminal and terrorist acts.”
They’re killing civilians and security forces. They’re reigning terror blamed on Assad. They’re destroying state assets, including fuel pipelines, trains and vehicles carrying fuel, as well as buildings and other targets.
Their ranks include elements similar to Libyan insurgents, including “Al Qaeda affiliated” militants, “Muslim Brotherhood” members, and “Salafists. Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia” support them. So do other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) States and Jordan.
Largely the same countries behind the Syria draft resolution backed Resolution 1973 against Libya. Once passed, war followed straightaway.
They include sponsor Morocco and co-sponsors:
- Washington, Britain, France and Germany (the so-called NATO Quad – the key four) plus Portugal and Turkey;
- all six GCC states, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, UAE, and Bahrain plus Jordan and Libya;
- Colombia; and
- Togo – its UN envoy Kodjo Menan holds the rotating SC presidency during February.
Russia and China stood firm against them. Washington’s UN envoy Susan Rice accused both countries of holding the Security Council “hostage.” Responding, Russia’s UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin said:
The Security Council decision “should be exactly such because some influential members of the international community, including those sitting at this table, from the very beginning of the crisis in Syria undermined the opportunity of political settlement calling for change of the regime and setting the opposition against the power without shunning provocation and forcing for armed means of fighting.”
He added that the draft resolution didn’t reflect “reality in Syria,” nor did “co-authors” adopt Russia’s amendments to “distance” themselves “from (culpable) extremist groups” behind the insurrection.
On February 7, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and Foreign Intelligence Service chief Mikhail Fradkov will meet Assad in Damascus.
On February 5, a Foreign Ministry statement said:
“Russia, including in interaction with other countries, is firmly set to seek the quickest stabilization of the situation in Syria along the paths of the quickest implementation of longstanding democratic transformations.”
Moscow also urged Arab League foreign ministers to continue their monitoring mission and report accurately on what they find. Russia and China stand firm against another “Libyan scenario.”
A Final Comment
Washington and key NATO partners plan intervention with or without Security Council cover. Doing so violates fundamental international law that prohibits interfering in other countries’ internal affairs, except in self-defense if attacked.
Syria threatens no one. Neither does Iran. Yet both are targeted for regime change. Plans are longstanding. With or without UN support, they’re coming.
Expect the worst in 2012, preceded perhaps by false flag cover blamed on Assad. The strategy’s used as needed. It’s an America tradition to enlist public support for war.
Electoral politics may influence timing, especially in a close presidential race. According to the latest February 4 Rasmussen poll findings, “Romney now ties Obama 45/45.” Moreover, “uncommitted voters (12% of its sample) have a distinctly sour take on the President,” though months remain until November.
Expect unfolding events to attempt to improve Obama’s chances, including perhaps war by scaring most people to support it. It’s generally effective when tried. In a close election year race, odds favor it.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org .
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.