The lies of those unable to destroy the Syrian strength
By Ghaleb KANDIL
Syria was never the center of the universe as much as it is today. All around the world, hundreds of pieces of information and thousands of reports, rumors, fabricated pictures and made up news are emerging via media networks that are shedding light on contradictory positions and statements of senior Western officials. At this level, the Russian government is finding itself forced to issue quasi daily statements to deny many rumors and clarify the falsification affecting the positions of its officials.
Firstly, the American empire is doing its best to push the bitter cup away from it, i.e. the recognition of its defeat in the face of the Syrian state. Indeed, it is aware of what this recognition will generate in terms of the total collapse that will affect the governments collaborating with it in the region, and the repercussions whose prices will be paid by those involved in the global war it is leading against the Syrian national state and against a resisting liberation leader who defied American arrogance back when the whole world was under its control. Today, this leader’s status is similar to that of Fidel Castro in the fifties and sixties of last century. Despite the opportunity offered by Russia to the US to indirectly recognize the defeat, the American empire deployed all its efforts to sustain the violence on the ground, and exploited the Syrian state’s cooperation with Annan’s initiative to obstruct its effects via the Gulf and Turkish governments, Al-Qaeda, and other formations linked to that alliance such as the Lebanese Future Movement.
Secondly, the Western propaganda machine is spreading a massive amount of lies in regard to the Syrian situation, with the main goal of generating a climate that would compensate for the state of impotence endured by the Americans and all the NATO member states, in light of the regional and international balances and equations that are providing Syria with immunity. The first lie is the promotion of a settlement allowing President Bashar al-Assad to step down. At this level, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov exposed the rumor surrounding the existence of Russian-American negotiations over what is dubbed by the West “Syria in the post Al-Assad stage.” In reality, the American planners among others know that president Bashar al-Assad enjoys wide support in the ranks of the Syrian people and that this support has increased in light of the crisis sweeping the country, as well as its repercussions which are making the Syrians feel as though they and their country are being subjected to a foreign attack led by the Americans against the state. Hence, according to his people, President Bashar al-Assad is the head of the national state, the advocator of a pan-Arab resistance project and the symbol of Syrian nationalism and the resistance option in the face of the foreign attack which features a global alliance aiming at destroying the Syrian strength and at strengthening the gangs of mercenaries, intelligence agents and extremists. The inhabitants of the Syrian countryside have discovered that the latter could not be farther from the slogans of freedom and dignity, and that they have started to introduce foreign murderers by the hundreds, professional intelligence elements and extremist groups whose presence and role had always been rejected by Syrian society.
Thirdly, the second lie being promoted by the American propaganda is related to the claim that what is happening in Syria might slide towards civil war. The Western propaganda at this level was launched in the form of warnings against the threat of civil war, at a time when all the Western, Turkish and Gulf efforts have been pushing in that direction since the beginning of the incidents, through repeated attempts to depict the events as being a sectarian conflict and the adoption by the West and its agents in the region of the MB group and the gangs of takfir to which they offered all possible financial, military and media facilitations and assistance. The Syrian people on the other hand proved to be immune against these attempts, while the Syrian national state was able to maintain a wide base of popular support, to embrace its army and its national choices and engage in a battle to defend the country and the unity of the people alongside Syrian political and religious leaders.
Fourthly, the third lie was the claim that the conflict between the Syrian state and the terrorist gangs was revolving in a vicious circle and that it would be impossible to settle this confrontation. However, the reality which was confirmed by the events is that this issue is primarily linked to the approach adopted by the Syrian state in dealing with the strongholds of the armed men, through an insistence on sparing the Syrian people as many losses as possible. Hence, just like the situation was settled in Baba Amr based on the state’s decision and timing, the situation was settled in the town of Al-Haffa and the action is ongoing to liquidate the remaining strongholds and dens in the city of Homs. In the meantime, the Syrian Arab forces achieved decisive progress in the border regions with Turkey and Lebanon where the armed gangs tried to impose their control. This reveals that the issue is not about the Syrian state’s ability, but about the timing it chooses and the issuance of the orders to the army which has not yet used even a portion of its strength in crushing the armed rebellion. These efforts eventually aim at reaching disarmament, after the state gave the armed men all possible opportunities to surrender their weapons peacefully and offered incentives which pushed thousands among them to cooperate with the governmental calls during the last couple of months since the launching of Annan’s missions.
Fifthly, the fourth lie which was recently promoted focused on the attempt to revive the illusion regarding the possibility of launching war on Syria through the presentation of scenarios for military strikes carried out by the American troops and NATO following the collapse of other deceptive tales about direct Turkish war against Syria. At the level of this scenario, all the strategic facts that have become known stress that such an adventure could lead to a great confrontation around the world and in the region, which could cause Israel to pay the price. In the meantime, the new international balances and the aggressiveness of the Russian-Chinese performance are acquiring credibility, to the point where Henry Kissinger assured that an attack on Syria could trigger a global war in which no one in the West can engage and whose consequences would be extremely difficult to bear for a thousand and one reasons.
Lies are the American tools in the context of the psychological war to compensate for the inability of the colonial alliance to confront the resistance launched by Syria, as a population, an army and a state led by Al-Assad to defend its freedom and independence. It would be enough to look at the Istanbul council, i.e. the collaborating front that has no political slogan but the call for NATO’s occupation of Syria, along with the gangs, that include thieves, murderers and thugs. In the meantime, reform which is led by the Syrian state is proceeding in accordance with the project that is open to dialogue with all the opposition movements under the auspices of President Al-Assad.
Egypt and the ongoing political turmoil
Regardless of the results of the Egyptian presidential elections which will be held on Saturday and Sunday between MB candidate Mohammad Morsi and former Prime Minister under Mubarak’s rule Ahmad Shafik, it is clear that the American engineering of the balances requires the obstruction of the rise of the Egyptian strength and the renewal of the pressures aiming at sustaining political turmoil for as long as possible. In case the MB candidate wins, the confrontation will continue in the context of the conflict over power between the MB organization and the military institution. The arena of the conflict will be the drafting of a new constitution, and this was clear in light of the determination of the military institution to open the door before the reorganization of the legislative elections via a decision by the Supreme Court to annul the membership of one third of the members of the recently elected People’s Assembly.
In case Shafik is elected president, he will be the military council’s ally, and will practically lead to the renewal of the popular actions under the slogan of preventing the return of the former regime. The MB command’s inclination to monopolize power and engage in deals with the Americans in regard to the protection of the Camp David accord, rendered it impossible to form a wide scale political alliance that would allow Morsi to earn the support of the influential popular bloc whose real size emerged in the first round of the presidential elections, via the votes acquired by the nationalist candidates and especially candidates Hamdin Sabahi and Abdul Monem Abu al-Foutouh. This is why the call for a partnership appeared to be a request for a full assignment and full submission to the MB.
The MB organization is trying to get the support of the popular blocs looking for change, by borrowing and summoning the slogans of the revolution, at a time when suspicions are surrounding the positions and choices of the MB leaders within the organization itself. At this level, the last few months revealed the dubious character of the policy advocated by the MB leaders, in light of the adoption of political recipes and action plans going against the slogans which characterized Morsi’s electrical campaign. Moreover, the MB command used a thousand pretexts to justify its commitment to the protection of Camp David and its attempt to reach a deal with the Americans who drew up plans aiming at maintaining the Egyptian political scene within the context of the army-MB duo. Clearly, the popular weight of the so-called remnants of the regime is not to be taken lightly, and this was revealed by the votes earned by Shafik and Amr Moussa. Hence, the confrontation between these two main directions is keeping the game within the general restraints that are taking into account the American interest in preventing the emergence of a new political reality at the level of the Egyptian state headed by the national wing, one which was represented in the presidential elections by more than one candidate during the first round and whose weight was clearly greater – by comparison – than the support earned by the MB organization.
Morsi, is not distant from the bloc which includes the military council and the influential bureaucratic groups in the Egyptian state, usually dubbed the remnants. Indeed, a recent American report revealed that throughout five years under Mubarak’s rule, Morsi was in charge of coordination between the MB command and the state security apparatus. On the ground, the American arrangement is that in case Shafik is elected, he would coexist with the MB’s role at the People’s Assembly, the government and the Constituent Assembly tasked with the drafting of the constitution, based on the understandings secured by the American officials with the International Organization of the Muslim Brotherhood and the ongoing wager on the activation of Turkish-Qatari influence over the group’s leaders in Egypt. But if Morsi wins, the staging of the People’s Assembly elections – according to all experts- will introduce new balances with the emergence of the bloc led by Shafik and Amr Moussa as a power which the Americans and their allies in the region are trying to transform into a political party that would be a partner in the Egyptian equation and in the competition against the MB in any upcoming legislative elections.
The confrontation in Egyptian society is ongoing between three main blocs. There is the MB organization which is characterized by an opportunistic behavior practiced by its political command in order to reach power at whichever price, while willing to conduct all the required tradeoffs for that end. There is also the state bureaucracy led by the military council. This bloc enjoys wide influence in society through a base of millions of employees in the various state apparatuses, including the judges who are being polarized under the slogan of Egypt’s non-surrender to the MB and the sustainment of a political approach based on the protection of the relations with the West and the Arab states affiliated with Western influence in the Gulf. As to the third bloc, which is still un-organized until now and is facing the challenge of becoming a unified political power, it includes all the popular nationalistic and revolutionary forces that are adopting the option of social and political change, resistance against Western colonial hegemony over Egypt, the toppling of the camp David accord and the ending of the siege on Gaza. The Egyptian presidential elections will not settle the conflict over power, rather constitute one of the stops along its course. Egypt’s future will thus witness more battles between the three main blocs that are acting on the ground and at the level of the institutions, ones which will witness labors, changes and ongoing dismantlement and construction in the context of a change process in which the Egyptian street will play a decisive role to determine the political outcome.
A large part of this outcome will also depend on Hamdin Sabahi’s and Abdul Monem Abu al-Foutouh’s ability –following the second round of the presidential elections- to develop the change project and organize their political ranks in the context of one popular front which is able to secure the right size and role that go in line with the wide popular credit revealed by the ballot boxes at the end of May.
The ministers of superpowers
When the spokeswoman for US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton comes out to say that the secretary had launched serious talks with her Russian counterpart over Syria in the post Al-Assad stage, and when she is followed by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius who issues similar statements, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is forced to hold a press conference and announce that both ministers are lying and that the Russian political approach completely opposed such discussions since it was based on the rejection of foreign tutelage.
Lavrov, who is mad about the decadence featured in the statements of America’s and France’s foreign ministers, conveyed the extent of the trust in political clarity and morals at the level of diplomatic action, at a time when neither Clinton nor Fabius enjoy political clarity or diplomatic manners. The reason for that is the fact that Lavrov is reassured by the course of the events in Syria where the ally is strong, where the thwarting of the Western project is still ongoing and where the opponents are confused, spreading lies to conceal their impotence and giving those who wagered on them false illusions. Those relying on the West are reaping illusions based on lies, while those relying on the strength of their army and their president’s steadfastness are reaching victory on the field and sustaining reliable allies.
On the security level, the armed terrorist groups continued their attacks in more then one Syrian region, at a time when the security apparatuses were able to cleanse the Al-Khalediya and Bab Sebaa neighborhoods in Homs from the terrorist remnants. They also stormed many dens in which the armed terrorist groups were hiding, found several explosive substances and weapons in numerous areas and thwarted a number of suicide operations.
In the meantime, the Syrian television aired a phone call between two individuals, one of them using a Turkish phone chip and another called Ghayth Mohammad Sadek Kilia, who were preparing to commit a massacre against the population in Al-Haffa and the village of Tfil in Rif Latakia. One of the callers said to the other: “Slaughter the hostages and prisoners we are holding in Tfil and put their pictures online to make it appear as though a massacre committed by the regime had taken place. Let our men manipulate the media a little.” At the same time the American Department of State mentioned it feared the perpetration of massacres in the city of Al-Haffa in Latakia.
On Wednesday, Damascus assured that the country was not witnessing civil war and was rather fighting terrorism, in response to the statements of UN under-Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations Herve Ladsous, in which he said that Syria was now facing civil war.
On Saturday, the UN observers’ mission to Syria suspended it activities due to the mounting violence. Major General Robert Mood thus said that the escalating bloodshed was threatening the lives of the three hundred unarmed observers deployed in the Syrian cities.
_On Saturday, the Saudi royal court announced the death of Crown Prince Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud in Geneva where he had been receiving medical treatment. The prince died eight months after having succeeded to his older brother Sultan, which paved the way before countless speculations in regard to who will be the next in line for succession. Defense Minister Prince Salman is the most likely to become the crown prince since he enjoys seniority after the late Nayef. The latter was openly opposed to King Abdullah’s reforms in the kingdom while Salman – who has been serving as Riyadh’s governor for five decades – is believed to be closer to the current monarch’s inclinations.
The Egyptian parliament elected the Constituent Assembly which includes one hundred figures, amid withdrawals from underneath parliament’s dome by civilian parties and independent deputies in protest against what they considered to be “the control of the Islamic wing over the assembly.” Some even threatened to resort to the judiciary to annul this election. The supreme constitutional court issued a sentence in regard to disbandment of parliament and the rejection of the political isolation law.
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces assured that the second round of the presidential elections will be held on time on Saturday and Sunday and that there was no change at this level. For their part, political forces expressed their disgruntlement towards both rulings, saying they will bring Egypt back to the climate that prevailed before the January 25 revolution, while other forces called for the respect of these judicial sentences.
The issues tackled by the Israeli newspapers issued this week were quite numerous. However, the most prominent one was the warning addressed by Israeli experts against the possibility of seeing the eruption of a third Palestinian uprising in case the settlement policy is sustained in the West Bank regions and in case the violence adopted by the Israeli settlers against the Palestinian citizens is upheld.
On the other hand, the papers shed light on the statements issued by Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon and in which he said “if we’ll have to choose between a strike and an Iranian bomb, we’ll choose a strike.” Alongside Ya’alon’s statement, the papers criticized and analyzed the report on the interception of the international flotilla which was heading to Gaza in 2010, but also the process launched by the immigration authority to deport the South Sudanese infiltrators. They also tackled the medal received by Peres, i.e. the presidential freedom medal, which is the highest granted by the US to figures who contributed to world peace.
For its part, Haaretz pointed to the announcement made by the MB members of the Egyptian parliamentary delegation regarding the fact that they will not participate in the meeting which was supposed to be held next week at the American capital Washington and was organized by the Israeli Foreign Ministry.
The Wadi Khaled region in the Akkar valley witnessed mutual kidnapping operations against political sectarian backdrops between the citizens, as well as armed deployment and the erection of checkpoints. In light of this escalation, contacts were launched and involved official leaders and dignitaries from Akkar and Wadi Khaled, resulting in the release of the kidnapped from both sides. In the meantime, the Bab Tebanne-Jabal Mohsen axis has been witnessing stability following the recent tensions.
On June 11, dialogue was held in Baabda and resulted in the Baabda Declaration, which stressed civil peace and warned against the use of arms and the slide towards strife. According to the same declaration, this required all the political and intellectual leaders to distance themselves from any acute political or media statements and fromanything which might provoke disputes, tensions and sectarian and denominational instigation. The Baabda Declaration also provided a real cover for the Lebanese army and stressed the insistence on the Taif accord and Lebanon’s distancing from the regional and international axes policy and the negative repercussions of the regional tensions and crises. Dialogue was held in the absence of Saad al-Hariri and finance minister Mohammad al-Safadi and was boycotted by Samir Geagea.
Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah assured in an interview on an Iranian television channel that the party’s current military capabilities could not be compared to its capabilities during the previous stage. He said: “The resistance missiles are now able to reach all the vital targets inside Israel,” pointing to Israel’s recognition of the party’s deterrence capabilities. He then cautioned against the attempts deployed by the US and its agents to thwart the revolutions and Islamic awakenings in the region, assuring on the other hand: “The occupation entity is weaker than ever before and its threats to strike Iran fall in the context of a psychological war and constitute an attempt to blackmail the international community.”
New Orient News (Lebanon)