Ex-Minister: US Helping ISIL in Iraq

TEHRAN (FNA)- Former Iraqi Transport Minister Salam al-Maliki underlined that Washington is on the same side with the ISIL, and urged his country's popular forces to expedite uprooting the terrorists in Al-Anbar province.
  • Published in World

The Russian Army is beginning to Engage in Syria

After having negotiated a regional alliance against the Islamic Emirate which implied Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey, Russia suddenly had to abandon its strategy after the Turkish turn-around. Ankara has in fact decided to break off its ties with Moscow, and has cancelled, without genuine motive, the contract for the gas pipe-line Turkish Stream, created, in partenership with Ukraine, an international Islamic Brigade intended to destabilise Crimea [1]. It has also come to the help of the Islamic Emirate in their fight against the Kurds of the PKK and the YPG.

In the same way, the White House has been obliged to change its own strategy after the manœuvers by General John Allen, who agreed to help President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to create a « security zone »for the Islamic Emirate in Northern Syria [2].

Finally, Moscow and Washington have coordinated

- the removal of Patriot missiles stationed in Turkey ;

- the creation of a Russo-Syrian military Commission.

The end of the no-fly zone

The Patriot missiles had been installed by NATO in Turkey as from January 2013, in order to prevent the Syrian Air Force from deploying on the frontier. As a result, the jihadists of the al-Nusra Front (al-Qaïda) were able to seize the North of the country, and as from the summer of 2014, this no-fly zone was occupied by the Islamic Emirate.

Thus, during the battle of Kobane, the Syrian Air Force were unable to bomb the Islamic Emirate, and Syria was obliged to attempt a land attack to save the city. Since it was unable to advance the last thirty kilometres, the Atlantist Press presented the Kurdish forces of the YPG as being independent of Damascus, although the Syrian Arab Republic had supplied it with weapons and was paying its soldiers.

The Patriot missiles, initially deployed by Germany and Holland, are today German and Spanish. They will first of all be revised and modernised, then redeployed in Lithuania, at the Russian frontier.

The entrance of the Russian army into the war against Syria

Although Russia had abstained from participating in military operations since the beginning of the conflict, it has now created a Russo-Syrian Military Commission. And yet, NATO had organised all the events concerned in what was called the « Arab spring », including the war against Syria, and coordinated foreign jihadist groups and their Libyan and Syrian collaborators, called « rebels », from the Turkish base in Izmir [3], now also the location of LancCom (command of the land troops of the 28 member states of the Atlantic Alliance).

Within a few weeks, many military advisors arrived in Damascus.

Six Mikoyan-Gourevitch MiG-31’s were delivered. These planes are the best interceptors in the world. They had been bought in 2007, but the contract had been frozen. Their delivery is not affected by the arms embargo, since they can not be used in operations concerning the maintenance of law and order, but only for national defence, in this case, possible incursions by Israël or Turkey. Under various pretexts, these two states acted many time during the war to support the jihadists whenever they were in difficulty.

So, on the 30th January 2013, Tsahal bombed the Centre for Military Research in Jemraya, under the pretext of destroying weapons that were destined for Hezbollah. In fact, the attack was intended to destroy a communications brief-case captured by the Syrian Arab Army, containing NATO satellite data, before they were able to decipher it [4]. The operation had been commanded by the Israeli Air Force in coordination with the Free Syrian Army, which in turn was directed by officers of the French Foreign Legion under the supervision of NATO’s LandCom.

Simultaneously, and for the first time, the Russian army has just supplied satellite images to Syria. This decision, awaited for five years, inverses the military situation. Indeed, so far the jihadists have often escaped the Syrian Arab Army thanks to satellite images supplied by NATO in real time. Even though, over a six-month period, it would seem that NATO no longer shares its intelligence with the Islamic Emirate, but only with the al-Nusra Front (al-Qaïda).

Finally, the Russian military advisors possess a wealth of information which they use in order to study the possibility of an international deployment under banner of the UNO. They have to present a report to the Kremlin which would also study the possibility of a Russian operation as well as a joint operation by the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).

The CSTO will be meeting in Douchanbe, Tadjikistan, on the 15th September. A deployment by the CSTO had aleady been envisaged, in June 2012, during the preparation for the « Geneva Conference 1 » [5]. Indeed, this military alliance includes three states with a Muslim population - Kazakhstan, Kirghizistan, and Tadjikistan, who are better prepared than Russia to fight terrorists who claim to be Islamist. However, at the time, the CSTO had no agreement with the UNO to carry out peace operations. This situation was resolved on the 28th September 2012 – it could also be applied as well in Afghanistan as in Syria [6].

The limits of the cooperation between the Kremlin and the White House

In any event, the cooperation between the Kremlin and the White House has its limits – Russia wants to eradicate the jihadists before they turn against her, while the United States hope that some of them could be re-activated in other conflicts, as was earlier the case in Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chechnya and Kosovo.

Already, certain elements of Daesh have arrived in Kherson (Ukraine), where a so-called « Crimean Government in Exile » already exists.

It is apparent that from the US side, the withdrawal of the Patriot missiles is a trap. Washington would be happy for Russia to reduce the number of active jihadists, but at the same time, it would not be dismayed if it were to get bogged down in Syria. That is why the Russian bear is advancing prudently.

The world after the Washington/Teheran agreement

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.

The end of the artificial Sunnite/Chiite conflict

For 35 years, we have watched the slow development of an abyss between the Sunnites, commanded by their Saudi champion, and the Chiites, commanded by their Iranian leader. The former defended the United States and their capitalist economic model, while the latter hoped to die delivering the world from Anglo-Saxon imperialism.

This conflict, and this form of economic cleavage, had never before in History existed at such a degree of intensity. It peaked with the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaïda and Daesh, three movements financed by the Gulf monarchies and their allies, and from time to time, Israël against the Chiites.

Since the 14th July, and without the slightest explanation, Riyadh has ceased to evoke this religious conflict, which has clearly been resolved without the help of the theologians. Saudi Arabia is no longer fighting Iran, which is now a partner of its US overlord, but finds itself in opposition to Iran in the new Near East. So now Riyadh is no longer claiming to represent the Sunnites, but the Arabs, while Iran can no longer pose as the leader of the Chiites, but only the Persians.

However, until 2010, the Arab world was no longer under unilateral Saudi control, but governed by a triumvirate composed of Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

The evolution of CentCom

Although the reform of CentCom is not yet on the schedule, the subject will have to be addressed soon. Currently, its zone of competence includes the Near East and Central Asia. However, we should not only be seeing peace coming to Yemen and Syria very soon, but we may also see the war moving on towards the Black Sea, Turkey and Crimea.

The United Nations have announced their intention to organise inter-Syrian negotiations and refer them to a « contact group », in other words, the powers that have been sponsoring the war for the last four and a half years.

Globally speaking, we are moving towards an agreement which will recognise the « victory » of Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and that of Iran in Syria.

Stefan de Mistura, Ban Ki-moon’s special envoy, has declared : « • I intend to invite the Syrians to participate in a round of simultaneous thematic debates, engaged in parallel within the framework of an inter-Syrian work group, to look closely at the fundamental aspects of the Geneva Communiqué, which they identified during the primary phase of consultations, and which specifically aim to guarantee the security and protection of all, to find a way to end the sieges, to guarantee access to medical care and to free prisoners.

• The second phase will concentrate on the political and constitutional aspects, notably the essential principles, the transitory authorities and the elections.

• The third phase will concern the military and security aspects, particularly an efficient opposition to terrorism with the participation of all, as well as the cease-fires and integration.

• The fourth phase will concern public institutions, construction and development, which means, as we have pointed out, that we must do whatever is necessary to avoid reproducing what happened in Iraq, specifically, when the institutions have brutally vanished, and the country is in a situation of great difficulty. These institutions must continue to ensure public services, under the direction of their universally accepted leaders, and who act in respect of the principles of good government and human rights. » [1]

At the same time, Turkey has opened a new front by declaring war on its Kurdish minority. This decision, if it were to continue, would plunge the country into a long and terrible civil war. After all sorts of contradictory declarations, the United States has forbidden it to pursue the PKK into Syria – where it is known under the name of the YPG – so that, finally, Syria will become the host nation for the Kurdish revolutionaries.

Above all, Turkey has broken off the economic relations that it had been building with Russia over the last eight months, and has constituted an « International Islamist Brigade » with Ukraine, in other words, a terrorist organisation destined to destabilise Crimea [2].

In the absence of a legitimate government in Turkey, a situation which has now lasted for more than a month, it is impossible to predict what will become of the country, but it is clear that the worst is possible.

What are the United States hoping to gain from Resolution 2235 ?

In the present context, we observe with anxiety the unanimous adoption by the Security Council of Resolution 2235. It has been agreed to create a mechanism for inquiry run conjointly by the OPCW and the UNO in order to determine who is using chemical weapons in Syria [3].

The investigators of the OPCW, who until now did not have a mandate to determine who is using chemical weapons, have established that at least 14 attacks using chlorine were perpetrated in 2014. The US ambassador claimed that these weapons were delivered by helicopter, which the « rebels » do not possess. In other words, the OPCW and the UNO were engaging the responsibility of the Syrian Arab Republic. However, a careful reading of the three preceding reports by the OPCW [4] reveals another possibility – these attacks may have been perpetrated by the Turkish army, as the Syrian ambassador claims. He also expressed his satisfaction that the resolution had been adopted.

Let us note that doubts about Turkey’s role are legitimate, taking into account that on the 11th May 2013, it organised a false-flag attack in Reyhanlı which killed fifty of its own citizens in order to accuse Syria, and that, on the 21st August 2013, it organised a chemical attack against the Ghouta in Damascus, once again in order to accuse Syria and attempt to drag NATO into war, and that in March 2014, the Turkish army entered the Syro-Armenian village of Kessab with al-Qaïda and the Islamic Army (pro-Saudi militia) to ransack the village and continue the genocide of the Armenian people.

The OPCW reports are already eight months old, but have only now given rise to this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Coucil each have at their disposition a satellite system which enables them to determine the responsibility for these chemical attacks. In the event that the OPCW and the UNO were to establish the responsibility of Turkey, Mr. Erdoğan would become the scapegoat for the entire Syrian crisis.

The hardening of relations between Washington and Moscow

The US-Iran peace accord leaves Washington the latitude to concentrate on working to counter Moscow.

We mentioned earlier the transfer of Daesh jihadistes to Crimea by Ukraine and Turkey. Basically, this is no more than the reprise of the sabotage operations that were executed inside the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

More serious is the US attempt to use the destruction of flight MH17 to accuse Russia. On the 29th July, Washington presented the Security Council with a project for a resolution aimed at establishing an international penal Tribunal in order to judge the authors of this crime [5]. It was clearly a court created to condemn President Vladimir Putin, just as the special Tribunal had been created for Lebanon – using false testimony – to condemn Presidents Bachar el-Assad and Emile Lahoud.

Naturally enough, Russia opposed the project by using its veto. One can not avoid thinking of the proposition made by President Barack Obama to his Russian opposite number in 2011, promising to support him if he agreed to bring his Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, before an international court. There was talk at the time of holding the potential defendant responsible for the war in Chechnya, which had in fact been organised by Washington.

EU, Latin American-Caribbean Group Seek Common Ground

BRUSSELS – Leaders of the European Union and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, known as CELAC, came together on Wednesday for a summit intended to foster a consensus on facing current global challenges.

  • Published in World

Flagpole goes up outside Cuba's future embassy in Washington

Cuban diplomats gathered Wednesday for the installation of a flagpole outside the office that will become the island nation's embassy in Washington as part of the process of bilateral normalization initiated last December.

A score of officials, led by the chief of the Cuban Interests Section, Jose Cabañas, sang Cuba's national anthem and applauded as workers erected the pole outside the office in Columbia Heights, about 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) from the White House.

Journalists and onlookers gathered on the strip of grass separating the future embassy from the street.


The pole will remain without a flag until the interests section formally becomes an embassy.

Still in place is the sign reading "Embassy of Switzerland, Cuban Interests Section," reflecting the mission's official status as a dependency of the Swiss Embassy.

The raising of the flagpole at the interests section could be a sign that the renewal of diplomatic relations - severed in 1961 - is getting closer.

At the conclusion of the most recent round of normalization talks late last month, the chief U.S. negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson, said the remaining issues could be resolved by the respective interests sections in Washington and Havana without the need for another high-level meeting.

Analysts have interpreted Jacobson's comments, along with the May 29 removal of Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, as clues that the re-opening of embassies is imminent.

  • Published in Cuba

Cuba - "Dissident": Their Gradual Fading

They are essentially annexionists who, ultimately, are only a foreign body within the core of the Cuban society.  

A New Herald columnist, Daniel Morcate, repeated his cry for the widespread scorn they inspire.

He did it this Thursday under the title: "Voices of our Conscience", where he mentions their absence on the current Cuban-American negotiation process.

As Morcate wrote, Obama made a historical mistake when excluding the “domestic opposition" from the dialogue on the relationships and the future of Cuba.

In opposition he says that, as he referred to the issue, it won’t happen again, but it does.

He explains that, even better, it was approached by his friend and famous man of the U.S. special services, Carlos Alberto Montaner.

He clarifies that this time he would talk about the repercussion of what happened for the "dissidence."

Firstly, Morcate asserts, they should intensify their efforts in joining the dialogue.

According to his point of view, their roles as facilitators on the democratic change don’t allow them to keep being excluded.

Although, he thinks, the most probable outcome, after they have fulfilled that essential role, their fellow countrymen would repay them with "ingratitude and resentment."

Domestic opponents, he adds, are very similar to the free men and women living in the island.  

With their daily attitude they show to the majority of Cubans which the road to freedom, he wrote.

However, for that to happen, it’s indispensable that they incorporate to the political processes in which the future of the island is planned.

But how to do it when they are excluded regarding such steps, like the governments of Havana and Washington have done in their official talks?

Hence Daniel Morcate implicitly accuses the United States of hindering what they call the road toward to freedom in Cuba.

Some members of the opposition agreed to meet North American officials who lavish them with excuses and promises of “not forgetting the dissidence."

There is their admitted Achilles’ heel.

They are essentially annexionists who, ultimately, are only a foreign body within the core of the Cuban society.

Some examples, corroborate that.

Global Research website published an article under the title:”Cuban dissidents financed by the United States."

It received a large number of hits on April 16, 2010 and its author was Salim Lamrani.

The latter began quoting the interview he made to Wayne Smith, former ambassador of the White House in Cuba.

He declared that it was illegal and reckless –like Washington does- to send money to the "dissidents."

He added that the United States declares its intention of overthrowing the Cuban government and on the other hand it proposes that one of the roads to achieve this is to provide resources to the dissidents.

Smith reasons, this puts them immediately as hired "agents of a foreign power" that attempts to overthrow their own government."

An employee of that media (Yoani Sánchez) had a discrepancy with the former North American ambassador.

What did she say? I believe it has presented itself the financing of opposition by the United States as a reality, "while this is not the case."

Nearly eight months later, December 22, "Rebellion" commented in Madrid:

For half century Washington’s foreign policy towards Havana whose objective is to "get a régime change", is based on two main pillars.

The first one, the imposition of drastic economic sanctions that affect the entire Cuban society, and the second to organize and finance a domestic opposition.

Almost three months ago, February 15, the publication Havana Times wrote: Funds to Promote Democracy in Cuba. List of beneficiaries.

It was signed by Tracey Eaton, explaining that the National Foundation for Democracy is an important receiver of the North American government.

The aforementioned Foundation resides in Washington and uses part of that money in making programs "on the democracy in Cuba."

The Havana Times another newspaper named the five organizations, groups or companies that received more funds:

Cuban Democratic Directorate; International Group for the Corporate Social Responsibility in Cuba; Daily Association of Cuba; Cubanet News, and People in Need.

About two months later, Progreso Semanal revealed in Miami that since 1996 about a thousand million dollars were invested in schemes on the democracy in Cuba.

Who were involved in such a propagandistic orgy?

The Department of State, the Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Foundation for Democracy.

Also, the Board of Governors of Broadcasting that supervises Radio and TV Martí.

Then it’s comprehensible that Cuba and United States have not included in their process of gradual approach those who would take out the seriousness of these talks.

Havana and Washington Consider More Meetings on Human Rights

Cuba´s permanent representative in Geneva, ambassador Anayansi Rodriguez, said that the March 31 Cuba-US talks on human rights were held in the expected atmosphere of professionalism and respect and considered further meetings on the topic.

Both sides discussed the methodological basis for future talks on the issue and they addressed some important topics that will be of mutual interest in upcoming meetings, said the diplomat.

As we expected, we ratified the differences between our countries as to the human rights issue, both in the national arena and as how human rights are promoted and protected in the two nations as well as in the international scenario, in multilateral forums that address this issue.

The diplomat said that both sides ratified their capacity to hold a respectful, professional and civilized dialog on the issue by recognizing their differences in terms of their perceptions and even the balance regarding civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, which for Cuba they are indivisible, they are interconnected and none of them have more importance than the others because Cuba addresses them in an integral way. These differences surfaced during the dialog, the diplomat said.

Meanwhile, international media cited statements by a State Department official at the end of the talks referring that "The atmosphere of the meeting was professional, and there was broad agreement on the way forward for a future substantive dialogue."

"Both sides expressed willingness to discuss a wide range of topics in future substantive talks," the official added.

The U.S. delegation was led by Tom Malinowski, the State Department's assistant secretary for human rights and democracy. And the Cuban delegation was headed by Pedro Luis Pedroso, deputy director of multilateral affairs and law at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

  • Published in Cuba
Subscribe to this RSS feed