by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
Marcel Proust once said: “The voyage of discovery is not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.” During the past two decades, I visited Iran on numerous occasions staying 10-14 days at a time. This time around, I stayed for 2 months and heeding Proust, I carried with me a fresh pair of eyes. I discarded both my Western lenses as well as my Iranian lenses and observed with objective eyes. It was a formidable journey that left me breathless.
Part I - Women of the Islamic Republic of Iran
It is hard to know where to start a travel log and how to describe a newfound world in a few pages. However, given the West’s obsession (and the “Westernized” Iranians living abroad) to rescue Iranian women from their perceived “oppression” (while simultaneously imposing illegal and immoral sanctions on them!) perhaps it is appropriate to start with the women in Iran as I perceived them.
Western media with help from feminists and Iranians living outside of Iran portray Iranian women as being “oppressed” -- foremost because women in Iran have to abide by an Islamic dress code - hijab. Yes, hijab is mandatory and women choose to either wear either a chador or to wear a scarf. But what is crucial to understand is the role chador played in pre 1979 versus the post Revolution era.
Prior to the 1979 Revolution, the chador was indicative of a thinly veiled caste system. While a few distinguished women of high socio-economical background chose to wear the chador, the rest, the majority of Iranian women, were simply born into the habit. In short, the socio-economically disadvantaged wore the pre 1979 chador. In those days, the chador was a hindrance to a woman’s progress; she was looked down at and frowned upon. She could not move forward or up. She was oppressed. But Western feminists were blind to this oppression. After all, the Shah was modern and America’s friendly dictator.
The Revolution changed the status quo and chipped away at the caste system. A revolution, by definition, is a complete change in the way people live and work. And so it is with the Iranian Revolution. The post 1979 chador is no longer an impediment to a woman’s future. Today’s Iranian woman, the same (formerly) less privileged class, has found freedom in their chador. They have been unshackled and they march on alongside their (formerly) more privileged colleagues. This emancipation is what the Western/Westernized feminists see as oppression.
I myself come from yesterday’s tiny minority of “privileged” women, far too comfortable in my “Western” skin to want to promote hijab, but I will not allow my personal preferences to diminish the value of the progress made because of hijab. The bleeding hearts from without should simply change their tainted lenses instead of trying to change the lives of others for Iranian women do not need to be rescued, they do not follow – they lead.
On two separate occasions I had the opportunity to sit and talk with a group of PhD students at Tehran University’s Global Studies Department. Frankly, these young women charmed me. Their inquisitive and sharp minds, their keen intellect, their vast knowledge, their fluent English, and their utter confidence dazzled me. Western feminists would consider them “oppressed”. Seems to me that feminism needs rescuing, not Iranian women.
The inordinate success of women goes vastly beyond education; they participate in every aspect of society -- motherhood, arts and sciences, high tech, film and cinema, research, business, administration, politics, sports, armed forces, etc. Women’s prominent role in society is undeniable. What I found tantalizing was their role as cultural gatekeepers.
Women - The Cultural Warriors
Cultural imperialism is part and parcel of neocolonialism. The eradication of an indigenous culture and replacing it with a hegemonic one enables the hegemon to exert influence on the subject nation – to own it. And women are the nuclei. They hold the family together and pass on traditions. To this end, in every colonial adventure, regardless of geography, women have been the primary target (i.e. victims of rescue). Iran has been no different. While some have indeed abandoned their culture in order to embrace that of another, the vast majority have resisted and fought back with authentic Iranian tradition.
One group of these cultural warriors left a deep impact on me. I attended a dance ensemble at the famous Roudaki Hall (Talar Roudaki). Girls aged 6 to 18 sent the packed hall into a thunderous applause when they danced to various traditional songs from around the country. Their dance was not MTV stuff. It reflected the beauty and the purity of an ancient culture. Their movements and gestures were not intended to be seductive, they were graceful and poetic ushering in the ancient past and bonding it with the present, strengthening it. These were the women of Iran who would guard Iran’s precious culture and traditions against modern, Western culture deemed central to ‘civilization’ and ‘freedom’ by Western feminists.
It is not my intention to give the false impression that every woman in Iran is happy, successful, and valued. Like any other society, Iran has its share of unhappy, depressed girls and women. It has its share of women who have been abused and betrayed. It has its share of girls and women who turn to drugs, prostitution, or both. I came across these as well. I also confirm that laws in Iran do not favor women, be it divorce, child custody, or inheritance. But if and when the Iranian society decides to change its current laws (or maintain the status quo), it will do so without outside interference and on its own terms. I have no doubt that any outside interference will receive a negative and opposite reaction.
Part II – Esprit de Corps Washington Just Doesn’t Get It
Numerous visitors have travelled to Iran and brought back reports describing the landscape, the food, the friendliness of the people, the impact of the sanctions, and so forth. For the most part, these reports have been accurate -- albeit incomplete. I do not want to tire the reader by repeating my observations on these same topics; rather, I invite the reader to share my journey into the soul of the country – the spirit of the Iranian nation.
Washington’s missteps are, in part, due to the simple fact that Washington receives flawed intelligence on Iran and Iranians. This has been a long-standing pattern with Washington. Prior to the 1979 Revolution, a plethora of US personnel lived in Iran. Thousands of CIA agents were stationed there. Their task went beyond teaching torture techniques to the Shah’s secret police; they were, after all, spies. In addition to the military personnel that came in tow with the military equipment sold to the Shah by the U.S., there were official US personnel who worked at the American Embassy in Tehran. None got it.
They all failed miserably in their assessment of Iranians. These personnel were simply too busy enjoying a lavish lifestyle in Iran. As the aforementioned travellers have all repeated, Iran is beautiful, the food scrumptious, the people hospitable. These personnel attended lavish parties thrown by those close to the Shah (or other affluent Iranians) and lived the kind of life they could not have dreamt of elsewhere. American ambassadors doled out visas to the lazy kids of these same families who would not have otherwise been able to make it to the US under normal student visa requirements. These same Iranian people, the privileged elite, provided Americans in Iran with intelligence – inaccurate, flawed information which was passed onto Washington. To this end, Washington believed Iran would remain a client state for the unforeseen future. The success of the revolution was a slap in the face.
For the past several decades, Washington has continued to act on flawed intelligence. Today, Washington relies on the “expertise” of some in the Iranian Diaspora who have not visited Iran once since the revolution. In addition to the “Iran experts”, Washington has found itself other sources of ‘intelligence’, foremost; the Mojahedeen Khalg (MEK) terrorist cult who feed Washington information provided them by Israel. Previous to this assignment, the cult was busy fighting alongside Saddam Hossein. Is it any surprise that Washington is clueless on Iran. What Washington can’t fathom is the source of Iran’s strength, its formidable resilience.
Thanks to its ‘experts’, and the personal experience of some visitors, Washington continues to believe that the Iranian people love America and they are waiting to be ‘rescued’ from their rulers. True – Iranians are generous, hospitable, and charming. They welcome visitors as guest regardless of their country or origin. This is part and parcel of their culture. They also believe a guest is a ‘blessing from God’ -- mehmoon barekate khodast. Karime khodast. But they are not waiting for. This is what Washington is not able to grasp. Washington to rid them of their rulers – quiet the contrary.
While the Iranian people love people of all nationalities, including Americans, they see Washington for what it is. Washington and its policies have adversely affected virtually every single family in Iran for the past several decades. These include those whose dreams and hopes were shattered by the CIA orchestrated coup against their nascent democracy and its popular leader, Mossadegh, later, parents whose children were arrested, brutally tortured, killed or simply disappeared at the hands of the Shah’s CIA/Mossad trained secret police. And then there are the millions of war widows or orphans, the maimed soldiers, and the victims of chemical weapons supplied to Saddam Hossein by America to use against Iranians while the UN closed its eyes. Additionally, there are also the victims of American sponsored terrorism, including kosher terrorism – sanctions. Millions of Iranians have first hand experience of all that has been plagued upon them by Washington.
It is these victims, their families and acquaintances that fight for Iran’s sovereignty, that are the guardians of this proud nation. They are the source of Iran’s strength. They are not simply citizens of Iran, they have a stake in it. Victor Hugo once said: “No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come.” There simply is no army on earth which can occupy, by proxy or otherwise, the land the people have come to believe belongs to them not by virtue of birth, but because they have fought for it, died for it, kept it from harm.
I met many such families; one in particular was more memorable. During the Shah’s regime, this family worked on my father’s farm. The father and his sons worked the farm and the mother helped around the house. In those days, this family and future generations would have simply continued to work on the farm, remain uneducated with no future prospects. But the revolution rescued them.
The boys in the family all went to war. One uncle lost his life to chemical warfare. The rest survived – and thrived. They got themselves free education provided by the government America wants to dislodge. One of these boys, the man I met after some 35 years, Kazem, once condemned to be a ‘peasant’, had become a successful businessman. I spent hours talking to the family and to Kazem in particular. What impressed me was not just his affluence and his success in business, but the wisdom that only comes with age, and yet he had acquired in youth. He had intellect and dignity. A gentleman, I found his knowledge of internal and global affairs to be far superior to the average “Westernized” person living in Tehran (or outside Iran). He had experienced war, seen death. Iran belonged to him. He would fight for it over and over and die for it.
This is the Iran the Diaspora has left behind, the Iran that is unknown to them. This is a far superior country than the one I left behind as a child and visited throughout the years. Iran’s guardians, its keepers, are all Kazems. It has been said that the strength of an army is the support of the people behind it. The whole country is that army. This is what Washington is not able to grasp. As Khalil Gibran rightly observed: “Out of suffering have emerged the strongest souls; the most massive characters are seared with scars.” With every wrong policy, America adds to the scars, strengthens the character and spirit of this unbreakable nation. This is what Washington is not able to grasp.
Iran Trip: September - October 2014
Showing posts with label Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich. Show all posts
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Ukraine, America’s Midas Touch – Again!
by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
‘All that glitters is not gold; all that shivers is not cold’
Mythology has it that Midas, the king of Phyrgia, was able to turn everything he touched into gold -- ‘the Midas Touch’. According to Aristotle, the legendry figure died of starvation as a result of his greed to transmute everything from its natural substance to gold. This myth is a tragic reality when it comes to America and its neocolonial adventures; America’s reach into Ukraine may well be the ‘touch’ that will end America as we know it today.
For decades, American neocons[1] have engaged in coups, false flag operations, covert and overt wars in order to institute their goal of global domination. The end of the Cold War emboldened them and 9/11 enabled them. Nations and societies became battlefields facilitated by the concept of ‘jihad’ versus‘crusade’[i] thanks to neocon Bernard Lewis who initiated this idea. As country after country fell to America’s ruthless touch -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, (attempts in Venezuela and Iran), little attention was paid to covert activities against Russia (and China) considered to pose a challenge to America’s global domination.
Failrure of the 2004 Western-backed Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the massive 2006 protests in Crimea against NATO’s invasion with slogans such as "Occupiers go home!" which prompted the parliament of autonomous Ukraine to declare Crimea a “NATO-free territory” (Euronews archive), sent Washington’s neocons into a spin mode, especially since NATO and U.S. have been trying to encircle Russia since 1991.
Azar Gat, Ezer Weizman professor of National Security at Tel Aviv University writing for the powerful and influential Council on Foreign Relations publication (Foreign Affairs, July-August 2007) emphasized ‘the significant challenge emanating from China and Russia operating under “authoritarian capitalist” poised for a comeback. ‘
Global domination demanded curbing Russia (and China). Depriving Russia of its Black Sea Fleet in Crimea and Russia’s access to Syria’s Tartus Port are no doubt a crucial part of this strategy. As importantly, Russia’s gas exports to Europe had to be curbed.
To this end, overt and covert actions were put in place. CIA/State Department propaganda voice, Radio Free Europe, announced in 2010 that “Ukraine has been the target of democracy-promoting Western foundations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), for a quarter of a century” (well prior to 1991 dateline admitted to by Victoria Nuland). NED’s counterpart in England, the UK funded Westminster Foundation for Democracy was an active partner in the endeavor.
It was the Westminster Foundation that coopted the “Ukrainian Foundation for Democracy” – The People’s First Foundation that later that same year would become a member of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC). Of particular relevance is the cast of characters who would shape things to come in Ukraine (to be discussed shortly).
“Democracy” promotion aside, the possible and likely role of United States Special Operations Command (USSOC) said to be present in 120 countries as of 2011, and growing (potentially in over 140 countries todate) mut also be considered. Working with SOC is CIA’s Special Activities Division (SAD) and its departments Special Operations Group (SOG) and Political Action Group (POG), which engage in covert activities related to political influence and psychological operations.
As images of Cocktail Molotovs and sniper shootings and deaths found their way into living rooms across the globe, Europe (Ashton) concealed doubts cast over Yanukovch’s complicity in the sniper shootings, facilitating his overthrow in trumped up charges. There is no good reason for the Western backers of the mob government not to investigate the sniper killings unless a)they themselves were complicit, b) they had full knowledge of the actions, or c) concealing the actions was in their interest. No investigation has taken place to date.
Many scholars have voiced concern that the U.S. is backing neo-Nazis in Ukraine; never mind the neo-Nazis – the EU and the United States have embraced terrorism and have sided with terrorists over a democratically elected president. Although there is no universal definition of terrorism, Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
This must be an incomprehensible part of the US/EU “war on terror”! These actions marginalize those of the marines in Afghanistan who urinated on dead corpses . With their backing of terrorists, the US and EU partners, in effect, have urinated on the graves of all who died in the despicable ‘war on terror’, including Allied soldiers.
This much said, one must surely ask why it is that the Jewish community is supporting the neo-Nazis rise. Why is it that the presence of Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers who led rebel groups has not been questioned and addressed? Furthermore, why have Jewish leaders voiced support for the coup and its leaders, and they have chosen to direct their anger and venom toward Russia and President Putin in a letter?
Perhaps, familiarizing oneself with the executive members of the aforementioned USUBC may cast some light on this bizarre behavior. Especially noteworthy are names and organizations among the senior advisors to the USUBC are from pro-Israel think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and Brookings, and Board of Directors executives selected from powerful players at weapons manufacturers such as Raytheon and Boeing (See http://www.usubc.org/site/recent-news/people-first-foundation-joins-u-s-ukraine-business-council-usubc).
Undoubtedly, the cast of characters and their involvement in Ukraine would help ensure the safety of the Ukrainian Jews – especially in light of the fact that Israel is poised to play a huge role in eliminating Europe’s reliance on Russian gas and supplying Europe with gas it has stolen from the Palestinians - and Syrians. Or as the New York Post put it last month: “Israel’s fortune is Putin’s horror”
The planning of this “horror” has been in the making for some time. Perhaps the most revealing and interesting article is one penned by David Wurmser writing for the Jewish policy Center titled The Strategic Impact of Israel’s Export of Natural Gas. Referring to the newly found stolen gas in 2009, he writes “Israel and its neighbor now sit atop roughly two years' worth of European consumption”. He further suggests “even modest amounts of Israeli gas exports can carry significant strategic leverage”. Wurmser opines that “The short-term inflexibility of gas trade and the difficulty of replacing disrupted supply also imply that energy prices for consumers and revenues for suppliers can be easily manipulated by marginal increases or decreases.”
Citing Europe’s gas vulnerability, Wurmser posits “Europe's grim reality could represent a unique window of opportunity for Israel to nail down long-term agreements and align export policy with a broader effort to reset Israeli-European relations.”
In December of last year, The Jerusalem Post reported that not only did Hungary seek Israeli gas as an alternative to Russian gas, but it also offered to Israel access to its state-owned gas storage and offered Hungary “as a central European distribution hub for Israeli gas”.
As recently as March 11, Rigzone cited Gideon Tadmor, CEO of Avner Oil, speaking at a conference in Tel-Aviv: “"With recent events in Europe... and the aspiration of different countries to diversify their gas supply, that puts another spotlight on our massive resources and transforms our story into a global one," (a must read).
It then should come as no surprise that the Ukrainian Jewish leaders denounce any threat from the presence of ‘neo-Nazis’ claiming that they can take care of themselves. No doubt this is the case. But will Ukraine, a state that is not one nation, survive the assault on its diversity and its sovereignty? The unforeseen circumstances, the unpredicted reactions may well turn Ukraine into the last of America’s ‘Midas touch’.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy.
-------
[1] Former, self-confessed neocon Jacob Heilbrunn describes neoconservatism as "a decisive respect a Jewish phenomenon," even if many adherents -- albeit a minority -- are not Jewish and even though most U.S. Jews are not neoconservatives. Neoconservatives, he adds, both Jew and gentile, are bound by a "shared commitment to the largest, most important Jewish cause: the survival of Israel.”
[i] Bernard Lewis, ‘Learning the Lingo. Jihad vs. Crusade. A Historian’s Guide to the New War’, Wall Street Journal (27 Sept. 2001).
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Great interview with Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich on RT (must watch!)
Soraya's replies are, as always, fantastic, but what in the world is wrong with this anchor?! For the life of me I cannot imagine somebody working for RT not knowing and understanding what is really going on in the Ukraine. And yet, first Abby Martin, then Liz Wahl, now this clown?! I can fully understand that a reporter for RT could disagree with a Russian policy - but all three of these guys are parroting the worst clichés of US propaganda. What is the world is going on in RT and, most importantly, who hired these people?
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Syria: Whodunit?
by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
The long anticipated UN inspectors report confirmed the use of chemical weapons on August 21, 2013 in the Ghouta area of Damascus. The investigators report provided “clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent Sarin were used”. Warmongers were quick to pounce on the use of rockets as evidence that the Assad government was responsible. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergie Lavrov was quick to point to the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument -- correlation does not equal causation. So whodunit?
Foremost, given that the report emphasis the use of rockets, the Saudis should be asking themselves why it is that the accusatory finger has been pointed to them. There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia is involved in the Syria conflict. Their involvement is not restricted to providing arms to the rebels but as USA Today reported in January, they have been sending death-row inmates to fight in Syria. That said, the UN report clearly repudiates dubious reports which surfaced on the internet citing a rebel’s father who had claimed that the Saudis supplied the chemical weapons without instructions, or without telling the rebels what they were which is why “they” (chemical weapons) went off in the tunnel.
While it is not a secret that the Saudis aim to spread their influence in the region by assisting neocons remove Assad from power, what should be of note to the Saudis and of interest to media watchers is the fact that in spite of the Saudi ‘s full cooperation with America and Israel in funding and supporting wars against fellow Arabs and Moslems, and even providing them with terrorists, the neoconservatives such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies are now claiming that Saudi Arabia is responsible for pushing for war . This should give Saudis reason to pause and reflect. But to the report….
According to the UN report two types of rockets had been used, including an M14 artillery rocket bearing Cyrillic markings and a 330-millimeter rocket of unidentified origin – though perhaps not so unidentified. Shortly after the August incident, Foreign Policy published and made mention of these mysterious rockets which according to former UN inspectors bore a strong resemblance to a 1970’s American weapon—the SLUFAE . Although SLUFAE had been shelved, the concept was built upon by several countries—namely Israel. According to the former UN inspector, "a very similar munition was found 3-5 years ago, during one of the Israeli excursions," into Southern Lebanon”. Further, there is the strong possibility that the rockets with Cyrillic markings (attributed to the Soviets) can be traced back to the “Bear Spares” program.
According to the 1995 Teicher Affidavit, the United States had a “Bear Spares” program with the objective to provide ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry and deliver them third countries without direct involvement. Israel which had a large stockpile of Soviet weaponry and ammunition captured during its wars was active in this program and, according to Teicher, transferred the spare parts and weapons to third countries or insurgents (such as to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, to the Afghans, and the Contras).
Of note is the fact that Israel possess Sarin gas and it is not party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). It is worthwhile repeating here that it was Israeli “intelligence” which alerted the United States of the use of Sarin on August 21, and of its delivery method long before the UN report was published. It was the Israeli ‘intelligence’ which prompted John Kerry to point the finger at Assad with confidence.
Often left unmentioned is the fact that it was John Kerry’s public suggestion to rid Syria of its chemical weapons which became the basis for the Russian initiative to avert war. Undoubtedly, Israel stands to gain from this initiative given its territorial ambitions (see HERE for example) given that it is thought that Syria's entire defense against Israel may rest on chemical weapons and warheads1. Not surprisingly, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu regards the initiative as a precedent for dealing with Iran’s civilian nuclear program.
While Israel has the most to gain by the chemical attack incident, it is not unique in its access to Soviet weaponry - and to Sarin gas. Egypt also served as a supplier for the Bear Spares program where it manufactured weapons and spare parts from Soviet designs and provided these weapons and ammunition to the Iraqis (during the Iran-Iraq war) and other countries. The United States approved, assisted and encouraged Egypt's manufacturing capabilities. It is not without relevance to mention here that the Syrian opposition group had headquarters in Egypt for some time. The leader of Egyptian military coup, General al-Sisi was hailed as a “national hero for all Jews’ by the Israeli ambassador in Cairo. The military continues to be in charge with the full support of and funding from the United States (and Saudis).
Contrary to the Western media pundits who attempt to pain this as a straightforward case against Assad, without evidence or without thought, one can point the finger to other more likely culprits who stand to gain a great deal from this heinous crime. The only way to narrow down the field is to consider ‘cui bono’. Clearly, Assad is the biggest loser.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy.
1.Terrill, W. Andrew, “The Chemical Warfare Legacy of the Yemen War.” Comparative Strategy, 10 (1991), 109-119.
The long anticipated UN inspectors report confirmed the use of chemical weapons on August 21, 2013 in the Ghouta area of Damascus. The investigators report provided “clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent Sarin were used”. Warmongers were quick to pounce on the use of rockets as evidence that the Assad government was responsible. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergie Lavrov was quick to point to the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument -- correlation does not equal causation. So whodunit?
Foremost, given that the report emphasis the use of rockets, the Saudis should be asking themselves why it is that the accusatory finger has been pointed to them. There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia is involved in the Syria conflict. Their involvement is not restricted to providing arms to the rebels but as USA Today reported in January, they have been sending death-row inmates to fight in Syria. That said, the UN report clearly repudiates dubious reports which surfaced on the internet citing a rebel’s father who had claimed that the Saudis supplied the chemical weapons without instructions, or without telling the rebels what they were which is why “they” (chemical weapons) went off in the tunnel.
While it is not a secret that the Saudis aim to spread their influence in the region by assisting neocons remove Assad from power, what should be of note to the Saudis and of interest to media watchers is the fact that in spite of the Saudi ‘s full cooperation with America and Israel in funding and supporting wars against fellow Arabs and Moslems, and even providing them with terrorists, the neoconservatives such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies are now claiming that Saudi Arabia is responsible for pushing for war . This should give Saudis reason to pause and reflect. But to the report….
According to the UN report two types of rockets had been used, including an M14 artillery rocket bearing Cyrillic markings and a 330-millimeter rocket of unidentified origin – though perhaps not so unidentified. Shortly after the August incident, Foreign Policy published and made mention of these mysterious rockets which according to former UN inspectors bore a strong resemblance to a 1970’s American weapon—the SLUFAE . Although SLUFAE had been shelved, the concept was built upon by several countries—namely Israel. According to the former UN inspector, "a very similar munition was found 3-5 years ago, during one of the Israeli excursions," into Southern Lebanon”. Further, there is the strong possibility that the rockets with Cyrillic markings (attributed to the Soviets) can be traced back to the “Bear Spares” program.
According to the 1995 Teicher Affidavit, the United States had a “Bear Spares” program with the objective to provide ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry and deliver them third countries without direct involvement. Israel which had a large stockpile of Soviet weaponry and ammunition captured during its wars was active in this program and, according to Teicher, transferred the spare parts and weapons to third countries or insurgents (such as to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, to the Afghans, and the Contras).
Of note is the fact that Israel possess Sarin gas and it is not party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). It is worthwhile repeating here that it was Israeli “intelligence” which alerted the United States of the use of Sarin on August 21, and of its delivery method long before the UN report was published. It was the Israeli ‘intelligence’ which prompted John Kerry to point the finger at Assad with confidence.
Often left unmentioned is the fact that it was John Kerry’s public suggestion to rid Syria of its chemical weapons which became the basis for the Russian initiative to avert war. Undoubtedly, Israel stands to gain from this initiative given its territorial ambitions (see HERE for example) given that it is thought that Syria's entire defense against Israel may rest on chemical weapons and warheads1. Not surprisingly, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu regards the initiative as a precedent for dealing with Iran’s civilian nuclear program.
While Israel has the most to gain by the chemical attack incident, it is not unique in its access to Soviet weaponry - and to Sarin gas. Egypt also served as a supplier for the Bear Spares program where it manufactured weapons and spare parts from Soviet designs and provided these weapons and ammunition to the Iraqis (during the Iran-Iraq war) and other countries. The United States approved, assisted and encouraged Egypt's manufacturing capabilities. It is not without relevance to mention here that the Syrian opposition group had headquarters in Egypt for some time. The leader of Egyptian military coup, General al-Sisi was hailed as a “national hero for all Jews’ by the Israeli ambassador in Cairo. The military continues to be in charge with the full support of and funding from the United States (and Saudis).
Contrary to the Western media pundits who attempt to pain this as a straightforward case against Assad, without evidence or without thought, one can point the finger to other more likely culprits who stand to gain a great deal from this heinous crime. The only way to narrow down the field is to consider ‘cui bono’. Clearly, Assad is the biggest loser.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy.
1.Terrill, W. Andrew, “The Chemical Warfare Legacy of the Yemen War.” Comparative Strategy, 10 (1991), 109-119.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Syria: The Faces Behind The Terror
by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
In her extraordinarily bold and direct speech addressed to the Irish Parliament, Clare Daly (TD, Dublin North) called Obama a “war criminal” and “hypocrite of the century”. In describing the fawned reception of Obama in Ireland akin to pimping and prostituting of that nation, Ms. Daly hit the nail on the head. Sadly, America dwarfs Ireland and elsewhere in the undignified category of prostitution – the 29 standing ovations from Congress in May 2011 for war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu attests to this tragic fact.
While Daly was quite right in censuring Obama for his criminal policies, including aiding terrorists in Syria, it is worthwhile noting that Obama is merely a willing instrument; the faces and factors behind his handlers and the policies merit greater scrutiny and exposure.
Backing and arming the so-called Syrian opposition distracts from the threat posed by Israel and its’s expansionist agenda by internalizing the enemy in order to weak the State. As former Israeli Intelligence Chief, Amos Yaldin told the audience at the Israel Policy Forum in February 2013: “And this military [Syrian], which is a huge threat to Israel, is now also weakening and, in a way, disintegrating. We still have risk from Syria-- a risk of being an AlQaeda country, a Somalia-type country -- but from military point of view, each one of these are less dangerous than the Syrian regular army."
Perpetuating adversaries to kill each other is a time-tested tactic – one which was used during the bloody eight year Iran-Iraq war; a war which according to Leon Wieseltier[i] was a “distraction” when Israeli boots were on the ground in Southern Lebanon. In that war, the United States was providing arms and intelligence to both sides. When asked what the logic was in aiding both sides in the bloody war, a former official replied: “You had to have been there”[ii]. But why Syria?
The Need for Water
The primary goal of the early Zionist leadership was to control and secure the region’s waters. At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, Chaim Weizmann declared that ‘it was of vital importance not only to secure all water resources feeding the country, but to control them at the sources – and the development of these waters became the primary aim of the Yishuv as a whole[iii]. This policy remained in place. As Israel’s third Prime Minister Levi Eshkol put it, water was “the blood flowing through the arteries of the nation”.
As previously stated (HERE and HERE), the chaos we witness in Syria today has been in the making for years with the aid and backing of Israel-firsters in order to accommodate Israel’s agenda – expansion and control of regional water supplies while weakening its adversary/ies.
Israel faced one of its worst droughts in 1990-91. A second more serious drought in 1998, forced it to turn to water rich Turkey. Turkey and Israel engaged in serious negotiations starting in May 2000 to import 50 billion cubic meters of fresh water from Turkey using tanker ships, but using tankers was not cost effective for the transport of water. Alternate plans were suggested.
In September 2000, the same year that young Bashar-al Assad succeeded his father as President of Syria, a strategy paper entitled “The Geopolitics of Water” by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) opined that "Since extensive water planning proposals will necessitate the establishment of pipelines and energy grids stretching across borders, a political and military structure that can ensure the safety and security of the carriers will be the prerequisite to effective water sharing” ….. “But an effective regional system would require political-military cooperation against Syria”.
How to achieve this?
Israeli-Firsters to the rescue
Media mogul Haim Saban became involved in politics in the mid 1990’s with a view to support Israel. Saban professes that his greatest concern is the “protection” of Israel. At a conference in Israel, Saban described his method of influencing American politics : ‘Make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets’. (Saban penned an opinion piece in The New York Times in support of President Obama in his 2012 re-election bid).
It was no surprised therefore that in 2002, Saban pledged $13 million to start a research organization at the Brookings Institution called the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Saban Center would play an important role in propping up Syrian opposition (as it did in fermenting unrest post-2009 Iran elections with their June 2009 publication titled: "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Towards Iran"[1]).
In 2006, Time Magazine revealed that that the US had been agitating, funding, and supporting "opposition" in Syria. According to the Time, the U.S. was "supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists" in Europe. The document bluntly expresses the hope that "these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists."
It is worthwhile mentioning here that America’s support of the so-called “opposition” which includes criminals, terrorists, and foreign fighters to effect regime change underscores America’s stark hypocrisy. According to 18 USC § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government (Cornell Law), advocating the overthrow of the government, ‘organizing or help or attempt to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of the government of the United States or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence’ bears serious consequences including fines and prison sentence of up to 20 years.
What is most revealing about the abovementioned Time Magazine piece of 2006 is that America’s efforts to aid the opposition and undermine Assad were run through a foundation operated by Amar Abdulhamid, a Washington-based member of a Syrian umbrella opposition group known as the National Salvation Front (NSF). Abdulhamid was a visiting Fellow at the Saban Center (2004-2006) before moving on to the Neocon-run National Defense of Democracies.
When in 2008, Israel-firster Dennis Ross met with the "opposition" to discuss "Syria in Transition", Saban’s fellow - Amar Abdullhamid was present. In February 2009, Dennis Ross joined the Obama Administration team. In April 2009, the US funded, London-based Baraada TV started its anti-Assad propaganda into Syria (The epicenter of the uprisings' was Baraada over water distribution). Baraada TV’s chief editor, Malik al-Abdeh, is a cofounder of the Syrian exile group Movement for Justice and Development headed by Anas al-Abdah who was in attendance at the 2008 meeting with Dennis Ross.
It came as no surprise that John McCain who was a member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) formed to rid Iraq of Saddam Hossein, and a cheerleader for the Libya intervention, the Egyptian opposition to Mubarak, for bombing Iran, and so on…..visited Syrian “opposition” (via Turkey) in order to encourage more bloodshed. And expectedly, he was de-briefed -- not at the White House, but at the Saban Center!
Soon after McCain’s presentation at the Saban Center, the White House disputed UN’s account and claimed that that Syria had crossed the ‘red line’ and used chemical weapons.
It is not the intention of this article to exclude the plethora of other individuals, think tanks, forums, and media pundits who have institutionalized Israel’s policies and promoted them as ‘America’s interests’; these are too numerous to mention here. However, a notable other Israel supporter must be named.
The Evangelical Factor
While various groups in Washington perpetuate and support Israel’s aggressive and expansionist policies -- at a cost to America, non have the zeal and the zest of the Evangelicals who support Israel to death. According to the dispensational model, a time of turmoil lies ahead, but believers will be "raptured" away before it begins. This period of tribulation will culminate in the final battle at Armageddon, a valley northwest of Jerusalem.
The close association between American evangelicals and Israel has been a clear goal of Israeli politicians, especially those in the Likud party. According to Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum of AJC, “the evangelical community is the largest and fastest-growing bloc of pro-Jewish sentiment in this country”[iv]. Israel and Jewish organizations continue to rely on the support of Evangelicals to justify Israel’s occupation of Arab land even as Christian Zionists zest for evangelizing Jews remains a point of tension.
For example, within days of the June 1982 invasion of Lebanon (with a green light from Reagan), full-page ads appeared in leading papers requesting Evangelical support for the invasion[v]. In 1998, when Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington, he met with Jerry Falwell and numerous fundamentalist Christians before meeting with President Clinton. Similarly, as recently as April 2013, Pat Robertson warned that brokering peace between Israel and Palestine would bring punishment on America.
It has been alleged that funds raised in America by right wing Christians is funneled to West Bank settlements. The mayor of Ariel on the West Bank had estimated that two thirds of all Jewish settlements were funded by Christian Zionists.[vi]
Building for Armageddon?
While Evangelicals (not all) are rupture-ready and encourage Israel’s expansionist agenda, Israeli politicians are not yet Armageddon-ready; at least, not yet.
In March 2013, Business Inside revealed that the United States is spending hundreds of millions of dollars building bunkers in Israel due to be completed 900 days from February 13, 2013. The project called Site 911 “will have five levels buried underground and six additional outbuildings on the above grounds, within the perimeter. At about 127,000 square feet, the first three floors will house classrooms, an auditorium, and a laboratory — all wedged behind shock resistant doors — with radiation protection and massive security. Only one gate will allow workers entrance and exit during the project and that will be guarded by only Israelis”. Each door of the facility will have a detailed description of the mezuzahs written in “in-erasable ink”. This should be heartwarming news to Americans whose taxes are spent on such projects while the bridges at home are crumbling.
The future
The political establishment and the media has pimped out the nation. The list of conflicts awaiting us is long and bloody. Syria will not be the last conflict. This has been a brief and incomplete overview of what drives our nation, and where we are headed, the handlers and the willing instruments (in the words of Clare Daly, pimps and prostitutes). We continue to sink our head in sand and hope for a hero – for ‘something to happen’. There is only one hope for the future, and the only one power that can alter this destructive path: “We, The People”.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy.
[1] Chapter 6 reads: “The United States could play multiple roles in facilitating a revolution. By funding and helping organize domestic rivals of the regime, the United States could create an alternative leadership to seize power. As Raymond Tanter of the Iran Policy Committee argues, students and other groups “need covert backing for their demonstrations. They need fax machines. They need Internet access, funds to duplicate materials, and funds to keep vigilantes from beating them up.” Beyond this, US-backed media outlets could highlight regime shortcomings and make otherwise obscure critics more prominent. The United States already supports Persian language satellite television (Voice of America Persian) and radio (Radio Farda) that bring unfiltered news to Iranians (in recent years, these have taken the lion’s share of overt US funding for promoting democracy in Iran). US economic pressure (and perhaps military pressure as well) can discredit the regime, making the population hungry for a rival leadership......”
[i] Wieseltier, Leon, “Israel meets Iran in Lebanon; The Wrong War”, The New Republic, Apr 8, 1985
[ii] Stephen R. Shalom, The United States and Iran-Iraq War, citing Stephen Engelberg, "Iran and Iraq Got 'Doctored Data, U.S. Officials Say," New York Times, 12 Jan. 1987, pp. A1, A6.
[iii] Jan Selby, “Water, Power & Politics in the Middle East; The Other Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003
[iv] Donald Wagner, “Evangelicals and Israel: Theological roots of a political alliance”, The Christian Century, Nov. 4, 1998).
[v] Donald Wagner, “Evangelicals and Israel: Theological roots of a political alliance”, ibid
[vi] Colin Shindler, “Likud and the Christian Dispensationalists: A Symbiotic Relationship”, Israeli Studies, March 31, 2000
In her extraordinarily bold and direct speech addressed to the Irish Parliament, Clare Daly (TD, Dublin North) called Obama a “war criminal” and “hypocrite of the century”. In describing the fawned reception of Obama in Ireland akin to pimping and prostituting of that nation, Ms. Daly hit the nail on the head. Sadly, America dwarfs Ireland and elsewhere in the undignified category of prostitution – the 29 standing ovations from Congress in May 2011 for war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu attests to this tragic fact.
While Daly was quite right in censuring Obama for his criminal policies, including aiding terrorists in Syria, it is worthwhile noting that Obama is merely a willing instrument; the faces and factors behind his handlers and the policies merit greater scrutiny and exposure.
Backing and arming the so-called Syrian opposition distracts from the threat posed by Israel and its’s expansionist agenda by internalizing the enemy in order to weak the State. As former Israeli Intelligence Chief, Amos Yaldin told the audience at the Israel Policy Forum in February 2013: “And this military [Syrian], which is a huge threat to Israel, is now also weakening and, in a way, disintegrating. We still have risk from Syria-- a risk of being an AlQaeda country, a Somalia-type country -- but from military point of view, each one of these are less dangerous than the Syrian regular army."
Perpetuating adversaries to kill each other is a time-tested tactic – one which was used during the bloody eight year Iran-Iraq war; a war which according to Leon Wieseltier[i] was a “distraction” when Israeli boots were on the ground in Southern Lebanon. In that war, the United States was providing arms and intelligence to both sides. When asked what the logic was in aiding both sides in the bloody war, a former official replied: “You had to have been there”[ii]. But why Syria?
The Need for Water
The primary goal of the early Zionist leadership was to control and secure the region’s waters. At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, Chaim Weizmann declared that ‘it was of vital importance not only to secure all water resources feeding the country, but to control them at the sources – and the development of these waters became the primary aim of the Yishuv as a whole[iii]. This policy remained in place. As Israel’s third Prime Minister Levi Eshkol put it, water was “the blood flowing through the arteries of the nation”.
As previously stated (HERE and HERE), the chaos we witness in Syria today has been in the making for years with the aid and backing of Israel-firsters in order to accommodate Israel’s agenda – expansion and control of regional water supplies while weakening its adversary/ies.
Israel faced one of its worst droughts in 1990-91. A second more serious drought in 1998, forced it to turn to water rich Turkey. Turkey and Israel engaged in serious negotiations starting in May 2000 to import 50 billion cubic meters of fresh water from Turkey using tanker ships, but using tankers was not cost effective for the transport of water. Alternate plans were suggested.
In September 2000, the same year that young Bashar-al Assad succeeded his father as President of Syria, a strategy paper entitled “The Geopolitics of Water” by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) opined that "Since extensive water planning proposals will necessitate the establishment of pipelines and energy grids stretching across borders, a political and military structure that can ensure the safety and security of the carriers will be the prerequisite to effective water sharing” ….. “But an effective regional system would require political-military cooperation against Syria”.
How to achieve this?
Israeli-Firsters to the rescue
Media mogul Haim Saban became involved in politics in the mid 1990’s with a view to support Israel. Saban professes that his greatest concern is the “protection” of Israel. At a conference in Israel, Saban described his method of influencing American politics : ‘Make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets’. (Saban penned an opinion piece in The New York Times in support of President Obama in his 2012 re-election bid).
It was no surprised therefore that in 2002, Saban pledged $13 million to start a research organization at the Brookings Institution called the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Saban Center would play an important role in propping up Syrian opposition (as it did in fermenting unrest post-2009 Iran elections with their June 2009 publication titled: "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Towards Iran"[1]).
In 2006, Time Magazine revealed that that the US had been agitating, funding, and supporting "opposition" in Syria. According to the Time, the U.S. was "supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists" in Europe. The document bluntly expresses the hope that "these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists."
It is worthwhile mentioning here that America’s support of the so-called “opposition” which includes criminals, terrorists, and foreign fighters to effect regime change underscores America’s stark hypocrisy. According to 18 USC § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government (Cornell Law), advocating the overthrow of the government, ‘organizing or help or attempt to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of the government of the United States or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence’ bears serious consequences including fines and prison sentence of up to 20 years.
What is most revealing about the abovementioned Time Magazine piece of 2006 is that America’s efforts to aid the opposition and undermine Assad were run through a foundation operated by Amar Abdulhamid, a Washington-based member of a Syrian umbrella opposition group known as the National Salvation Front (NSF). Abdulhamid was a visiting Fellow at the Saban Center (2004-2006) before moving on to the Neocon-run National Defense of Democracies.
When in 2008, Israel-firster Dennis Ross met with the "opposition" to discuss "Syria in Transition", Saban’s fellow - Amar Abdullhamid was present. In February 2009, Dennis Ross joined the Obama Administration team. In April 2009, the US funded, London-based Baraada TV started its anti-Assad propaganda into Syria (The epicenter of the uprisings' was Baraada over water distribution). Baraada TV’s chief editor, Malik al-Abdeh, is a cofounder of the Syrian exile group Movement for Justice and Development headed by Anas al-Abdah who was in attendance at the 2008 meeting with Dennis Ross.
It came as no surprise that John McCain who was a member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) formed to rid Iraq of Saddam Hossein, and a cheerleader for the Libya intervention, the Egyptian opposition to Mubarak, for bombing Iran, and so on…..visited Syrian “opposition” (via Turkey) in order to encourage more bloodshed. And expectedly, he was de-briefed -- not at the White House, but at the Saban Center!
Soon after McCain’s presentation at the Saban Center, the White House disputed UN’s account and claimed that that Syria had crossed the ‘red line’ and used chemical weapons.
It is not the intention of this article to exclude the plethora of other individuals, think tanks, forums, and media pundits who have institutionalized Israel’s policies and promoted them as ‘America’s interests’; these are too numerous to mention here. However, a notable other Israel supporter must be named.
The Evangelical Factor
While various groups in Washington perpetuate and support Israel’s aggressive and expansionist policies -- at a cost to America, non have the zeal and the zest of the Evangelicals who support Israel to death. According to the dispensational model, a time of turmoil lies ahead, but believers will be "raptured" away before it begins. This period of tribulation will culminate in the final battle at Armageddon, a valley northwest of Jerusalem.
The close association between American evangelicals and Israel has been a clear goal of Israeli politicians, especially those in the Likud party. According to Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum of AJC, “the evangelical community is the largest and fastest-growing bloc of pro-Jewish sentiment in this country”[iv]. Israel and Jewish organizations continue to rely on the support of Evangelicals to justify Israel’s occupation of Arab land even as Christian Zionists zest for evangelizing Jews remains a point of tension.
For example, within days of the June 1982 invasion of Lebanon (with a green light from Reagan), full-page ads appeared in leading papers requesting Evangelical support for the invasion[v]. In 1998, when Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington, he met with Jerry Falwell and numerous fundamentalist Christians before meeting with President Clinton. Similarly, as recently as April 2013, Pat Robertson warned that brokering peace between Israel and Palestine would bring punishment on America.
It has been alleged that funds raised in America by right wing Christians is funneled to West Bank settlements. The mayor of Ariel on the West Bank had estimated that two thirds of all Jewish settlements were funded by Christian Zionists.[vi]
Building for Armageddon?
While Evangelicals (not all) are rupture-ready and encourage Israel’s expansionist agenda, Israeli politicians are not yet Armageddon-ready; at least, not yet.
In March 2013, Business Inside revealed that the United States is spending hundreds of millions of dollars building bunkers in Israel due to be completed 900 days from February 13, 2013. The project called Site 911 “will have five levels buried underground and six additional outbuildings on the above grounds, within the perimeter. At about 127,000 square feet, the first three floors will house classrooms, an auditorium, and a laboratory — all wedged behind shock resistant doors — with radiation protection and massive security. Only one gate will allow workers entrance and exit during the project and that will be guarded by only Israelis”. Each door of the facility will have a detailed description of the mezuzahs written in “in-erasable ink”. This should be heartwarming news to Americans whose taxes are spent on such projects while the bridges at home are crumbling.
The future
The political establishment and the media has pimped out the nation. The list of conflicts awaiting us is long and bloody. Syria will not be the last conflict. This has been a brief and incomplete overview of what drives our nation, and where we are headed, the handlers and the willing instruments (in the words of Clare Daly, pimps and prostitutes). We continue to sink our head in sand and hope for a hero – for ‘something to happen’. There is only one hope for the future, and the only one power that can alter this destructive path: “We, The People”.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy.
[1] Chapter 6 reads: “The United States could play multiple roles in facilitating a revolution. By funding and helping organize domestic rivals of the regime, the United States could create an alternative leadership to seize power. As Raymond Tanter of the Iran Policy Committee argues, students and other groups “need covert backing for their demonstrations. They need fax machines. They need Internet access, funds to duplicate materials, and funds to keep vigilantes from beating them up.” Beyond this, US-backed media outlets could highlight regime shortcomings and make otherwise obscure critics more prominent. The United States already supports Persian language satellite television (Voice of America Persian) and radio (Radio Farda) that bring unfiltered news to Iranians (in recent years, these have taken the lion’s share of overt US funding for promoting democracy in Iran). US economic pressure (and perhaps military pressure as well) can discredit the regime, making the population hungry for a rival leadership......”
[i] Wieseltier, Leon, “Israel meets Iran in Lebanon; The Wrong War”, The New Republic, Apr 8, 1985
[ii] Stephen R. Shalom, The United States and Iran-Iraq War, citing Stephen Engelberg, "Iran and Iraq Got 'Doctored Data, U.S. Officials Say," New York Times, 12 Jan. 1987, pp. A1, A6.
[iii] Jan Selby, “Water, Power & Politics in the Middle East; The Other Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003
[iv] Donald Wagner, “Evangelicals and Israel: Theological roots of a political alliance”, The Christian Century, Nov. 4, 1998).
[v] Donald Wagner, “Evangelicals and Israel: Theological roots of a political alliance”, ibid
[vi] Colin Shindler, “Likud and the Christian Dispensationalists: A Symbiotic Relationship”, Israeli Studies, March 31, 2000
Saturday, April 27, 2013
The Fueling of Unrest in Syria, Israel’s Territorial Ambitions
By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich for Global Research
For some time now, the predominant narrative about Syria has been that the unrest has been fueled in order to weaken Iran. This prevalent account is common to neoconservatives and liberals alike. While The New York Times trumpeted Israeli-firsters Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham message that “rebel fighters deserved to be armed and that helping them take on the Syrian government would aid Washington’s effort to weaken Iran”, moderate and independent outlets such as Truthout, Counterpunch, and numerous others echoed this same objective – but whilst decrying the plan. Even Iran ’s state-run media shares this account.
This is sheer misdirection — deliberate or otherwise. Undisputed, Syria and Iran have been staunch allies since the Iranian Revolution in their joint cause to protect Palestinian rights and to stand up Israel and America, and any change in Syria would adversely affect Iran (as it would Russia). But this is a secondary consideration. The generally accepted narrative takes the focus away from the primary reason for the current assault on Syria – Israel .
Since the 1948 war, Syria and Israel have been in a state of war (with brief periods of unsuccessful negotiations). The conflict has been primarily over land and water (see a previous essay The Syria Imperative). Since the 1950’s, conflict over water (and land) has been at the root of hostilities between the two. In the 1950’s, Eisenhower commissioned Eric Johnston to generate a regional water allocation agreement. The failure of the Johnston plan exacerbated the conflict. The published diaries of Israeli Foreign Minister Sharett helps understand why the Johnston negotiations were unsuccessful. Sharett maintained: “[P]olitical decisions concerning the occupation of the rest of Eretz Israel were taken as early as 1954, although implemented in 1967.[i]”
The 1967 occupation of Syria Golan (Golan Heights) and the Upper Mount Hermon by Israel enabled Israel to seize the entire Upper Jordan River giving Israel the advantage of placing its riparian position to fully upstream. Consequently, not only was Syria denied access to Upper Jordan waters, but its territorial and national integrity were assaulted.
Some years later, Haaretz would reveal the existence of a study (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel-Aviv university) under General Aaron Yariv, former intelligence services chief, which outlined a “zone of hydraulic security”, which called for placing water resources in Syria and Lebanon under full Israeli control[ii]. Disputes continued unabated and the status quo maintained until 1982 when the military prowess of both sides were tested.
A 1987 book by Col. Emmanuel Wald of the Israeli General Staff entitled “The Ruse of the Broken Vessels: The Twilight of Israeli Military Might (1967-1982) reveals the aims of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the month of pre-planning that had gone into it. Wald writes that Ariel Sharon’s master plan codenamed “Oranim” was to defeat the Syrian troops deployed in the Bekaa Valley all the way to the district of Baalbek in North of Lebanon. According to Wald, “during the fist days, it was quietly approved by the U.S. ”.
With this aim, on June 6, 1982, Israeli advanced into Lebanon. However, the Syrian army halted the Israeli army advance in the battle of Sultan Yakub and the battle of Ain Zahalta. Sharon ’s plan to conquer all of Lebanon and destroy Syria as a military power was thwarted. In reviewing the book and the battles, the famous scholar and activist, Israel Shahak, opined that “the principal purpose of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was destruction of the Syrian Army”[iii].
Shahak posits that Israel needs to win its wars quickly or not at all. In spite of technological and nuclear superiority, another assault on Syria would not predictably bring an easy win to Israel and defenses could ‘drag out a war endlessly’. He further argues that during the entire history of Israel , Israeli Jews have shown themselves to be highly sensitive to their losses, and high losses make Israelis “susceptible to political arguments against modes of domination and oppression which they otherwise would accept”.
Shahak’s analysis shed a light on events which pursued the failure of “Oranim” as outlined in The Syria Imperative. Israel continues to pursue its grand strategy, using a different tactic given its awareness of, and its familiarity with the strengths of the Syrian army – an army which must be disrupted from within given Israel ’s 1982 failure to do so. And this is the primary reason for arming terrorists posing as “opposition”.
It is not without irony that Netanyahu has recently admitted that he does not rule out arming Syrian rebels, given Israel’s age-old tactic of arming minorities or rebels and cultivating dissent and chaos (such as the Anya Nya in Sudan , later the Sudanese People Liberation Army (SPLA), and the leader of the Sudanese rebels, John Garang armed by Israel from neighboring countries). This is a scenario being repeated in Syria .
Paradoxically, the [Persian] Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) who are today on a mission to secure Israel’s vision (with a nod from Washington) by arming rebels and undermining Syria, were all in favor of securing Syria in 2003 when they told Washington: “We think the threat to Syria should stop. We don’t think Syria wants a war or to escalate any situation. We reject any infringement of Syria ‘s security.”[iv] There is no end to their duplicity.
Amos Yadlin, the outgoing military intelligence chief warnedthe Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in November 2010 that Israel ‘s next war would take longer and be fought on more fronts. Yaldin warned that Syria in particular, posed a greater military obstacle to Israel than at any time in the past three decades. It would appear that the Syria unrest has allayed his concerns. The Syrian forces which put up such a resistance in 1982, are now engaged fighting terrorists, while the world is being told that they are the violators. Perhaps Netanyahu’s plan will succeed where Sharon ’s Oranim failed.
Regardless, it is important to change the accepted narrative about Syrian uprisings. Given the decades lone demonization of Iran, it may be more palatable to associate the fueling of unrest in Syria point to a ‘weaker’ Iran, but let there be no mistake – Syria today is in turmoil in order to promote Israel’s grand strategy – even as the perpetrator – Israel, plays the victim and warns of chemical weapons use by Assad’s regime, demanding intervention. “Evil requires the sanction of the victim.” Ayn Rand.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups
Notes
[i] Livia Rokach, ” Israeli State Terrorism: An Analysis of the Sharett Diaries,” Journal of Palestine Studies 9, no. 3 (Spring, 1980), 3-28.
[ii] Zeev Shiff, “The Censored Report Revealed,” Ha’aretz, 8 October 1993
[iii] Sahak , Israel . Israel Considers War With Syria as It Ponders 1982 Invasion of Lebanon ,The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (September 30, 1992). [iv] Janardhan, N, Iraq: Gulf Council Urges U.S. to Stop Threats to Syria , Global Information Network [ New York ] 17 Apr 2003
For some time now, the predominant narrative about Syria has been that the unrest has been fueled in order to weaken Iran. This prevalent account is common to neoconservatives and liberals alike. While The New York Times trumpeted Israeli-firsters Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham message that “rebel fighters deserved to be armed and that helping them take on the Syrian government would aid Washington’s effort to weaken Iran”, moderate and independent outlets such as Truthout, Counterpunch, and numerous others echoed this same objective – but whilst decrying the plan. Even Iran ’s state-run media shares this account.
This is sheer misdirection — deliberate or otherwise. Undisputed, Syria and Iran have been staunch allies since the Iranian Revolution in their joint cause to protect Palestinian rights and to stand up Israel and America, and any change in Syria would adversely affect Iran (as it would Russia). But this is a secondary consideration. The generally accepted narrative takes the focus away from the primary reason for the current assault on Syria – Israel .
Since the 1948 war, Syria and Israel have been in a state of war (with brief periods of unsuccessful negotiations). The conflict has been primarily over land and water (see a previous essay The Syria Imperative). Since the 1950’s, conflict over water (and land) has been at the root of hostilities between the two. In the 1950’s, Eisenhower commissioned Eric Johnston to generate a regional water allocation agreement. The failure of the Johnston plan exacerbated the conflict. The published diaries of Israeli Foreign Minister Sharett helps understand why the Johnston negotiations were unsuccessful. Sharett maintained: “[P]olitical decisions concerning the occupation of the rest of Eretz Israel were taken as early as 1954, although implemented in 1967.[i]”
The 1967 occupation of Syria Golan (Golan Heights) and the Upper Mount Hermon by Israel enabled Israel to seize the entire Upper Jordan River giving Israel the advantage of placing its riparian position to fully upstream. Consequently, not only was Syria denied access to Upper Jordan waters, but its territorial and national integrity were assaulted.
Some years later, Haaretz would reveal the existence of a study (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel-Aviv university) under General Aaron Yariv, former intelligence services chief, which outlined a “zone of hydraulic security”, which called for placing water resources in Syria and Lebanon under full Israeli control[ii]. Disputes continued unabated and the status quo maintained until 1982 when the military prowess of both sides were tested.
A 1987 book by Col. Emmanuel Wald of the Israeli General Staff entitled “The Ruse of the Broken Vessels: The Twilight of Israeli Military Might (1967-1982) reveals the aims of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the month of pre-planning that had gone into it. Wald writes that Ariel Sharon’s master plan codenamed “Oranim” was to defeat the Syrian troops deployed in the Bekaa Valley all the way to the district of Baalbek in North of Lebanon. According to Wald, “during the fist days, it was quietly approved by the U.S. ”.
With this aim, on June 6, 1982, Israeli advanced into Lebanon. However, the Syrian army halted the Israeli army advance in the battle of Sultan Yakub and the battle of Ain Zahalta. Sharon ’s plan to conquer all of Lebanon and destroy Syria as a military power was thwarted. In reviewing the book and the battles, the famous scholar and activist, Israel Shahak, opined that “the principal purpose of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was destruction of the Syrian Army”[iii].
Shahak posits that Israel needs to win its wars quickly or not at all. In spite of technological and nuclear superiority, another assault on Syria would not predictably bring an easy win to Israel and defenses could ‘drag out a war endlessly’. He further argues that during the entire history of Israel , Israeli Jews have shown themselves to be highly sensitive to their losses, and high losses make Israelis “susceptible to political arguments against modes of domination and oppression which they otherwise would accept”.
Shahak’s analysis shed a light on events which pursued the failure of “Oranim” as outlined in The Syria Imperative. Israel continues to pursue its grand strategy, using a different tactic given its awareness of, and its familiarity with the strengths of the Syrian army – an army which must be disrupted from within given Israel ’s 1982 failure to do so. And this is the primary reason for arming terrorists posing as “opposition”.
It is not without irony that Netanyahu has recently admitted that he does not rule out arming Syrian rebels, given Israel’s age-old tactic of arming minorities or rebels and cultivating dissent and chaos (such as the Anya Nya in Sudan , later the Sudanese People Liberation Army (SPLA), and the leader of the Sudanese rebels, John Garang armed by Israel from neighboring countries). This is a scenario being repeated in Syria .
Paradoxically, the [Persian] Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) who are today on a mission to secure Israel’s vision (with a nod from Washington) by arming rebels and undermining Syria, were all in favor of securing Syria in 2003 when they told Washington: “We think the threat to Syria should stop. We don’t think Syria wants a war or to escalate any situation. We reject any infringement of Syria ‘s security.”[iv] There is no end to their duplicity.
Amos Yadlin, the outgoing military intelligence chief warnedthe Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in November 2010 that Israel ‘s next war would take longer and be fought on more fronts. Yaldin warned that Syria in particular, posed a greater military obstacle to Israel than at any time in the past three decades. It would appear that the Syria unrest has allayed his concerns. The Syrian forces which put up such a resistance in 1982, are now engaged fighting terrorists, while the world is being told that they are the violators. Perhaps Netanyahu’s plan will succeed where Sharon ’s Oranim failed.
Regardless, it is important to change the accepted narrative about Syrian uprisings. Given the decades lone demonization of Iran, it may be more palatable to associate the fueling of unrest in Syria point to a ‘weaker’ Iran, but let there be no mistake – Syria today is in turmoil in order to promote Israel’s grand strategy – even as the perpetrator – Israel, plays the victim and warns of chemical weapons use by Assad’s regime, demanding intervention. “Evil requires the sanction of the victim.” Ayn Rand.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups
Notes
[i] Livia Rokach, ” Israeli State Terrorism: An Analysis of the Sharett Diaries,” Journal of Palestine Studies 9, no. 3 (Spring, 1980), 3-28.
[ii] Zeev Shiff, “The Censored Report Revealed,” Ha’aretz, 8 October 1993
[iii] Sahak , Israel . Israel Considers War With Syria as It Ponders 1982 Invasion of Lebanon ,The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (September 30, 1992). [iv] Janardhan, N, Iraq: Gulf Council Urges U.S. to Stop Threats to Syria , Global Information Network [ New York ] 17 Apr 2003
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
The Moslem World’s Rage; Justified or Misplaced?
by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
Media outlets are abuzz with news of the Moslem world’s rage over the release of the provocative film “Innocence of Moslems”. Pundits are quick to condemn the protests across 20 nations, and the gullible and callous citizens of the “West”, mimicking pundits who are paid to mislead and misinform, are placing the blame on the aggrieved Moslem community – they simply don’t understand how “free speech” works in America. But those who are not intellectually blind see a different reality – the fallacy of free speech.
There is a precedent to curbing free speech when deemed harmful. In a landmark Supreme Court hearing -- Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), the actions of Schenck, an anti-war individual who had printed and distributed leaflets in order to discourage enlisting servicemen, was not afforded protection under the First Amendment. The issue before the court was whether Schenck's actions (words, expression) were protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The Court ruled:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic.” Holmes argued that “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
Since the events of 9/11, the whole Moslem community has been engulfed in panic, death, and destruction through such provocative expressions of “free speech”. The United States government, in defiance of this precedent has decided not to prevent such “substantive evils”.
The desecration of the Koran in 2002 by Guantanamo prison guards revealed in 2005, caused riots globally and took the lives of 15 people. The lack of inaction by the authorities may have given Florida pastor Terry Jones reason to be encouraged and to burn a Koran on March 20, 2011. Pictures which were posted on his church’s website. Shortly thereafter, protests broke out in Afghanistan where a U.N. building was attacked and 12 people killed. The government inaction continued. As such, it did not come as a surprise that in February 2012, US forces in Afghanistan burnt copies of Korans at U.S. bases. Angry protests ensued resulting in 30 deaths. There were no criminal charges against the troops, only unspecified administrative punishment.
While the First Amendment enabled insults to be hurled at Moslems, Moslems living in the United States were deprived of “free speech”. Moslem students at California State University in Irvine (UCI) were suspended for a year for interrupting the speech of the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren. The same state allowed the censorship of professors who spoke out against the bombing of Gaza and slaughtering of the Palestinians (see link).
On October 16, 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Israel Lobby's bill, the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. This legislation requires the US Department of State to monitor anti-Semitism world wide. (It is noteworthy that 4 years later, Republican candidates ran on a platform of promoting hatred of Islam - -see HERE). In line with policies of selective “free speech”, and in the same month that no criminal charges were brought against troops in Afghanistan for burning Korans and urinating on Afghan corpses, August 2012, California passed a resolution (House Resolution 35) against criticism of Israel. What is perhaps more revealing than the Resolution itself, is the desire and the power to curb “free speech” (read Resolution).
In light of the recent examples, is the Moslem world’s anger at the United States misplaced when clearly the United States government has the power to curb speech (the most recent case in point being the State of Georgia’s denial of KKK group's application to “Adopt a Highway”)? Perhaps for the protestors, it is hard to understand that the President’s kill list allows the assassination of American individuals ‘based merely on patterns of behavior” yet he is not able to exercise power to curb speech denigrating Islam.
Why has there been no will to put a stop to these insults and the ensuing violence? One may never know the answer. What is clear is that although the Moslem countries have been grossly violated, their cities bombed, their men, women, and children killed, their spirit has not been crushed. As was brilliantly depicted in a different kind of movie -- Gillo Pontecorvo’s 1965 production of “The Battle of Algiers”, bombs and guns can crush a man’s frail body but not his resistant spirit; ideology will always prevail over bullets.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and blogger with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups.
Media outlets are abuzz with news of the Moslem world’s rage over the release of the provocative film “Innocence of Moslems”. Pundits are quick to condemn the protests across 20 nations, and the gullible and callous citizens of the “West”, mimicking pundits who are paid to mislead and misinform, are placing the blame on the aggrieved Moslem community – they simply don’t understand how “free speech” works in America. But those who are not intellectually blind see a different reality – the fallacy of free speech.
There is a precedent to curbing free speech when deemed harmful. In a landmark Supreme Court hearing -- Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), the actions of Schenck, an anti-war individual who had printed and distributed leaflets in order to discourage enlisting servicemen, was not afforded protection under the First Amendment. The issue before the court was whether Schenck's actions (words, expression) were protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The Court ruled:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic.” Holmes argued that “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
Since the events of 9/11, the whole Moslem community has been engulfed in panic, death, and destruction through such provocative expressions of “free speech”. The United States government, in defiance of this precedent has decided not to prevent such “substantive evils”.
The desecration of the Koran in 2002 by Guantanamo prison guards revealed in 2005, caused riots globally and took the lives of 15 people. The lack of inaction by the authorities may have given Florida pastor Terry Jones reason to be encouraged and to burn a Koran on March 20, 2011. Pictures which were posted on his church’s website. Shortly thereafter, protests broke out in Afghanistan where a U.N. building was attacked and 12 people killed. The government inaction continued. As such, it did not come as a surprise that in February 2012, US forces in Afghanistan burnt copies of Korans at U.S. bases. Angry protests ensued resulting in 30 deaths. There were no criminal charges against the troops, only unspecified administrative punishment.
While the First Amendment enabled insults to be hurled at Moslems, Moslems living in the United States were deprived of “free speech”. Moslem students at California State University in Irvine (UCI) were suspended for a year for interrupting the speech of the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren. The same state allowed the censorship of professors who spoke out against the bombing of Gaza and slaughtering of the Palestinians (see link).
On October 16, 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Israel Lobby's bill, the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. This legislation requires the US Department of State to monitor anti-Semitism world wide. (It is noteworthy that 4 years later, Republican candidates ran on a platform of promoting hatred of Islam - -see HERE). In line with policies of selective “free speech”, and in the same month that no criminal charges were brought against troops in Afghanistan for burning Korans and urinating on Afghan corpses, August 2012, California passed a resolution (House Resolution 35) against criticism of Israel. What is perhaps more revealing than the Resolution itself, is the desire and the power to curb “free speech” (read Resolution).
In light of the recent examples, is the Moslem world’s anger at the United States misplaced when clearly the United States government has the power to curb speech (the most recent case in point being the State of Georgia’s denial of KKK group's application to “Adopt a Highway”)? Perhaps for the protestors, it is hard to understand that the President’s kill list allows the assassination of American individuals ‘based merely on patterns of behavior” yet he is not able to exercise power to curb speech denigrating Islam.
Why has there been no will to put a stop to these insults and the ensuing violence? One may never know the answer. What is clear is that although the Moslem countries have been grossly violated, their cities bombed, their men, women, and children killed, their spirit has not been crushed. As was brilliantly depicted in a different kind of movie -- Gillo Pontecorvo’s 1965 production of “The Battle of Algiers”, bombs and guns can crush a man’s frail body but not his resistant spirit; ideology will always prevail over bullets.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and blogger with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Sanctions: Diplomacy's Weapon of Mass Murder
Note: While I am taking a couple of weeks off, others are working hard and resisting the Empire with every ounce of energy. Today, my friend Soraya has sent me this excellent piece of the real WMD of our times: sanctions. I am most grateful to her for allowing me to publish it and for all her excellent work.
The Saker
Sanctions: Diplomacy’s Weapon of Mass Murder
In 1945, the United States of America dropped two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagaski immediately killing 120,000 civilians. The final death toll of the horrendous bombings has been conservatively estimated at well over 200,000 men, women, and children. To this day, the world continues to be shocked and horrified by the visual images that captured the death and destruction caused by the bombs. The negative impact prompted America to devise a different weapon of mass murder – sanctions.
Unlike the shock and horror which accompanied the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, there were no images of the 500,000 Iraqi children whose lives were cut short by sanctions to jolt the world into reality. Not only has America taken pride in the mass killing of innocent children, but encouraged by silence and the surrender to its weapon of choice, it has turned diplomacy’s weapon of mass murder on another country – Iran.
There has been little resistance to sanctions in the false belief that sanctions are a tool of diplomacy and preferable to war. Enforcement of this belief has been a major victory for American public diplomacy. The reality is otherwise. Sanctions kill indiscriminately – they are far deadlier than “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” – the two atomic bombs that took the lives of over 200,000 people. In the case of Iraq, the United Nations estimated 1,700,000 million Iraqi civilians died as a result of sanctions. 1.5 million more victims than the horrific atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Diplomacy’s finest hour.
Even though Denis Halliday, former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, and many other top officials resigned from their posts in protest to the sanctions saying: "The policy of economic sanctions is totally bankrupt. We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and as terrifying as that", the murders continued. In 1999, seventy members of Congress appealed to President Clinton to lift the sanctions and end what they termed "infanticide masquerading as policy." But America continued its lead with its diplomatic death dance.
America, a morally bankrupt nation and the self-appointed global morality police, obeying the wishes of the pro-Israel lobby groups, has for years now pointed its deadly weapon of mass murder at Iran -- sanctions disguised as diplomacy. The misinformed and misguided global community indulges itself in the false belief that war has been avoided, without thought to suffering and death.
In fact, the notion that economic sanctions are always morally preferable to the use of military force has been challenged by Albert C. Pierce, Ethics and National Security professor at the National Defense University. His analysis showed that economic sanctions inflict great pain, suffering, and physical harm on the innocent civilians--so much so that small-scale military operations were sometimes preferable (Ethics and International Affairs,1996).
But America prefers not to engage in battle. Not only would military confrontation bring global condemnation, but history has shown us that while America can win battles, it cannot win wars (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan…..). It therefore resorts to sanctions- a coward’s ruthless “diplomacy” tool in order to disguise its role as the enemy with the purpose of depriving the target nation of self-defense against such horrendous aggression. Sanctions, the warfare by an enemy unidentified by a military uniform is intended to eliminate resistance, to attack women and children, the weak and the old, to being about regime change, without fear of retaliation or censure by the ‘peace-loving’ community.
In this election year, as in the past, appeasement of the pro-Israel lobbies takes precedent to humanity, to the well-being of Americans, and to the security of the global community.
A 2005 report developed by economists Dean DeRosa and Gary Hufbauer demonstrates that if the United States lifted sanctions on Iran the world price of oil could fall by 10 percent translating into an annual savings of $38-76 billion for the United States alone. The current global recession would dwarf the figures cited.
At war even with itself to please the lobbies, House passed H.R. 1905 - Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act. Putting aside the oxymoron of sanctions and human rights for now, America is demanding that the world community not only partake in deadly sanctions, but to do so in direct opposition to the national interests of each and every sovereign nation. This is a sharp departure from the arguments presented by AIPAC in 1977 in response to the Arab league boycott.
AIPAC successfully defined the Arab League boycott as " harassment and blackmailing of America, an interference with normal business activities ... that the boycott activities were contrary to the principles of free trade that the United States has espoused for many years … and the Arab interference in the business relations of American firms with other countries is in effect an interference with the sovereignty of the United States." i
However, the United States has successfully blackmailed other nations to be its accomplice in suffering and mass murder - diplomacy’s weapon of choice. To believe that Iran (or Syria) is the only target of these sanctions is as naïve as believing that sanctions are diplomacy put in place to avoid war. The global impact of the lethal weapon – sanctions -- is simply cushioned in diplomacy ; A brilliantly and ruthlessly executed diplomatic coup.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and blogger with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups.
i H. Alikhani, Sanctioning Iran, Anatomy of a Failed Policy, New York, 2000, p.321
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Israel And The Temple Mount
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
On July 23, 2012, in a scathing attack against the Wagf (literally translated to endowment), the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) opinion piece’s opening paragraph stated: “This year, as Israel observes the traditional period of national mourning for the destruction of the Holy Temple on Tisha b’Av (which starts at sundown on Saturday), it has again been revealed that the Islamic Wakf is carrying out unsupervised work at the Temple Mount, potentially causing irrevocable damage to Judaism’s holiest site i”.
A December 2011 al-Akhbar article fully elaborates on the Israeli attacks against the Islamic Waqf (see link ii) for the purpose of land grab which includes homes, shops, and even Moslem cemeteries. But there is another dimension to these attacks – a messianic aspect which is far more alarming than just stealing land from their rightful owners. The inherent danger from the Israeli obsession over the Temple Mount was first elaborated in an article dated June 2010 called “Nukes And Temples” – highlights of which is as follows.
Evidently, American presidents wish to continue to guard Israel's nuclear "secret". Today, the secrecy continues, as does the aid -- perhaps towards a messianic return - the building of the Third Temple.
In 2006, the Israeli government began work on an exact replica of the Hurva synagogue on its original site. The story of the Hurva has received little attention other than coinciding with Joe Biden's visit to Israel and that government's insistence on building more illegal settlements. But Hurva is the beginning of the end.
As the United States protects Israel and pushes for more sanctions on Iran, thereby distracting the international community from the more pressing problem at hand, rabbis are being tailored for the special kind of garments they will be wearing in a "rebuilt temple". These rabbis believe that the return of Jews to Jerusalem are the obvious signs - "Less obvious are the more subtle realities that add up - the rebuilding of the Jewish Quarter, Jews steadily moving into the Old City, even the Temple Mount tunnel excavations. But alas, those big mosques are still situated on the Temple Mount. For now."iii
Attempts to fulfill the prophecy are not new. In 1990, there was another attempt by the 'Temple Mount Faithful' to bring a cornerstone for a reconstructed Third Temple to the site. In 1996, the opening of an archaeological tunnel adjacent to the Mount led to the first outbreak of widespread violence across the territories between Israelis and Palestinians since the signing of the Oslo accords. In 2000, Ariel Sharon staged a provocative visit to the Temple Mount and said: "The Temple Mount is in our hands and will remain in our hands. It is the holiest site in Judaism and it is the right of every Jew to visit the Temple Mount,".
It took four years to complete the work on Hurva. When presidential candidate, Barack Obama promised AIPAC an undivided Jerusalem in 2008, the building of the Hurva synagogue was well on the way -- which signaled continued future attacks on the al-Aqsa Mosque to make way for construction of the Third Temple. Past wars and future was waged against other countries based on unfounded accusations has distracted the international community from the reality of this construction and its implications - the messianic era. As importantly, Israel's stockpile of nuclear weapons - a nation more likely than any other to use their nuclear weapons based on their deep religious ideology.
Of particular concern is the Gush Emunim, a right-wing religious organization, or others, hijacking a nuclear device to ‘liberate’ the Temple Mount for the building of the Third Temple. The completion of the Hurva synagogue has increased these chances. On April 6, JTA reported that "Our Land of Israel" party had put posters on 200 city buses in Jerusalem showing an artist's rendition of the Third Temple on the site now occupied by the al-Aqsa Mosque with the slogan, "May the Temple be built in our lifetime."
Equally disturbing, a 1997 article reviewing the Israeli Defense Force repeatedly stressed the possibilities of, and the need to guard against, a religious, right-wing military coup, especially as the proportion of religious in the military increases iv. The warming was not unfounded. The once secular army now has combat units filling with those who believe Israel's wars are "God's wars".
This small nation with unimaginable influence in the Western world, enabled by the United States continues to commit crimes against humanity, instigates conflicts and unleashes terrorists in the region and beyond, while it distracts the global community with Iran and its non-existent nuclear program, presenting it as a threat while the zealots prepare for the Messiah's Temple - unhindered. Heaven must be hell.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and blogger with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups.
i Haim Richman, “Op-Ed: Stop Islamic Wakf’s work on the Temple Mount”, JTA, July 23, 2012
ii Mya Guarnieri, “Destruction of Waqf: The Grave Offences of the Israeli State”; alakhbar, December 19, 2011 http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/destruction-waqf-grave-offences-israeli-state
iii Tom Mountain. Preparing for the Third Temple Jewish Advocate. Boston:Aug 22, 2008. Vol. 199, Iss. 34, p. 9 (1 pp.)
iv (Blanche, Ed, “Is the Myth Fading for the Israeli Army? — Part 1.” Jane’s Intelligence Review, 8, no. 12 (December 1996).
On July 23, 2012, in a scathing attack against the Wagf (literally translated to endowment), the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) opinion piece’s opening paragraph stated: “This year, as Israel observes the traditional period of national mourning for the destruction of the Holy Temple on Tisha b’Av (which starts at sundown on Saturday), it has again been revealed that the Islamic Wakf is carrying out unsupervised work at the Temple Mount, potentially causing irrevocable damage to Judaism’s holiest site i”.
A December 2011 al-Akhbar article fully elaborates on the Israeli attacks against the Islamic Waqf (see link ii) for the purpose of land grab which includes homes, shops, and even Moslem cemeteries. But there is another dimension to these attacks – a messianic aspect which is far more alarming than just stealing land from their rightful owners. The inherent danger from the Israeli obsession over the Temple Mount was first elaborated in an article dated June 2010 called “Nukes And Temples” – highlights of which is as follows.
Evidently, American presidents wish to continue to guard Israel's nuclear "secret". Today, the secrecy continues, as does the aid -- perhaps towards a messianic return - the building of the Third Temple.
In 2006, the Israeli government began work on an exact replica of the Hurva synagogue on its original site. The story of the Hurva has received little attention other than coinciding with Joe Biden's visit to Israel and that government's insistence on building more illegal settlements. But Hurva is the beginning of the end.
As the United States protects Israel and pushes for more sanctions on Iran, thereby distracting the international community from the more pressing problem at hand, rabbis are being tailored for the special kind of garments they will be wearing in a "rebuilt temple". These rabbis believe that the return of Jews to Jerusalem are the obvious signs - "Less obvious are the more subtle realities that add up - the rebuilding of the Jewish Quarter, Jews steadily moving into the Old City, even the Temple Mount tunnel excavations. But alas, those big mosques are still situated on the Temple Mount. For now."iii
Attempts to fulfill the prophecy are not new. In 1990, there was another attempt by the 'Temple Mount Faithful' to bring a cornerstone for a reconstructed Third Temple to the site. In 1996, the opening of an archaeological tunnel adjacent to the Mount led to the first outbreak of widespread violence across the territories between Israelis and Palestinians since the signing of the Oslo accords. In 2000, Ariel Sharon staged a provocative visit to the Temple Mount and said: "The Temple Mount is in our hands and will remain in our hands. It is the holiest site in Judaism and it is the right of every Jew to visit the Temple Mount,".
It took four years to complete the work on Hurva. When presidential candidate, Barack Obama promised AIPAC an undivided Jerusalem in 2008, the building of the Hurva synagogue was well on the way -- which signaled continued future attacks on the al-Aqsa Mosque to make way for construction of the Third Temple. Past wars and future was waged against other countries based on unfounded accusations has distracted the international community from the reality of this construction and its implications - the messianic era. As importantly, Israel's stockpile of nuclear weapons - a nation more likely than any other to use their nuclear weapons based on their deep religious ideology.
Of particular concern is the Gush Emunim, a right-wing religious organization, or others, hijacking a nuclear device to ‘liberate’ the Temple Mount for the building of the Third Temple. The completion of the Hurva synagogue has increased these chances. On April 6, JTA reported that "Our Land of Israel" party had put posters on 200 city buses in Jerusalem showing an artist's rendition of the Third Temple on the site now occupied by the al-Aqsa Mosque with the slogan, "May the Temple be built in our lifetime."
Equally disturbing, a 1997 article reviewing the Israeli Defense Force repeatedly stressed the possibilities of, and the need to guard against, a religious, right-wing military coup, especially as the proportion of religious in the military increases iv. The warming was not unfounded. The once secular army now has combat units filling with those who believe Israel's wars are "God's wars".
This small nation with unimaginable influence in the Western world, enabled by the United States continues to commit crimes against humanity, instigates conflicts and unleashes terrorists in the region and beyond, while it distracts the global community with Iran and its non-existent nuclear program, presenting it as a threat while the zealots prepare for the Messiah's Temple - unhindered. Heaven must be hell.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and blogger with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups.
i Haim Richman, “Op-Ed: Stop Islamic Wakf’s work on the Temple Mount”, JTA, July 23, 2012
ii Mya Guarnieri, “Destruction of Waqf: The Grave Offences of the Israeli State”; alakhbar, December 19, 2011 http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/destruction-waqf-grave-offences-israeli-state
iii Tom Mountain. Preparing for the Third Temple Jewish Advocate. Boston:Aug 22, 2008. Vol. 199, Iss. 34, p. 9 (1 pp.)
iv (Blanche, Ed, “Is the Myth Fading for the Israeli Army? — Part 1.” Jane’s Intelligence Review, 8, no. 12 (December 1996).
Friday, July 20, 2012
It Takes a Village, and Some… The Recent Attacks Against Israelis
by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
On July 18, 2012, attack on an Israeli tourist bus in Bulgaria took the lives of 5 Israeli nationals, a Bulgarian, and the mysterious suicide bomber. It is reported that the suspect, a young Caucasian, had a fake Michigan driver’s license. According to Israeli Haaretz, a top Bulgarian official warned that it would be a “mistake” to blame a specific country or organization for the attack. However, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had other ideas.
Quick to point the finger at Iran, Mr. Netanyahu called it an “Iranian terror network spreading throughout the world”. He added: "Exactly 18 years after the attack on a Jewish community center in Argentina, the Iranian terror continues to hurt innocent people." Apparently, it takes a village and some to set Iran up.
These serious allegations with a potential for disaster, demand scrutiny on several levels. The most fundamental question which needs to be addressed is who benefits from these attacks. One must question the location – location, location, location. And finally, analyze the empirical data.
Who Benefits?
In spite of Israel and its Washington lobbies pushing for a war against Iran, of late, prominent voices have adopted a less bellicose stance towards Iran and its nuclear program. The possibility of any military action against Iran which would undoubtedly lead to a closure of the world’s most important oil chokepoint, the Strait of Hormuz, has prompted politicians around the globe to opt for a diplomatic solution to end the impasse with Iran.
Somewhat optimistically, Iran is investing its efforts in diplomacy. While continuing to work towards a mutually acceptable solution with the P5+1, Iran is making extensive preparations for the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit it will be hosting in Tehran in August. Over the past three centuries, Iran has never initiated a war and it would seem unlikely that at this juncture Tehran would resort to terrorism and solicit condemnation and possibly war. On the other hand, the targeting and killing of Israeli citizens by Iran would serve to support and justify Netanyahu’s call for military action against Iran.
For Netanyahu, domestic dissatisfaction aside, Israel’s policy of settlement expansion, a policy which government appointed jurists called legal, has brought international condemnation. With the moderate Kadima party pulling out of government, leaving Netanyahu in charge of hard-line coalition opposed to Middle East peace, Israel needs support from its allies more than ever. Undoubtedly, Israel would have greater support as a victim instead of an aggressor.
Location, Location, Location
In addition to the Bulgaria attack, Mr. Netanyahu has blamed Iran for attacks in other countries, including the apparent foiled attack in Cyprus and the accusations leveled against Iran for plotting an attack in Kenya.
Bulgaria - Bulgaria and Israel have very cordial relations. In July 2011, an Israeli-Bulgarian declaration pledged wide range cooperation. A year later, on July 8th, Bulgaria’s former foreign minister Solomon Passy told The Times of Israel that Israel should aggressively seek to join NATO and the EU. Passy said: “Israel is part of Western civilization and of the Euro-Atlantic political culture and that’s why Israel shouldn’t be shy to vocally say that it wants to become a member of NATO, the EU and OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe],”. Ten days later, an attack against Israel took place in Bulgaria.
Thailand – Thailand and Israel have had cordial relations with moderate and steady trade. In January 2012, Thailand recognized Palestine as an independent state. A month later, Israel blamed Iran for “terrorist attacks” in Bangkok. Allegedly, one of the perpetrators had carried his “Iranian” passport on him to carry out the mission.
India - India and Israel have had very amicable relations. On July 17, 2003, JINSA’s executive director delivered a speech in Washington to the US–India Political Action Committee International Conference on Terrorism in India in which he put Israel, the United States, and India in the same boat – as the number one on the terrorist hit list (Bonney 2008). In 2008, India launched Israel’s spy satellite into orbit. In spite of its close ties to Israel, India has not stopped trade with Iran. In fact, two days prior to the Israeli embassy staff in India were targeted on February 13, 2012, India defended its oil trade with Iran.
Georgia – Israel’s relations with Georgia are unique. It was widely reported in 2008 that Israel had the green light to attack Iran from Georgian territory. Israel is thought to have played a prominent role in the Russian-Georgian conflict (see link for full details of the relationship. In 2010, Georgia and Iran entered a new phase in their relationship and Nino Kalandadze, the Georgian deputy foreign minister expressed that “ties will further deepen”. As with India, Iran was blamed for the bomb attempts in Georgia.
Given the nature of Israel’s relations with these countries, one cannot definitively conclude why these countries were picked by the perpetrators of these crimes. Perhaps these Israeli allies are not safe for Israelis, or they are safe for false-flag operations.
Empirical Data
Mr. Netanyahu made a clear reference to 1994 saying: “Exactly 18 years after the attack on a Jewish community center in Argentina, the Iranian terror continues to hurt innocent people." The 1994 bombing in Argentina was blamed squarely on Iran without any evidence while all other voices were silenced. Prominent voices such as Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles who suggested that [Argentine] government and military figures may have sought to embarrass the Menem government because of its decision to release the files” being investigated in the AMIA building at the time. An important project being carried out at the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association building was a review of previously secret government files that reportedly reveal how Nazis entered Argentina following World War II helped by Argentine officials. The review of the files had gone on for two years, but had not been completed at the time of the bombing. “Speculation centered on the possibility that former Argentine government and military officials, fearful of exposure, were responsible for the bomb attack." 1
This is but one of the many instances where allegations against Iran have been made without any proof. However, there have been many instances where Israeli false flag operations have come to light.
Many reports as well as a detailed account (“Operation Cyanide”) reveals the Israeli plan to kill everyone on board the USS Liberty in 1967 and put the blame on Egypt. The survivors prompted President Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara to order the investigation to conclude the attack was a case of mistaken identity.
Israel has always had a knack for stealing passports and other IDs to carry out false flag operations. According to The New Zealand Herald (September 21, 2004)2 Mossad agents tried to steal New Zealand passports, causing friction between New Zealand and Israel. It is not the first time this has come to light, according to the same source.
Mossad agents had stolen Canadian passports to assassinate a Jordanian leader. These are not isolated cases.
In January 2012, it came to light that Israeli Mossad officers recruited operatives belonging to the terrorist group Jundallah by passing themselves off as American agents.
According to two U.S. intelligence officials, while toting U.S. passports and posing as CIA officers, they recruited Jundallah operatives. One month later, in February, NBC reported that according to US officials, Israel armed and trained the terrorist MEK.
While there is plenty of empirical data to support that Israelis are not shy about false flag operations, one would be hard pressed to accept that Israel would carry out a false flag operation and kill its own. Not so.
The 1976 Operation Entebbe was a great tribute to Israeli courage and praise of Israeli commandos of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) who rescued Israeli citizens at Entebbe airport in Uganda. But newly released British government documents reveal that the 1976 rescue of hostages, kidnapped on an Air France flight and held in Entebbe was a false flag operation – the file claims that Israel itself was behind the hijacking.
This “rescue operation” which became known as “operation Jonathan” in honor of the unit’s leader – Yonatan Netanyahu, the current Prime Minister’s brother. Yonatan was killed in the false flag operation – as were four other Israelis.
When it comes to Israel’s political agenda, no sacrifice is too great. A move against Iran will reverberate throughout the world. It is important for political leaders around the globe to understand that it may take a village to implement a political agenda, but it is up to them to make sure that the agenda does not destroy the global village.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and blogger with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups.
1Jewish Center Bombed in Argentina. The Christian Century. Chicago:Jul 27, 1994. Vol. 111, Iss. 22, p. 716 (2 pp.)
2http://www.stormfront.org/solargeneral/library/www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/09/Israel_spy7.html
Saker addendum: See this article about the Buenos-Aires bombing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
