Azerbaijan: The High Cost of Protection

by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

A 2009 U.S. embassy political dispatch compared Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to a mafia crime boss. An apt comparison given that Aliyev and the Azeri political elite have been living under the protection of the Capo Crimini – Israel. The protection does not come cheap; and the manufacture of the recent lie -- the arrest of 22 Azerbaijani citizen allegedly “trained in Iran” to carry out terrorist acts against the U.S. and Israel, is the latest protection payment.

Capo Crimini’s protection is noteworthy. Aliyev, a corrupt dictator who came to power through election fraud in 2003, managed to make his rounds in Washington in 2006, including a private meeting with President Bush, thanks to the full weight of the Israeli lobby in Washington. The promotion of the Azeri cause in Washington by the Israeli lobby (which included lobbying against Armenians), reinforced the notion that “the way to Washington leads through Jerusalem” i while benefitting various players - to the detriment of some others.

Although much of Israel’s oil comes from Azerbaijan, Israel was more interested in the control of the oil. With this in mind, despite the fact that oil companies in the Caspian region favored the much shorter and cheaper oil pipeline that would transit Iran, Israel relentlessly pushed for the alternate, more expensive and impractical Baku-Tblisi-Cehan pipeline which pipeline had over 1000 miles of it going through mountainous territory bypassing Russia and Armenia. This expensive venture also served to send the message to Turkey that alliance with Israel pays off.

Lord Browne, former chief executive of BP, was quoted as saying that the whole scheme was launched in the interest of Israelii. Brenda Shafffer who was instrumental in promoting the pipeline, put it this way: “There's growing demand in Asia. If Israel is clever about it, it could market this not only commercially but also politically in a way that could improve regional security and stability." (JTA, NY, Oct 21, 2005). Shaffer is also of the opinion that Caspian oil (specifically non-OPEC members Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan) makes Saudi Arabia and the OPEC cartel nervous because they do not coordinate their policies with the cartel.

These plans were made possible thanks to the aftermath of September 11. 9/11 changed everything – as a leading Azeri foreign policy specialist opined: "But the situation changed after Sept. 11, with American presence in Central Asia, Georgia and Azerbaijan," he explains. "Our being under the shadow of America means Russia and Iran will not meddle. We are able to be more courageous." (Greene, Richard Allen. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. New York:Apr 29, 2002. p. 4)

More courageous, perhaps but the newfound courage lacks rationale and the needs of the people of Azerbaijan have been neglected. Asim Mollazadeh, first Chairperson of the Party for Democratic Reforms prominent Azeri opposition candidate, states that Azerbaijan receives only 10 percent of oil loyalties. He argues that with 42 percent of the country living below poverty lines, the oil income does not trickle downiii. A heavy price to pay for Washington to feign welcome to the Azeri dictator.

In 2002, JTA reported that Israel's ambassador to Azerbaijan had a favorite local joke: "Are you Jewish? No, I just look intelligent." (JTA Apr 29, 2002). Insulting as the joke may be, inarguably, actions which alienate the Russians, compete with Saudis, and magically pull “22 Iran-linked terrorists” out of a hat do not ‘look intelligent’.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has a Master’s degree in Public Diplomacy from USC Annenberg for Communication and Journalism and USC School of International Relations. She 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.
-----
i Netty C. Gross; “The Azeri Triangle”, The Jerusalem Post, July 10, 2006, p. 24
ii Cited by Andrew l. Killgore, “Ideology Trumps Economic Efficiency, as The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Opens”, The Washington Report on Middle East Affair, Aug 2005, Vol. 24, iss. 6, p.32
iii Netty C. Gross; “The Azeri Triangle”

Israel's Latest Ritual Slaughter

By Stephen Lendman for Information Clearing House

Four days of Israeli terror bombing left at least 25 Palestinians dead and dozens injured, some seriously. Human rights groups expressed outrage. So did Arab League states, Iran, Turkey, and Malaysia.

Israel's UN envoy Ron Prosor wants the Security Council to condemn Palestinian victims. Like Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, his audacity gives chutzpah new meaning.

On March 12, Egypt's lower parliamentary house unanimously approved a text declaring Israel Egypt's number one enemy. It called for expelling its ambassador, halting gas exports at below market prices, and reevaluating its 1978 peace treaty. It followed the 1978 Camp David Accords.

Its text said:

"Revolutionary Egypt will never be a friend, partner or ally of the Zionist entity, which we consider to be the number one enemy of Egypt and the Arab nation."

"It will deal with that entity as an enemy, and the Egyptian government is hereby called upon to review all its relations and accords with that enemy."

No Israeli comment followed.
 

Four days of Israeli terror bombings were unprovoked. Assassinating Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) head Zuhir al-Qaisi and PRC member Mahmoud Hanani began them. Both men died when two IDF missiles struck their car.

Gazan resistance groups launched Grad missiles, home-made rockets, and mortar shells defensively in response. Israel and Washington pointed fingers the wrong way. Absolving Israeli crimes takes precedence.

Naked aggression's called self-defense. Resistance freedom fighting is called terrorism. Facts on the ground are inverted. Whatever Israel does it right. Legitimate Palestinian responses aren't tolerated. Victims get no rights.

Israel's bloodstained history reflects decades of ritual slaughter and targeted killings. The latest incident shows what Palestinians endure regularly, including from media scoundrels ignoring their suffering and denouncing them.

Usually, Haaretz produces responsible journalism. Not on March 13. An editorial headlined, "War in Israel's south will not defeat Gaza terror," asking:

Was killing al-Qaisi worth "disruption....economic damage, (and) danger of plunging into a military ground operation in Gaza?"

Unasked was how targeted killings are ever justifiable. Haaretz approves against alleged "ticking bomb(s)." By whose standard when no evidence linked al-Qaisi to past or claimed planned attacks. Saying so isn't proof. Israel never supplies it. Why is clear. There's none, but Haaretz didn't explain or denounce premeditated murder.

Instead, it sided with southern Israelis living under threat of Gazan rockets. They're used defensively in response to Israeli attacks. International law permits it.

"The war in the south must end immediately. It will not defeat terror nor reduce the Gaza threat." Nor will Cast Lead II. Sensibly the editorial ended saying negotiations, not violence, produces solutions.

But how can Palestinians negotiate in good faith without a willing partner! For decades, Israel chose violence, not peace or honest diplomacy. Relations with Netanyahu's like dealing with a snake. It's futile, toxic and dangerous. He proves it by committing cold-blooded murder, claiming self-defense.

A same day Haaretz article was just as shameless, headlined, "TIMELINE/A breakdown of number of Gaza rockets fired at Israel over past year."

Enumerating numbers fired by month from January 2011 through the latest March confrontation, it listed 200 this month alone. Gazans were blamed, not IDF belligerents. Unexplained was that Palestinians respond defensively to Israeli aggression.

Instead, the blame game shamelessly named victims. It also ignored their decades long liberation struggle against lawless, repressive occupation, and for Gazans years of suffocating siege.

Moreover, as Btselem documents, Palestinian rockets killed only 19 Israeli civilians from June 2004 through September 2011. In contrast, from September 29, 2000 through December 26, 2008, Israeli forces killed 4,788 Palestinians. Israeli settlers killed 45 more.

Cast Lead killed over 1,400 Gazans in three weeks, mostly civilians. Only five IDF soldiers died in the conflict, no civilians. Since Cast Lead ended in January 2009, Israeli forces killed another 300 Palestinians. Settlers killed five more. Palestinians killed 15 Israelis.

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) said Israeli drone attacks killed 825 Palestinians, mostly civilians, from June 2006 through October 2011. PCHR deputy director Hamdi Shaqqura said:

“For us, drones mean death....When you hear drones, you hear death,” and know it’s coming.

Haaretz omitted this balance sheet from its equation.

Notably, hundreds of Israelis die annually from traffic related accidents. In 2008, it was nearly 450, in 2011, almost 400. Deaths at the hands of Palestinians pale by comparison.

Haaretz's article was cruel and deceptive. It distorted facts in portraying an entirely one-sided picture. Gazans are wrongfully called terrorists. They're human beings suffering horrifically from lawless Israeli oppression. It's not typical Haaretz style. For US major media scoundrels, it's de rigueur.

Hopefully today's report and opinion prove aberrant. Hopefully those producing them learn from their mistakes. Haaretz features wonderful writers like Gideon Levy and Amira Hass. They consistently offer responsible journalism. America's major print media have none like them. If any tried, they'd be fired. Only scoundrels need apply.

It shows up daily in reports like The New York Times headlining, "As Rockets Fly, New Conditions Shape Fight in Gaza," saying:

Ahead of an Egyptian-brokered truce, Israeli airstrikes continue and Palestinian "militants' rockets (are reaching farther into Israel." IDF head Gen. Benny Gantz was cited, saying Palestinian violence will require another Cast Lead type operation. Israeli finance minister Yuval Steinitz said eventually Israel will have to do a "root canal."

In other words, victims, not perpetrators, deserve blame. Times writers play the same game. Right and wrong are reversed. Aggression's called self-defense. Legitimate responses are terrorism. Israel's point of view alone matters. It's typical Times journalism, betraying their readers through lies, deception, and willful misreporting.

The same article falsely suggested Iran's an existential threat. Serial liars don't quit. It's habit forming. Too many people believe it. It lets Israel and America get away with murder.

Complicit media scoundrels facilitate it. So does scurrilous UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon. He condemned Palestinian self-defense as "unacceptable," while urging Israel to "exercise maximum restraint."

Hillary Clinton expressed Washington's official response, "condemn(ing) Gazan victims "in the strongest terms" while urging "all sides...to make every effort to restore calm."

In other words, killing Palestinians is OK. Responding to premeditated aggression defensively is terrorism. Views like that secure scurrilous reprobates like her and Ban top jobs. Denouncing Israeli lawlessness assures rebukes.

America and Israel have "shared values." None support right over wrong. One wonders what's next.

A Final Comment

After an agreed truce, Israeli forces attacked a funeral procession east of Gaza City. Three Palestinians were injured. Medical spokesman Adham Abu Salmiyah said soldiers fired indiscriminately at mourners. Wounded victims were taken to al-Shifa Hospital.

An Israeli army spokeswoman said soldiers "operating along the security fence identified around 50 Palestinians gathered and in accordance with army procedures fired warning shots."

Some warning! Soldiers fired directly at nonviolent Palestinians threatening no one. It's "in accordance with army procedures!"

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Six Ways the Media Has Misreported Syria

by Afshin Mehrpouya for Counterpunch:

As in the case of Libya, from NY Times to Fox News, from Guardian to National Post and from Le Monde to Le Figaro, the Western mainstream media’s coverage of the Syrian conflict has been mostly simplistic and black & white with a Hollywoodian good (opposition) and evil (Syrian government) story. The basic storyline reported is: “The dictatorial Syrian government is torturing and killing Syrian protestors and civilians including women and children and that the Western counties and the Arab League want to protect these Syrian civilians”. These outlets use any information that supports their stance regardless of its source and quality, and dismiss or ignore any information that brings it to question.

The bloody suppression of protestors by the Syrian government and also instability resulting from the armed insurgency aggravated by a complex set of foreign forces, each with its own set of vested interests, have resulted in significant suffering for the people of Syria. Western media’s unquestioning, consensual, biased and melodramatic coverage of the Syrian events risks moving this conflict to a full blown war with grave consequences for the Syrian people and the region.

Here are the six ways that the Western media, across the board, have been uncritical and misleading in their coverage of the Syrian conflict:

1. What do the majority of Syrians want?

In the mainstream Western media coverage, there is an implicit assumption rarely questioned that the majority of the Syrians support the armed insurgency and that they want immediate departure of Bashar Assad. However, the only opinion poll that has been carried out by the Qatar based YouGovSiraj, since the start of the conflict claims that about 55%[1] of Syrians do not want immediate departure of Assad. The methodology for this poll is not robust. In addition, this stance might be not due to support for Assad rather, because the Syrian people are afraid of instability and civil war or because some believe in the reform intentions of Assad and still others because they might be benefiting from the existing regime. The 89% backing of the new Syrian constitution in the recent referendum with a turnout of 57% was also dismissed because of the ongoing violence on the ground and lack of independent supervision on the referendum[2].

Nonetheless, given the West’s backing of the Syrian opposition is based on the “will of the Syrian people”, for the media it is essential to expose and debate such polls and try to establish what the majority of the Syrians want before adopting a position on behalf of the Syrian people.

2. Is the Syrian National Council (SNC) and the militarized insurgency representative of the Syrian opposition?

The opposition is primarily represented by Syrian National Council (SNC) headed by a Syrian expatriate professor, Burhan Ghalioun who is based in Paris[3]. This organization which is run mostly by expatriates has been demanding foreign intervention in Syria and it rejects any sort of dialog with the Syrian government. Several independent media outlets and other Syrian opposition groups[4] have questioned SNC’s lack of transparency about its members, funding and foreign links and whether it is a legitimate representative of the Syrian opposition[5][6]. Another organization claiming to represent the opposition is the Syrian Opposition Coordination body operated from inside Syria which is against foreign intervention and is for a dialog-based solution after an end is put to the violence and the political prisoners are freed. In addition, several militarized groups operate inside Syria such as Free Syrian Army who have been engaged in an armed conflict with the Syrian army and also have been attacking government buildings and other assets. These militia are reported to be a mix of deserting soldiers, foreign mercenaries and armed civilians[7] and they are armed by cross border smuggled arms allegedly funded/provided by foreign governments including those of Saudi Arabia[8], Qatar[9].

All these organizations are non-transparent and little is known about who runs them and who they are accountable to. The media has an important unfulfilled role in exposing the governance of these organizations and their internal and foreign political sidings and ideological agenda. Currently there is no proof that such organizations represent the will of the majority or a significant part of the Syrian people or the opposition.

3. How many casualties and killed by whom?

There have been casualties due to government suppression of civilian protests, due to armed conflict between government soldiers and armed militia and also due to reprisals and bombings by the armed militias. The number of total victims reported by the UN Human Rights Council which is now at 7,500, is regularly used by the Western media to refer to the extent of the repression in Syria. However, no breakdown is provided as to what percentage of this number represents civilians, what part opposition armed forces and what percentage soldiers. The UN has estimated that as of Feb 15, 2012, 1,345 Syrian soldiers have been so far killed in the conflict[10]. This is a strong indication that what is happening in Syria is an armed insurgency verging on civil war and not only a government “killing and torturing its people”. The violence perpetrated by both sides was exposed in the report prepared by Arab League monitors, which is the only existing first-hand account of what is happening on the ground [11]. However this report was mostly ignored because it did not back the black and white account of the Arab League and the Western media. The Western media should show more responsibility in its use of casualty numbers, because such numbers are highly influential in driving international public opinion about the conflict.

4. Are the information sources unbiased and credible?

Operation of foreign journalists in Syria is limited by safety concerns. Consequently the Western media has been using other sources, mainly the Syrian Observatory on Human Rights and other opposition sources. Sometimes the media simply cites “activists” or a new largely unknown entity named “Local Coordination Councils” as the source for information without further detailing its sources. Syrian Observatory on for Human Rights (SOHR), which is the most common source, was originally run by a single person (Rami Abdulrahman) from Coventry, UK. SOHR has been recently contested by a competing organization with the same name. There is an ongoing bitter fight between the two SOHRs over who is the “authentic” SOHR [12]. The latter SOHR blames the former of links with the Syrian regime and of over-reporting of soldiers’ and security officers’ death. The former SOHR states that it wants the “bloodshed to stop” and that it is against foreign intervention, while the latter states that it supports a no-fly-zone in Syria. Obviously all such opaque organizations, which are openly against the Syrian regime, have an interest in biased and inflated reporting of the casualties in the conflict. High quality journalism necessitates thorough verification of sources and including the account of both sides of the conflict to ensure a balanced coverage. However, so far the Western media has unquestioningly used the numbers and coverage of these organizations in a one-sided manner without sufficient questioning.

5. What are the interests of countries pushing for regime change and foreign intervention?

The current conflict in Syria is smeared and complicated by the interference of a long list of foreign stakeholders each with its own political agenda. Some of these interests are[13][14]:

Saudi Arabia and other GCC countriesUS and Europe: Replacing a Alaawite (Shiite) run government allied with Iran with a Sunni government more aligned with the GCC – On December 2, 2011, head of SNC, Ghalioun, said that if his party takes over Syria it would end the military relationship to Iran and cut off arms supplies to Hezbollah and Hamas, and establish ties with Israel; Distracting the international media from repression of peaceful opposition in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia[15]; Removing a government allied with Iran which will help decrease the Iranian influence in the region; Removing a government with a mostly independent or anti-Western / Israel line of politics

Israel: Removing a government allied with Iran and Hezbollah. Syria is a key country bordering with Israel with an open pro-Palestinian agenda – Ghalioun announced that his future government will cut its military ties with Iran and Hizbollah[16]; and Distracting the Middle Eastern media coverage from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
 

Russia: Stopping the fast expansion of US allied governments in the Middle East (after Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya) and loss of one of the last of its allied Middle Eastern governments where it also has its last offshore military based

Iran: Protecting one of the last of its allied countries in the region. If the Syrian government falls, Iran would face increased isolation and pressure and risk of foreign intervention backed by the GCC, Israel and the West.
Turkey: Maintaining its influence in the post Assad regime which has geopolitical importance for Turkey

The media has so far been shallow in its coverage of the goals of the nations that are playing an active role in this conflict. The simple story is that all these governments want to “protect Syrian civilians”. However the complex mesh of vested interests is mostly left unexposed.

6. What are the “democratic credentials of the countries who want to take democracy to Syria?

One key block of countries pushing for military intervention and regime change in Syria has been the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). It is important to remember that most GCC countries including Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are run by totalitarian regimes[17] facing local protests. Saudi Arabia recently sent troops to Bahrain to suppress peaceful protests [18]. The Western media should do a better job in debating the legitimacy of such actors in pushing for democratic change and for protecting civilians in Syria.

As in the case of Libya, this one-sided coverage of the Syrian conflict is facilitating the escalation of the conflict towards a civil war and foreign military intervention which might serve the short-term interests of many foreign countries and forces but would be disastrous for the people of Syria. The Western media has a significant and grave moral responsibility to move from the current one-sided and biased media lynching of the Syrian government to a more balanced, nuanced and comprehensive approach.

Afshin Mehrpouya is an independent writer on Middle East politics and social issues. He is a university professor in Paris, France. He can be reached at mehrpouya_pl@gmail.com
 

Notes:
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17155349
[2] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57385423/west-calls-syrian-referendum-a-sham/
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burhan_Ghalioun
[4] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/01/us-syria-opposition-idUSTRE8200SA20120301
[5] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=8027
[6] The Real News Network – The Syrian Opposition and the External Players; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQeWU7Gm8c
[7] http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/assads-troops-close-in-on-foreign-mercenaries
[8] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/24/saudi-arabia-backs-arming-syrian-opposition
[9] http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/
[10] http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/A-HRC-19-69.pdf
[11] http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf
[12] http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=29518
[13] http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB04Ak01.html
[14] http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=8027
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%932012_Saudi_Arabian_protests
[16] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204397704577070850124861954.html
[17] http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2010
[18] http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3164933.htm

Keep going boys you are, no doubt, winning this war!

• January 2012: US marines urinate on dead Afghans
• February 2012: US troops burn Koran
• March 2012: US soldier kills 16 civilians including 9 sleeping kid
• April 2012: tba

Feel the love...

Keep going boys, you are, no doubt, winning this war :-)

My imagination vs Occam

I have been thinking a lot about the recent events in Russia, the elections to the Duma, the short-lived "White Revolution", then the cameras in all voting locations, and finally Putin's triumphant election.  Something just kept creping back to my (admittedly paranoid) mind, over and over again.  I was pushing it down, but it used the "what if?" method to harass my imagination which is by nature, training and trade always inclined to assume that there are always at least two, if not more, levels to each important event.  Tonight I decided to share with you that hypothesis.  And the very first thing I will do is that I will begin to unambiguously admit that this hypothesis has absolutely zero support in established facts.  Zero.  And yet - what do you think about this:

What if the Kremlin had quietly orchestrated this entire "White Revolution"?

My suspicions began when I heard on Russian TV about a survey which the entire Western corporate Ziomedia ignored: the "White Revolution" resulted in a huge popularity boost for Putin.  Yes, that's right.  All the allegations of vote-rigging and corruption and all the talk about canceling the elections resulted in an immediate backlash for support for, and circling the wagons around, Putin.

Think about it: Russian have seen the results of a "color coded revolution" right next door, in the Ukraine, where most Russians have friends and families.  For a full decade, while Russia was sky-rocketing up back to superpower status, the Ukraine, led by the "pro-US nationalists" (a ridiculous concept to begin with), was in free fall.  Day after day after day, Russian TV stations were covering the economic collapse of their neighbor, the political chaos, the mind-blowing corruption.  Hundred of thousands of Ukrainian jumped into trains to come and work in Russia, while Russians spend their summer holidays in Crimea. Bottom line: for a full decade Russian really had "front row seats" to observe the calamity which the Orange Revolution was for the Ukraine.

And it is against this background that suddenly, almost spontaneously, a weird coalition of fringe parties got together and decided to try another color-coded revolution, but this time in Russia?

Does that not strike you as absurd?

And the result?  Hundred of thousands of terrified Russian immediately filled the streets with pro-Kremlin demonstrations saying in unison "not here! over our dead bodies"  No pasaran!".

What if Putin who, after all, got elected the first time around thanks to the "Chechen threat" decided that this time a "color-coded Revolution threat" would do the trick again?

What could better mobilize the Russian masses than a simple choice: "you vote for me or the country will go to hell"?

I am not saying that there is any evidence that the Kremlin is behind a "false flag color-coded revolution" not any more than I would say that the Kremlin was behind the 1999 bombings of the apartment buildings in Russia (attributed to Chechen terrorists).  Regardless of who really bombed these apartment buildings - the Chechen-Wahabi threat to Russia and the entire region was real.  And today, the US/Zionist threat is real too.  But you got to admit it - either Putin is really very lucky, or his adversaries very dumb, or Putin is very good at scaring the Russian people to vote for him as the sole defender of Russia.

I will conclude by saying this: while there is no evidence that what took place in Russia was a "false flag color-coded revolution", I have seen no evidence which would refute that hypothesis either.  Yes, Golos was financed by the West, and the Western Ziomedia fully endorsed the "stolen elections" canard.  But Golos really did not play such a big role in that. As for the Western Ziomedia, it would be willing to report that Putin eats raped babies for breakfast every morning and that he is a reincarnation of Ivan the Terrible.  These guys will print anything anti-Russian, no matter how ugly and self-evidently ludicrous it is.  If this was, indeed, a "false flag color-coded revolution" then those who organized it would have had no difficulty predicting that the Western Ziomedia would immediately pick up and run with the story.

Occam and his razor say that I am wrong.  They might well be right; they mostly are.

But what if?

The Saker

Israel-US Relations: Blockhead and the Judge?

by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

An insincere and evil friend is more to be feared than a wild beast; a wild beast may wound your body, but an evil friend will wound your mind. - Buddha

America’s relations with Israel has always been explained by politicians on both sides as ‘friendship’. Today, more than any other time in the course of their ‘friendship’, this relationship brings to mind the story of “Blockhead and the Judge”.

According to English folklore, Blockhead complained to the Judge of being annoyed with flies. The Judge granted Blockhead permission to strike them wherever he saw them. Observing a big fly on the judge's nose, Blockhead delivered a powerful blow with his fist, smashing the fly – and the Judge’s nose.

Israel, annoyed at Iran’s refusal to abrogate its rights granted under international law and treaties, and for resisting injustice, has demanded that the United States not only impose crippling sanctions on Iran, but place an embargo on Iran’s crude oil. America’s compliance with such irrational and harsh demands has in turn raised the prospect of retaliation which could halt the flow of oil from the Strait of Hormuz, depriving the world of an estimated 35% of its total oil needs.

As Ted Koppel wrote rather candidly in the New York Times (February 24, 2006) “Keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf and through the Strait of Hormuz has been the bedrock of American foreign policy for more than half a century."ⁱ In complying with Israel’s wishes, not only has America acted contrary to its long-standing foreign policy, violated international treaties, but it has also inflicted harm on its national interest by creating a shortage which has sent gas prices skyrocketing setting back the economy.

A March, 2012 Gallup Poll is indicative of the dire effects of this decision on the US economy. The poll shows that 85% of Americans want the President and Congress to “take immediate actions to try to control the rising price of gas." Ironically, it is the President and Congress, hedged on by Israel and its lobbies in the U.S. that have caused the gas price increase.

A simple equation determines the price of oil: supply and demand (granted, at times other variables factor in such as speculators, specifically at times of political crisis, and oil refinery related issues, bearing in mind that much of the oil refineries in America and elsewhere are Israeli owned – see footnote¹). There is ample empirical evidence pointing to price increases whenever oil supplies are disrupted.

The Iranian revolution and the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war is estimated to have cost the US a total of $355 billion in higher oil prices (T. Stauffer, 2003)ⁱⁱ. The oil strikes leading up to the 1978-79 Iranian revolution reduced Iranian oil production by 3.8 million barrels per day for 3 months. Although outside production increased by 1.8 million barrels to make up for the loss, the net loss to the world was 150 million barrels of oil, this fact alone had a compounding result which resulted in a net loss to U.S. economy of an estimated billions of dollars in 1979 and 1980 (Deese & Nye 1981)ⁱⁱⁱ. It is crucial to note that in this period China was a net exporter oil and became a net importer in 1993.

Ignoring such statistics, they have placed an oil embargo which without a doubt will have far graver repercussions than those periods. This dire situation is of no concern to the Israelis – thanks to America having “their back”. The burden is America’s due to the renewable 1975 15-year Memorandum of Understanding it signed with Israel which costs American taxpayers billions of dollars a year in oil subsidies.

Point (b) of Annex to the MoU stipulates:

“If the oil Israel needs to meet all of its normal requirements for domestic consumption is unavailable for purchase in circumstances where quantitative restrictions through embargo or otherwise also prevent the United States from procuring oil to meet its normal requirements, the ^ivUnited States Government will promptly make oil available for purchase by Israel in accordance with the International Energy Agency conservation and allocation formula, as applied by the United States Government, in order to meet Israel's essential requirements. If Israel is unable to secure the necessary means to transport such oil to Israel, the United States Government will make every effort to help Israel secure the necessary means of transport.”

The 85% Americans who demand “immediate action” from Congress and the President, should remind the government of the 2008 research developed by economists Dean DeRosa and Gary Hufbauer which makes a clear case for the United States to lift sanctions on Iran, arguing that the this would drop the world price of oil by 10 percent, translating into an annual savings of $38-76 billion for the United States.

As Americans are being crushed under the weight of sanctions and oil embargo, in demanding action from the government, they should bear in mind that Israel is no friend, and Iran is no fly.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has a Master’s degree in Public Diplomacy from USC Annenberg for Communication and Journalism and USC School of International Relations.  She 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 Some recent examples of Israeli oil refinery takeovers include a 2006 takeover - Alon USA Energy Inc. gained a foothold in California 's lucrative gasoline market Monday, announcing plans to buy Paramount Petroleum Corp. and Edgington Oil Co.” (Alon Buys 2 Refiners in State: Elizabeth Douglass.  Los Angeles Times.  Los Angeles, Calif.:May 2, 2006.  p. C.8,

2008- Alon Israel Oil had multiple transactions resulting in acquisition of 100,000 shares of stock. The company now owns 36.07 million shares of stock directly” (US Fed News Service, Including US State News. Washington, D.C.: Sep 3, 2008).

i Cited in “Resource Wars”, William K Tabb.  Monthly Review.  New York:Jan 2007.  Vol. 58,  Iss. 8,  p. 32-42

ii Thomas R. Stauffer, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June 2003, pages 20-23

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/june2003/0306020.html

iii Deese, David A. and Joseph S. Nye, ed. Energy and Security. Cambridge: Balllinger Publishing Co.: 1981.

Why Putin is Driving Washington Nuts

By Pepe Escobar for the Asia Times

Forget the past (Saddam, Osama, Gaddafi) and the present (Assad, Ahmadinejad). A bet can be made over a bottle of Petrus 1989 (the problem is waiting the next six years to collect); for the foreseeable future, Washington's top bogeyman - and also for its rogue North Atlantic Treaty Organization partners and assorted media shills - will be none other than back-to-the-future Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Putin: the West's next "New Hitler"?

And make no mistake; Vlad the Putinator will relish it. He's back exactly where he wants to be; as Russia's commander-in-chief, in charge of the military, foreign policy and all national security matters.

Anglo-American elites still squirm at the mention of his now legendary Munich 2007 speech, when he blasted the then George W Bush administration for its obsessively unipolar imperial agenda "through a system which has nothing to do with democracy" and non-stop overstepping of its "national borders in almost all spheres"."

So Washington and its minions have been warned. Before last Sunday's election, Putin even advertised his road map The essentials; no war on Syria; no war on Iran; no "humanitarian bombing" or fomenting "color revolutions" - all bundled into a new concept, "illegal instruments of soft power". For Putin, a Washington-engineered New World Order is a no-go. What rules is "the time-honored principle of state sovereignty".

No wonder. When Putin looks at Libya, he sees the graphic, regressive consequences of NATO's "liberation" through "humanitarian bombing"; a fragmented country controlled by al-Qaeda-linked militias; backward Cyrenaica splitting from more developed Tripolitania; and a relative of the last king brought in to rule the new "emirate" - to the delight of those model democrats of the House of Saud.

More key essentials; no US bases encircling Russia; no US missile defense without strict admission, in writing, that the system will never target Russia; and increasingly close cooperation among the BRICS group of emerging powers.

Most of this was already implied in Putin's previous road map - his paper A new integration project for Eurasia: The future in the making. That was Putin's ippon - he loves judo - against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the International Monetary Fund and hardcore neo-liberalism. He sees a Eurasian Union as a "modern economic and currency union" stretching all across Central Asia.

For Putin, Syria is an important detail (not least because of Russia's naval base in the Mediterranean port of Tartus, which NATO would love to abolish). But the meat of the matter is Eurasia integration. Atlanticists will freak out en masse as he puts all his efforts into coordinating "a powerful supranational union that can become one of the poles of today's world while being an efficient connecting link between Europe and the dynamic Asia-Pacific Region".

The opposite roadmap will be Obama and Hillary's Pacific doctrine. Now how exciting is that?

Putin plays Pipelineistan

It was Putin who almost single-handedly spearheaded the resurgence of Russia as a mega energy superpower (oil and gas accounts for two-thirds of Russia's exports, half of the federal budget and 20% of gross domestic product). So expect Pipelineistan to remain key.

And it will be mostly centered on gas; although Russia holds no less than 30% of global gas supplies, its liquid natural gas (LNG) production is less than 5% of the global market share. It's not even among the top ten producers.

Putin knows that Russia will need buckets of foreign investment in the Arctic - from the West and especially Asia - to keep its oil production above 10 million barrels a day. And it needs to strike a complex, comprehensive, trillion-dollar deal with China centered on Eastern Siberia gas fields; the oil angle has been already taken care of via the East Siberian Pacific Ocean (ESPO) pipeline. Putin knows that for China - in terms of securing energy - this deal is a vital counterpunch against Washington's shady "pivoting" towards Asia.

Putin will also do everything to consolidate the South Stream pipeline - which may end up costing a staggering $22 billion (the shareholder agreement is already signed between Russia, Germany, France and Italy. South Stream is Russian gas delivered under the Black Sea to the southern part of the EU, through Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary and Slovakia). If South Stream is a go, rival pipeline Nabucco is checkmated; a major Russian victory against Washington pressure and Brussels bureaucrats.

Everything is still up for grabs at the crucial intersection of hardcore geopolitics and Pipelineistan. Once again Putin will be facing yet another Washington road map - the not exactly successful New Silk Road (See US's post-2014 Afghan agenda falters, Asia Times Online, Nov 4, 2011.)

Ant then there's the joker in the pack - the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Putin will want Pakistan to become a full member as much as China is interested in incorporating Iran. The repercussions would be ground-breaking - as in Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran coordinating not only their economic integration but their mutual security inside a strengthened SCO, whose motto is "non-alignment, non-confrontation and non-interference in the affairs of other countries".

Putin sees that with Russia, Central Asia and Iran controlling no less than 50% of world's gas reserves, and with Iran and Pakistan as virtual SCO members, the name of the game becomes Asia integration - if not Eurasia's. The SCO develops as an economic/security powerhouse, while, in parallel, Pipelineistan accelerates the full integration of the SCO as a counterpunch to NATO. The regional players themselves will decide what makes more sense - this or a New Silk Road invented in Washington.

Make no mistake. Behind the relentless demonization of Putin and the myriad attempts to delegitimize Russia's presidential elections, lie some very angry and powerful sections of Washington and Anglo-American elites.

They know Putin will be an ultra tough negotiator on all fronts. They know Moscow will apply increasingly closer coordination with China; on thwarting permanent NATO bases in Afghanistan; on facilitating Pakistan's strategic autonomy; on opposing missile defense; on ensuring Iran is not attacked.

He will be the devil of choice because there could not be a more formidable opponent in the world stage to Washington's plans - be they coded as Greater Middle East, New Silk Road, Full Spectrum Dominance or America's Pacific Century. Ladies and gentlemen, let's get ready to rumble.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His most recent book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com

Can Russia Save the Day?

by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

"You are my creator, but I am your master—obey!" So said the Monster to its creator Frankenstein(1). As with the monster and its creator, we witness once again Israel telling America to obey – to start yet another war of choice and massacre Iranians.

For over six decades, Israel has demanded full obedience from the United State. Every U.S. president, pressured by the pro-Israel lobbies in the United States and the Congressional members whose primary loyalty is to Israel at the expense of America’s national interest, have been forced to comply with the ever-increasing bellicose Israeli demands. No wonder Benjamin Netanyahu imagines himself unstoppable.

Netanyahu, one of the most dangerous Israeli leaders, is demanding another war so that he may continue the aggressive usurpation of Palestinian and Arab lands uninterrupted by public opinion and disregard for international laws. The thuggish Netanyahu came to Washington to demand surrender from its puppet master, America, like every other Israeli politician before him. He demands sacrifice from Americans in the firm belief that all sacrifice is justified having witnessed his own brother Yonatan Netanyahu get killed in a 1976 Israeli false flag operation in Entebbe, Uganda.

Lending support to his conviction is the American cover-up of US servicemen murdered by Israel. When the USS Liberty was attacked by Israelis and the servicemen deliberately massacred, the Johnson Administration’s cover-up of the tragic event send a clear message to Israel: American leaders have your back, even if you murder our citizens.

However, the Soviet message to the Israelis and America was different -- as one hopes Russia’s will be.

In January 1970, Israel’s deep penetration raids into Egypt, prompted Nasser to plea to the Soviets for help. The Soviets sent a warning to President Nixon who dismissed it (thanks to a faulty Israeli intelligence analysis of the Soviet intentions and capabilities). By March, the Soviets had provided Egypt with air defense and Soviet troops equipped with advanced weaponry arrived in Egypt. In addition to the 10,000 Soviet technicians, Soviet pilots were flying Egyptian planes in combat (Ball ’92). The firm action taken by the Soviets forced Israel to modify its tactics and stop its deep penetration raids.

Perhaps it is time for Russia to once again stop this aggressive madness so that balance and sanity may resume.

The Israeli plan to wage war on Iran, will, by necessity, drag in the whole region and make the conflict global in scope. But how important is Iran or the other Islamic countries devastated by US-Israel? As Azar Gat, Ezer Weizman professor of National Security at Tel Aviv University opined (Foreign Affairs, July-August 2007), “radical Islam” poses “no significant military threat to the developed world..” The significant challenge, she contended, emanates from China and Russia operating under “authoritarian capitalist” poised for a comeback.

This self-serving portrayal has been coupled with absurd religious zealotry in the same quarters with devastating effect. Powerful Jews and Christians (such as AIPAC) who believe in a "final battle" of Gog and Magog (Ezekiel (38:1 - 39:29) preceded by a period of violence, chaos and war, view Israel’s expansionist agenda and America’s imperial ambitions through ideologically tainted lenses.

This mindset was well demonstrated when in October 2007, President Bush remarked that a nuclear Iran would mean World War III, at which time Israeli newscasts on channels 2 and 10 featured Gog and Magog maps of the likely alignment of nations in that potential conflict: on one side were Israel, the United States, Britain, France and Germany; on the other were Iran, Russia, China, Syria and North Korea. (The current GOP Presidential debate (with the exception of Ron Paul) point to this dangerous mindset).

It comes as no surprise that in 2008, the influential pro-Israel Dennis Ross, had a meeting with the Syrian “opposition group” chief, Anas al-Abdah (see here) to discuss “Syria in-transition” – years before the current uprisings, but without a doubt, a major contributing factor to the current unrest - a policy that continues today. 

While Iran (and Syria) is the direct target of an immediate attack, it is not the ultimate target.

Russia’s policies have been based on Realpolitik. As such, in the interest of its national interest, Russia must place a premium on preventing an Israeli/US led war with Iran, and the prelude to such a war – the illegal and immoral “crippling sanctions”. Although Russia and Iran have had a tainted history in the past, it must be emphasized that preventing the disintegration and upheaval of the countries in the region will serve both nations and strengthen the resistance barrier to the planned global domination, future wars, and help avert the potential for a catastrophic world war.

Such deterrence is possible under the strength and resolve shown by Vladimir Putin. Perhaps aware of Putin’s strength prompted America to increase its aid to Russian dissidents. In 2008, Congress provided an additional $6 million for “human rights defenders and political activists in Russia.” In line with these tactics, attempts were made to delegitimize the election results in Russia and create chaos in order to weaken the nation and its resolve – the usual NED and Freedom House tactic.

There has never been more need for Russia to demonstrate its resolve. As elected president, Mr. Putin would do well to draw his own “red lines” by addressing the UN Security Council and stating firmly and irrevocably that a preventative/preemptive attack on Iran (or Syria) is illegal, and unacceptable, which will draw reaction from Russia. Mr. Putin should ask that the United States firmly, openly, and honestly (without giving Israel the green light privately, which the US has done many times) reject the notion that Israel has the ‘right’ to launch such and illegal act.

Perhaps with a show of strength from Russia, other countries will join in to resist wars of choice, ushering in a new era of renewed hope for the future of humanity and this planet.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has a Master’s degree in Public Diplomacy from USC Annenberg for Communication and Journalism and USC School of International Relations. She 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)There is a common misconception that Frankenstein is the monster; it is in fact the name of the creator.

2012 State of the Tribe speech by our Beloved Supreme Overloard

Speech of Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on the occasion of the forum entitled: “Declaration of Al Qods as the capital of Palestine, the Arabs and Muslims".

I take refuge in Allah from the stoned devil. In the Name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Most Merciful. Peace be on the Seal of prophets, our Master and Prophet, Abi Al Qassem Mohammad and on his chaste and pure Household and on his chosen companions and on all messengers and prophets. Peace be on you all and Allah's mercy and blessing.

I have the honor to deliver the opening speech in this forum which aims at declaring Al Qods as the capital of Palestine, the Arabs and Muslims according to the popular will. To be in harmony with the nature of the program which encompasses several other speeches in the forum, I will be very brief. Thus I wrote what I want to say, and I will commit myself to the text so that I won't take more time.

I will talk about Al Qods, its status quo, the current challenges, the responsibility towards Al Qods, the options, the horizons and the future.

First I will talk about its status quo. From the various perspectives, Al Qods is currently a unique case in the world. That means it is matchless and without equal. It is a holy city in a holy land. It is a blessed city, and all what is around it is blessed. This is unanimously agreed upon by all divine revelations. Thus it is in the doctrine, conscience and culture of billions of human beings who reside in the five continents of the world whether Muslims or Christians. Their eyes long for Al Qods and their hearts are infatuated by it. There is no other city in the world that matches with Al Qods. Besides its holiness, the city really comprises many of the sanctities and holy sites for Muslims and Christians whether Al Aqsa Mosque or Resurrection Church or others.

On the other hand, it is a city occupied by those who have nothing to do with these billions of human beings and do not represent them by any form. It is still under occupation and it has been under occupation for decades. It has also been declared an eternal capital for a terrorist, racial, colonial, fabricated entity – namely Israel - which is antagonistic to this nation and to this entire environment. There are also prompt efforts to declare it an eternal capital to the so called Jewish people in the world. These efforts are still underway. There is a bill to this effect understudy in the enemy's Knesset.

All through history, Al Qods has been a principle axis for struggle in the region. This was also the case in the past century. It is still as such, and that's how it will be in the future. To have control over it, the region was divided by Sykes-Picot; to secure control over it, new projects have always been schemed for it the last of which was the Neo Middle East project which was toppled by the resistance movements and the opposing countries in the region. We will always face one project after the other with the aim of liquidating the Palestinian cause in heart of which is Al Qods. With Al Qods as the axis, the future of this region will be drawn. In one word I say: Tell me where Al Qods is; I will tell you where the region is.

Also today Al Qods is being subject to an organized Judaizing campaign. Even more, the sanctities of Muslims and Christians are being subject to humiliation and profanation on one hand and to the risk of vandalism, demolition and eradication on the other. Its original historic people are also being subject to a displacement, exclusion and expulsion operation so that the city becomes void of its Muslim and Christian residents and their sanctities as well and so that it becomes of one known color and textile.

So the case of Al Qods is really a matchless unequaled case in the world what puts us before a real challenge which is linked to the identity, future and fate of this holy city.

Second: As for the responsibility of this city and its options, I believe that every Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and Christian has a national, popular, religious, convictional and ethical responsibility towards Al Qods and its future, identity and destiny.

Third: I would like to highlight specifically the convictional and religious responsibility – the technical term is legitimate responsibility. Dear brothers! We believe in Resurrection and in The Day of Judgment. We believe in two kinds of reward and punishment in the Other world: holding individuals accountable and holding nations and communities accountable. We believe that then we will be asked as individuals and as nations and communities about what we have done with Al Qods and Palestine, and what we have done in face of this confrontation.

The generations which were contemporary with the establishment of the Zionist entity and especially the occupation of Al Qods – all these generations in our nation – assume the responsibility with variant ratios, and they will be asked on Doom's Day about the loss of Al Qods. It might happen that in this world nobody asks or holds the other accountable. However, as time does not make what is right wrong and what is wrong right, time does not drop responsibilities in this world as well or change the account of reward and punishment in the Resurrection Day. People forget, ignore and are negligent; however before the hands of Allah is the balance of righteousness.

Most of us are among the generations who became religiously responsible following 1967 – meaning after the occupation and loss of Al Qods. Consequently, we do not partake in the responsibility of its loss and occupation. However, we for sure assume the responsibility of having it still under control to this day, and we will be asked. So everyone of us and every group, organization, movement, party, current, society, institution, clan, tribe, people and country must prepare an answer for Doom's Day for what they did or achieved in the way of restoring Al Qods and liberating it.

Brothers and sisters! This obligation and responsibility impose on this nation a central great goal which we must seek to achieve. It is liberating Al Qods from the profanation of the occupation, and working industriously and seriously to achieve that. Until this goal is achieved, there are several other challenges which we must daily face with every possible means. I mean defending the Islamic and Christian sanctities in Al Qods, guarding its people against expulsion and displacement, and confronting Judaizing Al Qods. This may be achieved through fixed and fully considered agendas. That means we do not need to put and plan for programs. Many conferences have been convened. Al Qods International Institution has been established. Many conferences have been held whether in Tehran or in other places. I believe there is no gap on the level of programs. What we need in the confrontation of this intimidation and for defending the sanctities and guarding the identity of Al Qods and its residents is working seriously and giving this cause the appropriate priority.

As for the options, it is clear that the choice of negotiations to restore Al Qods is invalid. That's because while putting apart the stance from the choice of negotiations and from the settlement operation as a whole and if we take for granted that negotiating with the enemy may lead to a solution for a part of Palestine's occupied land or for a group of the Palestinian refugees or for some of the other related causes, it is decisive and final that Al Qods has no place in this solution. That goes to the Israeli consensus on sticking to Al Qods as a united capital for the state of Israel. Thus it is nonnegotiable. The Israelis are unwilling to negotiate Al Qods – whether western Al Qods or Al Aqsa Mosque or even their underground. All of that is behind the scope of any debate or negotiation.

That's besides the absolute western-American adoption of Israel and its security and military supremacy which US President Barak Obama indicated as his ‘holy commitment’. So he raised this commitment from the level of strategic or political or humanistic levels – in their considerations – to the level of holiness. Thus that is indubitable. Here I say between parentheses that we did not hear any comment on this holy commitment from any of the US allies and friends or those who bargain on it from the Arab and Islamic world. This truth which is indubitable does not keep before the Palestinian people along with the whole nation except the choice of resistance and armed jihad.

As for the horizons and the future of Al Qods, we believe that the major changes in the region which the resistance movements have the lion's share in making along with the major changes currently underway in the world on more than one level make us feel that we are closer to achieving the goal of liberating Al Qods more than any time in the past.

Following are some examples:

- The steadfastness of the Palestinian people all through the previous decades despite being subject to wars, risks, annihilation and expulsion and their refusal to give in to Israeli settlements and conditions.

- The international disability and even the official Arab disability to liquidate the Palestinian cause and consequently, the cause remained vitally and forcefully present in the consciences, equations and fields. In this perspective, the declaration made by Imam Khomeini (May Allah sanctify his holy secret) announcing the last Friday in the month of Ramadan as Al Qods International Day is one of the forms of keeping this cause alive.

- The fall of the Shah regime and the establishment of the Islamic Republic in Iran which absolutely backs this Palestinian, Arab and Islamic right. Here we must highly respect the Islamic Republic and its people and leaders who clearly and unequivocally declare that Israel is an illegitimate state and that it is a cancerous gland which must be eliminated from the map of existence. Though Iran is a state which has its interests and relations and though it is a part of the international community, and though it is being subject to pressure, it doesn't resort to tactics in its stance and vision. It rather expresses its strategy and depth in a clear sound way.

- The victories and achievements of the resistance in Lebanon, Palestine and lately in Iraq.

- The great change in Egypt which is viewed by the Zionists as an earthquake which threatens the existence of their entity.

- The great change in Iraq. If Iraq was fated to restore its prosperity in a quick pace, it may play a central role in this struggle. We also link great expectations in this perspective on the Iraqi forces, the Iraqi resistance and the Iraqi people.

- The feebleness and the retreat of the United States and the western states in general on more than one level.

- The changes inside the entity of the enemy on the cultural, moral, psychological, military and political levels.

- The steadfastness of the resistance axis that comprises Iran, Syria and the resistance movements in confronting all the challenges.

- The failure or the settlement and the normalization operations.

- The acceptance of the nation of the choice of the resistance and its conviction more than any time in the past in its efficiency and its willingness to move forward in this path as was proven in the past few years.

These are all strategic factors. They are very great factors which put us on this path that leads to the goal and which makes talking about the goal of liberating Al Qods a realistic speech which is based on evidences and strategic, regional, international and local data.

Brothers and sisters! This nation is destined to live what the ancient nations have experienced. The very divine and historic laws and rules which governed the ancient nations are ruling us. When the descendants of Israel refused to respond to the call of the Prophet of Allah Moses (Peace be upon him) to enter the Holy Land and told him "Go with your Lord and fight as here we will remain", humiliation and misery afflicted them. They were doomed to go astray for forty years in a hollow desert. When the nation did not respond to the appeal of Al Qods and the people of Palestine in the past century and when it failed to defend the holy land and lost the holy city, this nation was afflicted with humiliation and misery, and it was doomed to go astray also in the desert of forfeiture, disintegration, bewilderment, and feebleness for forty years.

Brothers and sisters! The forty years have passed, and from the womb of suffering, challenges and great changes new generations were born. They believe that jihad is a gateway to Heaven which Allah have opened for His very close holy men. Al Jihad is Allah's well-fortified armor and intimate Heaven. Thus the path of the resistance is the path to dignity, honor, liberation and victory.

We are no more astray. The very first signs of that were the liberation of the South in 2000 and the liberation of Gaza Strip afterwards. The signs were more confirmed when the resistance gained victory in July War in Lebanon and in Gaza War in Palestine.

All convictional, intellectual, realistic, political, moral and field data assert on the light of the norms and laws that we have ushered into the time of victories and quit the time of defeats.

In the past, Imam Hussein (Peace be upon him) wrote to those who would follow him: He who follows us shall become a martyr, and he who won't will not attain the blessed victory.” Today the resistance heroes say to all the people of this nation in the path of our resistance in Lebanon, Palestine and the region: "He who follows us makes victory; and he who won’t will not attain the blessed victory. Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessing.