Donald Trump VS Human Rights

During his speech in Saudi Arabia, with most Muslim leaders attending the speech, Trump said that the US will not dictate to other countries how they are going to live, or how they will run their countries. As expected the left and the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe and USA went mad with “fascist” Trump, who does not care about human rights violations etc.

Trump Sisi Salman

However what really annoys them is not any human rights violation etc, but what Trump really meant. When Trrump said the USA will not dictate to others how they live, he meant that he thinks it is very reasonable that the Egyptian President Sisi and the Saudi King Salman attack the revolts orchestrated in their countries by the Muslim Brotherhood, with the support of Qatar, Turkey and Iran. In a sentence, Trump is not prepared to support with the American army the so-called “democratic” revolutions, which are financed by the Muslim Brotherhood in the Muslim World.

On the other hand, President Obama, who is the seed of an anti-American Shite Muslim from Kenya, had invited the Muslim Brotherhood during his equivalent speech of Cairo in 2009. With his speech, Obama encouraged Turkey, Iran and Qatar to support the revolts of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which was manifested with the Arab Spring of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

In Saudi Arabia the Muslim Brotherhood was not successful, due to the Saudi financial reserves. But in Egypt, with her troubled economy which is poor in oil and gas, the Brotherhood went much further. The biggest news network of the Brotherhood is Aljazeera, the socialist anti-American network of the Emir of Qatar.

The plan was that the Muslim Brotherhood would come to power in the Middle East and North Africa, and then Iran would join, and there would be a Muslim arch against Russia, which would supply Europe and India with Muslim gas and oil. Russia has already designated the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, and Trump is thinking about doing the same.

Image The Obama Doctrine

Map the Obama Doctrine

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/the-obama-and-the-trump-doctrines/

So when you hear the left and the Muslim Brotherhood saying that Trump does not stand for human rights, you must know that what they really mean is that he does not support the “democratic” revolutions of the Muslim Brotherhood. You will never hear them complaining about human right violations in China and Iran. In China and Iran, if you strongly criticize the regimes, it is very likely that you will disappear. And yet you will never hear the left or the Muslim Brotherhood complaining about human right violations in China and Iran. They only care about human right violations in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, when the “democratic” revolutions of the Muslim Brotherhood are brought to their knees. Human rights kiss my ass.

The Chessboard of Kurdistan

As expected, Donald Trump continued the Obama policy of supporting the Kurds of Syria, a policy which continues to threaten the US-Turkish relations. Actually Trump supplied the Kurds with heavier arms than the Obama administration.

The new Sultan of Turkey, Tayip Erdogan, complained to the Russians, but the Russians said they will no longer supply the Kurds of Syria with arms, and that’s all they can do. According to the Russians, as far as the American armaments are concerned, the Turks should contact their American allies.

Both the American and Russian responses are very normal, because the Americans and the Russians can use the Kurds to establish a balance of power in the Middle East, if they reach an agreement. The Kurds can be very useful to both the Americans and the Russians.

To the Russians because if Turkey and the Arabs, with NATO’s support, decide to push for the energy corridor of the Muslim Brotherhood i.e. Persian Gulf-Turkey-Europe, undermining the Russian economic interests in Europe, the Russians will use the allies they have in the Syrian Kurdistan to cause chaos. The Russians can also use the Kurds of the Turkish Kurdistan (PKK) to cause chaos in Turkey, if the Turks, together with the Kazakhs, the Turkmen and the Azerbaijanis, try to create a Muslim energy axis i.e. Caspian Sea-Turkey-Europe, which undermines the Russian interests in Europe too.

 

Map Russia and the Kurds

Ρωσία.jpg

On the other hand, if Turkey reaches an agreement with Russia and China, and tries to block the United States from the Middle East, the Americans will be have the choice to use their Kurdish allies and go to war, in order to create a Kurdish corridor that will connect the Caspian Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea, avoiding the Sunni parts of Syria and Iraq.

Map The Americans and the Kurds

Τουρκία.JPG

Therefore the Kurds can be a balancing force for the Americans and the Russians, if they reach an agreement, because both the Russians and the Americans will know they will be able to use the Kurds if the other party crosses them. See “The Obama and the Trump Doctrine”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/the-obama-and-the-trump-doctrines/

In other words, the presence of the Kurds can reassure both the Americans and the Russians, that the Turks will not cross them, since both the Americans and the Russians have Kurdish allies. Obviously that is not good for Sultan Erdogan and Turkey, who want both the Americans and the Russians to beg them for cooperation, playing the Americans against the Russians. But Turkey is a smaller player than Russia and the United States, and if the two countries reach an agreement Turkey will have to respect it if it wants to prosper and avoid war.

The only other thing Sultan Erdogan can do is to join an axis with China, Pakistan and Iran. Turkey has already joined this axis but only commercially and not militarily.

Image China-Pakistan-Iran-Turkey

Χάρτης Ρωσία ΗΠΑ Κίνα.JPG

But at this point I doubt that if Russia and the United States reach an agreement in the Middle East, the Chinese will have an appetite to break it. That depends of course on the whole agenda of the American-Chinese relations i.e. who controls Iraq, what happens with the Chinese militarization of the South China Sea, and what happens with the US trade deficits with China. But Trump is trying to reach an agreement with the Chinese too, and not only with the Russians i.e. “The Art of the Deal”. The Americans are very lucky to have such a great leader during such difficult times.

However not all is black for Turkey. If the Americans and the Russians reach an agreement in the Middle East, they might not promote an independent Kurdish State. The Americans want an independent Kurdish state in Syria and Iraq, and the Russians want an independent Kurdish state in Turkey.

Map Kurdistan

Map Kurdistan Pipelines.JPG

The Turks, the Syrians, the Iraqis and the Iranians do not want an independent Kurdish state, even though they have all been using the Kurds against their opponents. Therefore if the Americans and the Russians reach an agreement they might not push for and independent Kurdistan. Or they might create an independent Kurdistan in Iraq for example, because Turkey has allies in Iraqi Kurdistan. Turkey is the natural importer of the oil and gas of Iraqi Kurdistan. The Kurds of Syria, Iran and Turkey on the other hand, contrary to what happens with the Kurds of Iraq, are very poor in oil and gas.

Map Oil (black) and Natural Gas (red) Reserves

Map of Oil and Gas.jpg

The Kurdish people are in exactly the same position that the Jewish people were before WW1, when the British, the French, the Germans and the Russians were fighting for the oil pipelines of Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea. In the end the British and the French won, and a Jewish state was created after WW2, but only after Palestine was soaked with Jewish blood. The same can happen for the Kurdish people. A similar great war can break out for the natural gas pipelines of Qatar-Turkey, Iran-Turkey, Turkmenistan-Turkey, and this war can lead to the creation of a Kurdish state, but only after Kurdistan is soaked with Kurdish blood, exactly as Palestine was soaked with Jewish blood.

Remember that before WW2 Jewish people were as divided as the Kurdish people are today. There were Jews who were with the British (Haganah), and there were Jewish terrorist organizations that were supported by Britain’s enemies i.e. Russia, even Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, and they were carrying terrorist attacks against Great Britain. In 1917 Britain had promised to create a Jewish state in Palestine (Israel+Jordan) in case of victory in WW1.

Similarly, the Kurdish people are equally divided today, and some of them are Russia’s allies, some are America’s allies etc. Syria, with Russia’s blessings, was supporting the Kurds of Turkey against Turkey, and the Americans were supporting the Kurds of Iraq against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Kurds are divided even within each country. For example there was a Kurdish civil war in Iraq in the 90s.

 

The New Frankenstein : Al-Qaeda+ISIS

Interesting article from the National Interest magazine. See “An ISIS–Al Qaeda ‘Frankenstein’ Could Be On Its Way”, May 2017. The article is about the emergence of a possible alliance between Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria and Iraq, which will be a headache for the United States.

I want to add a few things. An alliance between ISIS and Al-Qaeda is indeed possible in the Sunni parts of Syria and Iraq, after Donald Trmp’s victory. As long as the Americans wanted to overturn the Shias (Alawites) of Bashar al Assad in Syria, the Sunnis of Syria had a motive to cooperate with the Americans in order to defeat Bashar al Assad, because Bashar al Assad was backed by Russia.

Map Sunni,  Shia and Kurdist Syria and Iraq

Al-Qaeda ISIS

That’s why Al-Qaeda broke her links with Iran in Syria, and said it would suspend her attacks against Western targes, in order to focus on overturning Bashar al-Assad, hoping to cooperate with her old rival NATO against Assad. This strategy seemed to work, and at some point the ex-CIA director, General Petreaus, said that maybe the United States would have to cooperate with Al-Qaeda in Syria, in order to defeat ISIS. Al-Qaeda of Syria even changed her name in 2015.

The Sunnis of Iraq, contrary to what was happening with the Sunnis of Syria, wanted to overturn the Shias of Iraq, who were backed by the Americans, and therefore they had a motive to cooperate with Russia. Iraq’s oil is located in the southern (Shia) and northern (Kurdish) parts of Iraq.

Map Oil (black) and Natural Gas (red) Reserves

Map of Oil and Gas Reserves.JPG

Al-Qaeda ISIS

Therefore the Sunnis of Syria (Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda) had a motive to cooperate with the Americans in order to overturn the Russian backed Shias (Alawites) of Assad, while the Sunnis of Iraq, i.e. the ex-people of Saddam Housein (ISIS), had a motive to cooperate with Russian in order to overturn the Shia of Iraq who were supported by the United States.

That’s why Assad, with Russia’s blessings, helped the ex-people of Saddam Hussein (ISIS) to gain control of some oil fields in Syria and Iraq, in order to finance and army and attack the Sunnis of Syria who were cooperating with the United States, France, Turkey and Qatar i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda of Syria.

The French bombed ISIS’s oil fields, and ISIS carried out the terrorist attacks in France in 2015 and 2016, obviously with support from Bashar al Assad. Bashar al Assad has also been the traditional supporter of the Kurdish PKK, and has supported many terrorist attacks in Turkey.

With Trump’s election, the Republicans want to leave Syria to Russia, in exchange for Iraq i.e. for Russia to stop supporting Iran and ISIS against the United States in Iraq. The Americans also expect Russians not to support China, if China decides to support Iran in Iraq. Trump accuses China of taking advantage of the post-Saddam oil industry of Iraq, while it was the Americans who paid billions to overturn him.

If Russia and United States reach an agreement, and the United States does indeed stop supporting rebels against Assad and Russia in Syria, and Russia does indeed stop supporting rebels against the United States in Iraq, the Sunnis of Syria will not have a chance to overturn Assad, and the Sunnis of Iraq will not have a chance of defeating the United States and overturning the Shias of Iraq. Therefore the Sunnis of Iraq and the Sunnis of Syria will no longer have obvious conflicting interests, and tey might decide to cooperate, and the same might be true for Al-Qaeda of Syria and ISIS of Iraq.

The Sunni parts of Syria and Iraq have no oil, and the Sunni parts of Syria and Iraq can be used as a corridor to connect China and Iran with the Mediterranean Sea, if China decides to go against Russia. Or the Sunni parts of Syria and Iraq can be used to connect Turkey and the Arabs of the Gulf, if Turkey goes against Russia. But this options would undermine either Russia’s or America’s interests. The best solution is for Russia to keep Syria and for United States to keep Iraq. If Russia and United States agree on that, and China and Iran do not interfere, Russia and United States can execute the terrorists of Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

But it seems very reasonable for Al-Qaeda and ISIS, both very weakened by Trump’s victory, to consider uniting their forces. What is important for the future of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, is how USA, Russia and China manage to deal with their differences. If they manage to find a solution, ISIS and Al-Qaeda will have limited logistical and training support, and they will not be able to carry out large scale attacks.

China+Iran

12 Map Chinese Empire

USA+Russia

11 Obama VS Trump

Map Erbil-Ceyhan PipelineJPG

Map Gazprom Pipelines

Map Oil and Gas Reserves and Pipelines

TAPI

Map Erbil-Ceyhan PipelineJPG

“An ISIS–Al Qaeda ‘Frankenstein’ Could Be On Its Way”, May 2017

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/isis%E2%80%93al-qaeda-frankenstein-could-be-its-way-20648

 

 

 

The USA, Russia, China Triangle and the Fall of the Soviet Union

A Changing Geopolitical Landscape

During WW2 the United States and China were allies against Japan. They were later joined by the Soviets, when the German Nazis broke their alliance with the Russian Communists, and they invaded Russia in 1941, in order to get hold of the oil of Baku (Azerbaijan). But the Nazis were defeated at Stalingrad and they never reached Baku.

1 The USA Russia China Triangle

After jointly destroying the Nazis in WW2, the Soviets and the Americans became enemies once more, and the Soviets supported the Chinese Communists, while the Americans supported the Chinese nationalists in the Chinese Civil War. The Communists won the war, and the Chinese nationalists fled the Chinese mainland, and they established a small Chinese state in Taiwan. For a while the United States recognised Taiwan as China.

Map USA, Soviet Union and China

2 Map USA Russia and China.JPG

 

But the Soviets and the Chinese were also competing with each other in Asia after WW2, and the Chinese were very unhappy with the strong Soviet military presence in the oil rich countries of Central Asia, and also in Mongolia, which they perceived as a threat. Very often the Russians and the Chinese would support rival communist parties or groups in third world countries i.e. Angola, Mozambique, Somalia, Ethiopia, and Zimbabwe. See Russia VS China, and the Sino-Soviet Split.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/russia-vs-china/

The Chinese and the Soviets jointly fought the Americans in Vietnam and the Korean Wars, but the Chinese and the Americans jointly fought the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Gradually, the Americans and the Chinese managed to improve their relations. The Soviet threat was what actually brought the two countries closer. From 1979 onwards, the American companies started investing in China, transforming Communist China from a poor agricultural economy to the factory of the world.

The benefit for the Americans was that they were dragging China away from the Soviets and closer to United States. Moreover the American consumers started enjoying very cheap goods, which were made in China, from very cheap Chinese workers. However for these Chinese workers even these low salaries represented a dramatic increase in their standards of living. Extreme poverty was reduced by almost 70% in the period 1981 to 2009. But many manufacturing jobs were transferred from Western Europe and United States to China. See “The Socialist Myth of Economic Bubbles”.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/450662

 

Image Extreme Poverty Rates

3 Extreme Poverty.JPG

While the Americans were trying to drag China closer to them and away from the Soviets, the Russians were not wasting their time either. The KGB was preparing the demolition of the Soviet Union, in order to export the vast Russian oil and natural gas reserves to the big industrial economies of Western Europe i.e. Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, United Kingdom and Spain. These energy flows would generate billions of dollars in export revenue for Russia, while at the same time they would increase Russia’s influence in Western Europe. The Russians also expected the Europeans to invest and build their factories in Russia, in order to take advantage of the cheap Russian labour (build your factories in Russia instead of China).

Therefore the world was moving towards a new geopolitical landscape, with China moving away from the Soviet Union and closer to USA, while the European Union was moving away from the United States and closer to Russia. Ronald Reagan tried to prevent the energy connection of Europe and Russia, but the German industry was very hungry for the Russian oil and gas.

Map China moves closer to America while Europe moves closer to Russia

4 Map USA Russia and China

Map

5 World Map.JPG

The KGB Breaks the Soviet Union

It is very naïve to assume that the Soviet Union fall because of its economic problems, or because of the poverty of its people. The Soviet Union was run by KGB, and it still is. The Soviet Union had tremendous powers to terrorize the Soviet population. Nobody would dare to openly criticize the Communist Party.

Look at what happens in North Korea, which is a Communist country of 25 million inhabitants, with a GDP of only 40 billion dollars. And yet nobody dares to complain, because the Communist Party will execute them if they dare to do so. The KGB had a lot more power than North Korea in terrorizing its population.

Picture Kim Jong Un, Dictator of North Korea and Grand Son of the founder of the North Korean Communist Party (Kim Il Sung)

6 Kim Jong Un

Revolutions occur when a foreign country is using the domestic Communist Party to attack this country’s army. Before WW1 the German Empire, the Austrian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, supported the Russian Communist Party in order to defeat Russia in WW1. See “Zionists VS Bolsheviks : The Good and the Bad Jews of Churchill and Stalin”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/zionists-vs-bolsheviks-the-bad-and-the-good-jews-of-churchill-and-lenin/

In the Soviet Union the Communist Party was already running the country, and therefore no foreign country could finance the Communist Party to attack the country. And China was a weaker country than the Soviet Union and could not support some Communist Party and defeat the Russian Army.

The Islamists of the Persian Gulf could cause some turmoil in the Muslim Colonies of the Soviet Union in the Caspian Sea and Central Asia i.e. Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan etc., because the Communists almost prohibited Islam.

The Pope could also cause some problems in Poland, a religious Catholic country, but Poland was not a member of the Soviet Union anyway.

Therefore it is ridiculous to believe that the KGB could not hold the Soviet Union together, if the Russians were not interested to export their oil and gas to Europe, increasing Russia’s influence over Europe, while generating billions in hard currency from these exports. The Russian friendly “assault” on Europe would follow the American friendly “assault” on China.

Remember that the KGB was controlling 100% of the Soviet economy. To mobilize a crowd you need to be able to provide it with information and propaganda, and of course some financial support, armaments etc. Look at what happens in USA today, where the Russians, the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Islamists etc, they all have their partners in USA, and they are attacking the American government with propaganda.

Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Hezbollah are controlling the drug cartels of Latin America and they finance the American gangs of United States. Moreover the Arabs of the Gulf and the Chinese have great influence over the American Academia, Hollywood and journalism. All of them are able to launch assaults on the American governments, both through the media, but also in the streets.

But they can do it because they USA has an open economy and a free society, and these countries can easily buy American academics, journalists and actors, in order to promote their interests in United States. But in the Soviet Union the KGB was controlling 100% of the economy. To criticize the Communist Party one would need a permit from the party, or he would die.

Also remember that the Europeans were constantly worrying about their oil supplies from the Persian Gulf and North Africa, because a potential war would block their imports and freeze their energy hungry economies. Therefore they saw the Russian supplies as a lot more reliable, and also cheaper in terms of transport costs. And of course it was the Soviet Union that supported counties like Egypt, Syria and Iraq, countries that were fighting the NATO allies i.e. Saudi Arabia, Israel etc.

The Ruthless KGB Leader

Those who doubt that the KGB broke the Soviet Union, they should take into account that Michael Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union and the man who broke the Soviet Union, was handpicked by Yuri Andropov, the most ruthless KGB leader. Yuri Andropov was also the longest serving, the most educated and the most effective leader of KGB (1967-1982), and after KGB he became the leader of the Soviet Union in 1982, till his death in 1984.

Already from 1980 Yuri Andropov was promoting the “reformer” Michael Gorbachev, and he chose him as his successor when he became leader of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev had to wait a year after Andropov’s death before becoming leader of the Soviet Union.

For Andropov and Gorbachev see the following articles

Wikipedia “Yuri Andropov : Promotion of Gorbachev”

From 1980 to 1982, while still chairman of the KGB, Andropov opposed plans to occupy Poland after the emergence of the Solidarity movement and promoted reform-minded party cadres including Mikhail Gorbachev.[7] Andropov was the longest-serving KGB chairman and did not resign as head of the KGB until May 1982, when he was again promoted to the Secretariat to succeed Mikhail Suslov as secretary responsible for ideological affairs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Andropov#Promotion_of_Gorbachev

 

“Ex-K.G.B. Chief Says Andropov Supported Purges”

13 Paragraph

During his 15 months as Soviet leader, in which he began an anti-corruption drive, he promoted Mr. Gorbachev’s career. Soviet insiders say he wanted Mr. Gorbachev, then agricultural secretary, to succeed him.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/15/world/ex-kgb-chief-says-andropov-supported-purges.html

 

“Who is Mikhail Gorbachev? Former leader of the Soviet Union who helped end the Cold War and Nobel Prize winner”, Ιανουάριος 2017

10, 11, 12, 13 Paragraphs

In 1980 he was promoted to the Soviet Union’s all-powerful executive committee, the Politburo.

He was a protege of Soviet leader Yuri Andropov and helped him begin much-needed reforms.

Andropov picked him as his successor when he died, but he had to wait until another ageing leader Constantin Chernenko also died before he could rise to the very top.

In 1985 he was elected general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union – effectively the ruler of the USSR and the whole Soviet bloc.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2721803/who-is-mikhail-gorbachev-former-leader-of-the-soviet-union-who-helped-end-the-cold-war-and-nobel-prize-winner/

Yuri Andropov was behind the hijackings of the Western airliners. Andropov was also behind the assassination attempt against Pope Jean Paul B. The assassin was a member of the Turkish nationalist organization Grey Wolves, and according to the CIA behind the attack was KGB and Yuri Andropov. The reason was that the Pope was an anticommunist, he was Polish, and he was financing the anti-Communist movement in Poland, when the Polish people were trying to overturn their puppet government which was imposed on them by the Soviets.

Yuri Andropov was also the man who personally oversaw the revival of anti-Semitism in the post-war Europe, after Israel won Egypt in the war of 1967. After the Holocaust anti-Semitism was very weak in Europe. Under Andropov’s leadership, the KGB translated and distributed thousands of copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the Muslim world, in order to mobilize the Soviet allies against Israel, which was the most reliable American ally since the early 1960s. It was this man who spread anti-Semitism in Europe, in order to discredit the United States in the eyes of the European people, by presenting the United States as a part of a Jewish conspiracy. Today Russia and Israel are allies against Turkey and Qatar, and the centre of European anti-Semitism has moved to the Russian rivals i.e. France, Sweden, Poland etc.

For more details on Yuri Andropov and KGB see “Disinformation”

KGB Propaganda

https://www.amazon.com/Disinformation-Strategies-Undermining-Attacking-Promoting-ebook/dp/B00D99V2RY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492616715&sr=8-1&keywords=soviet+propaganda+pacepa

So it was this man, Yuri Andropov, who picked the reformer Michael Gorbachev as his successor. Wouldn’t it be naïve to believe that the KGB was not preparing the break up of the Soviet Union since 1980? By breaking the Soviet Union the Russians left the rich in oil Central Asia to China. Central Asia was a thorn in the Russo-Chinese relations during the 20th Century.

By breaking the Soviet Union the Russians also left Azerbaijan to Turkey and Iran, since Caucasus was a thorn in the Russo-Turkish and Russo-Iranian relations during the previous centuries. Note that the Russians had discovered the rich oil and gas reserves of Western Siberia, and they were no longer dependent on Baku, as it was the case during the World Wars of the 20th Centuries.

Map

8 World Map.JPG

The Russians also relaxed their grip on Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, and allowed them to operate like cushions between Russia and Western Europe. And obviously the Russians were not happy at all when these countries were absorbed by NATO in 1999 (Poland, Hungary, Check Republic), and in 2004 (Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia).

According to the Russians the Americans had promised them that NATO would not absorb these countries. The Americans do not accept the Russian claims. The Russians were even more dissatisfied when they saw that NATO was using Georgia and Ukraine, two Soviet members, to hurt vital Russian interests. And the same was true for Syria.

If we want to be fair we must say that Russia is a mafia state run by KGB, but we must also admit that the West was very disrespectful towards Russia after the demise of the Soviet Union. When you know that the KGB broke the Soviet Union to export the Russian oil and gas, and you threaten these exports by using ex Russian allies or satelites i.e. Syria, Ukraine, Georgia, then you are looking for trouble.

 

Map Qatar-Turkey and White Stream Pipeline

9 Pipelinestan.JPG

Reversing the Tide

Today we see once more the reversing of the above geopolitical landscape. Now the United States is afraid of China, and the Europeans are afraid of Russia. By promoting the natural gas of the Muslim Brotherhood (Qatar-Iran-Turkmenistan-Kazakstan) to Europe, as the French, the Polish, the Swedish and others wanted, the Americans were pushing Russia towards China’s arms. And if the United States had to fight Russia and China, it would make sense for Germany to join this alliance, and that’s how that would look for the United States. It is a bit ugly. Of course the United States would have France, UK, India, Japan. But it still looks ugly in the Pacific Ocean.

Map (Germany-Russia-China) VS USA

10 World War 3.JPG

Now Trump is proposing to Russia to take Syria, to China to take Iran, and to both of them to leave Iraq for the United States.

Map

11 Obama VS Trump

That’s good for the Russians, because Syria and Israel will block the natural gas of Middle East from exiting to the Mediterranean Sea. And Russia would not be very happy to have a Chinese Empire at its south. China already has Pakistan and Iran, and Iran has Syria, and if Iran takes Iraq, as China would wish it did, China would exit to the Mediterranean Sea through satellites.

Map The New Chinese Empire

12 Map Chinese Empire.JPG

And obviously the French, the British, the Poles, the Swedish etc, are not feeling very comfortable with the United States having friendly relations with Russia, because it is Russia and not China they are afraid of.

The French elections of April and May 2017 will be very important, because we have to see how France will respond to this new geopolitical landscape, and whether France will decide to break the European Union and go for one to one relations with USA, Russia and China.

France can stop bothering Russia in Syria, focusing on the uranium, oil and natural gas of North Africa (Niger, Chad, Algeria), without threatening of course the Russian exports to Europe. And at the same time France can demand from China and Iran to stop bothering her in North Africa, where they are fighting France for the uranium of Niger and Chad. In return France could import Iranian oil and not support the Americans against China.

 

Articles

“The Obama and the Trump Doctrines”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/the-obama-and-the-trump-doctrines/

“Russia VS China”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/russia-vs-china/

“USA, Russia and China in the Middle East”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/usa-russia-china-in-the-middle-east-alliances-conflicts/

“Disinformation”, Ion Pacepa

https://www.amazon.com/Disinformation-Strategies-Undermining-Attacking-Promoting/dp/1936488604/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481498722&sr=8-1&keywords=disinformation

Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism Hardcover – June 25, 2013

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2348191/EXCLUSIVE-KGB-operation-seeded-Muslim-countries-anti-American-anti-Jewish-propaganda-1970s-laying-groundwork-Islamist-terrorism-U-S-Israeli-targets.html

“Pope John Paul II : Assassination Attempts and Plots”

As he entered St. Peter’s Square to address an audience on 13 May 1981,[209] Pope John Paul II was shot and critically wounded by Mehmet Ali Ağca,[16][84][210] an expert Turkish gunman who was a member of the militant fascist group Grey Wolves.[211] The assassin used a Browning 9 mm semi-automatic pistol,[212] shooting the pope in the abdomen and perforating his colon and small intestine multiple times.[79] John Paul II was rushed into the Vatican complex and then to the Gemelli Hospital. On the way to the hospital, he lost consciousness. Even though the two bullets missed his mesenteric artery and abdominal aorta, he lost nearly three-quarters of his blood. He underwent five hours of surgery to treat his wounds.[213] Surgeons performed a colostomy, temporarily rerouting the upper part of the large intestine to let the damaged lower part heal.[213] When he briefly regained consciousness before being operated on, he instructed the doctors not to remove his Brown Scapular during the operation.[214] One of the few people allowed in to see him at the Gemelli Clinic was one of his closest friends philosopher Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka, who arrived on Saturday 16 May and kept him company while he recovered from emergency surgery.[70] The pope later stated that Our Lady of Fátima helped keep him alive throughout his ordeal.

Small marble tablet in St. Peter’s Square indicating where the shooting of John Paul II occurred. The tablet bears John Paul’s personal papal arms and the date of the shooting in Roman numerals.

Could I forget that the event in St. Peter’s Square took place on the day and at the hour when the first appearance of the Mother of Christ to the poor little peasants has been remembered for over sixty years at Fátima, Portugal? For in everything that happened to me on that very day, I felt that extraordinary motherly protection and care, which turned out to be stronger than the deadly bullet.[216]

Ağca was caught and restrained by a nun and other bystanders until police arrived. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Two days after Christmas in 1983, John Paul II visited Ağca in prison. John Paul II and Ağca spoke privately for about twenty minutes.[84][210] John Paul II said, “What we talked about will have to remain a secret between him and me. I spoke to him as a brother whom I have pardoned and who has my complete trust.″

On 2 March 2006 the Italian parliament’s Mitrokhin Commission, set up by Silvio Berlusconi and headed by Forza Italia senator Paolo Guzzanti, concluded that the Soviet Union was behind the attempt on John Paul II’s life,[211][217] in retaliation for the pope’s support of Solidarity, the Catholic, pro-democratic Polish workers’ movement, a theory that had already been supported by Michael Ledeen and the United States Central Intelligence Agencyat the time.[211][217] The Italian report stated that Communist Bulgarian security departments were utilised to prevent the Soviet Union’s role from being uncovered.[217] The report stated that Soviet military intelligence (Glavnoje Razvedyvatel’noje Upravlenije), not the KGB, were responsible.[217] Russian Foreign Intelligence Service spokesman Boris Labusov called the accusation “absurd”.[217] The pope declared during a May 2002 visit to Bulgaria that the country’s Soviet-bloc-era leadership had nothing to do with the assassination attempt.[211][217] However, his secretary, Cardinal Stanisław Dziwisz, alleged in his book A Life with Karol, that the pope was convinced privately that the former Soviet Union was behind the attack.[218] It was later discovered that many of John Paul II’s aides had foreign-government attachments;[219] Bulgaria and Russia disputed the Italian commission’s conclusions, pointing out that the pope had publicly denied the Bulgarian connection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II#Assassination_attempts_and_plots

 

“Pope John Paul II assassination attempt”

8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Paragraphs

KGB Director Yuri Andropov was convinced that Pope John Paul II’s election was the product of an Anglo-German conspiracy orchestrated by Zbigniew Brzezinski to undermine Soviet hegemony in largely Catholic Poland and ultimately to precipitate the collapse of the entire Soviet Union. The Pope’s announcement of a pilgrimage to Warsaw fueled Andropov’s apprehension, with Andropov issuing a secret memorandum to Soviet schoolteachers:[14]

The Pope is our enemy…. Due to his uncommon skills and great sense of humor he is dangerous, because he charms everyone, especially journalists. Besides, he goes for cheap gestures in his relations with the crowd, for instance, [he] puts on a highlander’s hat, shakes all hands, kisses children, etc…. It is modeled on American presidential campaigns…. Because of the activities of the Church inPoland our activities designed to atheize the youth not only cannot diminish but must intensely develop…. In this respect all means are allowed and we cannot afford sentiments.[14]

Ali Ağca had made several trips to Sofia, Bulgaria. He also claimed to have had contacts with a Bulgarian agent in Rome whose cover was the Bulgarian national airline office. Soon after the shooting, Sergei Antonov, a Bulgarian working in Rome for Balkan Air, was arrested based on Ağca’s testimony and accused of being the Bulgarian agent who masterminded the plot.[citation needed] In 1986, after a three-year trial, he was found not guilty. According to the CIA’s chief of staff in Turkey, Paul Henze, Ağca later stated that in Sofia, he was once approached by the Bulgarian Secret Service and Turkish mafiosi, who offered him three million German marks to assassinate the Pope.[15]

American journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave claimed that the Bulgarians chose Ağca to supply themselves with plausible deniability; choosing a member of the Grey Wolves that had allegedly been involved with the local KGB in drug smuggling routes through Bulgaria to Western Europe would distance themselves because of the implausibility of the link.[16]

Some people, notably Edward S. Herman, co-author with Frank Brodhead of The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection (1986), and Michael Parenti, felt Ağca’s story was dubious, noting that Ağca made no claims of Bulgarian involvement until he had been isolated in solitary confinement and visited by Italian Military Intelligence (SISMI) agents. On 25 September 1991, former CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman (now Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy) revealed that his colleagues, following hierarchical orders, had falsified their analysis to support the accusation. He declared to the US Senate intelligence committee that “the CIA hadn’t any proof” concerning this alleged “Bulgarian connection”.[17][18] Neither the Severino Santiapichi court nor the investigation by judge Franco Ionta found evidence that SISMI planted Ağca’s story. A French lawyer, Christian Roulette, who authored books blaming Western intelligence agencies for the assassination attempt, testified in court that the documentary evidence he referred to actually did not exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II_assassination_attempt

 

 

Aljazeera VS Donald Trump

 

According to Aljazeera, the socialist news network that belongs to the Emir of Qatar, and which is also the largest network of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Sunnis of Syria must not thank Donald Trump for his attack on Assad’s air base. See Aljazeera “Syrians should not be thanking Trump for the strikes”, April 2017.

First because the attack was minor, second because the Americans have notified the Russians about the attack before hand, third because Assad’s removal is not a priority of the Trump administration, and fourth because Putin’s and Trump’s problem in Syria is Iran and not Assad. Aljazeera also accuses Russia for her cooperation with Israel.

The ambition of the Qataris is to overturn Assad in order to promote the Muslim Brotherhood pipeline i.e. Qatar-Turkey. The ambition of Iran is to block the Qatar-Turkey-Europe pipeline, and to reach the Mediterranean Sea i.e. Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, and maybe in the future to also promote the Iran-Turkey-Europe natural gas pipeline. Russia’s ambition is to block both the Qatar-Turkey-Europe and the Iran-Turkey-Europe pipeline. The Obama’s administration ambition was to promote a single pipeline for the Muslim Brotherhood i.e. (Qatar+Iran)-Saudi Arabia-Jordan-Turkey-Europe pipeline, by helping the Muslim Brotherhood, which is supported by Turkey, Qatar and Iran, to overturn the Saudi and the Jordanian King.

You can see that even though Qatar and Iran have very different interests, they are together against Donald Trump, because Donald Trump’s ambition is to leave Syria to Russia i.e. the Qatar-Turkey pipeline dies, and in return ask Russia to leave Iraq to the United States, i.e. the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline dies.

Iran and Qatar hope to receive support from France and China, two countries which are also hurt by the USA-Russia détente.

Map Oil and Gas Reserves and Pipelines

 

Syrians should not be thanking Trump for the strikes

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/04/syrians-thanking-trump-strikes-170408090859357.html?utm_source=Al+Jazeera+English+Newsletter+%7C+Weekly&utm_campaign=33e0f2c686-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_04_09&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e427298a68-33e0f2c686-224888961

 

Map Erbil-Ceyhan PipelineJPG

Map Gazprom Pipelines

White Stream Pipeline

Map Kurdistan Pipelines

Map Shareholders of TAP

Possible IS State 1

TAPI

Χάρτης Αγωγοί Νότιας Ευρώπης

Saudi Sudan Pipeline

The Obama and the Trump Doctrines

The Obama and the Trump Doctrine

On the 7th of April 2017 the American President Donald Trump ordered the attack of a Syrian airbase, which was controlled by forces of the Syrian government (Bashar al-Assad). I believe that on its own the attack does not say much, because it is normal to expect the Russians to offer more space to Syria to the Trump administration, compared to what they did with the Obama administration, and what they would do with a Clinton administration.

The Trump doctrine is much friendlier towards Russia, while both the Obama and the Clinton doctrine were pushing very aggressively the natural gas of the Muslim Brotherhood. At the following maps you can see the Obama and the Trump doctrine.

Obama, the leftist son of an anti-American Shiite Muslim from Kenya, saw the Muslim Brotherhood very positively, and he supported the Muslim Brotherhood, hoping that Iran and Qatar could jointly send their natural gas to Europe and India through Turkey and Pakistan. The ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood is Communism with a God (Allah). With the Obama Doctrine there would be a united Muslim front against Russia in the Middle East.

 

Image The Obama Doctrine – The Axis of the Muslim Brotherhood Natural Gas

Τραμπ Πούτιν.JPG

Image 2 The Obama Doctrine – The Muslim Brotherhood Natural Gas Goes to Europe and India

Obama Doctrine.jpg

Donald Trump on the other hand believes that the West should help Russia to promote her natural gas exports to the American allies i.e. the E.U., India, Japan and South Korea, in order to break the Russian-China axis. After all Russia and China have competing interests too. See “Russia VS China”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/russia-vs-china/

Image The Trump Doctrine

US Russian Cooperation.JPG

Or at least Trump hopes to weaken the Russia-China axis, if not break it, since Russia sells a lot of oil to China. But what is for sure is that the more the United States and the EU support the Muslim Brotherhood, the more they push Russia towards China, and as a result the United States will have to face a Russo-Chinese bloc in the Pacific Ocean.

The Trump doctrine is that the United States should stop promoting the natural gas of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria i.e. the Qatar-Turkey pipeline, and leave Syria to Russia, and in return ask from Russia to stop supporting China and Iran against the United States in Iraq.

People are killing each other for centuries for the commercial corridor that connects the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea i.e. today’s Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon. This is the corridor the British and the French gained from the Ottomans during the First World War (1914-1918). Obviously Trump would be very happy if the United States was controlling Syria, but if you want to throw Russia out of traditional spheres of influence i.e. Syria and Ukraine, you cannot expect the Russians to be happy. You should expect them to respond.

Image Map The Iraq-Syria Corridor

Χάρτης Συρίας Ιράκ.JPG

Interpreting the Trump Attack

Therefore the Trump doctrine is much better than the Obama doctrine for both the United States and Russia, and as a result the Russians will be willing to share control of Syria with the Trump administration, as long as the vital Russian interests are not hurt. That’s why Trump can be bolder in Syria compared to Obama, when he wants to attack ISIS, Iran and Hezbollah in Syria. The Russians will even allow the Trump government to be somewhat more aggressive towards the Assad government. Also remember that ISIS are the ex people of Saddam Hussein, who were trained by the KGB and were given oil fields by the Assad regime in Syria.

It is Al-Qaeda who fights Assad in Syria and not ISIS. Before the Arab Spring Al-Qaeda was trained and supported by Iran and Hezbollah, but after the Arab Spring in Syria the Syrian Al-Qaeda changed her name, cut relations with central Al-Qaeda, and started receiving support from the Arabs of the Gulf i.e. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait etc, and also from the Turks. See “How Putin and Assad Created the Islamic State”.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/654465

See also “The Architects of Al-Qaeda and ISIS”

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/655129

The countries that mainly supported attacks against the Assad regime in the previous years were France, Turkey, and the Arabs, and that’s why ISIS carried out terrorist attacks against France, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. But it is also true that the Turks were also helping ISIS against the Kurds in Syria, and also it is true that the Arabs were helping ISIS against the Shiite militias in Iraq.

Under Obama the United States was only attacking ISIS, but not the Assad regime, because Obama did not want to hurt his alliance with Iran by attacking Assad, a strong Iranian ally. Remember that in the Obama doctrine both Qatar and Iran would use the gas field they share, which is the largest gas field in the world i.e. the South Pars/North Fields, in order to supply Europe and India with natural gas through Turkey and Pakistan.

Image 2 The Obama Doctrine – The Muslim Brotherhood Natural Gas to Europe and India

Obama Doctrine

Image The War for the Pipelines

Map Oil and Gas Reserves and Pipelines.JPG

Image Qatar-Turkey

Possible IS State 1.jpg

Image The War in Afghanistan and Georgia

TAPI.JPG

Therefore I believe that for the moment we should see the Trump attack on Assad as a proof that Donald Trump is willing to support their traditional allies, i.e. Turkey, Israel and the Arabs of the Gulf, and not as a proof that Trump has changed his mind and now he is willing to promote the natural gas of the Muslim Brotherhood. As long at Trump does not change his doctrine, and as long as he does not promote the natural gas of the Muslim Brotherhood, his attacks in Syria will hurt more ISIS, Iran and Hezbollah and a lot less Russia. So what matters is not whether Trump carries an attack against the allies of Russia, but whether he moves away from his doctrine, and closer to the Obama doctrine. That’s what will determine how forceful the Russian response will be, because in Syria every player has different interests.

Also note that last week Trump met with the Egyptian dictator al-Sisi, who has imprisoned the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was supported by Turkey, Qatar and Iran, with the blessings of Obama and Clinton, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s largest tv channel is the socialist anti-American Aljazeera, which is owned by the Emir of Qatar.

Donald Trump on the other hand praised the Egyptian President, whom he calls a fantastic guy, and he is not very friendly towards Qatar, a country which heavily bet on the election of Hilary Clinton. And Trump is hostile towards Iran. And if Iran keeps attacking the United States in Iraq Donald Trump might even decide to attack Iran. Probably he would not dare to invade Iran, because there would be a war with Russia and China, but he could order a limited attack against the Iranian nuclear facilities.

Also note that Iraq is not just about oil for the United States, as the Communists and the Islamists are saying in the United States. After the 9/11 attack the United States had to move its military bases from Saudi Arabia to Qatar. But Qatar also sees China as the future importer of its gas, even though Qatar needs the military presence of the United States, as a protection against the Saudis and the Iranians. Remember that the Chinese have stronger ties with the Iranians than with the Arabs, both due to the traditional alliance between the Arabs of the Gulf and NATO, but also due to geographical reasons i.e. China can connect to Iran avoiding the sea and the American navy, but she cannot do that with the Arabs of the Gulf.

Therefore you should not see Trump’s obsession with Iraq only in terms of Iraq’s oil reserves. The Americans overturned the Sunni minority of Saddam Hussein, which became Al-Qaeda of Iraq, and later the Islamic State of Iraq, in order to empower the Shia majority of Iraq and the Kurds of Iraq, both of whom were suppressed by the Saddam regime.

The Weakness of the Trump Doctrine

During the Cold War things were quite simple for NATO. NATO was protecting the oil of the Persian Gulf and North Africa from the Soviets, and the rich in oil Soviets were using their allies to make life hard for NATO. Even China was cooperating more with the US than the Soviets after 1980, and the American companies went to China, and transformed China from a poor agricultural economy to the factory of the world.

But now the big threat for the Americans is no longer Russia but China, while the Europeans are still afraid of their neighbouring Russia and much less of China. That’s why Trump says that NATO is obsolete and he is wondering why the United States is not leaving Syria to Russia, instead of promoting the natural gas of the Muslim Brotherhood, a policy that pushes Russia towards China.

Map China and Russia Against the United States

Russia and China Against the US.JPG

But that does not mean that the Trump doctrine is based on the assumption that Russia will align herself with the United States against China, if the US helps Russia to export her gas to the EU, India, Japan and South Korea. The Trump doctrine is based on the assumption that the US will become stronger, and will be able to fight China in the future, irrespective of what Russia does.

But obviously by stop promoting the Muslim Brotherhood, which is designated as a terrorist organization in Russia, Trump hopes that Russia will be at least neutral towards China and the US. Remember that Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and he would probably be very happy if the Muslim Brotherhood overturned the Sauds in Saudi Arabia with the help of Turkey, Iran and Qatar. The Muslim Brotherhood ideology i.e. Socialism and Islam, is very close to Obama’s ideology.

The main weakness of the Trump doctrine is that it hurts some traditional American allies for example Qatar, France and Poland. If Trump helps Russia exports her gas to India, Japan and South Korea, which are all US allies, the Qatari exports will be deeply hurt, because these countries, together with China, absorb the Qatari production.

Moreover, France is hurt by Trump’s effort for an American-Russian détente. France left NATO in 1966, and went back to NATO 33 years later, because she wanted to play the Soviets against the Americans. The French were complaining that the Americans were prioritising their relationship with the British. But now, if the United States approaches Russia, bypassing France, which was the middle man, France’s geopolitical significance will be significantly reduced, given that the Americans have close ties with the British, and the Russians have close ties with the Germans, who are by far Russia’s best customer in oil and gas.

Map The Geopolitical Problem of France

Map The Problem of France.JPG

France will have the option to approach China, in order to play the Americans against the Chinese, but China is far away to help France in case of a war. Moreover China and Iran are competing with France for the uranium of Northern Africa i.e. Niger, Chad. France desperately needs this uranium because the country is dependent on energy produced from nuclear factories. Germany decided to close her nuclear factories after the Fukushima nuclear disaster of Japan in 2011, and replace nuclear energy with Russian natural gas. But obviously France would prefer not to be dependent on Russian natural gas imports, which would come through Germany, because that would make France dependent on Germany and Russia, which would not be good for France in case of a war.

Obviously the French and the British would prefer to import oil and natural gas from Africa (Trans-Saharan Pipeline) and the Middle East (Qatar-Turkey and Turkmenistan-Europe pipelines), instead of being dependent on Russia. But to do that you go to a war with Russia, because most of Russian export revenues come from sales of oil and natural gas to Europe. After all the reason the Russians dropped the Soviet Union was to export their oil and gas to the large industrial economies of Europe i.e. Germany, France, Great Britain and Italy.

Map France and United Kingdom

France and Britain.JPG

Another problem of the Trump doctrine is that he wants to reverse the large trade deficits that the United States runs with China, and many American multinationals are based in China. And the same is true for Mexico. These American companies export their products to the United States, and China and Mexico put pressure on them in order to spread her propaganda against Trump.

Look at what happens with the New York Times, which promotes the interests of the Mexican industrialists, and how biased the paper is towards Trump. Carlo Slim, the Mexican socialist industrialist who is supported by the Mexican government, is the largest shareholder of the New York Times.

All the above does not mean that Trump wants to go to a war with China. That’s the last thing Trump wants. Trump wants China to leave Iraq to the American sphere of influence. For China it would be great if Iran takes control of Iraq, because Iran already has Syria. And Pakistan is a strong Chinese ally, and that would bring China to the Mediterranean Sea, taking also control of the Persian Gulf. That would not be good for Russia either.

Map The New Soviet Union (China)

China's' New Empire.JPG

Trump would like China to have Iran and Pakistan in her sphere of influence, in order for China to have access to oil and natural gas by land, which would help China to stop converting the South China Sea to a Chinese lake. And as I said Trump expects China to leave Iraq to the US, and the US to leave Syria to Russia.

Map USA-Russia-China

Trump Doctrine.JPG

Remember that the First World War, and also the Second, happened because Germany was threatening the British, the French and the Russian to reach the Persian Gulf and the Caspian See through her allies the Ottomans (Turks) and the Austrians. Now China is threatening to do the same through her allies Pakistan and Iran.

 

Map WW1 and WW2

WW1.JPG

Map WW1

Map of World War 1.JPG

Image South Energy Corridor

Map Shareholders of TAP.JPG

Map The Russian Pipelines

Map Gazprom Pipelines.JPG

Map Kurdistan

Map Kurdistan Pipelines

Map The White Pipeline and the War in Ukraine and Georgia

White Stream Pipeline.JPG

Map Turkey VS Russia

Map Erbil-Ceyhan PipelineJPG

 

Zionists VS Bolsheviks : The Good and the Bad Jews of Churchill and Lenin

Before the creation of Israel in 1948, there was a Jewish civil war in Palestine, with the majority of the Palestinian Jews supporting Great Britain (Haganah), and a minority of the Palestinian Jews, mainly Communist Jews, supporting the Russians. Maybe a few of them were even working of the Italian fascists.

The Jews who were working for the Russians (Soviets) were carrying terrorist attacks against the British, who at the time had Palestine under British control. These Jews were hunted, and very often executed or deported from Palestine, by the British and their Jewish allies (Haganah).

In 1917 the British had promised to create a Jewish state in Palestine (Balfour Declaration), among other things because there were many Russian Jews in the Russian Communist Party, and the British were hoping that they would give the Russian Jews of the Communist Party an incentive to use their influence, in order to keep Russia in WW1 against Germany (1914-1918).

But it was the Germans who had brought the Russian Communists in power, in order to attack the Russian Army, and the Russian Communists, both Jews and no-Jews, were not very interested in helping the British when they rose to power in 1917.

Instead, the Russian Communists withdrew Russia from WW1, they gave many Russian territories to the Germans, the Austrians and the Ottomans, in exchange for their support against the Russian army, and they also made public the secret agreements between the British the French and the Russians, about how they planned to split the Ottoman colonies of the Middle East in case the won the war.

The architect of the October (Bolshevik) Revolution was the German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmerman. Arthur Zimmerman was also the architect of the Irish (Easter Rising) and Indian (Hindu-German Conspiracy) revolts against the British. See Wikipedia “Arthur Zimmermann”.

Image Arthur Zimmermann: The Architect of the October (Bolshevik) Revolution in 1917

Arthur Zimmerman

Map October (Bolshevik) Revolution 1917 : Germany-Austria-Turkey-Russian Communist Party (green) against England-France-Russian Empires (purple)

Map October Revolution.JPG

You can see on the map that the Germans and their Communist allies had a clear geographical advantage against the Russian army, because the Brits and the French could only support the Russian army through the Middle East.

Lenin and Stalin were not using the Communist Jews only against the British in Palestine. There were many Russian Jews who had fled Russia before the Bolshevik Revolution, hunted by the Russian Tsar, and they ended up in Germany, UK, the United States and elsewhere. And some of them were Communists, and when they rose to power Lenin and Stalin were using these Communists Jews to undermine Germany, England and the United States.

In 1920, Henry Ford, the greatest American industrialist at the time, published the International Jew. The International Jew was a variant of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which had been published by the Tsarist police in the beginning of the 20th Century Russia, when the German, Austrian and Ottoman Empires were using the Russian Communists to undermine the Russian Tsar. Henry Ford was also doing business with Nazi Germany, and Hitler was one of his admirers. See also “Inside Hitler’s Mind”.

It is not true that the Jews were controlling the Communist Party of Russia, but a very large portion of the Russian Jewish population saw Communism positively. It is easier for atheism to appeal to a religious minority (Jews) than to a religious majority (Christians).

At the same time that Henry Ford financed the publishing of the International Jew, Winston Churchill published an article about bad and good Jews, titled “Zionism Versus Bolshevism : A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People”.

Image The Good and the Bad Jews of Winston Churchill 1920

Zionism VS Bolshevism.JPG

The reason Winston Churchill wrote this article was that the Soviets supported Jewish Communists in Great Britain and Palestine, in order to attack the Brits. In Palestine the Germans and the Italians were also supporting the Muslim Brotherhood against the British. See “Hitler’s Alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood”.

Actually the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem organized the Arab Spring of Palestine (1936-1939) against the British, with the support of Mussolini and Hitler. When the British were hunting the Grand Mufti he was hiding in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, and he was organizing the Muslim parts of the SS in Bosnia. See Daily Caller “Nazi SS Commander Wished Islamic Leader Success In Fight ‘Against The Jewish Invaders”, March 2017

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was also the man who convinced Hitler to end his policy of allowing the Jews of the countries he conquered to flee, because they ended up in Palestine. And Hitler followed the advice of the Grand Mufti and implemented the Final Solution. See “Netanyahu, Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem”.

But let me go back to 1920. While in the United States Henry Ford was financing the International Jew, Winston Churchill wrote “Zionism VS Bolshevism”, with a part of it titled “Good and Bad Jews”. Churchill called “good Jews” the nationalist Jews (Zionists), who were the allies of Great Britain, and he called “bad Jews” the international Jews (Bolsheviks), who were the allies of Lenin and Stalin. See “Good and Bad Jews”, 1920

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html

With the Arab Spring that started in the 21st Century, the French started fighting in Syria with the Russians, the Syrians and the Iranians, because the French, the Turks and the Arabs of the Gulf wanted to overturn Bashar al Assad, in order to advance the Qatar-Turkey pipeline. They were hoping that Turkey, Iran and Qatar would cooperate as a Muslim Brotherhood axis, in order to supply Europe with gas bypassing Russia.

Map The 21st Century War for the Natural Gas Pipelines

Map of Oil and Gas

Israel has aligned itself with Russia against Turkey and Qatar, and the French are using the French Jews as a bargaining chip in order to threat Israel. Obviously the French don’t do that openly, they just live it to their Muslim friends. But Netanyahu replied by saying that French Jews should immigrate to Israel if they are threatened in France. And Putin also said that European Jews can go to Russia if they are threatened in Europe. Putin was not only referring to France, but also to Scandinavia, because the Scandinavian countries are enemies of Russia, and Russia said that if Sweden and Finland join NATO Russia will start WW3. Scandinavia has become the European fortress of anti-Semitism. But besides France and Scandinavia there is also England, where the leader of the opposition i.e. Jeremy Corbyn, is very close to Iran and Venezuela, and the Labour Party has become very anti-Semitic under his leadership.

The French are saying that they do not want the French Jews to leave France, and I believe them. Especially Emannuel Valls who is married to a French Jewish woman. But they certainly want to use them in order to blackmail Israel, in order to help their allies the Arabs, and their new friends Iran. Maybe not Valls, but Valls is only one man. You saw how bad he did in the race for the leadership of the socialist party in 2016.

See Politico “Putin invites Jews to Russia”

http://www.politico.eu/article/putin-invites-jews-to-russia/

See Telegraph “France does not want Jews to leave’ say leaders Hollande and Valls”, February 2015

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11415030/France-does-not-want-Jews-to-leave-say-leaders-Hollande-and-Valls.html

As you can see at the following map, the largest part of European Jewry lives in France i.e. 580 thousands. France is only third, with the US first (8m) and Israel (6m) second in Jewish populations.

Image World Jewish Population

Πληθυσμός Εβραίων

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11415030/France-does-not-want-Jews-to-leave-say-leaders-Hollande-and-Valls.html

So there are still good and bad Jews, according to their allies. It is the same with the Kurds. The Kurds are facing the situation faced by the pre-Israel Jews. Some Kurds are allies of the Americans, some of Russia, some of Iran, some of Syria, some of Turkey, and there are good and bad Kurds according to their allies, and how you want to see it. And there is Kurdish civil war.

Map Kurdistan Pipelines.JPG

The problem is that now there are good and bad Jews even in United States. As long as the United States was fighting the Soviets, Israel was America’s best friend, so there were only good Jews in the United States. But now that the Trump administration tries to approach Russia, in order to brake the China-Russia alliance, and Israel has made good with the Russians, the pro-Arab and anti-Russian Americans started talking about bad Jews, in an indirect way of course. On the other hand the Jewish Americans are usually democrats, so they are anti-Trump, and people like Trump start seeing bad and good Jews too. So there are bad and good Jews for both the Democrats i.e. mainly the pro-Russian Jews of Israel, and the Republicans i.e. the anti-Trump American Jews. Now that America is so polarized there will be good and bad Jews in the United States too.

Map Gazprom Pipelines

Map Erbil-Ceyhan PipelineJPG.JPG

Map of The Ottoman Empire 1900

Map of World War 1.JPG

Possible IS State 1.jpg

Χάρτης Gazprom Αγωγοί.jpg

Map Iraq Sunni Shia Kurds.JPG

Map of Iraqi Desert

Map South Energy Corridor

Σαουδική Αραβία.jpg

Τουρκία Σαουδική Αραβία Ιράν

Χάρτης Nabucco

Χάρτης Αφρική - Ευρώπη

Αποθέματα Πετρελαίου ανά Χώρα.JPG

Αποθέματα Φυσικού Αερίου

Ο Χάρτης του Φυσικού Αερίου.JPG

TAPI.JPG

Saudi Sudan Pipeline.JPG

Xin Jiang Pipelines.JPG

Proven Oil Reserves.JPG

Map Oil Gas Pipelines Middle East.JPG

Map of Asian Colonies

Map of Oil and Gas Reserves.JPG

Africa Colonies.JPG

Earth.JPG

Countries by GDP.JPG

Military Spending

Military Spending

Salt A World History

Russia+China against the US

Trump VS Le Pen 2.JPG

US and Russia Against China

Trump VS Le Pen.JPG

Χάρτης Αγωγοί Νότιας Ευρώπης.JPG

Articles

“Nazi SS Commander Wished Islamic Leader Success In Fight ‘Against The Jewish Invaders”, March 2017

The Israel National Library released a rediscovered telegram Wednesday that reveals that notorious Nazi leader Heinrich Himmler wished the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem success in fighting Jews who were migrating to Israel during World War II.

The telegram, dated Nov. 2 1943, shows Heinrich Himmler, the notorious commander of the Nazi Schutzstaffel (or S.S.), offered Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini “warm wishes” in his continued fight against the Jews. The letter was sent on the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, which expressed the British government’s support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in what is now Israel.

“To Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini: From the outset, the National Socialist [Nazi] movement of Greater Germany has been a standard-bearer in the battle against world Jewry,” said Himmler’s telegram. “For this reason, it is closely following the battle of freedom-seeking Arabs, particularly in Palestine, against the Jewish invaders. The shared recognition of the enemy and the joint fight against it are creating the strong base [uniting] Germany and freedom-seeking Arabs around the world. In this spirit, I am pleased to wish you, on the anniversary of the wretched Balfour Declaration, warm wishes on your continued fight until the great victory.”

Husseini’s connections to Nazi Germany date back to at least the late 1930s, when he traveled to fascist Italy and Germany to avoid a British arrest warrant for his alleged role in the Arab revolt, which lasted from 1936 to 1939. He collaborated with the Nazis in propaganda broadcasts and reportedly aided the S.S. in the recruitment of Bosnian Muslims. Husseini is also known to have met with Adolf Hitler, and requested German support for the liberation of Palestine from the British. He is considered a key historical figure in Palestinian nationalism.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/30/nazi-ss-commander-wished-islamic-leader-success-in-fight-against-the-jewish-invaders/

“Netanyahu, Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/netanyahu-hitler-and-the-grand-mufti-of-jerusalem/

“Arthur Zimmermann”

1st Paragraph

Arthur Zimmermann (5 October 1864 – 6 June 1940) was State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the German Empire from 22 November 1916 until his resignation on 6 August 1917. His name is associated with the Zimmermann Telegram during World War I. However, he was closely involved in plans to support rebellions in Ireland and in India, and to assist the Bolsheviks to undermine Tsarist Russia.

5th Paragraph

In late 1914 Zimmermann was visited by Roger Casement, the Irish revolutionary. A plan was laid to land 25,000 soldiers in the west of Ireland with 75,000 rifles. However, the German general staff did not agree. In April 1916 Casement returned to Ireland in a U-boat and was captured and executed. A German ship (the Libau) renamed the Aud, flying Norwegian colours, shipped 20,000 rifles to the south Irish coast, but it failed to link up with the rebels and was scuttled. Planning on this support, a minority of the Irish Volunteers launched the Easter Rising inDublin. Though the Rising failed, its political effect led on to the Anglo-Irish war in 1919–22 and the formation of the Irish Free State.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Zimmermann

“Inside Hitler’s Mind”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/inside-hitlers-mind/

“WHO WAS BEHIND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION?”

The anti-communist movement in America has long been afflicted by an
historical misunderstanding which persists today. There is a widespread
teaching about communism and its origins which is false. It is a
teaching which has influenced millions of Americans.

The 20th century version of this teaching originated with Russian
anti-Semites. Relying on false documents and a conspiratorial
hypothesis, these anti-Semites blamed Jews and Freemasons for a
wide-ranging global conspiracy to destroy Christianity and create a
world government. One of the key historical facts alleged by these
Russian anti-Semites has to do with the origins of the Bolshevik
Revolution.

In this context, the importance of historical facts and
interpretations should not be underestimated. If our historical facts
are incorrect, then our political understanding will be weak and our
actions will be misdirected. If we believe in enemies and conspiracies
that do not exist in reality, then real conspiracies will be
misapprehended or ignored.

A body of literature and testimony, based on false assertions and
bogus documentation, began to appear in the West after the Bolshevik
Revolution. This literature and testimony asserted (and continues to
assert) that certain American bankers, who happen to have Jewish names,
had financed the Bolshevik Revolution. Once the Russian anti-Semites
planted this poisonous seed, it spread rapidly. Henry Ford was an early
convert to this claim. Hitler and the Nazis were also believers in it.

After the collapse of Nazi Germany, writers and publicists like
Robert Welch, Gary Allen and Anthony Sutton continued to advance the
thesis that a sinister Western group financed and directed the communist
revolution in Russia. This group, it was said, used international
communism to advance their own sinister agenda in the West.

George Knupffer, a Russian emigre, was an early advocate of this
view. As a Russian monarchist, he worked to influence American public
opinion by writing books. Long before the founding of the John Birch
Society by Robert Welch, Knupffer and his compatriots advanced the
theory that Russia had been a testing ground — a preliminary experiment
— used by forces located outside of Russia.

Who was behind this conspiracy?

According to Knupffer, it was the Warburgs and Jacob Schiff of Kuhn,
Loeb & Co. that financed the Bolshevik Revolution. These were the
alleged culprits and villains behind it all. These were the evil
geniuses of the October Revolution. Allen and Sutton followed Knupffer’s
line — which had previously been advanced by Henry Ford’s anti-Semitic
publications of the 1920s and 1930s.

It must be said, in response to this conspiracy theory, that the
allegations against the Warburgs and Schiffs are false. These
allegations, which originate in anti-Semitic propaganda, have been
repeated so often that many good people have come to accept them without
question.

In truth, the culprits behind the communist takeover in Russia were
not in New York, and they did not have Jewish names. The villains were
in Berlin and they had German names. As it happens, the chief architect
of the Bolshevik Revolution was none other than German Foreign Secretary
Arthur Zimmermann. During the First World War the Political Section of
the German Foreign Office had been devising a plan to bring revolution
to Russia. It was Zimmermann’s pet idea. From 1915 to 1917 the German
secret service began cultivating socialists of all parties. Baron
Gisbert von Romberg, the German minister in Switzerland, urged that the
Kaiser put his money behind Lenin and his Bolsheviks. Count Diego von
Bergen, the German official in charge of political subversion within
Russia, believed that a large enough sum of money could bring Lenin to
power.

How much money did the Kaiser provide to Lenin?

The German Social Democrat, Eduard Bernstein, later said that the sum
supplied to Lenin by the Kaiser “was very large, an almost unbelievable
amount, certainly more than 50 million gold marks.”

General Max von Hoffmann, who negotiated the German-Soviet
Brest-Litovsk peace treaty, later confirmed: “Lenin and his comrades
received vast sums of money from the Kaiser’s government for their
destructive agitation.”

In fact, General Hoffmann admitted that he blackmailed Lenin into
signing the Brest-Litovsk treaty, and it is simple to see how this was
done. Since Lenin’s takeover of Russia had been accomplished with help
from German agents and German money while Russia was at war with
Germany, Lenin’s treason was obvious. All the Germans had to do was
publish the truth about their secret alliance with Lenin and the
Bolshevik government would collapse.

Once in power, Lenin did not want to sign the peace treaty with
Germany. But he had no choice. At the Time Kaiser Wilhelm triumphantly
pronounced that Lenin “was finished.” The Kaiser could “out” Lenin at
any time and bring an end to Russia’s Bolsheviks. But Germany
disintegrated later that year and the Kaiser abdicated. The treaty with
Lenin became meaningless.

The blackmail was left unused and later proved to be something of a
scandal and embarrassment for the German military itself.

By a strange quirk of fate, the Bolsheviks broke loose from their
Imperial German sponsors.

Aside from German files and memoirs on the subject, French
counter-intelligence detected and documented collusion between Lenin and
the Kaiser in March 1917. The intelligence service of Russia’s
Provisional Government also uncovered evidence of German-Bolshevik
collusion in July 1917. It was then learned that large sums of money
were being channeled to Lenin’s people in Russia through the Bank of
Siberia in Petrograd. This money was traced back through Scandinavia to
Imperial Germany. Because of this discovery, Lenin had to go underground
to avoid arrest as a German agent.

In preparing its case against Lenin, the Provisional Government
compiled 20 volumes of evidence tying Lenin to German agents and German money.

It is very important that we respect the facts of history. It is even
more important that we avoid building our political ideas around false
historical claims about New York bankers with Jewish names. The origins
of the Marxist revolution in Russia have been documented by an army of
researchers and writers. This work needs to be studied and understood.

We cannot combat the false doctrines of the left with a false
doctrine of the right.

http://www.wnd.com/2000/05/6446/

“The International Jew: A Summary of Anti-Semitism in the 20th Century”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/the-international-jew-a-brief-summary-of-20th-century-anti-semitism/

“Putin invites Jews to Russia”

http://www.politico.eu/article/putin-invites-jews-to-russia/

“France does not want Jews to leave’ say leaders Hollande and Valls”, February 2015

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11415030/France-does-not-want-Jews-to-leave-say-leaders-Hollande-and-Valls.html

“The Alliance Between Hitler and the Muslim Brotherhood”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/08/18/the-alliance-between-hitler-and-the-muslim-brotherhood/

“The International Jew”

1η, 2η, 3η Παράγραφος

The International Jew is a four volume set of booklets or pamphlets published and distributed in the early 1920s by Henry Ford, an American industrialist and automobile manufacturer.

In Spring 1920, Ford made his personal newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, chronicle what he considered the “Jewish menace”. Every week for 91 issues, the paper exposed some sort of Jewish-inspired evil major story in a headline. The most popular and aggressive stories were then chosen to be reprinted into four volumes called The International Jew.[1]

It is to be distinguished from The International Jew: The World’s Problem which was the headline in The Dearborn Independent and is the name of a collection of articles serialized in The Dearborn Independent.

8η, 9η, 10η, 11η Παράγραφος

1927 Libel Suit

A libel lawsuit, brought by San Francisco lawyer and Jewish farm cooperative organizer Aaron Sapiro in response to antisemitic remarks, led Ford to close the Independent in December 1927. News reports at the time quoted him as being shocked by the content and having been unaware of its nature. During the trial, the editor of Ford’s “Own Page”, William John Cameron, testified that Ford had nothing to do with the editorials even though they were under his byline. Cameron testified at the libel trial that he never discussed the content of the pages nor sent them to Ford for his approval.[3] Investigative journalist Max Wallace doubted the veracity of this claim and wrote that James M. Miller, a former Dearborn Independent employee, swore under oath that Ford had told him he intended to expose Sapiro.[4] According to Michael Barkun, “That Cameron would have continued to publish such controversial material without Ford’s explicit instructions seemed unthinkable to those who knew both men. Mrs. Stanley Ruddiman, a Ford family intimate, remarked that “I don’t think Mr. Cameron ever wrote anything for publication without Mr. Ford’s approval”.

Influence on Nazi Anti-Semitism

Ford’s International Jew was translated into German in 1922 and was cited as an influence by Baldur von Schirach, one of the Nazis leaders, who stated “I read it and became anti-Semitic. In those days this book made such a deep impression on my friends and myself because we saw in Henry Ford the representative of success, also the exponent of a progressive social policy. In the poverty-stricken and wretched Germany of the time, youth looked toward America, and apart from the great benefactor, Herbert Hoover, it was Henry Ford who to us representedAmerica.”[6] Ford is the only American mentioned in Hitler’s Mein Kampf, but is only mentioned once in one sentence, where Hitler writes “Every year makes them [American Jews] more and more the controlling masters of the producers in a nation of one hundred and twenty millions; only a single great man, Ford, to their fury still maintains full independence.” The second edition of the book removed reference to Ford.

The Patriotic Publishing Co

In 1934, The Patriotic Publishing Co., an unincorporated entity that operated out of a post office box[8][not in citation given] “Issued” and “Compiled and edited” The Protocols as an expanded 300-page tome. The expansion from less than 100 pages to 300 pages was made possible by copying substantial sections from The Dearborn Independent. Most of the later imprints of the Protocols are derived from this 1934 edition.

George F. Green and the Christian Nationalist Crusade

In June 1949 there appeared a 174-page, one-volume abridgment of the text, titled The International Jew, subtitled “The World’s Foremost Problem”, and edited by George F. Green[10] (who is not to be confused with the novelist and short-story writer of the same name). It was published by Green, editor of The Independent Nationalist [11]

The book was also sold in the United States, where it was distributed by the Christian Nationalist Crusade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew

“Communist Party of the USA”

The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) was a Moscow-controlled Marxist-Leninist party in the United States. It nominated a candidate for president from 1924 through 1984, sometimes with funding from the atheistic Communist Soviet Union. With the collapse of the Soviet Union it became a hollow shell and has urged voters to support the Democrat Party.[1]

The Soviet Union used the CPUSA to recruit spies after the U.S. recognized theUSSR in 1933.

The CPUSA was under heavy attack by the U.S. government after 1947 and the start of the Cold War. After gaining control of many Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) locals and unions it was expelled from the CIO in 1948. After losing its main base it continued to operate some small unions, such as the fur workers. It supported and gained control of the presidential campaign of Henry A. Wallace in 1948. After 1948 it was a hunted target and played only a small role.

Membership in the CPUSA was a high maintenance commitment—the Party demanded full control of people’s ideas, friendships, jobs and activities. There were repeated in-depth investigations, humiliating interrogations, forced confessions, and purges. Many sympathizers (or “fellow travelers”) supported Communist goals but refused to become members. Of those who did join turnover in membership was very high, with most people staying less than a year before they quit in disgust with the intellectual and social regimentation of the party and its structure as a top-down dictatorship that took orders from Moscow. The CPUSA did not execute anyone, but many—probably most—of the American Communists who traveled to Russia were killed there.[2]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Communist_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America

Zionism versus Bolshevism.

A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People

By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.

SOME people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.

Disraeli, the Jew Prime Minister of England, and Leader of the Conservative Party, who was always true to his race and proud of his origin, said on a well-known occasion: “The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews.” Certainly when we look at the miserable state of Russia, where of all countries in the world the Jews were the most cruelly treated, and contrast it with the fortunes of our own country, which seems to have been so providentially preserved amid the awful perils of these times, we must admit that nothing that has since happened in the history of the world has falsified the truth of Disraeli’s confident assertion.

Good and Bad Jews

The conflict between good and evil which proceeds unceasingly in the breast of man nowhere reaches such an intensity as in the Jewish race. The dual nature of mankind is nowhere more strongly or more terribly exemplified. We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together. On that system and by that faith there has been built out of the wreck of the Roman Empire the whole of our existing civilization.

And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.

‘National’ Jews

There can be no greater mistake than to attribute to each individual a recognizable share in the qualities which make up the national character. There are all sorts of men — good, bad and, for the most part, indifferent — in every country, and in every race. Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct. In a people of peculiar genius like the Jews, contrasts are more vivid, the extremes are more widely separated, the resulting consequences are more decisive.

At the present fateful period there are three main lines of political conception among the Jews. two of which are helpful and hopeful in a very high degree to humanity, and the third absolutely destructive.

First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life and, while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them. Such a Jew living in England would say, “I am an English man practising the Jewish faith.” This is a worthy conception, and useful in the highest degree. We in Great Britain well know that during the great struggle the influence of what may be called the “National Jews” in many lands was cast preponderatingly on the side of the Allies; and in our own Army Jewish soldiers have played a most distinguished part, some rising to the command of armies, others winning the Victoria Cross for valour.

The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honorable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organizations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholder of friendship with France and Great Britain.

International Jews

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

Terrorist Jews

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd) or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.

‘Protector of the Jews’

Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin’s authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, in relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offenses against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole. vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalized their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms.

The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies, which are now being perpetrated. This is an injustice on millions of helpless people, most of whom are themselves sufferers from the revolutionary regime. It becomes, therefore, specially important to foster and develop any strongly-marked Jewish movement which leads directly away from these fatal associations. And it is here that Zionism has such a deep significance for the whole world at the present time.

A Home for the Jews

Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism, it presents to the Jew a national idea of a commanding character. it has fallen to the British Government, as the result of the conquest of Palestine, to have the opportunity and the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the world a home and centre of national life. The statesmanship and historic sense of Mr. Balfour were prompt to seize this opportunity. Declarations have now been made which have irrevocably decided the policy of Great Britain. The fiery energies of Dr. Weissmann, the leader, for practical purposes, of the Zionist project. backed by many of the most prominent British Jews, and supported by the full authority of Lord Allenby, are all directed to achieving the success of this inspiring movement.

Of course, Palestine is far too small to accommodate more than a fraction of the Jewish race, nor do the majority of national Jews wish to go there. But if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.

Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.

Duty of Loyal Jews

It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion, as many of them in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honor of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.

But a negative resistance to Bolshevism in any field is not enough. Positive and practicable alternatives are needed in the moral as well as in the social sphere; and in building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine which may become not only a refuge to the oppressed from the unhappy lands of Central Europe, but which will also be a symbol of Jewish unity and the temple of Jewish glory, a task is presented on which many blessings rest.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html

The End of Vladimir Putin

As you can read at the following article from Express, Vladimir Putin is considering withdrawing in 2017. Supposedly for reasons that have to do with his health. Express is a British newspaper close to Nigel Farage’s UKIP, which is a pro-Russian party.

See Express “Reign of Putin OVER? ‘Health problems to force Russian president to stand down NEXT YEAR”, November 2016

 

Capture.JPG

Putin was a KGB leader who became Russia’s leader in 2000, due to the war declared against NATO by Russia and Iran. NATO was supporting energy networks that were hurting both Iran and Russia, like the Muslim Brotherhood pipeline (Qatar-Turkey-Europe), but also the Turkmenistan-Ukraine-Poland pipeline, through Georgia. Both of these pipelines were hurting Russia. NATO was also promoting the Turkmenistan-India pipeline through Afghanistan, which was hurting Iran (TAPI pipeline).

The South Pars/North Field gas field, shared by Qatar and Iran, is the largest gas field in the world, while the Turkmen Galkynysh is the second largest gas field in the world.

Map (Russia+Iran) VS NATO

Χάρτης ΗΠΑ Ρωσίας.JPG

Obama tried to add Iran to the Muslim Brotherhood pipeline (Iran+Qatar-Saudi Arabia-Syria-Turkey-Europe). Obama was hoping to brake the Red Jihad axis (Russia+Iran), in order to send the natural gas of the South Pars/North Fields to Europe through the Sunni part of Syria, avoiding the Kurdistan of Turkey, where Russia has a lot of influence over the Kurdish terrorists of PKK.

But now Donald Trump is pushing France and Great Britain to cooperate with Russia, so that all together can face China, which will be the greatest rival of the US in the 21st Century. The change in the American policy means that sooner or later Europe’s gates will open for the Russian gas. If the Americans really want the Russians as their allies against China, they will have to help them export their gas to all of their allies i.e. Europe, India, South Korea and Japan.

Map The Trump Doctrine

Χάρτης ΗΠΑ Ρωσία 2.JPG

Without US support to NATO, Russia wins the war in Syria and Ukraine, and there is space for an alliance between USA and Russia, or at least for a normalization of their relations. China could try to replace Russia in the Red Jihad axis (China+Iran), but China exports 500 billion dollars of goods to the United States. Therefore it is difficult for Chinao to start supporting terrorist attacks against the US, because the US will impose economic sanctions on China.

The Russians are already thinking of handing Edward Snowden to the Americans. Edward Snowden is the American agent who stole information from the US secret services and sold them to Russia. Obviously the Russians have already taken what they wanted to take from Snowden, but nevertheless handing him to the United States will be very important. If Russia hands Snowden to the US they will discourage American soldiers to betray the United States in the future, because they will see what happened to Snowden who did it.

If Vladimir Putin, the ex-KGB chief, walks away, the Russians will send another positive signal to their new friends, the Americans. Vladimir Putin moved from the top of KGB to the leadership of Russia in order to fight NATO, which was hurting vital Russian economic interests. After all the Russians abandoned the Soviet Union to export their oil and gas to the large economies of Western Europe (Germany, UK, France, Spain, Italy).

Yuri Andropov, another KGB leader, became the leader of the Soviet Union, when the Israelis defeated the Egyptians in 1967, with NATO’s support, and they established the Iranian-Israeli energy axis, which was bypassing the Arabs and the Suez Canal through the Israeli port of Eilat in the Red Sea. Yuri Andropov started a merciless war against NATO countries and Israel, and he was using skyjacking as one of his favourite weapons against the West.

With Putin’s rise to power in 2000, the Russians started supporting Iran, which was supporting Hezbollah, which was supporting Al-Qaeda, against the US and France. In 2001, while the Americans were negotiating with the Taliban the TAPI pipeline, Al-Qaeda attacked the Twin Towers. This was a Saudi attack, with Hezbollah’s support, and Hezbollah was supported by Iran, and Iran was supported by Russia, and Russia was led by Vladimir Putin. Al-Qaeda used an airplane attack, which was one of the Yuri Andropov’s favourite methods for demoralizing the West. The Americans responded with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If in the Trump era the Americans and the Russians become friends, maybe it will be time for Vladimir Putin to walk away from the cameras. After all Vladimir Putin has been leading Russia’s war against NATO in the last 15 years. Maybe the Russians will bring forward a more Western style leader. After all Putin’s mission is finished. Russia won the war in Syria and Ukraine.

Map of Oil and Gas.jpg

Σαουδική Αραβία 1.jpg

 

“Reign of Putin OVER? ‘Health problems to force Russian president to stand down NEXT YEAR”

VLADIMIR Putin could be forced to quit the Kremlin next year because of his worsening health, an insider has claimed.

The Russian president – a former KGB agent who prides himself on his physical fitness – is considering standing down in 2017 because of “certain circumstances”.

Political analyst Valery Solovey, a professor at Moscow State Institute of Foreign Affairs, gave the vague prediction that Mr Putin would quietly slip out of the public limelight in the next 12 months.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/731307/Vladimir-Putin-resign-Russian-president-quit

 

 

 

The Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.)

During the 5th Century Athens and Sparta were the two strongest city states of Greece, and all other cities were either allies of Sparta or Athens (500-400 B.C.). Athens and Sparta were agricultural economies, and their main exports were wine and oil olive.

The development of pottery allowed the storage and export of wine and olive oil with the usage of amphorae, in order to import goods from the fertile lands of the Nile (Egypt) and Mesopotamia (Persia).

At the following map you can see Athens and Sparta and their allies a few years before the Peloponnesian War broke out (431-404 B.C.).

Map Athens (orange) and Sparta (Purple)

Athens Sparta.JPG

Sparta was controlling Peloponnese, while Athens’ soil was not very good for agriculture, and Athens became a naval power which was looking for colonies in order to find fertile lands to increase her oil, wine and grain production.

When the Persians invaded Greece (500-480 B.C.) the Athenians and the Spartans jointly fought the Persians, even though they were bitter enemies.

After the Greco-Persian Wars, Athens became a great naval power which dominated trade in the Aegean Sea. Both the Spartans and the Persians were very unhappy with the rising power of Athens. The Spartans believed that sooner or later the Athenians would turn against Sparta in order to take control of the Peloponnesian agricultural production. The Persians were unhappy because the Athenians, with their great naval power, were controlling East Aegean Sea and were blocking Persia’s way to the Aegean Sea.

As a result the Peloponnesian War broke out, and the Spartans allied with the Persians against the Athenians, putting the Athenian Empire in the middle (431-404 B.C.).

Map Athens (red) – Sparta (red) – Persia (yellow)

Map Athens Sparta Persia.JPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War#/media/File:Pelop_war_en.png

During the Peloponnesian War the Athenians tried to take control of Sicily (Italy) in order to increase their farming lands and production, because they thought it would give them an advantage in the Peloponnesian War. The Spartans again allied with Syracuse against Athens, and the expedition became a Waterloo for the Athenians.

The Athenians were finally defeated in the Peloponnesian War, but neither the Athenians nor the Spartans ever recovered from this war. As a result Macedonia rose to power a few years later, and the great Greek King Alexander the Great finally managed to unite all Greeks, and he led the Greek army victoriously to Persia and Egypt. Under Alexander the Great both the Nile (Egypt) and the Mesopotamia (Persia) came under Greek control (330-320 B.C.).

Map The Empire of Alexander the Great

Χάρτης Μακεδονική Αυτοκρατορία.JPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great#/media/File:MacedonEmpire.jpg

 

Image Peloponnesian War

Peloponnesian War.JPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War

 

“The treaties between Persia and Sparta”

In the first phase of the Peloponnesian War, the Archidamian War, the Spartans had been unable to achieve their aim: dissolving the Delian League. However, after the catastrophic losses that Athens had suffered during the Sicilian Expedition, the balance of power had changed and Sparta renewed the war: the Decelean or Ionian War. Moreover, the Athenians had supported a rebel in the Persian Empire, Amorges, an act that broke the (tacit or official) agreement between the Achaemenid king and the Delian League not to interfere in each other’s sphere of influence. So, Sparta and Persia shared a dislike of Athens and had something to offer to each other. In 412, they concluded an agreement, which was later revised.

It was not certain that the new alliance would bring down Athens. In the mid-fifth century, it had survived a war against an identical coalition. However, after the losses of the Sicilian Expedition, things might be different. Still, Athens held out for seven more years.

The Athenian historian Thucydides (c.460-c.395) has included the three versions of the treaty in the eighth book of his History of the Peloponnesian War, which was translated by Richard Crawley.

First treaty (412)

The Spartans and their allies made a treaty with the King and Tissaphernes [the satrap of Lydia] upon the terms following:

Whatever country or cities the King has, or the King’s ancestors had, shall be the king’s: and whatever came in to the Athenians from these cities, either money or any other thing, the King and the Spartans and their allies shall jointly hinder the Athenians from receiving either money or any other thing.

The war with the Athenians shall be carried on jointly by the King and by the Spartans and their allies: and it shall not be lawful to make peace with the Athenians except both agree, the King on his side and the Spartans and their allies on theirs.

If any revolt from the King, they shall be the enemies of the Spartans and their allies.note And if any revolt from the Spartans and their allies, they shall be the enemies of the King in like manner.

This was outrageous. The treaty stated that Sparta surrendered all of Greece outside the Peloponnese. The Persian king Cyrus the Great had subdued all “Yaunâ” living in Asia (ca.545), Darius I the Great had conquered Thrace and Macedonia (c.512), to which king Xerxes had briefly added Thessaly, Boeotia, and Attica in 480-479. The Spartan government was unable to accept this treaty, because it had started the war “to liberate Greece”. Therefore, the Spartans kept the treaty secret and sent Therimenes to ask for a revision.

Second treaty (winter 412/411)

The convention of the Spartans and the allies with King Darius [II Nothus] and the sons of the King,note and with Tissaphernes for a treaty and friendship, as follows:

Neither the Spartans nor the allies of the Spartans shall make war against or otherwise injure any country or cities that belong to King Darius or did belong to his father or to his ancestors; neither shall the Spartans nor the allies of the Spartans exact tribute from such cities. Neither shall King Darius nor any of the subjects of the King make war against or otherwise injure the Spartans or their allies.

If the Spartans or their allies should require any assistance from the King, or the King from the Spartans or their allies, whatever they both agree upon they shall be right in doing.

Both shall carry on jointly the war against the Athenians and their allies: and if they make peace, both shall do so jointly.

The expense of all troops in the King’s country, sent for by the King, shall be borne by the King.

If any of the states comprised in this convention with the King attack the King’s country, the rest shall stop them and aid the King to the best of their power. And if any in the King’s country or in the countries under the King’s rule attack the country of the Spartans or their allies, the King shall stop it and help them to the best of his power.

The revised treaty can be seen as a clarification of the terms of the first treaty. The line “whatever country or cities the King has shall be the king’s”, which may have been a conventional Persian expression, was replaced by an expression that sounded better to Greek ears: neither side would injure each other’s possessions. The Persians also explained that they would pay Spartan troops in Asia, something that may have gone without saying in the first treaty, because the Persian king was supposed to give presents to anyone who had done him a service. Persia’s demand that Sparta would help to punish rebels could be dropped from the treaty, because Amorges, who was the most important rebel, had by now been eliminated.

On the other hand, the Spartans clarified their intentions. The first treaty had said that the allies would prevent Athens from collecting tribute; now it was stated that Sparta was not supposed to do this either. In other words, the Persian negotiators obtained a guarantee that Sparta would not found an empire.

So, the revised treaty was not a big improvement of Sparta’s position, and it is not surprising that the Spartan ambassador Therimenes disappears from history. The Spartans were not happy with his results.

Third treaty (late spring 411)

In the thirteenth year of the reign of Darius,note while Alexippidas was ephor at Sparta, a convention was concluded in the plain of the Meander by the Spartans and their allies with Tissaphernes, Hieramenes, and the sons of Pharnaces, concerning the affairs of the King and of the Spartans and their allies.

The country of the King in Asia shall be the King’s, and the King shall treat his own country as he pleases.

The Spartans and their allies shall not invade or injure the King’s country: neither shall the King invade or injure that of the Spartans or of their allies. If any of the Spartans or of their allies invade or injure the King’s country, the Spartans and their allies shall prevent it: and if any from the King’s country invade or injure the country of the Spartans or of their allies, the King shall prevent it.

Tissaphernes shall provide pay for the ships now present, according to the agreement, until the arrival of the King’s vessels: but after the arrival of the King’s vessels the Spartans and their allies may pay their own ships if they wish it. If, however, they choose to receive the pay from Tissaphernes, Tissaphernes shall furnish it: and the Spartans and their allies shall repay him at the end of the war such moneys as they shall have received.

After the vessels have arrived, the ships of the Spartans and of their allies and those of the King shall carry on the war jointly, according as Tissaphernes and the Spartans and their allies shall think best. If they wish to make peace with the Athenians, they shall make peace also jointly.

The first article was the same as in the first treaty: “the country of the King shall be the King’s”. It is clear that the Persians used the opportunity to use their own formula again. However, the Spartan negotiator, Lichas, obtained a concession: the King’s country was described as “Asia”. Darius accepted that he would not recover Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly, Boeotia, and Attica. Another interesting novelty is that the Persians promised to send a fleet; in return, to Spartans gave up all claims for the freedom of the Greek towns in Asia.

For the Spartans, this was a highly embarrassing treaty: they gave up their role as liberators of Greece. But they had no alternative. The Sicilian disaster had offered them a great opportunity, but Athens had not collapsed. Sparta now needed Persia, but after the elimination of Amorges, the great king no longer needed Sparta, so he could demand anything he he wanted.

In the end, both parties decided to ignore the treaty. The Persian navy never reached the Aegean, and the Spartans felt free to make peace offers to Athens without consulting king Darius. It was only after Tissaphernes had been replaced by Darius’ son Cyrus that Persia really started to support Sparta. It is possible that Cyrus, who did not like the idea that his brother Artaxerxes would succeed to the throne, was already planning a revolt. Unlike Darius and Tissaphernes, he needed something that only Sparta could offer: mercenaries for a march to the Persian heartland.

This page was created in 2005; last modified on 17 July 2016.

http://www.livius.org/sources/content/thucydides/the-treaties-between-persia-and-sparta/

Inside Hitler’s Mind

Geostrategically speaking, Hitler had very few options, and therefore it is very easy to see the world through his eyes.

Hitler.JPG

The first thing to note is that during the Interwar Period (1919-1938) oil was mainly produced in United States, Russia, the Persian Gulf, mainly Iraq, and South-Eastern Asia, mainly Indonesia. The oil of North Africa and Saudi Arabia had not been discovered yet.

Map Oil Production in the Interwar Period

Map Oil.JPG

During World War 1 the British and the French had managed to take control of the oil of the Persian Gulf, the Russians had the oil of the Caspian Sea under their control, and Germany had nothing. The Germans could only count on the smaller oilfields of Romania.

Map The International Order After WW1

Map UK France Russia Germany Italy.JPG

The Italians were importing their oil through the British and the French, and they knew very well that in case of war the British and the French could immediately cut off their oil supplies.

What Hitler wanted was to destroy the world order that was established after WW1, in order for Germany to take control either the oil of the Persian Gulf, or the oil of the Caspian Sea, or both. To do that Hitler had only five choices. At the following map you can see four of them.

Map Inside Hitler’s Mind

Hitler's MindJPG.JPG

The option for Hitler was to repeat the strategy of the German Empire during World War 1 i.e. to march to the Persian Gulf through Austria and Turkey (yellow line).

However if Hitler was to do that the Russians, the British and the French would do what they did during WW1. They would leave their differences aside for a while, and they would attack Germany.

Moreover, during the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 the British, the Russians and the French had used Greece and Serbia to form a geographic wall between Germany and the Ottoman Empire. In addition, Turkey was scared by her defeat in WW1, and she preferred to remain neutral.

For all the above reasons Hitler did not want, or could not, repeat the strategy of the German Empire during WW1, in order to reach the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea through Austria and Turkey.

The second option for Hitler was to form an alliance with Mussolini, in order to jointly attack the British and the French at Palestine and get hold of the oil of the Persian Gulf (purple line).

Map Inside Hitler’s Mind

Hitler's MindJPG.JPG

This option was partially used by Hitler and Mussolini with the Arab Spring of Palestine of 1936-1939 (Arab Revolt 1936-1939). Mussolini was the main supporter of the Arab Spring of Palestine, and he was sending money and weapons to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Muslim Brotherhood, in order to cause an Arab Revolt against the British. But Hitler was also a close ally of the Muslim Brotherhood, and therefore it is a sure thing that he was behind the Arab Spring of Palestine too. See “The Alliance Between Hitler and the Muslim Brotherhood”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/08/18/the-alliance-between-hitler-and-the-muslim-brotherhood/

Many Jewish terrorists were also attacking the British, most of them supported by Stalin and Russia. It is said that Jewish terrorism against the British was also supported by Hitler and Mussolini, but Hitler and Mussolini were allies of the Muslim Brotherhood, and therefore Stalin had a lot more space to support Jewish terrorists against the British.

Remember that many of the Jews of Palestine were Russian Jews who had fled Russia to escape from the Tsar. The Jews were allies of the Ottomans, and Tsarist Russia was very anti-Semitic. Palestine was an Ottoman colony at the time, and many Jews were leaving Russia for Palestine, were they were welcome by the Ottomans. When the Russian Communists came to power they were recturing some of these Jews of Palestine in order to carry out terrorist attacks against the British.  However during the British mandate of Palestine most of the Jews of Palestine were British allies i.e. the Haganah.

Therefore Hitler did use this second option, even if only partially, and he attacked the British in Palestine with Mussolini. What is interesting is that Mussolini had almost become an ally of Britain and France against the Nazis in 1935 with the Stresa Front agreement. With the agreement of Stresa Front the British and the French agreed to give Mussolini some space in Africa, in order to convince him not to become a Nazi ally.

However things went wrong because Mussolini wanted Italy to have direct military control over the agreed regions in Africa, while the British and the French were willing to offer Italy diplomatic and economic control.

Map The Mussolini Ambitions

Map Italian Colonies.JPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_imperialism_under_Fascism#/media/File:Italian_Fascist_Empire.png

During WW1 the British and the French had taken control of East Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, and Mussolini thought that it was only fair that they allowed Italy to control Libya and Ethiopia, in order to reach the Indian Ocean through Africa. As I said the oil of North Africa had not been discovered yet, and Egypt was in Britain’s sphere of influence.

But if Mussolini controlled the Horn of Africa with his army, the British and French spheres of influence in the Persian Gulf would be constantly under threat, because Mussolini could attack them from Ethiopia, the Russians could attack them from the Caucasus and Iran, and Germany could attack them through Turkey. Moreover Mussolini could attack the British and French ships at the Straits of Bab el Mandeb at the Red Sea, and he could cut off their oil supplies from the Gulf. Remember that the oil pipelines of the Middle East were constructed after the end of WW2. See Foreign Affairs “Pipelines in the Sand”.

Therefore the British and the French were willing to grant Italy with the political and economic control of the Horn of Africa, but not with militarily control. That was not enough for Mussolini, who finally decided to enter the war on the side of Germany and Russia against Britain and France.

Map The Italian Corridor of Mussolini (Green Line)

Map Mussolini.JPG

Hitler’s third option was to form an alliance with the British against the French and the Russians. The Russians were fighting the British in India and the French were fighting the British in Africa, and therefore the Germans could form an alliance with the British, in order to take the disputed borderlands at their borders with France, and in order to take the oil of the Caspian Sea from Russia. And in return they would leave the Persian Gulf to the British (pink line).

Map Inside Hitler’s Mind

hitlers-mindjpg

That was the so called Lebensraum i.e. the “living space” of Germany, which you can see at the following map.

Map Lebensraum

Map Lebensraum.JPG

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Greater_Germanic_Reich.png/350px-Greater_Germanic_Reich.png

But the British were not interested in helping the Nazis promote the Lebensraum i.e. to take the oil of the Caspian Sea, because Hitler was not reliable, and they were sure that once he had taken control of the Caspian oil he would march to the Persian Gulf. The British were proposing Hitler and alliance with Germany accepting the international order that was created with WW1, which meant that Germany would import oil from Britain and Russia, but would not stretch her muscle to the Caspian Sea. But the British proposal did not satisfy Hitler.

The fourth option for Hitler was to form an alliance with Stalin against the French and the British. The Germans would attack the British at the Persian Gulf from the West, and the Russians would attack the British from the north at the Persian Gulf and India.

Map Inside Hitler’s Mind

hitlers-mindjpg

This one was the option that was finally promoted by Hitler, but in a version proposed by Stalin. The Russian Communists agreed to supply the Nazis with oil, iron and wheat, in order to help them beat the British and the French, but they did not want to exhaust their army in a war against the British, because they knew that once Hitler had got hold of the the Persian Gulf he could march to the Caspian Sea too.

Therefore they agreed to help Hitler beat the British and the French, while they would keep their army fresh, in order to defend their oil supplies if Hitler decided to attack them after the British and the French were finished, and in order to attack the British in India if they lost the war against the Nazis.

This plan was a good one for Stalin. The Germans, the French and the British would exhaust themselves in a war, and that would increase the relative strength of Russia. And that was what actually happened up to a point. But in the end the Nazi-Communist alliance was broken by Hitler, because the oil that was sent to him by the Russian Communists was not enough for his thirsty army. And Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 to take control of the oil of Baku.

These were the 4 out of the 5 options that Hitler had at his disposal. The 5th option for Hitler was to follow the British advise and respect the post WW1 international order. But that meant Hitler would not go for neither the Persian Gulf nor the Caspian Sea, and it was an option not interesting for Hitler. Therefore Hitler decided to form an alliance with the Russian Communists, and go for the oil of the Persian Gulf instead.

Map the Nazi-Communist Alliance

Map Nazis Communists.JPG

References

I read various things and I normally do not mention my references. But sometimes, when something really helps my thinking, I have to mention some references, as I have done with Murray Rothbard in some of my economic essays.

Therefore I have to mention Henry Kissinger’s Diplomacy. Three of the chapters of his book really helped me understand the geopolitics of World War 2 i.e. “The End of Illusion – Hitler and the End of Versailles”, “Stalin’s Bazaar”, and “The Nazi Soviet Pact”.

Very simple writing, very clever writing, very informative writing.

Image Henry Kissinger’s Diplomacy

Kissinger.JPG

Articles

In March 1938 the first oilfield of Saudi Arabia was discovered.

“History of the oil industry in Saudi Arabia”

Saudi Arabian oil was first discovered by the Americans in commercial quantities at Dammam oil well No. 7 in 1938 in what is now modern day Dhahran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_oil_industry_in_Saudi_Arabia

 

Libya’s importance was enhanced in the 50s, when there were signs that Libya had oil, and in 1959 oil was discovered.

“COLD WAR LIBYA:ALL ABOUT OIL”

1-5th Paragraphs

When the Cold War began, Libya held little importance for either superpower. Yes, it was the home to Wheelus Air Force base, one of the major American bomber bases in the Eastern Hemisphere, but that’s about it. Leading exports were esparto, a type of grass used to make paper for currency bills, and scrap metal scavenged from the rusting tanks and trucks and weaponry that had been left behind by the Allies and the Axis powers.

The country gained some recognition when independence was declared on December 24, 1951. The Soviet Union had been stymied in its efforts to establish a Mandate over the country following the end of World War II. Now, Libya was the first country to achieve independence through the United Nations. It was also one of the first former European possessions in Africa to gain independence.

Proclaimed a constitutional and hereditary monarchy, the new United Kingdom of Libya was made up of three arbitrarily joined provinces: Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and Fezzan. The kingdom formed a federal government with three capital cities.: Tripoli, Benghazi, and Al Bayda. Idris as-Senussi, the Emir of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica and the leader of the Senussi Muslim Sufi order, was declared king.

Two years after independence, on March 28, 1953, Libya joined the Arab League.

In the mid 1950s, Libya gained further significance with the growing suspicion that the country might produce oil.

8th Paragraph

The first round of negotiations in 1957 saw 17 companies bid for a total of 84 concessions. Early exploration results were disappointing, but this changed in 1959 when Standard Oil of New Jersey made a huge strike about 100 miles south of the Mediterranean coast. The US State Department summed it up: “Libya has hit the jack-pot.”

13-18th Paragraphs

While the Libyan government at that time was friendly — or at least neutral — toward the United States, the Libyan business environment was hostile, permeated with corruption.

Soon the political environment would be hostile as well. On April 25, 1963, the federal system of government was abolished and the name of the country was changed to the Kingdom of Libya.  More far reaching changes were soon to come.

The monarchy ended on September 1, 1969 when a group of military officers  staged a coup d’état against King Idris while he was in Turkey for medical treatment.  The coup was led by a 28 year old army officer named Mu’ammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhaffi. King Idris was exiled to Egypt.

The new regime, headed by the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), abolished the monarchy and proclaimed the new Libyan Arab Republic. The new RCC’s motto became “freedom, socialism, and unity.” It pledged to remedy “backwardness”, take an active role in the Palestinian Arab cause, promote Arab unity, and encourage domestic policies based on social justice, non-exploitation, and an equitable distribution of wealth.

The new government soon negotiated with the Americans to evacuate the Wheelus Air Base from Libya. The agreement had just two more years to run. In December 1969, the US agreed to vacate the facility by June 1970.

http://coldwarstudies.com/2011/03/24/cold-war-libyaall-about-oil/

 

“Oil – Oil and world power”

The United States dominated world oil production in the first half of the twentieth century. U.S. fields accounted for slightly more than 70 percent of world oil production in 1925, around 63 percent in 1941, and over 50 percent in 1950. The U.S. oil industry operated in a unique regulatory environment that included a permissive legal regime, generous tax treatment, and a cooperative system of national production control centered on the state of Texas, which accounted for almost half of total U.S. production. During the Great Depression, the federal government, several state governments, and the oil companies worked out a control system that placed a ceiling on total output and allocated production so that marginal producers could survive in the face of considerable excess capacity. Although Texas authorities refused to require producers to pool their extractive activities in each oil field, thereby allowing wasteful extractive processes to continue, the system allowed high-cost marginal wells to continue to produce, thus preserving lower-cost fields for future use. Higher prices also somewhat reduced consumption. With the Texas Railroad Commission as a balance wheel, the system remained in place until the early 1970s, when domestic production alone could no longer fill national demand.

In addition to being blessed with a thriving and productive domestic oil industry, five of the seven great oil corporations (the so-called Seven Sisters) that dominated the international oil industry from the 1920s to the 1970s were American companies. U.S. oil companies, along with British firms, dominated the oil industries of the two main producing countries in Latin America, Mexico and Venezuela, and had smaller holdings throughout the region. During the 1920s and early 1930s, the United States successfully supported efforts by U.S. oil companies to gain oil concessions in the Middle East. U.S. companies were also involved in regionally significant oil fields in the Netherlands East Indies. By the eve of World War II, U.S. companies accounted for nearly 40 percent of oil production outside the United States and the Soviet Union.

More importantly, the United States possessed the means to ensure the stability of the producing regions and gain access to their oil. The United States Navy had emerged from World War I second to none, thus providing the United States with the capability of securing access to overseas oil-producing areas. The United States was already firmly entrenched in the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico–Caribbean region before World War I for security reasons that predated oil’s emergence as a strategic commodity. World War II and the Cold War reinforced traditional U.S. determination to maintain an economic and strategic sphere of influence in Latin America. Securing the Persian Gulf, which emerged as the center of the world oil industry following World War II, was more difficult for several reasons, including the region’s distance from the United States, the involvement of rival great powers, and the dynamics of regional politics. Great Britain had emerged as the leading power in the Middle East following World War I. Following World War II, the United States gradually assumed Britain’s role as the main guarantor of Western interests in the Middle East.

Oil became an important element in military power in the decade before World War I when the navies of the great powers, led by Great Britain and the United States, began to switch from coal to oil as their source of power. In addition, the major military innovations of World War I—the submarine, the airplane, the tank, and motorized transport—were all oil-powered. Although the surface fleets of the great powers played a relatively minor part in the fighting, German submarines wreaked havoc on British and French shipping and helped bring the United States into the war. In addition, oil carved out a role in the manufacture of munitions when the British, using a process developed by Royal Dutch/Shell, began extracting toluol, an essential ingredient in the explosive TNT, from oil. Access to oil became more important toward the end of the war with the transition from static trench warfare, with its limited demand for oil-powered machinery, to a more fluid operational environment in which tanks, motorized transport, and aircraft played a larger role.

Britain and France were able to draw on over-seas sources of supply from Iran, Mexico, and the United States, while the Germans were limited to oil from Romania. By the last year of the war, the United States was supplying more than 80 percent of Allied oil requirements, and the American navy was playing a key role in supplying and protecting tanker transport of oil to Europe. Although Lord Curzon‘s boast that the Allied cause had floated to victory on a wave of oil was an overstatement, severe shortages of oil in 1917 and 1918 threatened to immobilize the Royal Navy and the French army. In both cases, urgent requests to the United States for help led to the provision of the needed supplies. In contrast, without such external assistance, oil shortages hindered German military operations at critical points.

In addition to being a tremendous military asset, access to ample supplies of oil provided the United States with important advantages in the industrial transformation of the first half of the twentieth century. By the 1890s, the United States had overtaken Great Britain as the leading industrial power in the world, and by the 1920s, the U.S. economy was larger than the combined economies of the next six great powers (Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Soviet Union, and Japan).

Cheap and plentiful supplies of oil were a prerequisite for the automobile industry, which played a central role in the U.S. economy from the 1920s to the 1960s. Oil became the fuel of choice in land and sea transport as well as the only fuel for air transport, and challenged coal as the main source of energy for industry. Oil also played an important, if somewhat less crucial, role in heating and electricity generation, but oil-powered machinery became crucial to modern agriculture, and oil became an important feedstock for fertilizers and pesticides. Indeed, with the development of the petrochemical industry, oil reached into almost every area of modern life. Already almost one-fifth of U.S. energy consumption by 1925, oil accounted for around one-third of U.S. energy use by World War II. Outside the United States, in contrast, oil was a secondary fuel reserved mainly for transportation and military uses and accounted for less than 10 percent of energy consumption in western Europe and Japan before World War II.

The Soviet Union was the only other great power that possessed significant quantities of oil within its borders. The Russian empire had been the world’s leading oil producer in 1900, accounting for more than half of world production. Soon thereafter a combination of geological and political problems caused output to plummet. Soviet oil production recovered rapidly in the 1920s, and by 1939 the Soviet Union was the second-largest oil producer in the world, far behind the United States and slightly ahead of Venezuela. Although the Soviets reentered exports markets briefly in the late 1920s, by the end of the 1930s almost all Soviet oil production was being devoted to internal uses.

The other great powers (Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan) lacked indigenous oil reserves and were therefore dependent on foreign sources. Although British companies held concessions in Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia, maintaining access to this oil required stability in the oil-producing areas and control of the sea routes linking the oil-producing areas to Britain. British security policy called for the Mediterranean and the Middle East to be defended because they lay athwart land, sea, and air routes to India, the Far East, and the Pacific dominions. If the Mediterranean were closed, a prospect that seemed increasingly likely as Britain’s relative power declined in the 1930s, access to Middle East oil would be very difficult, assuming that the oil fields and other facilities could be defended. Production in the Far East was not great, and access to its oil would be even more difficult to defend in wartime. Wartime access to Western Hemisphere oil would be dependent on the acquiescence and probably the assistance of the United States, to which Britain had conceded regional supremacy shortly after 1900 and whose help would be needed to transport the oil safely across the Atlantic. This dependence on the United States for vital oil supplies was a critical weakness in Great Britain’s power position.

During the 1930s, the British government studied the possibility of reducing its reliance on imported oil by using Britain’s ample coal supplies as a source of synthetic oil. It rejected this alternative on security grounds, concluding that, given the British position in the major oil producing areas and the strength of the Royal Navy, reliance on imported oil would be less vulnerable to interdiction than large synthetic oil plants that would be conspicuous targets for air attack.

France’s stake in foreign oil was largely limited to a share in Iraqi oil production and a few holdings in Romania. Access to Iraq, which by 1939 supplied almost half of France’s oil imports, was dependent on British assistance to keep the Mediterranean open and the Middle East secure. Romania was able to fill only a small portion of French oil requirements, and access to Romanian oil would be unreliable in the event of a conflict with Germany. Access to Western Hemisphere oil, the other source of French imports, was dependent on U.S. goodwill and assistance. The French also explored extracting oil from coal and using alcohol as a motor fuel, but neither alternative provided sufficient supplies to relieve France’s dependence on imported oil. France was thus doubly dependent, needing British and U.S. cooperation to ensure access to oil.

German and Japanese oil companies had been shut out of the major foreign oil-producing areas, leaving both nations dependent on foreign companies for necessary supplies and thus vulnerable to economic and political pressure. Moreover, their access to oil in the Middle East and the Western Hemisphere was threatened by British and U.S. control of the oil-producing areas and Anglo-American command of the sea routes to these regions.

Convinced that oil was essential to fuel his ambitions, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler moved to promote the development of a synthetic fuel industry in Germany shortly after taking power in 1933. By the outbreak of World War II, coal-derived synfuels accounted for nearly half of Germany’s peacetime oil needs. The process of extracting oil from coal was complicated and expensive, and the huge installations required massive amounts of steel and were very vulnerable to air attack. Therefore, obtaining access to oil that did not depend on sea routes subject to interdiction by enemies remained an important part of Nazi expansionist strategy.

Germany received large quantities of oil from the Soviet Union under the terms of the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact, and in November 1940 gained assured access to Romanian oil when Romania was forced to adhere to the Tripartite Pact. These supplies were inadequate for Germany’s needs, leading Hitler to look to the conquest of the rich oil fields of the Caucasus as a way to gain oil for Germany’s highly mechanized military machine. Thus, the desire to gain assured access to oil was an important factor in Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941.

Obtaining access to oil was also a key factor behind Japan’s decision to attack the United States. By the end of the 1930s, Japan was dependent on the United States for 80 percent of its oil needs. Most of the rest came from the Netherlands East Indies, where Shell and the Standard-Vacuum Oil Company, a jointly owned subsidiary of Standard Oil (New Jersey) and Socony-Vacuum, controlled production. The Netherlands East Indies possessed the largest reserves in East Asia, and control over its oil would go a long way toward meeting Japan’s oil needs. On the other hand, seizing the Netherlands East Indies would lead to conflict with Great Britain and the United States. Nevertheless, the Japanese chose this course after the United States, Britain, and the Netherlands imposed an oil embargo on Japan in the late summer of 1941 in response to Japan’s decision to take control of all Indochina.

World War II marked the apogee of oil’s direct military importance, and the role of oilpowered weapons systems demonstrated that oil had become the lifeblood of the modern military machine. All the key weapons systems of World War II were oil-powered: surface warships (including aircraft carriers), submarines, airplanes (including long-range bombers), tanks, and a large portion of sea and land transport. Oil continued to play an important role in the manufacture of munitions, and the development of petroleum-based synthetic rubber helped relieve Allied dependence on Southeast Asian natural rubber supplies, most of which were in the hands of the Japanese for much of the war.

The United States entered World War II with a surplus production capacity of over one million barrels per day, almost one-third of U.S. production in 1941. This margin enabled the United States, almost single-handedly, to fuel not only its own war effort but that of its Allies, once the logistics of transporting the oil safely across the Atlantic had been mastered. In addition, U.S. leadership in oil-refining technology provided the U.S. military with such advantages as 100-octane aviation gasoline and specialty lubricants needed for high performance aircraft engines.

The Soviet Union also benefited from having indigenous oil supplies. The Soviets were able to retain control of the vital Caucasian oil fields, and rushed new fields in the Volga-Urals region, safely removed from the fighting, into production. These successes helped Soviet forces attain the mobility necessary to repel the German invaders and go on the offensive.

German and Japanese failure to gain secure access to sufficient oil supplies was an important factor in their defeat. German synthetic fuel production proved barely adequate for wartime requirements, and failure to gain control of the rich oil fields in the Caucasus, coupled with setbacks in the Middle East and North Africa, left the German military vulnerable to oil shortages throughout the war. Indeed, Germany was able to hang on as long as it did only because the absence of a second front until the summer of 1944 kept oil requirements at manageable levels. In the late summer of 1944, the Allied bombing campaign began belatedly targeting synthetic fuel plants. By the end of the war, the German war machine was running on empty.

The Japanese gained control of the Netherlands East Indies in 1942, but many of the oil facilities had been sabotaged and took time to restore to full production. More importantly, transporting oil from the East Indies to Japan proved increasingly difficult owing to the remarkable success of U.S. submarines in interdicting Japanese shipping. By late 1944, Japan faced serious oil shortages, with crippling military consequences.

With the exception of the jet engine, the major military innovations of World War II—radar, ballistic missiles, and the atomic bomb—were not oil-powered. Nevertheless, oil remained central to the mobility of land, sea, and air forces. Despite the development of nuclear-powered warships (mainly aircraft carriers and submarines), most of the world’s warships remained oil-powered, as did aircraft, armor, and transport. In addition, each new generation of weapons required more oil than its predecessors. Thus, while the advent of the atomic age meant that access to oil would not have been a key factor in a full-scale war between the United States and the Soviet Union, which presumably would have been fought primarily with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, such conflicts as the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf were fought with conventional, largely oil-powered weapons, thus demonstrating the continued centrality of oil-powered forces, and hence oil, to military power.

Oil’s economic importance increased after World War II as the United States intensified its embrace of patterns of socioeconomic organization premised on high levels of oil use, and western Europe and Japan made the transition from coal to oil as their main source of energy. U.S. and world oil consumption skyrocketed in the 1950s and 1960s. Between 1950 and 1972, total world energy consumption increased 179 percent, much faster than population growth, resulting in a doubling of per capita energy consumption. Oil accounted for much of this increase, rising from 29 percent of world energy consumption in 1950 to 46 percent in 1972. By 1973, oil accounted for 47 percent of U.S. energy consumption. Western Europe and Japan were even more dependent on oil for meeting their energy needs; by 1973 oil accounted for 64 percent of west European energy consumption and 80 percent of Japanese energy consumption.

Control of oil played a vital role in establishing and maintaining U.S. preeminence in the postwar international system. Adding to its domestic power base, the United States consolidated its control of world oil in the decade following World War II. By the mid-1950s, U.S. oil companies were firmly entrenched in the great oil-producing areas outside the Soviet Union. Equally, if not more important, the United States, as the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere, controlled access to the region’s oil, and the United States alone had the economic and military power to secure Western access to Middle East oil.

The Soviet Union also possessed a powerful domestic oil industry, but despite geographical proximity, extensive efforts, and widespread anti-Western sentiment in Iran and the Arab world, the Soviets failed to achieve a secure foothold in the Persian Gulf and had little impact on the region’s oil industry. The Soviets had even less influence over the Western Hemisphere’s oil producers. Indeed, the U.S.-led economic boycott of Cuba forced the Soviets to supply the one foothold they possessed in the Western Hemisphere with oil at subsidized prices.

The strong position of the United States in world oil provided multiple advantages. In addition to being central to military power and economic prosperity, control of oil gave the United States leverage over its allies and its former and prospective enemies. U.S. policymakers saw economic growth as essential to preventing the recurrence of the divisive ideological and social conflicts of the interwar years. Soviet expansion into eastern and central Europe as a result of World War II left the Soviet Union in control of almost all of Europe’s known indigenous oil reserves as well as important sources of coal in Poland and the Soviet zone of Germany. Making matters worse, postwar western Europe faced a coal shortage of alarming proportions owing to wartime overproduction and destruction and postwar food, transportation, and other problems.

To fuel economic recovery and to prevent western Europe from becoming dependent on the Soviets for energy, the United States sought to ensure that this critical area received the oil it needed. Economic growth, in turn, was crucial to mitigating the divisive class conflicts that had divided European and Japanese society in the first half of the century. Economic growth and prosperity undercut the appeal of leftist parties, financed the welfare state, perpetuated the ascendancy of moderate elites, and sustained the cohesion of the Western alliance. By controlling access to essential oil supplies, the United States was able to reconcile its aim of German and Japanese economic recovery and integration into a Western alliance with that of ensuring against the recurrence of German and Japanese aggression.

Economic growth in western Europe and Japan was central to the containment of Soviet power and influence during the Cold War because it helped prevent these areas from falling to communism through internal processes. Finally, for many years after World War II the Soviets lacked sufficient oil to fight a major war. Hit hard by wartime damage, disruption, transportation problems, equipment shortages, and overuse, Soviet oil production dropped after the war, and the Soviet Union was a net importer of oil (mostly from Romania) until 1954. Exclusion of the Soviets from the Middle East retained oil for Western recovery, and kept the Soviets short of oil. In addition, U.S. and British strategic planners wanted to keep the Soviets out of the Middle East because the region contained the most defensible locations for launching a strategic air offensive against the Soviet Union in the event of a global war. Throughout the Cold War, ensuring Western access to Middle East oil was a basic objective of U.S. foreign policy.

http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Oil-Oil-and-world-power.html

 

 

The International Jew – A Summary of Anti-Semitism in the 20th Century

Before World War 1, the German Empire created the Russian Communist Party, in order to attack the Russian army. And indeed, during WW1, the Russian Communists, with the support of the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, defeated the Russian army.

The Russian Communists withdrew Russia from the War, and with the Treaty of Brest Litovsk in 1918 they distributed ¼ of the lands of the Russian Empire to the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian  Empire and the Ottoman Empire.

As you can see at the following map, the French and the British had a crucial geographical disadvantage when they were trying to support the Russian army from the Persian Gulf and India, because at the Eastern Front the Russian army was facing 3 empires, and these 3 empires had the Russian Communists as their spearhead.

Map The Russian (October) Revolution 1917

Map October Revolution 1917.JPG

 

When Germany was defeated in 1918, Lenin established in Germany the German Communist Party (1918), and in the United States he established the American Communist Party (1919).

Image German Communist Party

Communist Party of Germany.JPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany

Image American Communist Party

Communist Party of USA.JPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA

The Jews were allies of the Ottomans, who were protecting the Jews from the Christian populations. In Tsarist Russia there was extreme anti-Semitism, and in order to escape the Tsarist police the Jews were leaving Russia for the capitalist Germany. These Jews were later killed by Hitler during the Holocaust.

Many Jews of the Russian Empire had also immigrated to the United States.

As a result, Lenin and later Stalin, even though they were both anti-Semites, they made  great use of the Communist Jews in their foreign policy, in order to attack Germany, Great Britain and the United States of America. To many non-religious Jews the Communist ideology was very attractive, because it was attacking God, and that meant that Jews would not be treated as second class citizens any more. Of course that was not true for religious Jews who did not like the Communists at all.

Today the Nazi propaganda says that the Russian Communists were attacking religion because Communism was a Jewish conspiracy. The truth is that the Russian Communists were attacking God and religion because they wanted to attack Pope’s influence in Eastern Europe (Poland, Baltic Countries), and the influence of the Islamic Caliphate (Ottoman Empire) at Central Asia and the Caspian Sea. There are 2.2 billion Christians and 1.6 billion Muslims, while there are only 18 million Jews.

The Russian Communists also attackad the Russian Orthodox Church, because they did not want Orthodox leaders to influence the Russian people. The Russian secret services closed most of the Orthodox churches in Russia, and in the few they left they planted agents of the Russian secret services. Thus they transformed the Russian Orthodox Church to a department of the Communist Party. In the next decades the Russians Communists, together with Fidel Castro, promoted the Theology of Liberation in Latin America. See Ion Pacepa’s great book “Disinformation”.

Lenin’s and Stalin’s agents in the United States were not only Jews, but American Jews were very strong in the arts and Hollywood, and they were very important for the propaganda that was promoted by Stalin against the United States through the American Communist Party.

Henry Ford was the greatest American industrialist at the time, and obviously he saw the American Communists who were supported by Russia as his rival. As a result he financed the “International Jew”, a four volume publication, which was the American equivalent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion had been published in Russia by the Tsarist policy around 1900, and it had been supposedly written by Jews, and it was the grand strategy of the Jews in order to achieve world dominance. See Wikipedia “International Jew”.

Unfortunately for Henry Ford the United States was not Russia. The United States was a state of law and justice. Therefore some Jewish organizations went to the court, and Henry Ford lost the case, because “The International Jew” was anti-Semitic, and it was a work of slander. Henry Ford had to apologize, and he even had to close down his newspaper that distributed the International Jew.

Obviously The International Jew did not disappear, and many Christian or nationalist organizations kept secretly distributing it to their members. Even today the International Jew is published together with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Below you can see an Egyptian edition of the International Jew (2001).

Image The International Jew (2001)

International Jew.JPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew#/media/File:2001_ed_The_International_Jew_by_Henry_Ford.jpg

However in Europe the Protocols are a lot more famous than the International Jew, because it is the version distributed by the KGB during the Cold War. About KGB and the Protocols see Ion Pacepa “Disinformation”.

The Jews were not really the target of the KGB. The real target of the KGB was the United States. Yuri Andropov, when he became KGB leader in 1967, distributed the Protocols in the Muslim world, in order to mobilize the Arabs against Israel. Israel was the most reliable ally of the United States in the Middle East. Only in Israel the American soldiers can walk with their uniforms without having to worry that some fanatics will butcher them.

Yuri Andropov also distributed the Protocols in Europe, in order to present the United States as a country controlled by a world Jewish conspiracy, in order to turn the European people against the United States. The United States was the leader of NATO.

But let me go back to Henry Ford. Since the Russian Communists were using the Communist Jews of both Germany and the United States as their agents, through the German and American Communist parties, many Americans and many Germans shared Communists as a common enemy.

And since many Jews were Communists, these American and Germans saw Jews as a common enemy too. Remember that many Jews in Germany and United States were Russian Jews, who had fled the Russian Empire to escape from the Russian Tsar. Some of them became members of the American and German Communist parties and they were Russian spies.

According to Hitler Henry Ford was a great American, and one of the few Americans who was not controlled by the world Jewish conspiracy.

Note also that the Russians were using the Communist Jews of Palestine against Great Britain. During WW1 the British and the French had won the Middle East, and they had agreed to construct a British oil pipeline, through Iraq and Palestine (Israel+Jordan), and a French pipeline (Iraq-Syria-Lebanon). See Foreign Affairs “Pipelines in the Sand”.

The British and the French also wanted to construct railways that would connect their colonies in Asia to the Mediterranean Sea through the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Syria, as an alternative to the Suez Canal (India for Great Britain and Indochina for France).

Map UK and French Colonies in Asia

UK French Colonies.JPG

The Russians were using the Communist Jews of Palestine to carry out terrorist attacks against Great Britain, in order to block these pipelines and railways.

Mussolini and Hitler were using the Arabs of Palestine to carry out terrorist attacks against the British too. Therefore the British were attacked by both Jewish and Muslim terrorists in Palestine, and they only managed to construct the oil pipelines after the end of WW2.

In 1936 the Arab Spring of Palestine broke out (Arab Revolt of 1946-1939). That was a revolt very well organized by Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin against the British Empire. As you can see at the following map, with their victory during WW1, the British and the French had managed to ensure their oil supplies by gaining the colonies of the Ottoman Empires. The Russians had the oil of the Caspian Sea, while the Germans had nothing. Mussolini knew very well that the British and the French could cut off his oil supplies if he decided to ally with Hitler.

Map The Arab Spring of Palestine 1936-1939

Map Arab Sprin of Palestine 2.JPG

Summary

The story of the International Jew in the 20th Century was promoted by the Tsarist police around 1900, because the Jews were allies of the Ottomans, and because the Germans, the Austrians and the Ottomans were promoting Communism in Russia to attack the Russian army, and many Jews participated in the Communist Party of Russia.

Later on, the story of the International Jew was promoted by the Nazis, because Lenin and later Stalin, were using the German Communist Party to take control of Germany. And once again there were Jews in the German Communist Party.

Later, the story of the International Jew was promoted by the KGB, in order to mobilize the Arabs against Israel, which was the most reliable ally of the US, and in order to make European people suspicious of the US, which was supposedly controlled by a world Jewish conspiracy.

Later, the story of the International Jew was promoted by Shiite Iran, a Russian ally. Shiites (Shia) are only 10% of the Muslim population, and the Iranians were using the story of the International Jew to attack the strong Sunni countries of the Middle East, and in order to increase its influence in the Sunni world.

Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia were allies of United States and not Russia. Turkey was a strong ally of Israel, Egypt became an American ally and recognized Israel in 1979, and Saudi Arabia and Israel had the US as a common ally and they were facing Iran as a common enemy.

Now the story of the International Jew is promoted by Turkey, due to the Russo-Israeli alliance against Turkey and Qatar. Erdogan ordered the sequel of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was titled “The Mastermind”.

Articles

“Pipelines in the Sand”

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2016-05-17/pipelines-sand

“The International Jew”

1st, 2nd, 3rd Paragraphs

The International Jew is a four volume set of booklets or pamphlets published and distributed in the early 1920s by Henry Ford, an American industrialist and automobile manufacturer.

In Spring 1920, Ford made his personal newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, chronicle what he considered the “Jewish menace”. Every week for 91 issues, the paper exposed some sort of Jewish-inspired evil major story in a headline. The most popular and aggressive stories were then chosen to be reprinted into four volumes called The International Jew.[1]

It is to be distinguished from The International Jew: The World’s Problem which was the headline in The Dearborn Independent and is the name of a collection of articles serialized in The Dearborn Independent.

8-11 Paragraphs

1927 Libel Suit

A libel lawsuit, brought by San Francisco lawyer and Jewish farm cooperative organizer Aaron Sapiro in response to antisemitic remarks, led Ford to close the Independent in December 1927. News reports at the time quoted him as being shocked by the content and having been unaware of its nature. During the trial, the editor of Ford’s “Own Page”, William John Cameron, testified that Ford had nothing to do with the editorials even though they were under his byline. Cameron testified at the libel trial that he never discussed the content of the pages nor sent them to Ford for his approval.[3] Investigative journalist Max Wallace doubted the veracity of this claim and wrote that James M. Miller, a former Dearborn Independent employee, swore under oath that Ford had told him he intended to expose Sapiro.[4] According to Michael Barkun, “That Cameron would have continued to publish such controversial material without Ford’s explicit instructions seemed unthinkable to those who knew both men. Mrs. Stanley Ruddiman, a Ford family intimate, remarked that “I don’t think Mr. Cameron ever wrote anything for publication without Mr. Ford’s approval”.

Influence on Nazi Anti-Semitism

Ford’s International Jew was translated into German in 1922 and was cited as an influence by Baldur von Schirach, one of the Nazis leaders, who stated “I read it and became anti-Semitic. In those days this book made such a deep impression on my friends and myself because we saw in Henry Ford the representative of success, also the exponent of a progressive social policy. In the poverty-stricken and wretched Germany of the time, youth looked toward America, and apart from the great benefactor, Herbert Hoover, it was Henry Ford who to us represented America.”[6] Ford is the only American mentioned in Hitler’s Mein Kampf, but is only mentioned once in one sentence, where Hitler writes “Every year makes them [American Jews] more and more the controlling masters of the producers in a nation of one hundred and twenty millions; only a single great man, Ford, to their fury still maintains full independence.” The second edition of the book removed reference to Ford.

The Patriotic Publishing Co

In 1934, The Patriotic Publishing Co., an unincorporated entity that operated out of a post office box[8][not in citation given] “Issued” and “Compiled and edited” The Protocols as an expanded 300-page tome. The expansion from less than 100 pages to 300 pages was made possible by copying substantial sections from The Dearborn Independent. Most of the later imprints of the Protocols are derived from this 1934 edition.

George F. Green and the Christian Nationalist Crusade

In June 1949 there appeared a 174-page, one-volume abridgment of the text, titled The International Jew, subtitled “The World’s Foremost Problem”, and edited by George F. Green[10] (who is not to be confused with the novelist and short-story writer of the same name). It was published by Green, editor of The Independent Nationalist [11]

The book was also sold in the United States, where it was distributed by the Christian Nationalist Crusade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew

“Communist Party of the USA”

The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) was a Moscow-controlled Marxist-Leninist party in the United States. It nominated a candidate for president from 1924 through 1984, sometimes with funding from the atheistic Communist Soviet Union. With the collapse of the Soviet Union it became a hollow shell and has urged voters to support the Democrat Party.[1]

The Soviet Union used the CPUSA to recruit spies after the U.S. recognized the USSR in 1933.

The CPUSA was under heavy attack by the U.S. government after 1947 and the start of the Cold War. After gaining control of many Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) locals and unions it was expelled from the CIO in 1948. After losing its main base it continued to operate some small unions, such as the fur workers. It supported and gained control of the presidential campaign of Henry A. Wallace in 1948. After 1948 it was a hunted target and played only a small role.

Membership in the CPUSA was a high maintenance commitment—the Party demanded full control of people’s ideas, friendships, jobs and activities. There were repeated in-depth investigations, humiliating interrogations, forced confessions, and purges. Many sympathizers (or “fellow travelers”) supported Communist goals but refused to become members. Of those who did join turnover in membership was very high, with most people staying less than a year before they quit in disgust with the intellectual and social regimentation of the party and its structure as a top-down dictatorship that took orders from Moscow. The CPUSA did not execute anyone, but many—probably most—of the American Communists who traveled to Russia were killed there.[2]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Communist_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America

­­

Donald Trump, the New York Times and the Mexican Industrialists

The New York Times is the newspaper of the Mexican Industrialist Carlo Slim, the richest person in the world until very recently. See Forbes “Mexico’s Carlos Slim Reclaims World’s Richest Man Title From Bill Gates”, July 2014.

capture

 

Carlo Slim and the other Mexican industrialists export their products to United States, and the Mexican government collects billions of dollars in taxes from these industrialists. The Mexican industrialists and the Mexican government are both deeply hurt by Donald Trump, because Trump wants to renegotiate NAFTA i.e. the free trade agreement between United States, Canada and Mexico.

Recently the communist dictator of Cuba Fidel Castro died. The anti-American New York Times calls Fidel Castro “The Cuban Revolutionary who Defied U.S.”. See New York Times “Fidel Castro, Cuban Revolutionary Who Defied U.S., Dies at 90”, November 2016.

For the control of the anti-American New York Times by the Mexican industrialists see “Carlos Slim becomes top New York Times shareholder”, January 2015.

The New York Times was controlled by a very rich Jewish family until it almost went bankrupt in 2009, when it was saved by the Mexican industrialists.

Fidel Castro together with KGB they were sending the cocaine of Pablo Escobar to United States in order to finance terrorists and socialists in United States and Latin America, and to also live in great luxury. See “The Financing of the Anti-Trump Protests”.

After the election of Donald Trump the value of the shares held by Carlo Slim fell by 5 billion dollars, and the same is true for other Mexican industrialists. And obviously the same applies to their partners in the United States. See Bloomberg “The World’s Richest People Lose $41 Billion on Trump’s Win”, November 2016.

So the New York Times waged a war against Donald Trump on behalf of the Mexican industrialists and Trump threatens to take the New York Times to the court. See the New York Times “Donald Trump Threatens to Sue The Times Over Article on Unwanted Advances”, October 2016.

In Mexico Donald Trump has two enemies. The first one is the Mexican government and the Mexican industrialists, and the second one is also the drug cartels which are controlled by Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Hezbollah and FARC.

Now the Mexican industrialists together with other American lobbies in the United States, for example the “green” lobby, are waging a war against Trump. California is the champion of green energy and it borders Mexico, and these lobbies try to convince the people of California to leave the United States  i.e. CALEXIT.

Note that California imports solar panels worth billions of dollars from China.

Remember that the leftist anti-American Hollywood is located in California, and the Chinese, the Arabs and the Mexicans are investing billions of dollars to buy Hollywood stars in order to promote their anti-Americanism.

Image 1

california

Image 2

Capture.jpg

Articles

“Fidel Castro, Cuban Revolutionary Who Defied U.S., Dies at 90”, Νοέμβριος 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/world/americas/fidel-castro-dies.html

 

“Carlos Slim becomes top New York Times shareholder”, January 2015

1, 2, 3, 4 Paragraph

Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim has become the largest shareholder of New York Times Co (NYT.N) after exercising warrants to double his stake in the publisher to 16.8 percent.

Entities affiliated with Slim exercised the warrants he bought in 2009 when he loaned the company $250 million during the height of the financial crisis.

New York Times, controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through Class B shares, paid back the loan in 2011.

Slim’s total stake is valued at $341.4 million, based on the stock’s Wednesday closing price of $12.28.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-new-york-times-warrants-carlos-slim-idUSKBN0KN2M820150114

 

“The Financing of the Anti-Trump Protests”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/11/13/the-financing-of-the-anti-trump-protests/

 

“Mexico’s Carlos Slim Reclaims World’s Richest Man Title From Bill Gates”, July 2014

1 Paragraph

Carlos Slim Helú is once again the world’s richest person, thanks in large part to a sharp increase in telecom giant América Móvil’s share price both in U.S. and Mexican markets. Slim bumped Microsoft (NYSE:MSFT) cofounder Bill Gates from his perch as the world’s richest, a post Gates has held since May 2013.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaestevez/2014/07/15/mexicos-carlos-slim-reclaims-worlds-richest-man-title-from-bill-gates/

 

“Carlos Slim Wants U.N.-Run ‘War Free Sanctuaries’ For Refugees Fleeing Violence”, September 2015

1 Paragraph

Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helú thinks he may have an answer to the current humanitarian crisis of  tens of thousands of refugees from the Middle East and Africa sweeping into Europe. Speaking last week at the Mexico Siglo XXI conference, a youth rally in Mexico City sponsored by Slim’s Fundación Telmex, Slim proposed the creation of “war-free zones” for refugees and called on the United Nations and world governments to work together toward that goal.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaestevez/2015/09/09/carlos-slim-wants-u-n-run-war-free-sanctuaries-for-refugees-fleeing-violence/#1f42026b337b

 

“The World’s Richest People Lose $41 Billion on Trump’s Win”, November 2016

1, 2 Paragraph

Mexico’s wealthiest person lost $5.1 billion in the wake of Donald Trump’s stunning upset over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Carlos Slim, who is fifth-richest in the world, shed 9.2 percent of his fortune after the peso dove as much as 12 percent on the news.

Slim led declines of $41 billion on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index at the start of U.S. trading Wednesday. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index was down 1.1 percent at 10 a.m. in New York. Stock markets across the globe wavered on news that the New York real estate mogul would become the 45th U.S. president.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-09/mexico-s-slim-clobbered-as-richest-lose-41-billion-on-trump-win

 

“Donald Trump Threatens to Sue The Times Over Article on Unwanted Advances”, October 2016

1 Paragraph

Donald J. Trump threatened to sue The New York Times for libel on Wednesday night in response to an article that featured two women accusing him of touching them inappropriately years ago, but the newspaper defended its reporting and told Mr. Trump’s lawyer that “we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/us/politics/donald-trump-lawsuit-threat.html

 

“Carlos Slim : Early Life”

Slim was born on January 28, 1940, in Mexico City,[12] to Julián Slim Haddad (born Khalil Salim Haddad Aglamaz) and Linda Helú Atta, both Maronite Catholics of Lebanese descent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim#Early_life

 

“Expert: Latin American Cartels Paying ‘Hezbollah Tax’ to Move Drugs into Europe”, September 2016

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/09/07/expert-latin-american-cartels-paying-hezbollah-tax-move-drugs-europe-middle-east-africa/

 

“Trump chooses Breitbart News boss Stephen Bannon to be his chief strategist”, November 2016

http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/13/13617762/trump-steven-bannon-breitbart-chief-strategist-reince-priebus

 

 

“Trump disavows the white nationalist ‘alt-right’ but defends Steve Bannon hire”, November 2016

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-steve-bannon-alt-right-white-nationalist-disavow

 

“Mexican Drug War”

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Paragraph

Given its geographic location, Mexico has long been used as a staging and transshipment point for narcotics and contraband between Latin America and U.S.markets. Mexican bootleggers supplied alcohol to the United States gangsters throughout the duration of the Prohibition in the United States,[94] and the onset of illegal drug trade with the U.S. began when the prohibition came to an end in 1933.[94] Towards the end of the 1960s, Mexican narcotic smugglers started to smuggle drugs on a major scale.[94]

During the 1970s and early 1980s, Colombia‘s Pablo Escobar was the main exporter of cocaine and dealt with organized criminal networks all over the world. When enforcement efforts intensified in South Florida and the Caribbean, the Colombian organizations formed partnerships with the Mexico-based traffickers to transport cocaine through Mexico into the United States.[103]

This was easily accomplished because Mexico had long been a major source of heroin and cannabis, and drug traffickers from Mexico had already established an infrastructure that stood ready to serve the Colombia-based traffickers. By the mid-1980s, the organizations from Mexico were well-established and reliable transporters of Colombian cocaine. At first, the Mexican gangs were paid in cash for their transportation services, but in the late 1980s, the Mexican transport organizations and the Colombian drug traffickers settled on a payment-in-product arrangement.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

 

The Financing of the Anti-Trump Protests

 

As soon as Donald Trump was elected, Cuba announced military drills. See Time Magazine “Military Drills Have Been Announced in Cuba After Donald Trump’s Election Victory”, November 2016.

Cuba is a very old enemy of the United States. Fidel Castro is financed by the oil of Venezuela and by the cocaine of the communist narco-terrorists of FARC in Colombia. In the old days, in order to send his cocaine to Fidel Castro, Pablo Escobar was using as his aid the Communist author, and Nobel Prize winner, Gabriel Garcia Marques (One Hundred Years of Solitude).

Gabriel Garcia Marques was not simply an Escobar’s postman, he was also a snitch of Fidel Castro. See Frontpage Mag “Gabriel Garcia Marquez: Castro’s propagandist & snitch”.

Image Fidel Escobar

fidel castro.JPG

See also Business Insider “Pablo Escobar’s top hit man claims literary icon Gabriel Garcia Marquez worked with El Patron”, October 2015.

Cuban soldiers were transporting the cocaine shipments to Florida, because Miami was, and it still is, one of the most important trafficking points of Escobar and Fidel Castro. See XPAT Nation “How Pablo Escobar Ran His Drug Empire While In Exile With The Help Of Fidel Castro”, September 2015.

Map Cuba-Florida

Maiami Florida.JPG

Map Gulf of Mexico

Americas.JPG

During the Vietnam War, together with the Soviets and the Chinese, Fidel Castro was financing the communist gangs of Black Panther, who were revolting against the American government, demanding a US withdrawal from the Vietnam War. They were also demanding that black Americans did not serve in the American army.

In the end the United States had to abandon their allies, and the Communists of Vietnam, who were supported by the Soviets and the Chinese, won the war. Fidel and the communist gangs of Black Panthers played a crucial role in defeating the United States.

Image Black Panthers

Obama Black Panthers.JPG

Today it is not the Communists of Black Panthers attacking American people, but it is instead its off-spring, the Communist terrorists of Black Lives Matter.

Image

Black Lives Matter.JPG

I guess that both the Black Panthers and the Black Lives Matters are not simply supported by Fidel, but they must have also been important parts of his drug network.

Barack Hussein Obama, a leftist black Muslim, or at least the son of Shiite Muslim from Kenya, whom the American people chose as their president, says that racism is on the DNA of American people, and he is travelling from country to country apologizing for the United States, like if everything that goes wrong on this world is the fault of the United States.

Barack Hussein Obama abolished the economic sanctions against Iran and Cuba, and also pushed for a legalization of the FARC Communist narcoterrorists in Columbia. Note that in the end the peace between the Colombian government and the Communist narcoterrorists of FARC was rejected by the Colombian people.

Barack Hussein Obama did that even though he new that Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Hezbollah and FARC, would now find it much easier to smuggle cocaine in the United States, in order to finance their terrorist organizations like the Black Lives Matter who are killing American policemen, and who are now trying to overturn the legally elected President Donald Trump.

The Communists who are trying to overturn Donald Trump are also financed by the Arabs of the Gulf i.e. Qatar, Saudi Arabia etc, who were hopping for the election of Hilary Clinton in order to push for the Qatar-Turkey Pipeline. Actually they preferred the leftist Jewish Bernie Sanders who has promised them, as the also did to the dictators of Latin America, to forbid fracking in the United States. That would also make the lobby of green energy very happy and would earn Bernie a few dollars. See Reuters “Billionaire green activist Steyer not ready to back Clinton, open to Sanders”, January 2016.

Many other billionaires have invested billions in the green energy sector too i.e. George Soros, Bill Gats, Marc Zuckerberg etc.

Donald Trump has pledged to make life easier for American coal and oil producers, and as soon as he was elected the shares of the coal producers sky rocketed, while the shares of green companies lost their value. See Washington Post “Trump victory batters solar and wind stocks, bolsters coal shares”, November 2016.

So the anti-Trump protests are financed by so many sources i.e. FARC, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the American lobby of green energy, and by Americans who have their companies in China, in the Persian Gulf, in Mexico etc.

 

Latin America.JPG

https://iakal.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/36467-map-sageographical.png

 

south america.JPG

http://www.tiwy.com/pais/map_la.gif

 

Capture.JPG

Articles

 

“Military Drills Have Been Announced in Cuba After Donald Trump’s Election Victory”, November 2016

http://time.com/4565774/cuba-military-drills-trump-exercises/

 

“Pablo Escobar’s top hit man claims literary icon Gabriel Garcia Marquez worked with El Patron”, October 2015

1, 2, 3

John Jairo Velásquez Vásquez, working as one of Pablo Escobar’s top hit men, killed at least 300 people and was implicated in the deaths of 3,000 more.

Velásquez, aka Popeye, was a key functionary in Escobar’s Medellin cartel. And, as he claimed in an interview earlier this month, his duties extended to meeting with Latin American luminaries and national leaders on behalf of the cartel.

Speaking with Puerto Rico’s Wapa TV, Popeye said that he hand-delivered letters from Escobar to Colombian literary icon Gabriel Garcia Marquez, who then passed the letters on to Fidel and Raul Castro.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pablo-escobar-gabriel-garcia-marquez

 

“How Pablo Escobar Ran His Drug Empire While In Exile With The Help Of Fidel Castro”, September 2015

23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

The world’ greatest businessmen never rest after gaining success. On the contrary, they refuse to rest on their laurels and work even harder. Pablo Escobar belonged to this breed. He was always scheming new ways of expanding his network. If one of his trading routes was eliminated, Pablo had two more routes as a backup.

While in Nicaragua, Pablo thought it convenient to approach Fidel Castro. Cuba was a strategic trading point, since it had severed its ties to the U.S. Also, Cuba was close to Miami, one of the cartel’s biggest markets. One of Pablo’s connections in Miami was a drug lord named Jorge Avendano “The Crocodile”. The Crocodile had partied along the flamboyant Ochoa brothers at their wild Miami orgies. The Ochoas had mingled with the crème de la crème of Miami and knew some influential Cuban-Americans. This is how, through a third party, they were able to reach Fidel Castro.

Pablo ordered The Crocodile to relay a business proposition to Fidel. Fidel, busy with his own work, delegated the job to his brother Raul. It was through the intervention of Raul, that Escobar made a deal with Fidel. The Crocodile traveled to Havana to seal the agreement.

The Drug cargo would sail in various ships from the Buenaventura port in Colombia. The ships would reach Mexico ports and the cargo (approx 26,455 pounds per shipment) would be transported to a Mexican airport. Mexican planes would fly to Cuba and unload the cargo in the island’s coasts. Fidel assigned two of his closest associates for the job: Cuban general Arnaldo Ochoa and colonel Tony La Guardia.

As part of the deal, Cuban soldiers would take the cocaine in small boats to Miami. The cargo would be delivered to one of Pablo’s drug lords, a man known as “Mugre” (The Dirt). Mugre hid the cocaine in the mansions of the Ochoas, in the luxurious neighborhoods of Kendall, Boca Raton and Cayo Hueso. Fidel Castro made around 3,000 dollars for every cocaine pound Cuba delivered. Jorge Avendano stayed in Cuba to make the payments.

Pablo Escobar said that it had been a pleasure to work with Castro. Due to Castro’s great work ethic, Escobar made lots of money. Fidel Castro and Escobar had never seen each other. But they regularly wrote letters which were delivered by “special emissaries”. The Colombian Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez was one of them. Garcia Marquez and Fidel Castro had a close friendship. In one occasion, Escobar sent Popeye to Mexico (where the writer lived) so that he could give Garcia Marquez a letter for Fidel Castro.

http://xpatnation.com/how-pablo-escobar-ran-his-drug-empire-while-in-exile-with-the-help-of-fidel-castro/

 

“Garciarcía Márquez: Castro Stooge”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376149/garc-m-rquez-castro-stooge-armando-valladares

 

“GABRIEL GARCIA MARQUEZ: CASTRO’S PROPAGANDIST & SNITCH”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/224013/gabriel-garcia-marquez-castros-propagandist-snitch-humberto-fontova

 

“Iran invites families of black men shot by police to a Tehran anti-discrimination conference”, September 2015

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11895197/Iran-invites-families-of-black-men-shot-by-police-to-a-Tehran-anti-discrimination-conference.html

 

“Obama defends Black Lives Matter protests at police memorial in Dallas”, July 2016

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-defends-black-lives-matter-protests-police-m/

 

“BLM Leader Says Clintons Only Use Blacks For Photo-Ops”, August 2016

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/04/blm-leader-says-clintons-only-use-blacks-for-photo-ops/

 

“Between Police And Black Lives Matter, Hillary Clinton Walking A Fine Line”, August 2016

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/19/490622277/between-police-and-black-lives-matter-hillary-clinton-walking-a-fine-line

 

“Police union attacks Hillary Clinton for inviting Black Lives Matter speakers to convention”, July 2016

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/26/police-union-attacks-hillary-clinton-for-inviting-black-lives-ma/

 

“Black Lives Matter supporters march against Hillary Clinton: ‘Hard to trust”,July 2016

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/26/hillary-clinton-loses-black-lives-matter-supporter/

 

“Trump: Black Lives Matter has helped instigate police killings”, July 2016

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/18/politics/donald-trump-black-lives-matter/

 

“Beyoncé is a powerful voice for Black Lives Matter. Some people hate her for it”, July 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/07/10/beyonce-is-a-powerful-voice-for-black-lives-matter-some-people-hate-her-for-it/

 

“Trump victory batters solar and wind stocks, bolsters coal shares”, November 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/09/solar-wind-companies-see-stocks-fall-after-trump-win/

 

“Understanding The Clintons’ Popularity With Black Voters”, March 2016

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/01/468185698/understanding-the-clintons-popularity-with-black-voters

 

“Billionaire green activist Steyer not ready to back Clinton, open to Sanders”, January 2016

1, 2, 3

Billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer said he is not ready to endorse Hillary Clinton, and he would be open to supporting her main rival, Bernie Sanders, if he becomes the Democratic nominee for president.

One of the biggest Democratic donors, Steyer could help Clinton boost her standing among environmentalist activists who are a key constituency within the Democratic Party. Clinton is locked in tight races with Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire, which both have early nominating contests.

“Our real goal has been not to support any one candidate, but to emphasize and highlight the issue (of climate change) so that the candidates can lay out their solutions and so the American people can have a chance to make a decision,” Steyer said in a telephone interview on Tuesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-steyer-idUSMTZSAPEC1K9038AB

 

“Tom Steyer : Keystone Pipeline”

Keystone Pipeline

After holding several conversations in the summer of 2012 with environmental writer Bill McKibben, Steyer decided to focus much of his attention on the Keystone Pipeline. That October, Steyer officially left Farallon. He was criticized by some Republicans for attacking the pipeline even though he himself held some investments in the fossil-fuel industry, including stock in Kinder Morgan, which had its own pipeline connecting the Canadian tar sands to a port on the Pacific, which could be seen as a rival to the Keystone pipeline. Steyer promised to fully unload his holdings there within a year.[44] In September 2013, Steyer appeared in a series of commercials in opposition to the proposed pipeline.[44]

In a November 2015 interview, Steyer described the Obama administration’s decision to reject the Keystone pipeline as “fantastic.”[74]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer#Keystone_Pipeline

 

“The FARC and Colombia’s Illegal Drug Trade”, November 2014

37

Another estimate released in 2012 by the Colombian Attorney General’s Office put the FARC’s annual income—including drugs and all other illicit activities—at $1.1 billion.46 General José Roberto León, who was then director of Colombia’s national police force, told Reuters in 2013 that the FARC controls about 60 percent of the nation’s drug trade and earns about $1 billion per year from the industry.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Otis_FARCDrugTrade2014.pdf

 

“Iran Trains Terrorists in Venezuela”, Μάιος 2011

3, 4, 5

Tehran is already preparing for this scenario with the help of Latin American countries such as Venezuela. Al-Seyassah has published reports about Iranian training camps on the border between Venezuela and Colombia, where Shiites from the Arab world are taught to make bombs, carry out assassinations, kidnap people and transport hostages to other locations. These training camps are run by Iranian Revolutionary Guards in cooperation with Hezbollah and Hamas.

The newspaper reports that the Shiite trainees fly to Caracas via Damascus, probably on the Venezuelan airline Conviasa, which covers the Caracas-Damascus-Tehran route. The weekly Conviasa’s flights to Tehran are a cause for concern in Washington, due to the lack of transparency about what or whom they might be transporting.. The Kuwaiti paper mentions as well the trainees’ presence in Colombia. The Iranian government allegedly enjoys in Latin America the support of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of the Colombian group, the FARC, which derives its primary source of income from drug trafficking. It is not a coincidence, therefore, that Al-Seyassah mentions that Iran finances its militias through narco-trafficking.

Iran’s support in Latin America should worry the US. The Iranian regime is expanding its ties and its influence in the US’s backyard, and helping groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas finding new safe havens for their terrorist activities. Recently, Uruguay also showed strong interest in strengthening relations with Teheran. The Uruguayan Foreign Minister even went so far as to hail Iran’s role in the promotion of human rights in the world.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2094/iran-trains-terrorists-venezuela

 

“Cuba’s Support for Terrorism and the Venezuela-Iran Nexus”, May 2014

1 , 2

Iran, Cuba and Venezuela have developed a close and cooperative relationship against the U.S. and in support of terrorist groups and states. The three regimes increasingly coordinate their policies and resources in a three way partnership aimed at counteracting and circumventing U.S. policies in the Middle East and Latin America. Within this relationship, Cuba plays a strategic role in terms of geography (proximity to the U.S.), intelligence gathering (both electronic eavesdropping and human espionage) and logistics.

In addition to its proven technical prowess to interfere and intercept U.S. telecommunications, Cuba has deployed around the world a highly effective human intelligence network. The type of espionage carried out by Ana Belén Montes, the senior U.S. defense intelligence analyst who spied for Cuba during some 16 years until her arrest in 2001, has enabled the Castro regime to amass a wealth of intelligence on U.S. vulnerabilities as well as a keen understanding of the inner-workings of the U.S. security system. Such information and analysis was provided to Saddam Hussein prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and is being provided to a strategic ally like Iran.

7

Current and former members of Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA), a Basque terrorist organization continue to reside in Cuba. While some of these terrorists are on the island as part of an accord between the Cuban and Spanish governments, others are hiding in Cuba, fugitives of Spanish justice.

12, 13

On January 24, 2014 the Castro government decreed that it would now begin to freeze bank assets affiliated to Al-Qaeda in Cuba. The Castro regime tacitly admitted that they had been facilitating financing of terrorism.

“Hezbollah in Cuba,” the Hamas-funded Turkish “charity” known as IHH continues to operate in Havana. IHH is a member of the “Union of Good,” an umbrella organization that financially supports Hamas.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2014/05/02/cubas-support-for-terrorism-and-the-venezuela-iran-nexus/

 

“Hezbollah ‘Moving Freely’ in U.S. with Cuban-Made Venezuelan Passports”, February 2016

1

Members of Iran’s terror proxy Hezbollah “are moving freely” within the United States and Latin America, courtesy of Venezuelan passports issued by a Cuban company hired by Caracas, reports the UK-based Asharq Al-Awsat.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/02/01/report-hezbollah-moving-freely-in-us-using-venezuelan-passports-issued-by-cuban-companies/

 

“The Iran-Cuba-Venezuela Nexus”, November 2014

1

Regular readers of this column will remember that in July the U.S. asked local officials here to arrest Venezuelan Gen. Hugo Carvajaland to extradite him on suspicion of drug trafficking with Colombian guerrillas. He was detained but the Netherlands stepped in, refused the extradition request and let him go.

7, 8

In Venezuela and Bolivia, Iran has moved to the next level, developing a military presence through joint ventures in defense industries. In Venezuela, the state of Aragua, where Mr. El Aissami is now governor, is ground zero for this activity.

Havana applauds this Islamic intervention. Since the rise ofchavismo, Cuba has supplied intelligence services to Venezuela and its regional allies, notably Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador. Mr. Humire says it has also supplied passport-information technology to allow these countries to process individuals from the Middle East, hand out new documents and maintain the secrecy of true identities. Cuba has used this capacity to exchange information with like-minded nations, including Russia and Iran.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/mary-anastasia-ogrady-the-iran-cuba-venezuela-nexus-1416780671

 

“Venezuela Helped Argentina Protect Iranian Terrorists with Fake Passports”, March 2015

3

The Veja report, translated from Portuguese to Spanish by Argentine news outlet Infobae, cites several officials described as “ex-members of Hugo Chávez’s cabinet” who now live in exile in Washington, D.C., after defecting from the current regime of President Nicolás Maduro. Those interviewed claim that “Argentine government representatives received large quantities of money from Iran,” and that Iran explicitly requested Argentina’s help in protecting Hezbollah terrorists responsible for the 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israel Mutual Association (AMIA), an attack that left 85 dead and dozens wounded.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/16/report-venezuela-helped-argentina-protect-iranian-terrorists-with-fake-passports/

 

“Obama lands in Cuba as first US president to visit in nearly a century”, March 2016

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/20/barack-obama-cuba-visit-us-politics-shift-public-opinion-diplomacy

 

“Iranian-Sponsored Narco-Terrorism in Venezuela: How Will Maduro Respond”, April 2013

14, 15, 16, 17

Farah produced a research paper for the U.S. Army War College in August 2012 about the “growing alliance” between state-sponsored Iranian agents and other anti-American groups in Latin America, including the governments of Venezuela and Cuba.

This alliance with Iran uses established drug trade routes from countries in South and Central America to penetrate North American borders, all under a banner of mutual malevolence toward the U.S.

The results of this access are largely secret, though security experts who spoke with U.S. News believe the attempted assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington, D.C.’s Georgetown neighborhood was carried out by Iranian intelligence operatives.

“Each of the Bolivarian states has lifted visa requirements for Iranian citizens, thereby erasing any public record of the Iranian citizens that come and go to these countries,” wrote Farah of countries such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia and Panama.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/24/iranian-sponsored-narco-terrorism-in-venezuela-how-will-maduro-respond

 

 

“The New, Improved Axis of Jihad”, May 2013

2, 3 , 4 , 5

Indicators and warnings continue to grow concerning the resurgence of an “Axis of Jihad” comprised of Iran, Hizballah, and al-Qa’eda. This axis is not new: its three actors, both national and sub-national, have been working together in an operational terror alliance for over two decades. Still, so many seem unaware not just of this alliance, but of the ideological bonds that brought them together in Khartoum, Sudan, in the early 1990s and have kept them together to the current day. The bond is as old as Islam, and includes the commitment to jihad [war in the name of Islam] and Islamic Shariah law; the threat is to all free and democratic societies which stand in the way of global Islamic government and the forcible application of Islamic Shariah Law.

This modern-day Axis of Jihad was formed in the Sudan under the aegis of the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Omar al-Bashir and his sometime political ally, National Congress Party chairman Hassan al-Turabi. Al-Qa’eda as such had not yet taken its current form, but after the end of the 1980s Afghan war against the Soviet Union, Usama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri had found safe haven in the Sudan. Al-Bashir and Turabi are pan-Islamists, meaning they see the world in terms of the Dar al-Islam (House of Islam, where Shariah is enforced) versus the Dar al-Harb (everywhere that is not under Islamic Law). Such a worldview chooses to disregard the ancient intra-Islamic schism between Sunni and Shi’a and instead to unify the entire Islamic world in jihad against the “infidel.”

So it was that al-Bashir and Turabi invited the Iranian regime leadership and its Hizballah terror proxies to Khartoum in late 1990 to meet with the future leadership of al-Qa’eda. Then-Iranian president (and once again a 2013 candidate for the office) Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, intelligence director Ali Fallahian, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Mohsen Reza’i and other top Iranian leadership figures accepted al-Bashir’s invitation and traveled to Khartoum, along with Islamic jihadis from around the region.

There, and in subsequent meetings that took place in Khartoum throughout the early 1990s, the alliance was formed among Iran, Hizballah, and what soon would be known as al-Qa’eda. Usama bin Laden was especially interested in the explosives expertise coupled with a “martyrdom” mentality he had seen demonstrated by Hizballah with such deadly effect against Western targets. It was arranged that Imad Mughniyeh, Hizballah’s top terror operative, would commit to training Usama bin Laden’s growing cadre of terrorists in explosives techniques, especially those involving suicide truck bombings that could bring down large buildings. Training camps were set up in Sudan, Lebanon, and elsewhere where al-Qa’eda’s would-be shahid recruits could learn this craft. The attacks at Khobar Towers, the U.S. East Africa Embassies in Dar Es-Salaam and Nairobi, against the USS Cole, and eventually the 9/11 attacks themselves were all the result of this terror alliance.

17, 18, 19

The Tri-Border region of South America, where the borders of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay met, served as an early hub of terror operations from the 1980s onward for the Iranian Embassy in Buenos Aires and Hizballah, which jointly directed the 1992 and 1994 terror attacks against the Israeli Embassy and Jewish Cultural Center, respectively, from this lawless area. Since 2005,Iran’s operational base in Venezuela has become the nexus for its operations across the Western Hemisphere, including South, Central, and North America. Diplomatic relationships with Venezuela and other Latin American regimes hostile to the U.S., such as Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua also provide Iran with a means of evading international isolation and sanctions, obtaining a ready source of fraudulent travel documents, and laundering money.

Hizballah’s operations in the Western Hemisphere, including inside the U.S. and Canada, are noted with special concern by U.S. officials: former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff remarked that Hizballah made al-Qa’eda “look like a minor league team,” while former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage has called Hizballah the “A team” and al-Qa’eda the “B team.” Masters of clandestine intelligence tradecraft, as well as among the most highly trained and ideologically-committed special operations forces anywhere, Hizballah (which is trained by the Iranians) expends considerable effort establishing cell networks across the Americas. These cells are assigned to pre-attack casing and surveillance; fundraising via a variety of scams like cigarette smuggling as well as narcotrafficking; and operational planning for terror attacks. Former U.S. Ambassador Roger Noriega testifies regularly for Congress to detail Hizballah’s collaboration with narcotraffickers and guerrilla groups (such as the FARC — Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) whose drug-running and terror training activities are becoming ever more complex, dangerous, and threatening to U.S. national security, as well as that of friends and allies throughout the hemisphere.

Venezuela’s Margarita Island, better known as a prime tourist destination, has become a safe haven for terrorists and drug smugglers, as well as Hizballah’s banking and finance hub in the Western Hemisphere. According to Noriega, Hizballah runs countless businesses and safe houses on the island. Even closer to home, Hizballah has forged operational relationships with Mexican drug cartels such as Los Zetas. The links are opportunistic, rather than ideological, on both sides; Hizballah increasingly uses narcotics trafficking to fill funding gaps left by cutbacks in Iranian largesse, while the cartels benefit from Hizballah’s explosives, tunneling, and weapons expertise. Al-Qa’eda, too, has boasted about the ease of moving non-conventional arms and weapons of mass destruction into the U.S. via the Mexican drug tunnels. Kahlili’s reportingnames al-Qa’eda operative Adnan Shukrijumah, who has been spotted and tracked over the years by U.S. and allied security agencies from Canada to the U.S., and south into Latin America, among the list of operational commanders awaiting attack orders from Iranian Qods Force commander Qassem Suleimani, the overall Iran-Hizballah-al-Qa’eda coalition commander.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3726/axis-of-jihad

 

“Climate philanthropist George Soros invests millions in coal”, August 2015

1

Billionaire climate philanthropist George Soros invested more than $2m (£1.3m) in struggling coal giants Peabody Energy and Arch Coal in recent months, despite having once called the fuel “lethal” to the climate.

4 , 5

The Hungarian trading titan is the 29th richest person on earth; according to Forbes he is worth $24.2bn. In 2009, after being convinced by Al Gore of the urgency of the climate challenge, he pledged to spend $1bn of his own money on renewable energy and funded the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) thinktank.

At the time, Soros said: “There is no magic bullet for climate change, but there is a lethal bullet: coal.” A report produced by CPI in June 2014 concluded that transitioning away from coal represented a cost-effective way to reduce emissions. CPI declined to comment on their benefactor’s apparent inconsistency.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/19/climate-philanthropist-george-soros-invests-millions-in-coal

 

“George Soros pledges $1bn to search for clean energy”, Οκτώβριος 2009

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Billionaire financier and philanthropist George Soros has pledged to invest more than $1bn (£625m) of his own money in clean energy technology to tackle climate change. Speaking in Copenhagen on Saturday evening, the Hungarian-born Soros also announced the foundation of the Climate Policy Initiative, which he will fund with $10m annually for the next decade.

Soros, ranked the world’s 29th wealthiest individual by Forbes magazine, said: “There is no magic bullet for climate change, but there is a lethal bullet: coal.” Soros, who already holds limited investments in clean coal technology ventures, explained he would apply “stringent conditions” to the disbursement of the $1bn. “I will look for profitable opportunities, but I will also insist that the investments make a real contribution to solving the problem of climate change.”

The Climate Policy Initiative, formally launched in Berlin next month, would focus on the efficacy and implementation of policy, said Soros, “to protect the public interest against special interests”. The new global climate watchdog will be based in San Francisco and headed by Stanford professor Thomas Heller.

Soros’s speech at the Project Syndicate editors’ forum came a day after climate talks in Bangkok ended in deadlock and 57 days before world leaders gather in the Danish capital to thrash out a new climate agreement. Soros said: “Global warming is a political problem. The science is clear; what is less clear is whether world leaders will demonstrate the political will necessary to solve the problem.”

Soros revealed that he had been converted to the cause of tackling climate change by former US vice-president Al Gore. While he lacked any scientific expertise, he said, “the one thing I have is the ability to put money to work”.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/oct/12/george-soros-clean-energy-pledge

 

“George Soros pledges $1bn to search for clean energy”, October 2009

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Billionaire financier and philanthropist George Soros has pledged to invest more than $1bn (£625m) of his own money in clean energy technology to tackle climate change. Speaking in Copenhagen on Saturday evening, the Hungarian-born Soros also announced the foundation of the Climate Policy Initiative, which he will fund with $10m annually for the next decade.

Soros, ranked the world’s 29th wealthiest individual by Forbes magazine, said: “There is no magic bullet for climate change, but there is a lethal bullet: coal.” Soros, who already holds limited investments in clean coal technology ventures, explained he would apply “stringent conditions” to the disbursement of the $1bn. “I will look for profitable opportunities, but I will also insist that the investments make a real contribution to solving the problem of climate change.”

The Climate Policy Initiative, formally launched in Berlin next month, would focus on the efficacy and implementation of policy, said Soros, “to protect the public interest against special interests”. The new global climate watchdog will be based in San Francisco and headed by Stanford professor Thomas Heller.

Soros’s speech at the Project Syndicate editors’ forum came a day after climate talks in Bangkok ended in deadlock and 57 days before world leaders gather in the Danish capital to thrash out a new climate agreement. Soros said: “Global warming is a political problem. The science is clear; what is less clear is whether world leaders will demonstrate the political will necessary to solve the problem.”

Soros revealed that he had been converted to the cause of tackling climate change by former US vice-president Al Gore. While he lacked any scientific expertise, he said, “the one thing I have is the ability to put money to work”.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/oct/12/george-soros-clean-energy-pledge

 

“Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros Lead Launch Of Clean Energy Fund”, November 2015

9

Gates committed $1 billion of his money and was the “intellectual architect” behind the effort to get investors involved, U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said. The business leaders are making their pledges conditional on governments also pledging more money, said a former U.S. government official who is familiar with the plan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/30/bill-gates-clean-energy_n_8680994.html

 

“Best Energy Funds To Invest Like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg”, December 2015

1

Stocks of solar and other clean energy companies may be seeing a light at the end of the tunnel finally. They spiraled into a bear market the past year as looming expirations on government subsidies dimmed their growth prospects. A group of billionaire heroes, led by Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, came to the rescue Monday. At the Paris climate-change summit, they announced the launch of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition. In all 28 uber-wealthy investors from 10 countries are committing to invest in clean energy technologies in hopes of speeding up clean energy development and lowering costs.

13

Investing in solar and clean energy comes with many risks that can be only taken lightly if you make money by the megawatts like Gates and Zuckerberg. The stocks have severely underperformed the stock market over the past five years. They are one of the few industries that never regained their pre-financial crisis high while the rest of the stock market surpassed it three years ago.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trangho/2015/12/01/best-energy-funds-to-invest-like-bill-gates-mark-zuckerberg/#340781bb4a5d

 

“Hacked Soros Memo: $650,000 to Black Lives Matter”, August 2016

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/16/hacked-soros-memo-baltimore-riots-provide-unique-opportunity-reform-police/

 

“Black Lives Matter cashes in with $100 million from liberal foundations”, August 2016

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6

For all its talk of being a street uprising, Black Lives Matter is increasingly awash in cash, raking in pledges of more than $100 million from liberal foundations and others eager to contribute to what has become the grant-making cause du jour.

The Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy recently announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund [BLMF], a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition.

That funding comes in addition to more than $33 million in grants to the Black Lives Matter movement from top Democratic Party donor George Soros through his Open Society Foundations, as well as grant-making from the Center for American Progress.

“The BLMF provides grants, movement building resources, and technical assistance to organizations working advance the leadership and vision of young, Black, queer, feminists and immigrant leaders who are shaping and leading a national conversation about criminalization, policing and race in America,” said the Borealis announcement.

In doing so, however, the foundations have aligned themselves with the staunch left-wing platform of the Movement for Black Lives, which unveiled a policy agenda shortly after the fund was announced accusing Israel of being an “apartheid state” guilty of “genocide.”

Released Aug. 1, the platform also calls for defunding police departments, race-based reparations, breaking, voting rights for illegal immigrants, fossil-fuel divestment, an end to private education and charter schools, a “universal basic income,” and free college for blacks.

9, 10

Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, said corporations and others may want to think twice about partnering with the Ford Foundation, the fifth-largest U.S. philanthropy with $12.4 billion in assets.

“The Ford Foundation has traditionally been leftist, at least since the 1970s, on law-enforcement matters. So it’s not a huge surprise, but it’s certainly disappointing,” said Mr. Johnson. “I guess potential donors may want to look at the [Black Lives Matter] movement and see the damage, destruction and murders that they’ve left in their wake.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/black-lives-matter-cashes-100-million-liberal-foun/

 

“New Israel Fund : Ford Foundation Funding”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Israel_Fund#Ford_Foundation_funding

“Where Does Black Lives Matter’s Anti-Semitism Come From?”

http://www.meforum.org/6302/black-lives-matters-antisemitism

 

“O’Reilly: Donations From George Soros ‘May Present a Problem’ for Hillary”

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/08/16/bill-oreilly-talking-points-memo-dnc-must-comment-george-soros-revelations

 

“George Soros”

Views on antisemitism

On November 5, 2003, at a Jewish forum in New York City, Soros partially attributed a recent resurgence of antisemitism to the policies of Israel and the United States, and the role of wealthy and influential individuals:

There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that. It’s not specifically anti-Semitism, but it does manifest itself in anti-Semitism as well. I’m critical of those policies… If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish. I can’t see how one could confront it directly… I’m also very concerned about my own role because the new anti-Semitism holds that the Jews rule the world… As an unintended consequence of my actions… I also contribute to that image.[124]

In a subsequent article for The New York Review of Books, Soros emphasized that

I do not subscribe to the myths propagated by enemies of Israel and I am not blaming Jews for anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism predates the birth of Israel. Neither Israel’s policies nor the critics of those policies should be held responsible for anti-Semitism. At the same time, I do believe that attitudes toward Israel are influenced by Israel’s policies, and attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby’s success in suppressing divergent views.[125]

Soros has come under criticism in relation to antisemitism, for his funding of – what in the view of some commentators are – anti-Israel groups and anti-Israel activism.[126][127] including a number of groups that campaign for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel.[128]

NGO monitor argues that Soros is part of the movement to delegitimize Israel, claiming:

The evidence demonstrates that Open Society funding contributes significantly to anti-Israel campaigns in three important respects: 1. Active in the “Durban strategy;” 2. Funding aimed at weakening U.S.support for Israel by shifting public opinion regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iran; 3. Funding for Israeli political opposition groups on the fringes of Israeli society, which use the rhetoric of human rights to advocate for marginal political goals.[129]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Views_on_antisemitism

 

“Financier Soros puts millions into ousting Bush”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/12/uselections2004.usa

 

“Soros, Alarmed by Trump, Pours Money into 2016 Race”

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-15/soros-alarmed-by-trump-pours-money-into-2016-race

 

“Soros Made Twice as Much Under Obama as Under Bush”, September 2012

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/145079/soros-made-twice-much-under-obama-under-bush-daniel-greenfield

 

“Fidel Castro may have known of Oswald plan to kill JFK, book claims”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/18/fidel-castro-oswald-jfk-book

 

“JFK, the Forgotten Zionist”

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.555998

 

“8 Things You May Not Know About Lee Harvey Oswald”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-lee-harvey-oswald/

 

“Lee Harvey Oswald”

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was an American sniper who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. According to five U.S. government investigations,[n 1] Oswald shot and killed Kennedy as he traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in the city of Dallas, Texas.

Oswald was a former U.S. Marine who defected to the Soviet Union in October 1959. He lived in the Belarusian city of Minsk until June 1962, at which time he returned to the United States with Marina, his Russian wife, eventually settling in Dallas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald

 

“Black Lives Matter Wants to Push Socialist Sanders Even Farther Left”, February 2016

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/10/black-lives-matter-wants-to-push-socialist-sanders-even-farther-left/

 

“Obama: Racism is in America’s DNA”, June 2015

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/258910/obama-racism-americas-dna-daniel-greenfield

 

“Why black Americans love Fidel Castro”

http://qz.com/315968/why-black-americans-love-fidel-castro/

 

“Castro government: We will never return fugitive cop killer to U.S.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/castro-government–we-will-never-return-fugitive-cop-killer-to-u-s-203643115.html?ref=gs

 

“Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor”, November 2009

1 , 5

Former Vice President Al Gore thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small California firm sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture capital firm where Mr. Gore is a partner.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. Gore’s firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital providers, looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses.

Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

Silver Spring Networks is a foot soldier in the global green energy revolution Mr. Gore hopes to lead. Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html?dbk&_

 

“How Marxism Killed Keystone”, January 2012

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/120024/how-marxism-killed-keystone-bruce-thornton

 

“Liberal Billionaire Promises Cash, Hillary Comes Out for Green Energy”, July 2015

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/259594/liberal-billionaire-promises-cash-hillary-comes-daniel-greenfield

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Donald, Hussein, the Poor Qataris, and the Poor Iranians

What a tragedy…The poor Qataris and the poor Iranians, together with the latino dictators, were waiting for Bernie Sanders to forbid fracking in the US, and to also implement heavy carbon taxes. They also expected him to weaken the American army. But this traitor lost.

Then the poor Qataris were waiting for Hilary to push the Qatar-Turkey pipeline, and they finaly got Donald, who does not give a shit about the Qatar-Turkey pipeline, and who wants to finally show some respect to Russia.

Then the poor Iranians, who had Barack Husein Obama, who had abolished sanctions against Iran and Cuba, got uncle Donald too. Hussein Obama had supported the Muslim Brotherhood, and had pushed for a deal with the communist narcoterrorists of FARC in Colombia.

FARC, Cuba, Iran, Hezbollah, Venezuela, and Nicaragua ship tons of cocaine in United States through Cuba, Mexico and Nicaragua, and they share the billions of profits. With the money from cocaine, except leading their luxurious lives, they also finance communist terrorists in USA (Black Lives Matter) and Islamists. Hussein Obama likes that because they are his customers (voters) and followers.

And now the poor Iranians got Trump, who told them that he will let them do as they please in Syria, but he will implement economic sanctions against them if they dare to attack the United States in Iraq.

The United States and Iran fight together the Sunni Islamists in Iraq, but they compete for the friendship of the Kurds and the Shiites of Iraq.

And uncle Donald threatens to implant again sanctions against Cuba, if the Castro brothers continue to smuggle cocaine in USA and if they keep financing communist and Islamist terrorists in the USA.

Hussein Obama completely ignored the Republicans when he became friends with FARC, Cuba and Iran. Hussein is the son of a Shiite Muslim from Kenya, and the American people made him their president. And he goes around the world apologizing for the United States, saying that racism is in the DNA of the American people. That’s how ungrateful Hussein is.

Who is your daddy now?

capturecapture

capture

capture

capture

capture

capture

I Will be Back

I haven’t left. I am here, and I will be back soon. After a month, after five months, after a year, I don’t know when. But I will be back. I have said what I had to say about the 20th and 21st century Middle East. I will be back when I have something to say, and when I feel like saying something. Because right now I really have nothing to say.

I.A.

The Geopolitics of Islamism

Before WW1 (1914-1918) the Islamists of Africa were supported by the alliance of Germany, Austria and the Ottoman Empire. That makes perfect sense because the Germans and the Austrians wanted to use the Ottoman Caliphate, which was their ally, in order to promote Pan-Islamism in Africa as a means of attacking the English and the French who were controlling Africa. The Germans had almost zero influence in Africa.

Capture.JPG

Map 1 German Empire, Empire of Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire

MapOfEurope 1900.jpg

Map African Colonies ( French colonies with light green and British colonies with pink)

African Colonies.JPG

http://empathosnationenterprises.com/empAthosWebGraphics/AfColony.gif

However the English and the French won WW1, and not only they did not lose Africa, but they also gained the Middle East, which until then was an Ottoman colony. Iraq and Palestine (Israel+Jordan) went to the British sphere of influence, and Syria and Lebanon went to the French sphere of influence.

Map British-French and Russians Zones

Σχέδιο Psykes Picot.JPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement#/media/File:Sykes-Picot.svg

 

With green on the above map you can see the part that would go to Russia. But Russia did not get her share because the Germans created the Russian Communist Party, and they used the Russians Communists against the Tsarist army. With the help of Germany and Austria the Communists won, and they left the war giving large parts of Russian territory to the Germans, the Austrians and the Ottomans as a payment. See “Germany’s Role in the Rise of Lenin”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/winston-churchill-on-the-german-support-to-lenin-and-russian-communism/

 

Map

Χάρτης Μέση Ανατολή.JPG

http://static.wixstatic.com/media/3bbf45_b191881d1bbf42089bb157579bc7d3d2.jpg/v1/fill/w_557,h_430,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/3bbf45_b191881d1bbf42089bb157579bc7d3d2.jpg

 

Therefore we should not be surprised that until WW2 the geopolitics of Islamism remains the same, since the British and the French increased their influence in the Muslim World, and Germany was still trying to support the Islamists as a means of fighting them.

That’s why Hitler continued the Kaizer’s policy and he collaborated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which was established in Egypt in 1928 by an enthusiastic Hitler admirer Hassan al-Banna. During the 1920s Kemal Ataturk destroyed Islamism in Turkey, and he made Turkey a secular state.

Moreover, after the ruins of WW1, Kemal Ataturk wanted Turkey to have a balanced position towards Germany and the West. Therefore Turkey could no longer be used by Germany as a springboard to support Pan-Islamism in the Middle East and Africa against the English and the French.

In other words what the Ottoman Caliphate did for Germany during WW1, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt did for Hitler during WW2. See “The Alliance Between Hitler and the Muslim Brotherhood”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/08/18/the-alliance-between-hitler-and-the-muslim-brotherhood/

That’s the situation until the end of WW2. After WW2 Germany is destroyed and the Soviet Union becomes the main opponent of the West. The Soviets will mainly support the socialist dictators in the Muslim World, and these dictators will gradually overturn the pro-Western monarchs in Algerian, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Syria.

When the socialists will rise to power in the Muslim countries it will be the turn of the Westerners to taste the benefits of supporting the Islamists against their enemies. With the help of Saudi Arabia the West will fight the pro-Soviet socialist dictators, and with the help of the Islamists the Americans will fight the Soviets when the Soviets will invade Afghanistan (1979-1989).

But things are a lot more complicated now. In 1979 radical Islamists will take control of Iran, and there will be Islamists who are supported by Iran and fight the West, and there will be Islamists who are supported by Saudi Arabia and fight the Soviets.

After the fall of the Soviet Union the Americans will try to send the oil and natural gas of Central Asia to the Indian Ocean, which would hurt all the Islamists of the Persian Gulf. China will allow Western companies to go to China, and China will rise, and will start importing more and more oil from the Persian Gulf. The American oil and gas production will increase tremendously, and the Americans will reduce their imports from the Persian Gulf. The Turks want the cheap natural gas of Russia, and Iran and Russia will support the Turkish Islamists who will come to power in 2002. It seems that now it is a lot more difficult for the Americans to cooperate with the Islamists.

But the Muslim Brotherhood still spends huge amounts of money in Europe and United States in order to buy communists. But most of the time the countries that support the Muslim Brotherhood i.e. Qatar, Iran and Turkey, will use these Communists against United States and Europe, and in order to promote their own interests. Qatar is supposed to be the ally of the United States, and it spends billions on American politicians. But Qatar has, at least indirectly, funded many terrorist attacks against the United States.

Now Erdogan dreams of creating again the Ottoman Caliphate, and he wants Turkey to regain her lost territories in the Middle East. But this time the Germans and the Ottomans are not friends anymore. The Germans are promoting the Russian-German pipelines i.e. Nord Stream, and the Ottomans are promoting the Southern Energy Corridor, the Qatar-Turkey, the Iran-Turkey and the Turk Stream pipelines, which are competing pipelines to the German ones.

Map Germans VS Ottomans

Europe.JPG

The Russians have recently made an agreement with the Islamists of Turkey against the United States. An alliance that reminds the alliance that was formed in 1939 between the Nazis and the Communists against the British and the French. The agreement between the Russians and the Islamists of Turkey is targeting the Americans. Except that it is a lot worse than the Nazi-Communist alliance, because the Nazis and the Communists in 1939 had a lot more in common, both in terms of ideology and in terms of economic interests.

But now the Americans are also using the Islamists of Qatar against the Russians. And the Russians are using the Islamists of Iran against the United States. They are competing for influence over the Islamists, but it seems that it is the Russians who are mainly benefiting from their alliance with the Islamists.

The Chinese do not want direct involvement with the Islamists, because they are afraid of the repercussions that this would have at their Muslim province of Xin Jiang.

Things are not as clear as they were before. Until the end of WW2 it was mainly the Germans who were to benefit mostly from the Islamists. After the end of WW2 and the rise of the pro-Soviet socialist dictators it was mainly the Americans who were to benefit from their alliance with the Islamists. Now it seems that the Russians are the ones to benefit from their alliance with the Islamists, due to the war between the United States and the Islamic terror groups like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS etc. Even though the Muslim Brotherhood (Qatar) is spending huge amounts buying influence in the United States.

But Russia is not a true ally of the Islamists, because Russia does not have the same economic interests with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Pakistan. And that’s why we compare the alliance between Russia and the Islamists with the alliance between the Communists and the Nazis. Except that it is even worse.

 

The Alliance Between Hitler and the Muslim Brotherhood

A very nice article from the Wall Street Journal about the connection between Adolf Hitler and Islam. See WSJ “Why Hitler Wished He Was Muslim”, January 2015.

Hitler and the Muslim Brotherhood.JPG

Hitler believed that Islam was a religion for real men that lacked the flabbiness of Christianity and the filthiness of Judaism. The article also says that even though Muslim people fought on both sides of WW2, the Islamists fought mainly on the side of the Nazis. The Nazis even allowed Muslim people to enroll to the SS, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a famous Nazi collaborator, was recruiting Muslims for the SS. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was the man who convinced Hitler to exterminate the Jews of Europe, because the Jews who were leaving Europe were ending up in Jerusalem, where the Arabs and the Jews were fighting for Palestine. See “Hitler, Netanyahu and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/netanyahu-hitler-and-the-grand-mufti-of-jerusalem/

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was one of the closest associates of Hassan al-Banna, the man who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928, and who was another famous Nazi collaborator. For al-Banna’s alliance with the Nazis see Wikipedia “Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world : Fundamentalist Panislamists”.

The two battles that cost Hitler the Second World WAr were the Battle of El-Alamein (Egypt) and the Battle of Stalingrand (Russia). Therefore it was very normal that the Germans were trying to find allies in Egypt, and the Arab World in general, given that during WW1 the British had liberated the Arabs from the Ottomans, and they had very strong connections in the Arab World.

I believe that Hitler’s admiration for the Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood was more of a practical thing, because Hitler needed allies in the Middle East to fight the British and the French. And the same is true for the Muslim Brotherhood. The reason the Muslim Brotherhood loved Hitler so much was because its members were hoping that Hitler would exterminate the Jews of the Middle East, and he would also beat the British in Palestine.

What is very interesting is that the Germans were supporting the Islamists in Africa a long time before the Nazis came to power. The reason the Germans were doing that was to fight the English and the French who had colonized Africa. The English were controlling East Africa and the French were controlling West Africa, while the Germans had almost no influence in Africa. And since the Islamists wanted to fight the English and the French in Africa they were a natural ally for the Germans.

Map : African Colonies (French Colonies with light green and British colonies with pink)

African Colonies.JPG

http://empathosnationenterprises.com/empAthosWebGraphics/AfColony.gif

Actually the person who proposed that Germany should support Pan-Islamism in Africa, in order to fight the British and the French, Max von Oppenhaim, was a German Jewish diplomat. We are talking about the early 20th Century Germany which was not anti-Semitic. The main idea of Max von Oppenhaim was that Islamists wanted to fight the Brits and the French, and the Ottomans, who were German allies during WW1, could help the Germans to cause an Islamic revolt against the French and the English in Africa. See Western Journalism “The Unexpected Founding Fathers Of ISIS, And The Shocking Connection To Hitler”, December 2014.

Therefore Hitler’s alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamists was nothing new, since it was a tactic which had been used by Germany a long time before the Nazis rose to power.

The Americans used the same tactic when they supported the Islamists against the Soviets in 1979, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (1979-1989).

The Russians used the same tactic in Syria, when together with Assad they created the Islamic State to prevent the Americans from finding allies in the Sunni parts of Syria. See “How Putin and Assad Created the Islamic State”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/how-putin-and-assad-created-the-islamic-state/

 

Articles

 

“Why Hitler Wished He Was Muslim”, January 2015

1st – 8th  Paragraphs

‘It’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion,” Hitlercomplained to his pet architect Albert Speer. “Why did it have to be Christianity, with its meekness and flabbiness?” Islam was aMännerreligion—a “religion of men”—and hygienic too. The “soldiers of Islam” received a warrior’s heaven, “a real earthly paradise” with “houris” and “wine flowing.” This, Hitler argued, was much more suited to the “Germanic temperament” than the “Jewish filth and priestly twaddle” of Christianity.

For decades, historians have seen Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 as emulating Mussolini’s 1922 March on Rome. Not so, says Stefan Ihrig in “Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination.” Hitler also had Turkey in mind—and not just the 1908 march of the Young Turks on Constantinople, which brought down a government. After 1917, the bankrupt, defeated and cosmopolitan Ottoman Empire contracted into a vigorous “Turanic” nation-state. In the early 1920s, the new Turkey was the first “revisionist” power to opt out of the postwar system, retaking lost lands on the Syrian coast and control over the Strait of the Dardanelles. Hitler, Mr. Ihrig writes, saw Turkey as the model of a “prosperous and völkisch modern state.”

Through the 1920s and 1930s, Nazi publications lauded Turkey as a friend and forerunner. In 1922, for example, the Völkischer Beobachter, the Nazi Party’s weekly paper, praised Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the “Father of the Turks,” as a “real man,” embodying the “heroic spirit” and the Führerprinzip, or führer principle, that demanded absolute obedience. Atatürk’s subordination of Islam to the state anticipated Hitler’s strategy toward Christianity. The Nazis presented Turkey as stronger for having massacred its Armenians and expelling its Greeks. “Who,” Hitler asked in August 1939, “speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?”

This was not Germany’s first case of Türkenfieber, or Turk fever. Turkey had slid into World War I not by accident but because Germany had greased the tracks: training officers, supplying weapons, and drawing the country away from Britain and France. Hitler wanted to repeat the Kaiser’s experiment in search of a better result. By 1936, Germany supplied half of Turkey’s imports and bought half of Turkey’s exports, notably chromite, vital for steel production. But Atatürk, Mr. Ihrig writes, hedged his bets and dodged a “decisive friendship.” After Atatürk’s death in 1938, his successor, Ismet Inönü, tacked between the powers. In 1939, Turkey signed a treaty of mutual defense with Britain, but in 1941 Turkey agreed to a Treaty of Friendship with Germany, securing Hitler’s southern flank before he invaded Russia. Inönü hinted that Turkey would join the fight if Germany could conquer the Caucasus.

As David Motadel writes in “Islam and Nazi Germany’s War,” Muslims fought on both sides in World War II. But only Nazis and Islamists had a political-spiritual romance. Both groups hated Jews, Bolsheviks and liberal democracy. Both sought what Michel Foucault, praising the Iranian Revolution in 1979, would later call the spiritual-political “transfiguration of the world” by “combat.” The caliph, the Islamist Zaki Ali explained, was the “führer of the believers.” “Made by Jews, led by Jews—therewith Bolshevism is the natural enemy of Islam,” wrote Mahomed Sabry, a Berlin-based propagandist for the Muslim Brotherhood in “Islam, Judaism, Bolshevism,” a book that the Reich’s propaganda ministry recommended to journalists.

By late 1941, Germany controlled large Muslim populations in southeastern Europe and North Africa. Nazi policy extended the grand schemes of imperial Germany toward madly modern ends. To aid the “liberation struggle of Islam,” the propaganda ministry told journalists to praise “the Islamic world as a cultural factor,” avoid criticism of Islam, and substitute “anti-Jewish” for “anti-Semitic.” In April 1942, Hitler became the first European leader to declare that Islam was “incapable of terrorism.” As usual, it is hard to tell if the Führer set the tone or merely amplified his people’s obsessions.

Like Atatürk, Hitler saw the Turkish renaissance as racial, not religious. Germans of Turkish and Iranian descent were exempt from the Nuremberg Laws, but the racial status of German Arabs remained creatively indefinite, even after September 1943, when Muslims became eligible for membership in the Nazi Party. As the war went on, Balkan Muslims were added to the “racially valuable peoples of Europe.” The Palestinian Arab leader Haj Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, recruited thousands of these “Musligermanics” as the first non-Germanic volunteers for the SS. Soviet prisoners of Turkic origin volunteered too. In November 1944,Himmler and the Mufti created an SS-run school for military imams at Dresden.

Haj Amin al-Husseini, the founder of Palestinian nationalism, is notorious for his efforts to persuade the Nazis to extend their genocide of the Jews to the Palestine Mandate. The Mufti met Hitler and Himmler in Berlin in 1941 and asked the Nazis to guarantee that when the Wehrmacht drove the British from Palestine, Germany would establish an Arab regime and assist in the “removal” of its Jews. Hitler replied that the Reich would not intervene in the Mufti’s kingdom, other than to pursue their shared goal: “the annihilation of Jewry living in Arab space.” The Mufti settled in Berlin, befriendedAdolf Eichmann, and lobbied the governments of Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria to cancel a plan to transfer Jews to Palestine. Subsequently, some 400,000 Jews from these countries were sent to death camps.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-ataturk-in-the-nazi-imagination-by-stefan-ihrig-and-islam-and-nazi-germanys-war-by-david-motadel-1421441724

 

“Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world : Fundamentalist Panislamists”

Although the Mufti may be the most well-known Arab collaborator with Nazi Germany, there were other influential Arab and Muslim political leaders who made common cause with the Germans. Hassan al-Banna, an ally of the Mufti who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928, openly acknowledged the common interests with National Socialist anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist politics, and actively collaborated with the Nazis:

Al-Banna was also fascinated by Hitler. Both hated Jews, democracy, and Western culture. When the war broke out, the Muslim Brothers promised that they would rise up and help General Rommel and make sure to kill the Allies in Egypt. The Muslim Brothers representative for Palestine, the grand Mufti of Jerusalem (al-Husayni), worked for the Third Reich during the war and played a major role in the recruitment of the SS Arab division that would be known as the “SS Handjar.” The “Himmler to Mufti telegram” of November 1943 attested the alliance between Nazi Germany and the Mufti: “the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between the National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world.” The Muslim Brothers were not prosecuted after the war despite the participation of the Mufti and “freedom-loving Muslims” in the Holocaust. In the second half of the 1930s, the Muslim Brothers were strongly engaged to help the Palestinians. They raised and channelled funds to fight the Jews, and intensified contacts with religious leaders in Palestine. Banna was interned from 1941 to February 1942 due to his “critic” of the British presence. The secret apparatus of the Muslim Brothers bombed British clubs during the Second World War and assassinated Egyptian officials. In 1945, the Palestinian question became even more explosive, and the Muslim Brothers were organizing violent demonstrations against the Jews. Military training centers were set up to send volunteers in Palestine to fight “Zionism.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world#Fundamentalist_Pan-Islamists

 

“The Unexpected Founding Fathers Of ISIS, And The Shocking Connection To Hitler”, December 2014

6th – 9th Paragraphs

That diplomat was Max Von Oppenheim, born in Cologne in 1860 to a Jewish banking family whose members converted to Catholicism after his birth.

Von Oppenheim traveled throughout the Middle East in the last years of the 19th century, visiting Syria, Mesopotamia (now called Iraq), the Persian Gulf, Morocco, and Egypt. After his return to Germany, he published his observations in a two-volume book. He studied law and, later, Arabic in Egypt, and in 1896 became an attaché at Germany’s embassy in Cairo, Egypt.

During that Egyptian stint, Von Oppenheim authored 467 reports on the Middle East, including a lengthy report on the rise of the Pan-Islamic movement. These influenced and, to an extent, even determined German policies in the region. He eventually became a key adviser to the German emperor Wilhelm.

On the eve of Wilhelm’s visit to the Middle East in 1889, Von Oppenheim recommended that Germany support the emerging Islamist movement. This, he argued, would benefit German interests in the region. On one hand, the Germans were without colonies in the Middle East. On the other, the area’s Muslims sought an end to the dominance of the Christian powers – Great Britain, France, and Russia – in a region with a Muslim-majority population. There was therefore a shared interest. The Muslims alone were not able to bring an end to foreign domination. And Germany was anxious to expand its influence in the Middle East at the expense of the French and British.

10th– 16th Paragraphs

In his report to the emperor on Pan-Islamism, Von Oppenheim explained that the Muslims already had established a Caliphate, an overarching state, in the Middle East in the seventh century and that state had existed for centuries. The German diplomat argued that the Ottoman Turks had managed to breathe new life into this state and had succeeded in attracting Muslim loyalty to the Sultan/Caliph.

The Muslim masses increasingly viewed the Ottoman leader as the protector of Islam and its holy sites, Von Oppenheim wrote. He concluded that if the Sultan would issue a fatwa calling for Jihad, three hundred million Muslims could be counted upon to rise in revolt and put an end to Anglo-French dominance in the Middle East.

The mission, in his words, was therefore “to unleash Muslim fanaticism that would border on madness”.

Von Oppenheim’s plan led to a pact between Germany and the Ottoman Empire. However, the concept of a massive jihad that might have produced a German-Turkish victory over the Allies in the First World War failed completely.

Mainly, this was the result of fundamental errors in his analysis. Von Oppenheim ignored the internal divisions in the Muslim world, for instance. And he over-estimated the extent of Arab acceptance of the Turkish Caliph’s authority.

But along with a group of German Middle East experts, Von Oppenheim succeeded in establishing Islamist groups that did in fact begin to execute the planned Jihad in certain Muslim countries.

In November 1914, he dispatched a 136-page plan entitled “Revolutionizing the Islamic territories of our enemies” to his emperor. The plan was quickly approved and Von Oppenheim’s team was provided with the necessary funds. Shortly afterwards, Von Oppenheim’s terrorist groups began deploying suicide attacks as a means of achieving their goals. In India, for instance, a group of 25 Jihadists attacked British targets.

22nd– 32nd Paragraphs

Following the failure of Von Oppenheim’s plan in World War I, a second German attempt was made by Hitler through his alliance with the Islamist, Haj Amin al-Husseini.

Husseini originally harbored pan-Arab ambitions, aspiring to become the leader of the Arab world. He eventually settled for becoming the Grand Mufti of Palestine and the de facto leader of the Palestinian Arabs.

Husseini and Hitler shared a deep hatred of the Jews and other common interests. Hitler sought an Arab leader who would promote his agenda of world domination in the Middle East. Husseini in turn needed a Western ally who would prevent the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine and put an end to Western domination of Muslim countries.

Husseini’s collaboration with the Nazis is well known. It went well beyond preventing the emergence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. For example, Hitler made the decision to embrace the so-called ‘Entlosung,’ the strategy of systematically exterminating European Jewry, a few hours after a meeting with Husseini. During that meeting, Husseini had exerted pressure on Hitler to solve the “Jewish problem” once and for all.

In 1944, Husseini succeeded in preventing a deal between the Germans and the Allied forces in which 5,000 Jewish children would be exchanged for Allied prisoners of war, and frustrated the escape of 14,000 Jewish children from Hungary. Almost all of these children were later murdered in the Nazi death camps.

Husseini spent much of World War II living in Berlin, establishing his headquarters in a confiscated Jewish mansion. The Nazis provided him with funds to undertake a range of Islamic projects in Europe and beyond.

He developed a plan to establish death camps in Arab countries for the intended extermination of the Jews in the Middle East. This failed because of the 1942 defeat of the advancing German army at El Alamein, Egypt, and the collapse of Hitler’s Africa Korps. Most of the Middle East’s Jews thus escaped the Holocaust.

Husseini escaped prosecution for war crimes after World War II, largely for political reasons. He was thus able to continue to lead the jihad against Israel and keep the Islamist movement alive. In May 1946, carrying a false passport, he escaped from French custody and fled to Egypt. Once in Cairo, he founded a new army – al-Jihad al-Muqaddas – under the leadership of another Nazi collaborator, al-Qawuqii. With a training camp near the Libyan border, its soldiers prepared for the ”struggle against the Zionists” and participated in the War of Independence in 1948.

Following the Arab defeat in the 1948 war, Husseini united the Islamists under his leadership in a new organization called the Islamic World Congress (IWC). Among its other prominent members: Sayyid Qutb, the ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood; and the Iranian Islamic spiritual leader Abd al-Qasim al-Kashani. One of Kashani’s students was Ruhollah Khomeini who went on in 1979 to lead Iran’s Islamic revolution.

Husseini moved the headquarters of the Islamic World Congress (IWC) to Karachi, Pakistan, in 1949. He appointed Dr. Inamullah Khan as its Secretary General. Khan, known for his hatred of Jews, nevertheless became the recipient of the prestigious 1988 Templeton Prize for Progress. This prize had been awarded in previous years to Mother Teresa and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Syrian Islamist Maaruf al-Dawalibi, who had also collaborated with the Nazis, was Husseini’s successor. In 1984, he declared at a United Nations seminar that Hitler had been right when he wanted to exterminate the Jews because of their belief that they were God’s chosen people. In the same speech, he repeated the classic anti-Semitic blood libel that the Talmud commands the Jews to drink the blood of non-Jews at Passover.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/unlikely-founding-fathers-islamic-state/

 

“Muslim Brotherhood and Hitler”

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/hitler-muslim-brotherhood.html

 

“Muslim Brotherhood”

13th – 33rd Paragraphs

The Muslim Brotherhood began as a social and religious organization in Egypt whose members regarded Islamas a way of life. Many Syrian supporters founded their own branches in Syria, one of which was the Aleppo branch, founded in 1935. The Aleppo branch eventually became the Syrian headquarters of the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood expanded its political involvement as the Party of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun.

The Brotherhood’s founder, al-Banna, was a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. During the 1930s, the Brotherhood became more political in nature and an officially political group in 1939. Over the years, the organization developed an apparatus through which to provide military training to its followers and to engage in political terrorism against Egyptian Coptic Christians and government officials.

In 1942, during World War II, Hassan al-Banna set up more Brotherhood branches in Transjordan and Palestine. The headquarters of the Syrian branch moved to Damascus in 1944. After World War II, Egyptian members took violent action against King Farouk’s government. When the organization was banned in Egypt, hundreds moved to Transjordan. Many also participated in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-1949.

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood initially supported Gamal Abd an-Nasser’s secular government and cooperated with it, but resisted left-wing influences. A Muslim Brother assassinated Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmud Fahmi Nokrashi on December 28, 1948. The Brotherhood was banned, and al-Banna himself was killed by government agents in Cairo in February 1949.

Muslim Brother Abdul Munim Abdul Rauf allegedly tried to kill Nasser on October 26, 1954. The Brotherhood was outlawed again and more than 4,000 of its members were imprisoned, including Sayyid Qutb, who later became the most influential intellectual of the group. He wrote influential books while in prison. More members moved to JordanLebanonSaudi Arabia, and Syria.

The organization opposed the alliance Egypt had with the USSR at the time, and opposed the communist influence in Egypt, to the extent that it was reportedly supported by the CIA during the 1960s.

Nasser legalized the Brotherhood again in 1964, and released all prisoners. After claiming more assassination attempts against him, he had leaders executed in 1966 and imprisoned most others again.

Nasser’s successor in EgyptAnwar Sadat, promised reforms, and that he would implement Shariah. However, Sadat’s peace treaty with Israel in 1979 angered the Brotherhood, which led to his assassination in 1981.

In the 1950s, Jordanian members supported King Hussein of Jordan against political opposition and against Nasser’s attempts to overthrow him. When the King banned political parties in Jordan in 1957, the Brotherhood was exempted.

The Syrian branch was the next to be banned when Syria joined Egypt in the United Arab Republic (UAR) in 1958. The Brotherhood went underground. When Syria left the UAR 1961, the Brotherhood won 10 seats in the next elections. However, the Ba’th coup in 1963 forced them underground once more, alongside all the other political groups.

The appointment of Hafez al-Assad, an Alawite Muslim, as the Syrian president in 1971 angered the Brotherhood even more because the majority of Muslims do not consider Alawites true Muslims at all. Assad initially tried to placate them, but made very little progress. Assad’s support of Maronites in the Lebanese Civil War made the Brotherhood re-declare its jihad. They began a campaign of strikes and terrorist actions. In 1979, they killed 83 Alawite cadets in the Aleppo artillery school. Assad’s attempts to calm them by changing officials and releasing political prisoners did not help. Eventually the army was used to restore order by force.

An assassination attempt against Assad on June 25, 1980, was the last straw. Assad made the Syrian parliament declare Brotherhood membership a capital offense and sent the army against them. In the operation, which lasted until February of 1982, the Syrian army practically wiped out the Brotherhood, killing an unknown but large number of people in the Hama Massacre. The Syrian branch disappeared, and the survivors fled to join Islamic organizations in other countries.

The Saudi Arabian branch convinced king Ibn Saud to let them start the Islamic University in Medina in 1961. After the Six-Day War in 1967, the movement as a whole split into moderates and radicals. The latter faction in Syria declared jihad against the Ba’th party leaders. King Hussein allowed the Jordanian branch to give military training to Brotherhood rebels in Jordan.

In 1973, the Israeli government allowed local leader Ahmad Yassin to run social, religious and welfare institutions among Palestinian Muslims. In 1983, he was arrested for illegal possession of firearms and sentenced to prison. When he was released 1985, he became more popular then ever. When the first Intifadabegan in 1987, he became one of the founders of Hamas.

In 1984, the Muslim Brotherhood was partially reaccepted in Egypt as a religious organization, but was placed under heavy scrutiny by security forces. It remains a source of friction.

In 1989, the Jordanian Brotherhood’s political wing, the Islamic Action Front, won 23 out of 80 seats in Jordan’s parliament. King Hussein tried to limit their influence by changing the election laws, but in the 1993 elections, they became the largest group in the parliament. They strongly opposed the Jordanian-Israeli Peace Treaty in 1994.

In the early days of the Soviet-Afghan war, the Muslim Brotherhood was seen as a constituent part of the Afghan anti-communist opposition.

The resistance movement in Afghanistan formed in opposition to the leftist policies of King Zahir Shah. The movement had connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Russian government alleges that the Muslim Brotherhood is a key force in the ongoing Chechen revolt. Russian officials accused the Muslim Brotherhood of planning the December 27, 2002 suicide car bombing of the headquarters of the Russian-backed government in Grozny, Chechnya.

Though the Muslim Brotherhood is now viewed as a more moderate group than other Islamist organizations operation in the Middle East, such as al-Qaida, and has participated in free elections in countries where they were permitted to, messages delivered by the group’s Supreme Guides have made clear the Brotherhood remains committed to militancy. In September 2010, Muhammad Badi’ gave a sermon in which he said, “… the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death, just as the enemies pursue life.”

In an effort to possibly hide their militant Islamit rules from the eyes of Western observers, the Brotherhood removed the organizational by-laws from their main English language website in mid-February 2011. The bylaws, which were still available to Arabic readers, have long been a source of discussion and debate because of the group’s stated goal of establishing an Islamic state while uniting Muslims around the world. For example, section E of the bylaws states, “Need to work on establishing the Islamic State, which seeks to effectively implement the provisions of Islam and its teachings.” Likewise, Section G reads as follows: “The sincere support for a global cooperation in accordance with the provisions of the Islamic Sharia … and constructive participation towards building a new basis of human civilization as is ensured by the overall teachings of Islam.”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/muslimbrotherhood.html

 

 

The Myth of the Iran-Iraq-Syria Pipeline

Many times in the past I have referred to the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, as a competing pipeline to the Qatar-Turkey one. That pipeline does not exist. This is a shia pipeline which would have to traverse the Sunni parts of Iraq and Syria before reaching the Alawite part of Syria, and it would be at the mercy of the Sunnis.

Map 1

Χάρτης Σουνιτικοί Σιιτικοί Αγωγοί.JPG

Moreover the natural gas would have to be liquefied in Syria, and then go through the process of regasification to bring the natural gas back to its original form in very expensive facilities of the importing country. This is a very expensive process. Moreover the natural gas would have to be carried by very expensive LNG carriers which are a lot more expensive than the traditional oil tankers.

That means the natural gas of a potential Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline would be constantly under the threat of Sunni sabotage, and its gas would be so expensive that it could not compete with the Russian and Algerian natural gas that reaches Europe through pipeline networks. The Iran-Iraq-Syria was simply an excuse for Assad to refuse the Qatar-Turkey.

The competing pipelines, the ones which could compete with the Russian and Algerian natural gas in Europe, are the Qatar-Turkey-Europe pipeline, which is a Sunni pipeline that would be built in the Sunni Middle East, the Iran-Turkey-Europe pipeline, and the Turkmenistan-Turkey-Europe pipeline.

Map 2

Map of Oil and Gas.jpg

If in your analysis you take into account the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline you will be misled to the wrong conclusions. You must take into account the Qatar-Turkey, the Iran-Turkey, the Iraq-Turkey and the Turkmenistan-Azerbaijan-Turkey pipelines. And to a lesser extent the Egypt-Israel-Turkey pipeline.

Natural Gas Pipelines Map.JPG

Orange-Russia, Purple-Turkmenistan, Green-Iran, Red-Qatar

Natural Gas Pipelines Middle East.JPG

 

Sean Penn – Muslim Brotherhood

Sean Penn is one of the famous Hollywood actors who are very often used as a weapon against the United States by the Communist dictators of Latin America and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Image Sean Penn – Hugo Chavez

penn chavez.JPG

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/noel-sheppard/2011/06/06/sean-penn-defends-hugo-chavez-asks-us-lift-venezuelas-economic

Sean Penn was a friend of Hugo Chavez, the Communist dictator of Venezuela, and he came very close to interviewing Fidel Castro, the Communist dictator of Cuba, at a time Fidel Castro had stopped giving interviews.

Cuba is a satellite of Venezuela and it receives oil subsidies, and I guess the interview was arranged by Venezuelan authorities. In the end Sean Penn interviewed Raul Castro. See Guardian “Sean Penn seeks interview with Fidel Castro in Cuba for Vanity Fair”, October 2009.

Argentina was very often cooperating with the alliance between Muslim Brotherhood (Iran, Qatar, Sudan, Turkey) and the Communist dictators of Latin America (Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua), and as expected Sean Penn supported Argentina and not England over the issue of the Falkland Islands. See Guardian “Sean Penn backs Argentina over Falkland Islands”, February 2012.

Sean Penn is linked to Iran, and as you can read at the following CNN article he played a role when Iran released two Americans who were imprisoned in Iran. See CNN “Sean Penn played a role in hikers’ release from Iran”, September 2011.

You can also see Scarlett Johannson in the picture. For many years Scarlett Johannson was in the leftist pro-Arab charity organization Oxfam.

At the following image you can see Sean Penn at a dinner with the Emir of Qatar.

Penn Johansson Al Thani.JPG

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/36202/sean-penn-scarlett-johansson-fete-al-jazeeras-owners/

I have written about Hezbollah’s cooperation with the drug cartels of Mexico and Colombia, and I have said about how Venezuela allows Hezbollah to use her territory to communicate with the drug cartels. See “The Hezbollah-Al-Qaeda Axis”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/the-hezbollah-al-qaeda-axis/

Not surprisingly Sean Penn managed to interview the largest drug lord of Mexico, and he was not very tough in the way he described him. I guess the interview was arranged by Venezuela, Cuba or Hezbollah. See Newsmax “7 Reasons Sean Penn Hates America and Why We Hate Him”, January 2016.

As expected Sean Penn was a strong critic of George Bush, and before the American attack to Iraq in 2003 Sean Penn was in Iraq meeting the closest associates of Saddam Hussein. See abcnews “Sean Penn Questions U.S. Policy, Visits Iraq”, December 2002.

Sean Penn is very pro-refugee, which is basically the demographic Jihad promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2016 Sean Penn made a movie for the refugees in order to indirectly promote the open borders with the Muslim world and to blame the West for the refugees. See Truth Revolt “Sean Penn’s Pro-Refugee ‘Epic’ Bombs at Cannes”, May 2016.

Sean Penn receives millions of dollars for his movies.

Articles

“Sean Penn seeks interview with Fidel Castro in Cuba for Vanity Fair”, October 2009

The actor Sean Penn has flown to Cuba to chase what would be the biggest scoop of his career as a part-time journalist: an interview with Fidel Castro.

The Oscar winner, who last year bagged interviews with Raúl Castro and Hugo Chávez, is reportedly on assignment for Vanity Fair in his quest to meet Cuba’s former president.

In a sign of Havana’s approval the communist party newspaper Granma covered Penn’s visit yesterday to the Island of Youth, where he visited a gallery and met artists.

According to the online magazine tmz.com Penn hopes to ask Fidel about Cuba’s evolving relationship with the Obama administration.

The interview – which has not been confirmed – would be a coup for the Hollywood star’s brand of activist journalism. No western journalist has seen let alone interviewed the 83-year-old leader since an intestinal illness forced him from public view three years ago. Fidel stepped aside from the presidency but remains influential in Cuba – and an iconic, enigmatic figure abroad.

Penn, an outspoken liberal and anti-war activist, took a break from filming to visit Iraq as a journalist in 2004. He followed up with a visit to Iran the following year and then befriended Chávez.

Venezuela’s socialist president, who seldom gives interviews, gave ample access to Penn and arranged an interview with Raúl Castro, Cuba’s even more interview-shy president. The stories were published in The Nation and the Huffington Post.

Critics say the actor is too soft in the interviews and should leave journalism to professionals. “Why does someone like Penn think he can do this job, which isn’t his job?” asked The New Yorker.

Chávez and the Castros also opened their doors to Oliver Stone, another Hollywood leftist. He made sympathetic documentaries about his subjects, a contrast with most US media hostility to the Latin American presidents.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/oct/27/sean-penn-fidel-castro-vanity-fair

 

“Sean Penn backs Argentina over Falkland Islands”, February 2012

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/feb/14/sean-penn-argentina-falkland-islands

 

“Sean Penn Questions U.S. Policy, Visits Iraq”, December 2002

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=118513

 

“Actor pours scorn on Bush and Iraq conflict”, May 2003

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/31/usa.filmnews

 

“7 Reasons Sean Penn Hates America and Why We Hate Him”, January 2016

Actor Sean Penn has come under heavy fire for setting up a secret interview with Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, Mexico’s foremost drug lord, in October, just months after he escaped from prison.

Penn detailed the interview in a new article for Rolling Stone published Saturday, one day after Guzmán was re-captured by Mexican authorities.

The episode is just the latest in a long line of Penn’s strange political stunts — antics that are consistently anti-American, and seem to be designed to indulge the actor’s ego more than anything else.

Gathered below are seven ways that Sean Penn’s behavior has shown he hates America, and why he’s drawn just as much hate in return.

  1. He interviewed El Chapo — Vox.com, a liberal political website that is often sympatheticto blaming America for the all of the world’s troubles, could not bring itself to defend Penn during his latest bout of pseudo-journalistic derring-do. “Reading Penn’s article, it’s impossible not to see him as a useful idiot — a painfully naive man who gained access to Guzman because he’s famous, and because Guzman knew Penn would portray him in a flattering light,” Vox wrote. 

The publication concludes that Penn is “an angry critic of what he sees as American hegemony in the world — and, therefore, a self-styled crusader intent on finding out whether the people America calls evil are really as bad as advertised.” 

The liberal Los Angeles Times said much the same: “That Penn seemed to offer only minimal misgivings toward Guzman’s crimes — or, for that matter, seemed oblivious to how the drug kingpin might use the sit-down to enlarge his own myth or folk-hero status — only made things worse.”

  1. He interviewed Raul Castro — In 2008, when Fidel Castro’s brother took over Cuba’s presidency, Sean Penn traveled to Havana to pal aroundwith the dictator. He published an account of the trip in The Nation. Castro expressed interest in having a conversation with President Barack Obama, placing Penn in a de facto diplomatic situation for which he was not trained and had no authority to speak on behalf of America.
    3. He met with Fidel Castro — According to Time magazine, “In the 2008 [Raul Castro]piece, Penn mentions that he had previously met with Fidel Castro. A year later, the actor and liberal activist reportedly flew to Cuba to meet with him again for a Vanity Fair assignment. It’s unclear if that interview ever panned out, since no article was ever published.”
    4. He befriended and defended Hugo Chavez — According to CNN, Sean Penn traveled to South America several times to meet with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. After Chavez died in 2013, Penn said, “Today the people of the United States lost a friend it never knew it had. And poor people around the world lost a champion. I lost a friend I was blessed to have.” 

He also suggested anyone who called Chavez a dictator should be jailed: “Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies,” he told Bill Maher in 2010, according to The Guardian.
The U.K. newspaper also reported that Penn, Oliver Stone, and Danny Glover, have all expressed support for the socialist dictator, and “have remained steadfast” in that support through several humanitarian disasters the country has faced.
5. He insulted and lectured President Bush — In 2002, Penn spent $56,000 to publish an open letter in The Washington Post criticizing President George W. Bush. The letter included personal insults like, “You lead, it seems, through a blood-lined sense of entitlement.” The New York Daily News reported that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez later used Penn’s letter to trash the U.S. in some of his own public speeches.
6. He met with one of Saddam Hussein’s top aides — According to the New York Post, “During the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the two-time Oscar winner infamously traveled to Baghdad to — in his words — ‘pursue a deeper understanding of the conflict’ and ‘find my own voice on matters of conscience.'” While there, he reportedly met with Hussein’s then-Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who would eventually surrender to U.S. forces and be found guilty of past murders and crimes against humanity.
7. He seemingly sided with Argentina regarding the Falklands — According to CNN, “As Argentina and the United Nations squared off over the [Falkland Islands] territory, which Argentina calls Las Malvinas, Penn seemed to take the South American country’s side. He reportedly described Prince William’s 2012 deployment there on a military mission as ‘unthinkable.’ And on a visit to South America, he called the islands the Malvinas, which sparked criticism of the actor on the other side of the Atlantic.”
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/sean-penn-america-el-chapo/2016/01/11/id/709003/

 

Ο Σον Πεν και η Σκάρλετ Γιόχανσον καλεσμένοι του Εμίρη του Κατάρ

Sean Penn & Scarlett Johansson Fete Al-Jazeera’s Owners

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/36202/sean-penn-scarlett-johansson-fete-al-jazeeras-owners/

 

“Sean Penn played a role in hikers’ release from Iran”, September 2011

1st, 2nd Paragraphs

Actor Sean Penn helped play a role in securing this week’s release of two U.S. hikers imprisoned in Iran for more than two years, his representative confirmed Friday.

The report was first published by the Reuters news agency, which cited a source close to the release process as saying that Penn flew to Venezuela months ago to speak about the hikers’ plight with President Hugo Chavez, an ally of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/23/showbiz/sean-penn-hikers/

 

“Sean Penn, Michael Moore and Oliver Stone pay tribute to Hugo Chávez”

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/mar/06/hugo-chavez-hollywood-tribute

 

“Sean Penn’s Pro-Refugee ‘Epic’ Bombs at Cannes”, May 2016

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/sean-penns-pro-refugee-epic-bombs-cannes-no-i-mean-really-bombs

 

“The Hezbollah-Al-Qaeda Axis”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/the-hezbollah-al-qaeda-axis/

Quentin Tarantino – Muslim Brotherhood

I saw “The Hateful Eight”, which is one more crappy movie from Quentin Tarantino. Another crappy Tarantino movie full of violence and socialist propaganda.

The Hateful Eight

Capture.JPG

The time is an effort to make black Americans hate white Americans for the way they were treated during the previous centuries. The movie comes to the theatres when the communist terrorist organization Black Lives Matter is asking for compensations to be paid to black Americans. The Communist terrorists of Black Lives Matter ask black people to kill American policemen.

The terrorist organization Black Lives Matter is a very precious tool for the Islamists and the Communists who are fighting the United States. In United States there are not many Muslims, and the Islamists and the Communist dictators of Latin American cannot count on Islamists to fight America. So they are using Hollywood and the American academics to make black Americans hate white Americans, in order to cause a civil war in United States.

Quentin Tarantino is getting millions of dollars for his movies, and he is promoting the Black Lives Matter propaganda, calling American policemen “murderers”.

Image Quentin Tarantino

tarantino.JPG

The unions of American policemen asked their members to boycott Tarantino’s movies. See Reuters “Tarantino says won’t be intimidated over movie boycott calls”, November 2015.

See also the articles of the Daily Caller below.

Unfortunately if you only read the New York Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post etc, you will have a wrong view of what is happening. You need to read Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the National Review, the Washington Institute etc, if you want to understand the propaganda used against the United States by the Communist dictators of Latin America and the Islamists. See “The Financing of Hollywood’s Socialist Propaganda”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/05/12/the-financing-of-hollywoods-socialist-propaganda/

In “Hateful Eight” Tarantino is referring constantly to the way white people were treating black people, and he does it so well that many black people will leave the theatre with their hearts full of hate for white Americans.

As expected Tarantino thinks Obama is a fantastic president. See the Daily Caller “Quentin Tarantino: ‘Obama Is Fantastic”, August 2015.

Obama is the son of a black Muslim immigrant from Africa, who became the President of the Untied States. And Obama says that racism is in the DNA of American people. That’s why Tarantino likes Obama so much. They both hate American people so much. In just 8 years Obama doubled the national debt of the United States. Doubling the national debt is a much greater threat than Al-Qaeda for the United States.

 

Articles

“Tarantino says won’t be intimidated over movie boycott calls”, November 2015

http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-police-tarantino-idUSL1N12Y3PI20151103

“Quentin Tarantino Calls Cops ‘Murderers’ At Anti-Police Rally”, October 2015

Quentin Tarantino called the cops to his Los Angeles home just days before he fired up an anti-cop rally when he labeled police as “murderers.” (RELATED: Quentin Tarantino Calls Cops ‘Murderers’ At Anti-Police Rally)

The Los Angeles Police Department responded to a call at the director’s home after he found an intruder in his back yard. Tarantino told the man to leave, and he called the cops after the intruder wouldn’t.

TMZ reports that the cops arrived minutes later and “talked to the man without incident

This was 13 days before Tarantino attended an anti-police brutality rally in Washington Square Park in New York City.
When I see murders, I do not stand by,” Tarantino said. “I have to call a murder a murder and I have to call the murderers the murderers

“I’m a human being with a conscience. And if you believe there’s murder going on then you need to rise up and stand up against it. I’m here to say I’m on the side of the murdered.” (RELATED: Quentin Tarantino Backtracks: ‘All Cops Are Not Murderers’)

An insider at the LAPD told TMZ that although they think Tarantino is “an ass,” they will continue to respond to calls at his home.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/25/quentin-tarantino-calls-cops-murderers-at-anti-police-rally/

 

“Quentin Tarantino Called Cops Days Before Attending Anti-Police Rally”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/04/quentin-tarantino-called-cops-days-before-attending-anti-police-rally/

 

“Quentin Tarantino: ‘Obama Is Fantastic”, August 2015

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/24/quentin-tarantino-obama-is-fantastic/

 

“Quentin Tarantino Blames ‘White Supremacy’ For Police Brutality”, April 2015

Quentin Tarantino says he was at an “anti-police brutality rally” because there is a “problem of white supremacy in this country.”

Appearing on MSNBC’s “All In with Chris Hayes” Wednesday, Tarantino claimed that he was “surprised” by the reactions from police unions who called for boycotts of his upcoming movie because “I was under the impression I was an American and that I had First Amendment rights and there was no problem with me going to an anti-police brutality protest and speaking my mind.”

Police unions across the country called for a boycott of Tarantino films due to the director insisting, “When I see murders, I do not stand by. I have to call a murder a murder and I have to call the murderers the murderers.” (RELATED: Quentin Tarantino Calls Cops ‘Murderers’ At Anti-Police Rally)

Tarantino explained that he was at the rally, put on by Rise Up October because he agrees with there messages and “ultimately what I feel is a problem of white supremacy in this country.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/04/quentin-tarantino-blames-white-supremacy-in-america-for-police-brutality-video/

 

 

The Napoleonic Wars and the Congress of Vienna in 1814

With the “French and Indian War” of 1754-1763 the British defeated the French, and most of the French colonies of North America became British colonies. See “French and Indian War” (1754-1763).

Map American Colonies

American Colonies.JPG

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/c2/ef/e0/c2efe025fbcb284759a85e609dc92afb.jpg

The British believed that a part of the cost of the Anglo-French War, and the increased military cost of protecting the colonies, should be partially covered by their American citizens with increased taxation. However the Americans were not at all happy with the prospect of increased taxation, and with the help of the French they started the American Revolutionary War, and they indeed gained their independence. See Wikipedia “American Revolutionary War” (1775-1783)

The wars with the British, and the large military support to the American Independence War, the French economy collapsed and the French revolution broke out in 1789. See Wikipedia “French Revolution” (1789).

Napoleon, a military officer and a hero of the French Revolution, became the new dictator of France. Napoleon was the Hitler of 19th Century, and with his great army he managed to conquer most of Europe.

At the time Germany was a sum of small states, and the great powers that Napoleon had to face were Great Britain, Russia and Austria. Napoleon tried to assert himself on all of them.

Map Europe 1815

Europe_1815_map_en.png

In 1805, at the Battle of Trafalgar, the British destroyed Napoleon’s Navy, and Great Britain became the undisputed greatest naval power of Europe and the world. After Trafalgar Napoleon had no hope of defeating the English with his superior army, because after the destruction of his navy he did not have the means to invade Great Britain. See Wikipedia Battle of Trafalgar”.

The same year, in 1805, with the Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon defeated the Russian and Austrian armies, and France became the undisputed greatest military power of Europe. See Wikipedia “Battle of Austerlitz”.

Therefore in 1805, with the Battles of Trafalgar and Austerlitz, Great Britain and France became the greatest naval and military powers of Europe respectively. France could no longer defeat Great Britain in the seas and Great Britain could no longer defeat France in Europe.

In 1806 Napoleon used his superior army to forbid the other European countries from importing British goods, in an attempt to develop the French industry and to weaken the Brits. The Russians, and other Europeans, who were importing goods from Great Britain, were not pleased with Napoleon’s Continental System. See Wikipedia “Continental System”.

To retaliate, the British used their superior navy to forbid the Americans from importing French goods and from exporting raw materials to France. The Americans were not pleased at all with the restrictions imposed on them by the British, because these restrictions hurt their economy.

At some point the Russians had enough with Napoleon, and they abandon Napoleon’s embargo on British goods, and they resumed trading with the British. To retaliate, Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812, but like Hitler in 1941, he lost his army.

The British also had to fight a war in 1812 with the Americans as a result of the trade restrictions they had imposed on them. See Wikipedia  “War of 1812” (Anglo-American War 1812-1814).

Once Napoleon was defeated, the European powers wanted to establish a new world order which would prevent a single European power from conquering Europe, like Napoleon had just done. Their main worry was to strengthen France’s neighbors i.e. the Netherlands and Belgium at the North, Italy at the South, and Prussia at the West.

At the Congress of Vienna the Prussians (Germans) and the Russians agreed that Prussia would take Saxony and Russia would take Poland, something that alarmed the British and the Austrians, because they thought that Russia would become very strong if she was to annex Poland. Great Britain and Austria were ready to ally with the defeated France in order to stop Russia from taking Poland, and the negotiations came close to collapse.

In the end diplomacy won and the great powers agreed on a new European order which gave Europe peace and prosperity for one hundred years, until World War 1 broke out in 1914.

Map

Χάρτης Ευρώπης 1815.JPG

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Map_congress_of_vienna.jpg

 

Article

“French and Indian War” (1754-1763)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War

“American Revolutionary War” (1775-1783)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

“French Revolution” (1789)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

“Battle of Trafalgar” (1805) (Anglo-French Naval Battle)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Trafalgar

Battle of Austerlitz (1805) (France VS Rus+Austr)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Austerlitz

“Continental System” (1806)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_System

“The Continental System (1806-1807)”

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/napoleonic/section4.rhtml

“War of 1812” (Anglo-American War 1812-1815)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

 

10 Things You Didn’t Know About the Congress of Vienna that Influence Us Today

5th Paragraph

First and foremost, the Congress statesmen desired a territorial settlement that would preserve the peace. Since they saw the greatest threat to Europe as coming from France, they surrounded her with a series of buffer states: Belgium was united with the Netherlands to the northeast; the Italian state of Piedmont was given control of Genoa to the south; and Prussia was awarded the Rhineland to the west. All the states of Europe were invited to sign the Vienna “Final Act,” making it the cornerstone of public law in Europe. No war between any of the great powers occurred for the next 40 years, until the Crimean War, and no major war on the scale of the Napoleonic Wars took place until the outbreak of World War I a century later.

9th Paragraph

The allied powers established the principle of freedom of navigation on major European waterways, and established the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine, arguably the oldest working international commission still in existence http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/158263

“The Causes of the French Revolution”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/the-causes-of-the-french-revolution-1789/

“The war of 1812 (1809-1815)”

1st, 2nd Paragraphs

Thomas Jefferson served his second term as US President from 1804 to 1808. During his term, in 1805, the world balance of power shook as Admiral Nelson’s ships beat Napoleon’s navy at the Battle of Trafalgar, and as Napoleon bested the allied Russo- Austrian forces at Austerlitz that same year. France now had unquestionable control of the European continent, and Britain, held unquestionable mastery of the seas. For the next decade, neither power would seek to challenge the other in their element. The two European powers took to fighting each other indirectly, through economic warfare. Napoleon, hoping to strangle Britain’s economy by preventing British goods from being exported to Europe, closed off all European ports in his Continental System.

As a countermeasure, in 1806 Britain passed the Orders in Council. According to these regulations, US ships could not land at a European port without first stopping at a British port. Napoleon retaliated with a harsh measure, demanding the seizure of any ship that landed in Europe after stopping in Britain. The warring French and English economic measures wreaked havoc with the American economy.

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/warof1812/section1.rhtml

“Napoleonic Wars and the Economy”

http://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/economy/napolean-wars-economy.php

“The Continental System (1806-1807)”

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/napoleonic/section4.rhtml

“The Congress of Vienna” (1814-1815)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Vienna

 

 

Brad Pitt – Muslim Brotherhood

I always say that Hollywood and the American universities are the true castles of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Communist dictators of Latin American, in their effort to attack the United States. They fund American universities to buy communist academics, and they fund big Hollywood productions to spread their propaganda through the shining actors and actresses of Hollywood.

Here is another small sample with Brad Pitt this time, starring in “Killing Them Softly”

Killing them softlyJPG.JPG

 

“Killing Them Softly” is a movie for retards, full of violence, anti-Americanism and socialist propaganda.

At the following scene you can see Obama on tv, saying that American people are united, they are one people. And the handsome Brad says that America was created because the Americans wanted to avoid paying taxes to the British, and that America is not a community, it is not a country, but it is simply a business instead. And I guess for spreading all this anti-Americanism Brad Pitt got a few million dollars.

For the scene of the movie see “Brad Pitt – Muslim Brotherhood”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KnEfD1gRBY

By the way Obama is the man who doubled the American national debt in only 8 years (2009-2016). And keep in mind that George Bush fought two wars (2001 and 2003).

 

The Obama Debt-Legacy

American Debt over Time.JPG

http://www.statista.com/statistics/187867/public-debt-of-the-united-states-since-1990/

All this Obama debt will be paid with taxes in the future, and when that happens socialist will say that it all was a mistake of capitalism.

Also keep in mind that Obama is the man who was really close to the Islamists (Middle East) – Communist (Latin America) axis. Obama closed the Iran nuclear deal, and he also visited Cuba, which is funded with the oil of Venezuela. Obama was even proudly photographed in front of the picture of one of the most known communist killers i.e Che Guevara.

Obama-Che Guevara

obama fidel.JPG

Obama is the man who encouraged the countries that support the Muslim Brotherhood i.e. Turkey, Iran and Qatar, to attack the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in order to bring to power the Muslim Brotherhood (Muhammad Morsi).

I mean how closer to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Communist dictators of Latin America an American President can be? And yet Brad Pitt is not happy with Obama. He wants a real socialist dictator like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Bernie Sanders. He wants America to kneel to the communists and to the Islamists.

Brad Pitt says the same things with the members of the communist organization of Black Lives Matter.

And it is true that the Americans did not want to pay taxes to the British, and it is true that this was one of the main causes of the revolution. Obviously the French were supporting the American Revolution because the British had beaten the French, and had taken their American colonies from them.

And it is true that the great financial burden the French had to take to support the American Revolution caused their economy to collapse, and the French Revolution began in 1789. Napoleon rose as the new dictator from the French Revolution, and he forbid European countries to import goods from Great Britain, in order to force them to import from France, and to weaken his rival Brits.

The Russians initially complied with the Napoleon orders, but in the end they ignored him and started importing the much needed British goods, which caused Napoleon to invade Russia in 1812. This invasion finished Napoleon, in the same way it finished Hitler when he invaded Russia in 1941.

There are always economic reasons behind wars, and that’s exactly what happened with the American Revolution too. But does that justify the well paid anti-Americanism promoted by Brad Pitt? Obviously not.

At the same time the wife of Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, another very well paid Hollywood actress, is traveling to Europe to promote the open borders with the Muslim world, supposedly because she worries about the refugees. See the Guardian “Angelina Jolie Pitt calls for generosity towards refugees”, May 2016.

The Greek communists who opened the Greek borders with Turkey and caused the European refugee crisis in 2015 received the support and the admiration of Angelina Jolie.

 

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras Receiving Angelina Jolie.

Τσίπρας Ατζελίνα Τζολί.JPG

See “How the Turkish Islamists and the Greek Communists Defeated Germany”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/germanys-defeat-by-the-turkish-islamists-and-the-greek-communists/

So the question is whether the anti-Americanism that is spread by Brad Pitt and his likes, and the open borders promoted by Angelina Jolie and her likes, are irrelevant, or whether they are financed with the same money.

Τζολί Πιτ.JPG

 

For more details on Hollywood’s propaganda see “The Financing of Hollywood Socialist Propaganda”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/05/12/the-financing-of-hollywoods-socialist-propaganda/

 

“George Clooney-Muslim Brotherhood”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/08/07/the-connection-between-george-clooney-and-the-muslim-brotherhood/

 

“Angelina Jolie Pitt calls for generosity towards refugees”, May 2016

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/16/angelina-jolie-pitt-refugees-un-donald-trump-immigration

 

 

 

 

The Connection Between George Clooney and the Muslim Brotherhood

George Clooney would like to become President of the United States. What a disaster that would be. It would be like having the Muslim Brotherhood running the United States. His Lebanese wife, Amal Alamouddin, is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Egyptians have threatened to arrest her when she was representing the journalists of Al-Jazeera who were arrested in Egypt. See the Guardian articles.

Capture.JPG

Al-Jazeera is the leftist anti-American news network that belongs to the Emir of Qatar. The journalists of Al-Jazeera were arrested when the Muslim Brother Mohammad Morsi was overturned in Egypt by the Egyptian socialists.

The Turkish Islamists rose to power in 2002 in Turkey, and with the help of Turkey, Iran, Qatar, and obviously the Lebanese Hezbollah, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood rose to power too in 2012 by promising democracy and anti-corruption policies.

I do not know if Amal Alamoudin is connected to Hezbollah or Qatar. Actually Qatar is the one with the deep pockets. Hezbollah is specialized in explosives.

Note that Huffington Post and Business Insider are very friendly news agencies to the the Muslim Brotherhood.

Articles

“Amal Clooney warned that she risked arrest”, January 2015

1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th Paragraphs

Egyptian experts warned human rights barrister Amal Clooney that she risked arrest in February 2014 after identifying serious flaws in its judicial system.

The same flaws subsequently contributed to the conviction of three al-Jazeera journalists now jailed in Cairo.

In an interview with the Guardian after their appeal hearing this week, Clooney, a lawyer for one of the trio, said they were victims of the same legal irregularities that she earmarked in her February 2014 report about Egyptian courts.

Written before Clooney became involved in the al-Jazeera case, the report was deemed so controversial that her team was warned they could be arrested should they have tried to present its findings inside Egypt.

“When I went to launch the report, first of all they stopped us from doing it in Cairo,” Clooney told the Guardian. “They said: ‘Does the report criticise the army, the judiciary, or the government?’ We said: ‘Well, yes.’ They said: ‘Well then, you’re risking arrest.’”

8th Paragraph

The three journalists – Peter Greste, Baher Mohamed, and Mohamed Fahmy, whom Clooney represents – were initially sentenced to between seven and 10 years in jail last June by the controversial Egyptian judge Mohamed Nagy Shehata.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/02/egypt-amal-clooney-arrest-al-jazeera-three

 

“Al-Jazeera journalists jailed for airing ‘false news’, Egyptian court ruling says”, September 2015

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/06/al-jazeera-journalists-jailed-for-airing-false-news-egyptian-court-ruling-says

 

 

“Al-Jazeera pair apply for deportation from Egypt”, January 2015

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/01/al-jazeera-peter-greste-mohamed-fahmy-apply-deportation-egypt

 

 

The Discreet Charm of the Islamic Caliphate

Table of Contents

 

The Secret Charm of the Islamic Caliphate

The Islamic State and Al-Qaeda

The Secret Charm of the Islamic State Revisited

 

The Secret Charm of the Islamic Caliphate

A very good article from the American think tank Middle East Institute, about the secret charm of the Islamic Caliphate. See “The Shifting Definition of ISIS’ Caliphate”, August 2016.

The article wonders why is it that more and more terrorist groups are pledging their allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), when ISIS is retreating, losing more and more ground, due to the attacks of the NATO bombings. What is the secret charm of the Islamic Caliphate, why it is losing on the ground but it is gaining in popularity in the world of terror?

Map The Dream of the Islamic Caliphate

Map IS.JPG

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/06/30/article-2674736-1F46221200000578-100_634x381.jpg

Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al-Shabaab in Somalia, the Islamic State of Libya in Libya, are only some of the terrorist organizations that are pledging their allegiance to the Islamic State.

The article says that the notion of the Caliphate has been used in various ways in the past, sometimes to empower the Caliphs (Sultans) and sometimes to unite the Islamic World against the West i.e. against the Crusaders. According to the article ISIS is using the idea of the Caliphate in order to unite the Muslim World against the West. Fighting the Crusaders is a very popular idea in the Islamic World, and has been used many times by the Caliphates against the West during the previous centuries.

What is very interesting is that the Islamic State local branches operate independently from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. For example the Islamic State of Afghanistan and Pakistan was created by some ex-members of the Pakistani Taliban, who were not happy with the Taliban, and wanted to rebrand themselves. But they were operating more like the Taliban and less than the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. There is always the possibility of course that they Islamic States of Afghanistan and of Iraq were exchanging favors.

But witnessing the father of the modern Caliphate i.e. ISIS, to be shrinking in Iraq and Syria, and at the same time the project that was initially launched by it in Iraq and Syria to gain in popularity, it is something that must be explained.

 

The Islamic State and Al-Qaeda

It is quite important that the Islamic State franchises are independent, because it means that they all have different financing. For example in Syria and Iraq the main source of financing for ISIS were the oilfields that were given to it by Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian dictator. Bashar al-Assad and Tayip Erdogan, the Turkish President, were buying the oil of the Islamic State in order to fund the group, obviously for very different reasons. See “How Putin and Assad Created the Islamic State”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/how-putin-and-assad-created-the-islamic-state/

 

With the oil that was given to the Islamic State by Assad, ISIS had an annual revenue between 1 and 2 billion dollars. And obviously NATO could not bomb the oilfields of ISIS. NATO was bombing the oil refineries of the Islamic State in order to hurt the ability of the group to generate revenues, which would force Assad, Putin and Erdogan to directly fund the group.

Remember that France bombed ISIS oil refineries in November 9th 2015, and in November 13th 2015 the Islamic State retaliated by slaughtering the French people in Paris. See Yahoo “French strike hits IS oil facility in Syria”, November 9th 2015.

See also Wikipedia “November 2015 Paris Attacks”.

Of course ISIS had also revenues from kidnappings, drug trafficking, prostitution, taxing the local populations etc. But the oil fields that were given to it by Assad was an important source of revenue.

Moreover, in Iraq, where Assad and the Arabs of the Persian Gulf were united against the Americans, the Islamic State was receiving financial support from the Arabs of the Persian Gulf too i.e. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait etc. See “The Architects of Al-Qaeda and ISIS”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/07/31/the-architects-of-al-qaeda-and-isis/

Obviously in Syria things were a lot more complicated because the Arabs of the Persian Gulf and the Turks were fighting Bashar al-Assad, Russia and Iran. Therefore in Syria Turkey and the Arabs of the Persian Gulf wanted the support of NATO to overturn Assad, and they knew that NATO could not support Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

I have said again that Al-Qaeda is the Sunni version of the Lebanese Hezbollah, and it is financed with Arab money, it is staffed with Arab fighters, but it was trained by Iran and Hezbollah, in order for the Iranians and certain Arab circles to jointly fight the Americans and the Saudi King. Obviously Turkey and Pakistan, which are the countries that have the ability to train Al-Qaeda could not have done it because they are American allies, and they are buying their weapons from the United States.

That’s why Iran and Hezbollah had to train Al-Qaeda, in order to jointly fight the Americans and the Saudi King, even though they are fighting each other too. And that’s why the Americans call the Hezbollah fighters class A terrorists, while they call Al-Qaeda Class B terrorists. Obviously Iran and Hezbollah want to have an edge over the Arab fighters of Al-Qaeda.

It is very natural that Iran wanted a strong anti-Western Sunni terrorist organization, a Sunni version of Hezbollah, because Sunnis constitute 80-85% of the Muslim World. And since Turkey and Pakistan could not act like the headquarters of Al-Qaeda, Iran had to do it whether it liked it or not.

In the future Turkey or Pakistan might be able to act as the Al-Qaeda central if Turkey and Pakistan keep moving away from the Western World. Obviously Al-Qaeda was paying Iran and Hezbollah for the training, the logistics and the arms it was receiving, because money was the one thing Al-Qaeda was not lacking.

Obviously the alliance between Iran and Al-Qaeda was forged in Afghanistan, in the early 90s, when the Americans were trying to bring the oil and gas of Central Asia to the India Ocean. See “The Afghan Oil Pipeline and the US Negotiations with the Taliban”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/07/01/the-afghan-oil-pipeline-and-the-us-negotiations-with-the-taliban/

But there are many reasons and places where Al-Qaeda and Iran can fight together, and there are many reasons and places where Al-Qaeda and Iran can fight each other.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is something very different from Al-Qaeda. It is the ex-people of Saddam Hussein, who launched the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria with the support of Assad and Russia, in order to use the Syria-Iraq corridor to attack the Americans in Iraq, and also to prevent the Americans from using the Syria-Iraq corridor to attack Assad in Syria.

Map Assad VS United States

Map USA VS Russia.JPG

Map Iraq-Syria

Χάρτης Ιράκ Συρίας.JPG

Remember that Syria and Iraq are basically the same Silk Road.What today is Syria and Iraq during the Ottoman years was an Ottoman colony. And when the British and the French won the Ottomans in the First World War they made Syria a French influenced zone and Iraq a British influence zone, in order to construct two pipelines from Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea. And also to connect the colonies in South Asia with the Mediterranean Sea through the Persian Gulf.Note that Britain also took Palestine i.e. today’s Jordan and Israel. See Foreign Affairs “Pipelines in the Sand”, Μάιος 2016.

Map Colonies

Map of Colonies.JPG

http://www.31981782.com/uploads/4/2/2/0/42203051/imperialism_asia.jpg

You can see that during the First World War India was a British colony and Indochina was a French colony.

Assad and Russia were right to believe that NATO could use Iraq as a springboard to attack Syria, in order to clear the Iraq-Syria Silk Road. And that’s why they used the Islamic State to block NATO from finding allies in the Sunni parts of Syria and Iraq, and in order to attack the United States in Iraq.

Erdogan had a motive to support ISIS because it was killing the Kurds in Syria, something that was forbidden by the American allies of the Kurds. And that’s why Erdogan was allowing Jihadists to join ISIS by using the Turkish-Syrian borders, and that’s why Erdogan was buying the oil of the Islamic State. Erdogan was also accusing the West for supporting terrorism i.e. for supporting the Kurds of Syria.

At the same time Erdogan was also supporting Al-Qaeda, because Al-Qaeda was fighting Assad in Syria, and Al-Qaeda was also killing the Kurds of Syria. Erdogan was also supporting the Free Syrian Army (FSA) i.e. the Sunni rebels of Syria who were supported by NATO, but with a lot less enthusiasm, because the FSA was fighting Assad, but it was not allowing the killings of the Kurds who are American allies.

 

The Charm of the Islamic State Revisited

From all the above it is clear why many terrorist organizations are rushing to pledge their allegiance to the Islamic State even though ISIS is retreating in Syria and Iraq. The reason is that the idea of the Islamic State is promoted by the strongest military power of the Muslim world, i.e. Turkey, and it has the support of another great power i.e. Russia.

Moreover the notion of a united Muslim World which will protect Islam and will fight the Crusaders is a great bed time story for the low educated Muslims.

The idea of the Caliphate suits both Erdogan and Putin, obviously for different reasons. For Erdogan the Islamic State is a great idea because he is the ideal leader of the Caliphate. Who else could be the Sultan (Caliph) of the Caliphate?

For Putin the idea of the Caliphate is great because it really scares the Europeans, who will have no choice but to ask for Russia’s protection. Until now the Europeans were trying to reduce Putin’s influence by importing natural gas from the Middle East, the Caspian Sea and West Africa i.e. the Trans-Saharan pipeline (Nigeria-Niger-Algeria).

Map The War for Europe

Χάρτης Ευρώπης Φυσικό Αέριο.JPG

Putin is trying to reestablish the Soviet Union and that really scares the Europeans. But no matter how much Putin scares the Europeans, he looks really sweet when compared to a rising Islamic State. If there is an Islamic State Europe will start begging Russia for her protection.

That’s why both Putin and Erdogan see with in a very positive way the idea of the Caliphate. The Russians also think that due to their nuclear weapons they will be able to beat the Ottomans if they have to fight them in the future.

The deal between Putin and Erdogan, which gave Putin Europe and Erdogan the Middle East, is the Molotov-Riebentrop Pact of the 21st Century. Under the original Molotov-Riebentrop Pact the Communists (Russians) and the Nazis (Germans) forged an alliance against the West, and they split Eastern Europe in zones of influences i.e. the Nazis (Germans) took half Poland, the Communsts (Russians) took the other half of Poland, plus the Baltic States and Finland. Moreover the Communists agreed to supply the Nazis with oil, iron, wheat and other raw materials, and the Nazis agreed to supply the Communists with manufactured German goods.

Map The Molotov Riebentrop Pact

Map Molotov Riebentrop.JPG

The agreement between Putin and Erdogan is that Erdogan will leave Europe to Russia, and Russia will leave the Middle East to Turkey, plus that Russia will supply Turkey with cheap natural gas.

Map The New Molotov Riebentrop

Χάρτης Ρωσίας.JPG

Obviously Putin and Erdogan will have to reach an agreement for North Africa too. The obvious intersection of interests is to fight the Trans-Saharan pipeline i.e. Nigeria-Niger-Algeria, and to jointly fight the French, the Spanish, the Italians and the Algerians if they dare to go ahead with the project.

If Erdogan was the Sultan of North Africa he would have a motive to promote the Trans-Saharan pipeline, but obviously the Islamic State as it is described by the Islamic propaganda lies more to the fantasy than the real world. At least that’s how things are for now. Because the Muslims are very strong in United States too, and they have almost taken France, since 10% of the population in France are Muslims.

If the Putin-Erdogan propaganda is appealing to the stupid European and Americans studentss, imagine how appealing they it is to the poor Muslims, who are a lot more stupid than the stupid young people you find in Americans and European universities. Besides the American and European universities receive generous funding from the Muslim world, and that’s why most academics in Europe and the United States talk like they are the most fanatic Islamists.

 

Map Natural Gas (red) and Oil (black) of the Middle East

Χάρτης Φυσικό Αέριο.JPG

Richest Countries in Natural Gas

Πλουσιότερες Χώρες στον Κόσμο σε Φυσικό Αέριο.JPG

Richest Countries in Oil

Richest in Oil Reserves.JPG

Articles

 

The Shifting Definition of ISIS’ Caliphate”, August 2016

Even as ISIS forces are pushed further back behind their lines of greatest extent, a number of groups from around the world are eager to throw their loyalty behind the faltering so-called Islamic State. Groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Shabab in Somalia, and Islamic State in Libya have declared not only their support but their allegiance to the group. Central to these statements of allegiance is the use of the word “caliphate,” which is met in much of the West with as much derision as is the word “shariah.” For some observers, it makes no sense—why would groups from around the world be so willing to cash their stock in ISIS when it is clear that the group is faltering and its experiment of a “caliphate” collapsing? The truth of the matter is that while ISIS’ control of parts of Syria and Iraq may wane by the day, the caliphate that it has claimed to establish is only growing stronger. In many ways, ISIS is transforming into something altogether different, and the definition of caliphate is at the center of this metamorphosis.

There is a tendency in the West to equate the idea of a caliphate with the necessity of pan-Islamic worldly power. This is understandable—the original Rashidun caliphate established following the death of Muhammad, in which the powers of government and religion were heavily intertwined, is often seen as a model.  Additionally, in many sources that refer to the Golden Age of Islam, the ruler of Islam is addressed as “Caliph,” so it only follows that, for many, caliph and Islam are analogous to Caesar and ancient Rome. In reality, the correlation between the title of caliph and political power has been a much rarer occurrence outside of the earliest decades of Islamic history. In fact, the title was usually much more about maintaining legitimacy rather than demonstrating power.

During the Middle Ages, a number of caliphs ruled from seats in Cordoba, Cairo, and, most famously, Baghdad. That said, these titles were, in the case of the Umayyads in Cordoba and the Fatimids in Cairo, propagated by the same men who had political power. The reason for this is apparent upon further examination. The caliphs were those who needed the constant reinforcement of religion to assert their legitimacy in the eyes of both their subjects and neighboring groups. Muslim Spain was in close proximity to Christendom, while Fatimid Egypt was a Shiite state that stood defiant of its Sunni neighbors. For example, Abd ar-Rahman of Cordoba originally held the secular title of Emir, but took on the title of caliph so that he could be mentioned as such in the Fridaykhutba. In Abbasid Baghdad, the longest-lasting of the caliphates, the title grew less and less important as local rulers, such as the famous Saladin of Crusader fame, increasingly only paid lip service to the wishes of the Abbasid caliph.

In fact, the Ottomans only revived the title as a way to build an early Sunni nationalism. After all, one still addressed the ruler of the Ottoman Empire as “Sultan,” not “Caliph.” During the colonial era, caliphates were established in Nigeria, Sudan, and elsewhere as a way of rallying locals against European rule. In these instances, the title’s use appealed to the idea that Islam was under attack. It had little to do with political connotations, but instead framed a conflict between Islam and the other. Put into the language of Islamic governance, it underlined the distinctions between dar al-Islam, the realm of Islam, anddar al-Harb, the realm of war—the non-Islamic other. Note that such a worldview leaves little room for those in the other subdivisions developed by Islamic scholars, such as dar al-Sulh, an area where non-Muslims signed peace treaties with Muslim states.

Therefore, historically speaking, the precise definition of caliphate has changed over time, and within the considerable grey area that makes up that definition, ISIS has found the ability to maintain the idea that it is a caliphate even as its state structure changes. Just like the Rashidun and Umayyad caliphates, the first months of ISIS demonstrated a caliphate as a state.  However, as ISIS faced more defeats on the battleground, it could no longer effectively define its caliphate in that paradigm. Instead, the caliphate that ISIS claims to lead now is much more like those that built a dichotomy between Islam and the other, with ISIS as the epitome of true Islam and a spiritual leader. After all, ISIS is not sending administrators to the regions that proclaim their allegiance to the group, like a traditional state might. Instead, it is pushing the idea of ISIS being the legitimate moral leader of the Islamic world.

ISIS is therefore left with two possible conclusions of the term in its own mindset. The first of these is the most obvious—ISIS uses the term as a way to attract support and further paint various conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims using the brush of dar al-Harb. In this respect, ISIS’ efforts are no different than attempts by the Ottoman Empire to portray itself as a defender of Sunni nationalism. Remember that ISIS itself formed, in part, to further perceived Sunni Arab interests against a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad and a Ba’athist regime in Damascus.

Secondly, ISIS can accept the fact that many of its adherents may not live under its direct political control. That is not of great importance. Indeed, the ability to claim responsibility for attacks that it only inspires is a major advantage for ISIS. In fact, it is the ability to appear to have some hand in coordination of the actions that will continue to give ISIS the aura that it requires to continue to expand its influence. All the while, such an expansion not only keeps local and Western targets on alert, but also furthers the mythology of ISIS as a pan-Sunni movement that can unite Sunnis from northern Nigeria, Somalia, and countless other hotspots in the Islamic world.

http://www.mei.edu/content/article/shifting-definition-isis-caliphate

 

“French strike hits IS oil facility in Syria”, November 9th 2015

The French army on Sunday bombed an oil supply centre held by the Islamic State group in eastern Syria, Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian announced Monday.

“We intervened in Syria… yesterday evening with a strike on an oil supply centre near Deir Ezzor on the border between Iraq and Syria,” Le Drian told journalists on the sidelines of a forum on African peace and security in Dakar, Senegal.

It was France’s third wave of strikes in Syria since President Francois Hollande decided in September to join the campaign there against IS.

The two previous waves targeted training camps for foreign jihadists who were suspected of preparing attacks in France.

Hollande on Thursday said operations would be expanded to include “all those sites from which terrorists could threaten our territory”.

The president also said France would deploy its nuclear-powered aircraft carrier — the flagship of the French navy — to boost operations against IS in Syria and Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/french-strike-hits-oil-facility-syria-143954467.html

 

“November 2015 Paris Attacks”

1η Παράγραφος

On the evening of Friday 13 November 2015, a series of coordinated terrorist attacks occurred inParis, France and the city’s northern suburb, Saint-Denis.[9] Beginning at 21:20 CET, three suicide bombers struck outside the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, during a football match. This was followed by several mass shootings, and a suicide bombing, at cafés and restaurants. Gunmen carried out another mass shooting and took hostages at a concert in the Bataclan theatre, leading to a stand-off with police. The attackers were shot or blew themselves up when police raided the theatre.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

 

“Pipelines in the Sand”, Μάιος 2016

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2016-05-17/pipelines-sand?ftcamp=crm/email//nbe/energysource/product

 

 

Islamic State VS Al-Qaeda

Nice article from the Independent, saying that the Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, al-Nusra, wanted to create her own Islamic State in Syria. That means she was competing with ISIS, because ISIS wanted to create a unified Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. The article was written in May 2016, and things have changed with the Russian-Turkish agreement. There was also the “purchase” or “renting” of al-Nusra by Qatar.

The problem during the previous years was that the Assad and the Russians wanted a unified Islamic State in the Sunni parts of Syria and Iraq, which would attack the Americans in Iraq and which would respect Assad in Syria.

The Turks and the Qataris wanted an Islamic State in Iraq which would attack the Americans, so that all of them could work together, but another Islamic state in Syria which would attack Assad.

Map 1 The Assad-Putin Plan

Άσαντ Πούτιν.JPG

 

Map The Turkey-Qatar Plan

χάρτης ιράκ συρίας 1

Actually the Qataris and the Turks were not talking about an Islamic State. The Islamic State was the idea of Assad and Putin, which was brought forward by the ex-people of Saddam Hussein, who have as front men some charismatic Muslim clerics.

For the Iranians ISIS was not good because they were enemies of the ex-people of Saddam Hussein, but the Assad-Putin plan was much better than the Turkish-Qatari one.

Map

Map Oil and Gas Reserves and Pipelines.JPG

In Iraq the Iranians had to fight both ISIS and the Americans, and sometimes the Iranians and the Americans were fighting ISIS together, while in Syria the Iranians with Assad were fighting the Americans. The Qataris, together with ISIS, were fighting the  Americans in Iraq, but in Syria the Qataris were fighting Assad with the Americans.

That’s the story, plus the Saudi-Turkish war, because the Turks wanted the Muslim Brotherhood in the Syrian opposition while the Saudis did not, and they were fighting each other too. That is until May 2015 when the new King accepted a part for the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.

Now there is this agreement between Turkey and Russia, and we have to wait and see how it will affect the relationship with the other players i.e. Qatar, Iran, ISIS, al-Nusra, Assad.

Map Syria and Iraq

Map Iraq Syria.JPG

Articles

 

Al-Nusra wants her own Islamic State in Syria (not with ISIS)

“Al-Qaeda could be preparing to launch own ‘Islamic State’ in Syria after exploiting world’s focus on Isis”, May 2016

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/al-qaeda-could-be-preparing-to-launch-own-islamic-state-in-syria-after-exploiting-worlds-focus-on-a7015461.html

 

The leader of Al-Qaeda central said that the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) can not absorb al-Nusra.

“Qaeda chief annuls Syrian-Iraqi jihad merger”, June 2013

Al-Qaeda’s top leader has ruled against the merger of two jihadi groups based in Syria and Iraq, in an attempt to put an end to increased tensions and infighting among members.

Ayman al-Zawahiri’s ruling came in a letter addressed to the leaders of Syrian-based Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI), which is the largest jihadi umbrella group in the country.

Al Jazeera exclusively obtained a copy of the letter on Sunday from reliable sources in Syria  (translated here).

The ruling comes two months after the leader of ISI, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared a merger with al-Nusra to form the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), saying that al-Nusra was “merely an extension However, the unilateral move led to defections, infighting and a breakdown in operations as members disagreed over who commanded the battlefield. 

In the letter, Zawahiri said Baghdadi was “wrong” to declare the merger without consulting or even alerting al-Qaeda’s leadership. He added that Syria was the “spatial state” for al-Nusra, headed by Abou Mohammad al-Joulani, while Baghdadi’s rule would be limited to Iraq.

Al-Nusra, listed as a terrorist organisation by the US for its affiliation with al-Qaeda, is considered to be one of the most effective rebel groups in Syria.

But after Baghdadi released a video in April declaring the formation of the ISIL, many of al-Nusra’s fighters, especially non-Syrians, left to join the new umbrella group.

“This was the most dangerous development in the history of global jihad,” an al-Nusra source inside Syria told Al Jazeera on Saturday.

One al-Nusra fighter estimated that 70 percent of the group’s members left for the ISIL in Idlib province, with even higher defection rates in the Syria’s eastern regions.

Aleppo, the bastion of al-Nusra, saw the least defections from its ranks, fighters said. But even then the city suffered from the divisions within the group.

The division made the everyday practices of governance and fighting even more challenging.

Last week, activists reported flour shortage in the northern city because fighters protecting the silos had expressed their allegiance to ISIL and did not recognise the legal committee – headed by Nusra and other Syrian batalions – responsible for distributing flour. Several parties had to intervene to end the crisis.

Iraq-Syria cooperation

The divisions and turf battles between commanders prompted both Joulani and Baghdadi to send separate letters to Zawahiri in Afghanistan to arbitrate between the two groups.

“The proponents of Jihad were all dismayed by the dispute that occurred on the media between our beloved brothers in the Islamic state of Iraq and Jabhat al-Nusra,” Zawahiri said in the letter.

However, he called on both sides to cooperate and, whenever they could, support each other with money, weaponry and fighters.

Zawahiri also called on members of both outfits to refrain from infighting and named Abou Khaled al-Soury, local Syrian commander, as a personal emissary “to oversee the implementation” of the accord.

When Baghdadi released the merger statement two months ago, Joulani issued an audio recording saying he had not been consulted on the formation of the ISIL and insisted his fighters would continue to operate under the al-Nusra banner.

But that message did not deter Baghdadi from travelling from Iraq to the suburbs of Aleppo and trying to open offices there.

It is unclear whether Baghdadi will accept the al-Qaeda leader’s ruling, and what effect it will have on the ground.

The fighters who left al-Nusra to join the ISIL might not want to rejoin the group, according to those close to Baghdadi.

“Ninety percent of the Arab and foreign fighters [battling in Syria] joined ISIL,” said Abu Osama al-Iraqi, an activist affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq.

“It will be hard for them to take a step backward.”

and part of the Islamic State of Iraq”.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/2013699425657882.html

 

The Captain of ISI (Islamic State of Iraq) said he will not take orders from al-Qaeda

“Iraqi al-Qaeda chief rejects Zawahiri orders”, June 2013

Al-Qaeda’s leader in Iraq has rejected orders from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the group’s global chief, to break up his group’s claimed union with the Jabhat al-Nusra, an armed Islamist group in Syria, according to a new audio message.

The purported remarks by head of Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in the message posted on jihadist forums on Saturday indicate tensions between ISI and al-Qaeda’s central command.

In April, Baghdadi announced that ISI had merged with Syria’s Jabhat al-Nusra, or al-Nusra Front.

Al-Nusra leader Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani acknowledged a relationship between the two groups, but he denied there had been a merger and publicly pledged his allegiance to Zawahiri.

In Saturday’s message, the man identified as Baghdadi said “the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant will remain, as long as we have a vein pumping or an eye blinking. It remains and we will not compromise nor give it up”.

“It remains, and we will not compromise; we will not give up […] until we die.”

Earlier this month, Zawahiri ruled that the ISI and al-Nusra should operate as separate entities, according to a letter released to Al Jazeera.

Baghdadi had “made a mistake” by announcing a merger “without consulting us”, he said.

The merger plan has been “damaging to all jihadists”, Zawahiri said, adding that “Al-Nusra Front is an independent branch of Al-Qaeda”.

But the message on Saturday said: “When it comes to the letter of Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri – may God protect him – we have many legal and methodological reservations.”

After consulting with the consultative council of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant […] I chose the order of God over the orders that contravenes Allah in the letter.

The audio message could not immediately be independently verified.

Al-Nusra Front, created in January 2012, joined al-Qaeda last December on a US list of foreign terrorist organisations.

An al-Nusra front member in Syria, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Al Jazeera that following the release of Zawahiri’s letter, many members of ISI rejoined al-Nusra, particularly in the province of Deir Ezzor.

He said this new audio recording causes further division and confusion among those fighting on the ground.

“Defying the orders of Zawahiri is a black dot on Baghdadi’s career”, he said.

Among elements fighting to oust the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, al-Nusra is one of the best armed and most successful on the battlefield. It has carried out some of the deadliest attacks in the uprising, claiming responsibility for several suicide bombings.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/2013615172217827810.html

 

Fighting between al-Nusra and ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria)

“Factbox: Syria’s rebel groups”, January 2014

Syria‘s rebel movement has been a constantly shifting array of groups and alliances since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began nearly three years ago.

Assad’s security crackdown transformed Syria’s largely peaceful protest movement in March 2011 into an armed insurgency in the first year of the revolt, and since then opposition formations have been increasingly overtaken by Islamist groups.

As new leaders have emerged within the opposition, infighting intensified and reached a new level this month, with several rebel factions declaring war against the radical Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

Below is a description of some of Syria’s main rebel groups:

*Islamic Front:

An amalgam of six major Islamist groups, this alliance is believed to be the biggest rebel army working in Syria. Its formation last November gutted the Western-backed Syrian Military Council, depriving it of some of its main members, such as the Tawheed Brigade, and further distanced it from powerful Islamist groups like the Ahrar al-Sham Brigades.

The Islamic Front’s members are hardline Sunni Islamists who want Syria to become an Islamic state, but they have been more tolerant of other groups than the radical al Qaeda branch, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Analysts say the number of fighters brought together by the Front is between 40,000 to 50,000. It is still not clear, however, whether it will be more successful in coordinating and leading Syria’s notoriously fractious rebel groups compared to the failed moderate opposition alliances.

The Islamic Front has not formally declared war on ISIL and its attitude towards the group is still ambiguous, but many of its leading factions are participating in the attack on ISIL.

* Syrian Revolutionaries Front:

This alliance of largely non-ideological rebel units was formed in December and helped launch a growing campaign against hardline ISIL fighters.

The backbone of the group is the Syrian Martyrs Brigade, a once powerful group from the northern province of Idlib led by Jamal Maarouf. Maarouf and his fighters were largely discredited in Idlib by rival Islamist groups who accused them of diverting funds meant for the front lines into their own pockets.

Unlike most other rebel formations, the group does not appear to have strong ideological leanings, though its units are mostly moderate Islamists.

The SRF is believed to receive funding from large Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia, given that Riyadh was said to be Maarouf’s main financier. It has poor relations with the Islamic Front but has expressed support for the Western and Gulf-backed Supreme Military Command (SMC), the foundering successor to the leadership of the failed Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The FSA was the original umbrella group for the rebels but was never able to form a coherent organizational structure or leadership and the SMC has faced similar challenges.

Some analysts suggest that the SRF may be another attempt at reviving the main components of the FSA, but it still lacks the regional scope to try that, as most of its member units hail from the north.

* Mujahideen Army:

This recent formation of eight Syrian militant groups was announced early in January and almost immediately launched a campaign against ISIL, leading many observers to believe it may have been formed by Gulf Arab backers for the purpose of challenging ISIL.

The group, which claims to have 5,000 members, is seen as moderately Islamist. Most of the factions that joined the Mujahideen Army are relatively minor and little is known about the group so far.

However, this new group, along with the Syrian Revolutionaries’ Front, spearheaded the campaign against ISIL that has broken out in many opposition-held parts of northern and eastern Syria.

* Nusra Front

This powerful rebel group is comprised of both Syrians and foreign militants and has been formally recognized by the central leadership of al Qaeda as its franchise in Syria.

The group was one of the first to use techniques such as suicide attacks and car bombings in urban areas. Despite this, it is seen as more tolerant and less heavy handed in its dealings with civilians and other rebel groups in comparison with its rival al Qaeda affiliate, ISIL.

Nusra Front, estimated at around 7,000 to 8,000 members, has worked with most rebel factions fighting in Syria but follows an austere version of Islam and calls for the creation of an Islamic state.

It is not formally a part of the Islamic Front but it works closely with many member groups. Some of its units have joined in recent rebel-on-rebel battles against ISIL but it has not officially declared war on the group.

The Nusra Front’s leader, known as Abu Mohammed al-Golani, has called for a ceasefire between ISIL and other rebel groups but the move has done little to slow the fighting.

* Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant:

ISIL was formed by breakaway elements from the Nusra Front, al Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria, who joined with al Qaeda’s Iraq branch.

The group is headed by the Iraq branch’s leader, known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He has ignored calls from al Qaeda central to stay out of Syria and focus on Iraq.

ISIL is seen as the most hardline of all the Islamist forces in Syria and has made enemies of several rebel groups since it seized control of many towns and checkpoints in opposition areas.

The group was largely accepted by Syrian civilians at first due to its strict policies against looting and its attempts to provide social services. It lost favor as its members began kidnapping and killing critics and rival groups.

ISIL is now fighting on several fronts. In Syria, many rebel factions are trying to retake territory and force the group out of their areas. At the same time, Iraqi military forces have launched a heavy campaign in Anbar province, where ISIL fighters took control of some towns.

While its numbers may be smaller, perhaps around 6,000 to 7,000, the ISIL’s hardline fighting force is very committed and capable of surviving as the two countries in which it operates face chaotic sectarian conflict.

The group has vowed to use assassinations and other strategies to retaliate against attacks. In a January 7 statement, it vowed to crush the Syrian rebels and made no gestures toward reconciliation despite Nusra calls for a truce.

* Supreme Military Command

The SMC is a moderate, non-ideological group. It enjoys backing from Western powers such as the United States, as well as Turkey and Gulf Arab countries, and has never been able to shake the impression among local rebel groups that it was a leadership coming from abroad.

Many of its commanders spent much of their time outside the country. They were also unable to secure consistent supplies of arms or funding from foreign donors.

While still functioning nominally, the SMC was dealt a heavy blow by the formation of the Islamic Front in November 2013, which deprived it of some of its largest members and allies and further damaged the SMC’s legitimacy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-rebels-factbox-idUSBREA080SW20140109

 

Al-Nusra left Al-Qaeda (she was bought by Qatar)

“It looks like Al Qaeda is ‘laying a trap’ for the US — and giving Russia exactly what it wants”, July 2016

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Al Qaeda’s former affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, formally severed ties with the global terrorist organization Thursday in an attempt to “unify” as a distinct Islamist brigade with its own revolutionary goals and vision.

In its mission to rebrand itself, al-Nusra — now identifying asJabhat Fateh al-Sham — has clearly indicated that it is not committed to Al Qaeda’s brand of global jihad but to the singular goal of fomenting an Islamic revolution inside Syria.

The break was made easier by the fact that, since its emergence in 2012, Nusra has woven itself into the fabric of Syria’s communities and established military alliances of convenience with many mainstream rebel groups in the name of toppling Syrian president Bashar Assad.

But it also confirms that Nusra has no intention of distancing itself from the revolution’s non-jihadist rebel groups, many of whom are backed by the US and its allies.

For Russia, then — which has consistently used Nusra’s presence among these more moderate rebel groups as an excuse to target and eliminate any and all opposition to its ally, Assad — Nusra’s dissolution of ties with Al Qaeda is a gift. For the US, it’s a headache.

“By dissolving its ties with Al Qaeda, Nusra Front has made certain that it will remain deeply embedded within opposition front lines, particularly in the northern governorates of Aleppo and Idlib,” Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute who is an expert on Syria’s jihadist insurgency, wrote in Foreign Policy on Friday.

He continued:

“Any airstrikes by foreign states targeting the group will almost certainly result in the deaths of mainstream opposition fighters and be perceived on the ground as counterrevolutionary. Consequently, a mission defined by Moscow and Washington in counterterrorism terms would in all likelihood steadily broaden the spectrum of those potentially defined as ‘terrorists’ — to the substantial detriment of any future solution to the Syrian crisis.”

The break comes just as the US and Russia are preparing to announce a military cooperation plan, known as the Joint Implementation Group, that was meant to more clearly delineate Nusra’s positions in Syria and deter airstrikes on civilians and the more moderate opposition.

“By disavowing its ties to Al Qaeda — which, incidentally, it did with Al Qaeda’s blessing — Nusra has made it harder to isolate it from more moderate groups, some of whose members may join it now because it’s more powerful than some of the groups they belong to now,” a US official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Jeff White, a military expert and defense fellow at The Washington Institute, said the development would probably not have any effect on Russia’s military strategy in Syria.

“Russia doesn’t bomb Nusra because it’s a terrorist group,” White told Business Insider. “It bombs Nusra because it is an enemy — an effective one — of the regime. For Russia, as long as Nusra keeps fighting the regime, it will remain a target.”

As for how the break might affect the US’s military strategy in Syria, White said that while the Obama administration would “want to assess what the split means in terms of goals, objectives, and operations, I suspect the counterterrorism community will be loath to take it off the target list.”

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday that Nusra’s rebranding would not affect the US’s assessment of the group.

“There continues to be increasing concern about Nusra Front’s growing capacity for external operations that could threaten both the United States and Europe,” Earnest told reporters at the daily White House press briefing.

But the development is bound to further complicate Syria’s rebel landscape, especially as Nusra — under its new name — mainstreams itself and consequently attracts more young men to its cause.

That, Lister noted, is where Nusra’s break from Al Qaeda can be seen less as a conscious separation from the terrorist organization’s global jihadist ideals and more as a way of “laying a trap” for the US and its allies who claim to want to support the goals of Syria’s revolution.

“The most moderate FSA groups will be forced to choose between military and revolutionary unity, or operational isolation and subjugation,” Lister wrote. “In short, Jabhat al-Nusra is taking yet another step toward shaping the orientation of the Syrian opposition in its favor.”

Many experts claimed that the US and Russia sealed Al Qaeda’s fate in Syria after it was revealed that they were going to coordinate their respective air campaigns to target its affiliate, al-Nusra.

Now, by breaking ties with Al Qaeda, Nusra has all but cemented the conditions for its own long-term survival. Those include increased popular support — which will lead to a backlash against the West if the US targets the group — and, potentially, funding from Qatar and Turkey, which may interpret Nusra’s rebranding as a legitimization of its revolutionary goals.

“Placed in this quandary, international military action against Jabhat al-Nusra does seem all but inevitable,” Lister said. “At the same time, however, the consequences for doing so have become even more concerning.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/al-nusra-qaeda-syria-us-russia-2016-7

The Architects of Al-Qaeda and ISIS

Table of Contents

 

1979: The Russians Invade Afghanistan

 

1989: The Architect of Al-Qaeda of Iraq goes to Pakistan

 

2003: The Americans Invade Iraq

 

2003: The Architect of ISIS goes to Syria

 

Articles

 

1979: The Russians Invade Afghanistan

 1979 was a very important year. Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel and became an American ally. Moving Egypt away from the Soviet sphere of influence was something the Egyptian President Anwar Sadat paid with his life in 1981. Sadat was murdered by the Egyptian islamists, I guess with the help of Iran, Muammar Qaddafi of Libya and Hafez al-Assad of Syria, who were Iranian allies. Iran gave the name to of the assassin to an Iranian street to honor him. Losing Egypt was a great loss for the Soviets because Egypt was, and still is, a country of great geopolitical significance.

In 1979 the Iranian Islamists overturned the pro-American Monarch of Iran with the Islamic Revolution, and Iran became an Islamic Democracy. The Americans gained Egypt but lost Iran, and with the Carter Doctrine of 1980 they declared that if the Americans interests in the Middle East were threatened the United States would use military force. That basically meant that if anyone dared to mess with Saudi Arabia he would have to go to war with the United States.

Map Middle East and North Africa

Map of the Middle East.JPG

At the other side of the equation the Soviets were not happy they had lost Egypt, and they were not as sure as they used to be that they could count on Arab national socialists like Sadat. If Sadat turned to United States others could do it too.

Moreover, after the fall of Iran they have more confidence and they are more optimistic, and they decide to follow a more aggressive foreign policy.

The outcome was that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in order to bring a communist government to power.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a great problem for the Pakistanis. The Pakistanis believed that if the Soviets were to stabilize Afghanistan the Afghan communists would soon claim the Pakistani Pashtunistan. After all the Afghans had never stopped claiming the Pakistani part of Pashtunistan. Pashtuns are the majority in Afghanistan, but they are the second largest ethnic group in Pakistan, with the Punjabis being the first ethnic group by far. The Pakistani army is made of Punjabis.

Map Pashtunistan

Pashtunistan.JPG

For the problems with Pashtunistan see “The 2 Faces of the Taliban”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/07/12/the-2-faces-of-the-taliban/

After the Soviets invade Afghanistan the Americans and the Saudis will start funding Islamists who will go to Pakistan in order to be trained, and then they are sent to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.

The Chinese also sent to Pakistan Uyghurs Islmaists from their Muslim province of Xin Jiang, in order to be trained and sent to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. The Soviets already had very strong army units at the Chinese borders i.e. Kazakhstan and Mongolia, and the Chinese were not at all happy to see the Soviets coming to Afghanistan too.

Map

Map China.JPG

At the time the only reliable ally of China was Pakistan. With red you can see the Soviet allies and with green the American ones. See “China’s Isolation During the Cold War”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/06/25/chinas-isolation-during-the-cold-war/

The Iranian Islamists did not want to be part of the Arab-American alliance against the Soviets, but they started independently funding Shia Islamists in Afghanistan in order to fight the Soviets. From 1980 to 1988 the Iranians will go to a war with Saddam Hussein (Iraq), and the Soviets are an ally of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein invaded Iran to take the rich in oil south-western provinces of Iran. Arabs are the majority in this region of Iran.

Map Oil (black) and Natural Gas (red) of the Middle East

Map of Oil and Gas Reserves.JPG

After the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan there was enthusiasm in the Muslim world. All good Muslims wanted to go and kill the infidels. A Jihad against the Soviets would take place, and in 1989 the Soviets would have to leave from Afghanistan. In Afghanistan the Soviets had to fight with the Americans, the Chinese, the Arabs, the Iranians and the Pakistanis. It was the Soviets against everybody.

Map The Soviet Invasion and the Jihad Against the Soviets

Χάρτης Ιράκ Αφγανιστάν.JPG

1989: The Architect of Al-Qaeda of  Iraq  goes to Pakistan

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian thug, arrived in Pakistan in 1989, in order to receive military training and fight in Afghanistan. The 23 year old Zarqawi was one of the many violent young men who were sent to Pakistan by the Saudis and the Americans to fight the Soviets.

The year Zarqawi arrived in Pakistan is the year the Soviets are leaving Afghanistan (1989). The Soviets and the Americans agreed not to get involved in Afghanistan after the Soviets left. The Chinese did not want to get involved in a Muslim war either, because they were afraid that there would be a rise of terrorism in their Muslim Province of Xin Jiang if they did.

Thus a war broke out between the Iranians and the Pakistanis in Afghanistan. The Irnaians were supported by India and the Pakistanis were supported by the Arabs of the Persian Gulf. Zarqawi fought in this war on the side of the Arabs and the Pakistanis.

In 1993 Zarqawi went back to Jordan, and he set up his own terrorist organization. His aim was to overthrow the pro-American Jordanian King and to turn Jordan to an Islamic emirate.

The Jordanian King was pro-American, but he was also closely cooperating with Saddam Hussein who was pro-Soviet. The Iraqis gave the Jordanians free oil, and the Jordanians allowed the Iraqis to use their port at the Gulf of Aqaba, in order to avoid the Iranians and the Syrians. Remember that Saddam is an enemy of Saudi Arabia too. The Saudis and the Iraqis cooperate against the Iranians, but they are enemies. They are all competing in the oil markets, and like everybody else Saddam Hussein accuses Saudi Arabia of producing too much oil and pushing price downwards. See “The Production of Oil and the Price of Oil”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/07/24/the-production-of-oil-and-the-price-of-oil/

 

Map The Gulf of Aqaba

Map Gulf of Aqaba.JPG

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/11/egypt-saudi-arabia-tiran-sanafir-red-sea-islands-transfer

 

Map The Alliance between Jordan and Iraq

Map Iraq Jordan.JPG

In the meantime, while Zarqawi was in Pakistan and Afghanistan (1989-1993), Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and took its oilfields, hoping that the Americans and the Saudis would not attack him because they would be afraid that this would enhance the Iranians. But he was wrong. The Saudis invited the Americans to come to the Gulf, and the Americans pushed Saddam out of Kuwait. But Saddam was right, and the Americans did not dare to overturn him even though they were outside Baghdad.

Therefore when Zarqawi came back to Jordan in 1993 there was already the rift between Osama bin Laden and the Saudi King, because Osama bin Laden, and many other Arabs too, did not want the American army in the Gulf. Obviously Iran did not want the American army either. Osama bin Laden is already in Sudan, where he will stay for the period 1992-1996, in order for Hezbollah and Iran to train Al-Qaeda. See “The Hezbollah – Al-Qaeda Axis”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/the-hezbollah-al-qaeda-axis/

I do not think that Osama bin Laden was randomly chosen by Iran and Hezbollah. Osama bin Laden’s mother was a Syrian Shia, even though Osama was a Sunni. Actually his mother was a Syrian Alawite, like Bashar al Assad, and Osama was very mild with the Shias. The Alawites are a sect of Shia Islam.

Therefore Osama bin Laden was an ideal candidate for the Iranians and Hezbollah, because he could cooperate with them very well. Remember that Al-Qaeda was an un-holy alliance between Sunni Arabs from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, with the Shias of Iran and Hezbollah, in order to fight the Saudi King and the Americans.

Al-Qaeda was the Sunni version of Hezbollah, and the Arabs were putting the money and Hezbollah was putting the weapons, the training and the espionage. Osama was an ideal candidate, and he was also a man who grew up in the same circles of the Saudi Royal family, and he had plenty of connections. Unfortunately people who read NAZI and Communist propaganda think that Al-Qaeda is a CIA organization.

For the mother of Osama bin Laden see “The Short, Violent Life of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi”, August 2006.

46th Paragraph

According to several different accounts of the meeting, bin Laden distrusted and disliked al-Zarqawi immediately. He suspected that the group of Jordanian prisoners with whom al-Zarqawi had been granted amnesty earlier in the year had been infiltrated by Jordanian intelligence; something similar had occurred not long before with a Jordanian jihadist cell that had come to Afghanistan. Bin Laden also disliked al-Zarqawi’s swagger and the green tattoos on his left hand, which he reportedly considered un-Islamic. Al-Zarqawi came across to bin Laden as aggressively ambitious, abrasive, and overbearing. His hatred of Shiites also seemed to bin Laden to be potentially divisive—which, of course, it was. (Bin Laden’s mother, to whom he remains close, is a Shiite, from the Alawites of Syria.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/07/the-short-violent-life-of-abu-musab-al-zarqawi/304983/

In Jordan Zarqawi went to prison for terrorist activities. In 1999 he was reased and went back to Afghanistan, where he met for the first time Osama bin Laden. The two men did not like each other from the beginning. Zarqawi told the respected leader of Al-Qaeda that it was a sin to help the Taliban fight the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, because it was a sin for a Muslim to kill another Muslim. In essence Zarqawi was siding with Iran in Afghanistan because the Northern Alliance was the ally of Iran and India, and the Taliban were the ally of the Arabs and the Pakistanis.

Zarqawi was a lot more of an Iranian guy when compared to Osama bin Laen. Osama bin Laden cooperated with Iran and Hezbollah but he was not an Iranian guy. Zarqawi never accepted to fight the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan during his second time in Afghanistan. Obviously during his first time he did (1989-1993). Only when the Americans invaded Afghanistan in 2001 Zarqawi joined Al-Qaeda in order to fight the Americans.

That’s why the training camp that was given to Zarqawi to train his men was at the Herat province of Afghanistan, very close to the Iranian borders, in order for him to have easy access to Iran.

What is very interesting is that Zarqawi, contrary to Osama, was very anti-Shia, and he believed that the Shias in the Arab countries should be executed. And that raises the question why he was chosen by the Iranians and why he received so much support from them.

The answer is that the Iranians need Sunni anti-Shiites too. For example it is good for the Iranians when Al-Qaeda attacks the Shiites of Saudi Arabia, in order for the Saudi Shiites to feel unprotected by the Saudi King, and look somewhere else for protection.

Note that the Saudi Shiites mainly live in the rich in oil regions of Saudi Arabia near the Persian Gulf. Obviously the Iranians want unrest near the Saudi oilfields. The truth is that Iran does not give a damn about the Shiites of the Arab world. Iran and Hezbollah want to use them against their enemies.

Map Sunnis (light green) and Shia (dark green) of Saudi Arabia

Map Shia in Saudi Arabia.JPG

http://www.brookings.edu/research/essays/2015/the-prince-of-counterterrorism

Moreover there was always the possibility that the Americans would attack Iraq, and in that case the Iranians would need a Sunni who would attack the Shiites who would dare to cooperate with the Americans. Actually that’s exactly what Zarqawi did when the Americans invaded Iraq in 2003.

Zarqawi fought the Americans in Afghanistan in 2001, and when the Americans destroyed the rebels, Zarqawi entered Iran, where he stayed for about a year. When the war in Iraq was coming, Zarqawi crossed the Iranian-Iraqi borders and entered the Iraqi Kurdistan region, and together with the people of Saddam Hussein he started fighting the Kurds who were cooperating with the Americans.

That’s the reason the Americans were saying that Saddam Hussein was cooperating with Al-Qaeda. That was true, but obviously the Americans knew that Zarqawi was an Iranian and not an Iraqi man. Saddam Hussein could not establish with Al-Qaeda the strong connections the Iranians had, because Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the Saudi King, but together they were fighting the Iranians.

A few months before the Americans attack Saddam, Zarqawi will leave Iraqi Kurdistan, and will go to Iraq with his men, in order to prepare for the coming war. It is the time Saddam Hussein is building many terrorist channels in Iraq, because he knows that he will lose the war, and he prepares the country for a guerilla war. Jihadists are coming to Iraq from all over the world to fight the Americans, and they are invited by Saddam.

After Saddam’s fall, Zarqawi carrieed out many terrorist attacks against the Americans, but also against the Shiites of Iraq who were cooperating with the Americans. The mission of Zarqawi was to cause a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shias of Iraq. This civil war would prevent the Americans from stabilizing the country.

Osama bin Laden had asked Zarqawi many times to make his group a franchise of Al-Qaeda, but Zarqawi had never accepted, maybe because he was closer to Iran than Osama. But in 2004 Zarqawi finally pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda, and his group became Al-Qaeda of Iraq. Maybe Zarqawi thought it was good for him to distance himself a bit from Iran at this point. In Iraq there were all the ex-officers of Saddam Hussein who wanted to fight the Americans, and these people were enemies of Iran. Maybe it was not good for him to look too much of an Iranian guy.

Maybe that’s why Zarqawi decided to become Al-Qaeda in 2004. Or maybe he received a lot of funding from the Saudis and the Qataris and the other Arabs of the Persian Gulf and he wanted to distance himself from Iran. I am not sure what exactly it was.

But even after becoming Al-Qaeda of Iraq Zarqawi will be quite independent from central Al-Qaeda, and he will be a lot more violent than Osama wants him to be.

In 2006 the Americans will kill Zarqaiw, but in the meantime Zarqawi had managed to establish Al-Qaeda of Iraq, which is the predecessor of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), which in turn is the predecessor of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which in turn is the predecessor of the Islamic State (IS).

For the violent career of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi see a great article by the American magazine Atlantic “The Short, Violent Life of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi”, August 2006.

Atlantic is one of the oldest Americans magazines (1857).

 

2003: The Americans Invade Iraq

In 2003 the Americans invaded Iraq.

In 2002 the Americans saw the rise of the Islamists in Turkey. The Turkish Islamist were supported by the Iranians and I believe by the Russians too. The Kemalist Turks are strong US allies and they wanted Turkey to be tied to the Western world. With the rise of the Islamists Turkey will distance herself from the West and will move towards Asia, and in the 2000s the Turkish-Russian natural gas pipelines will go ahead (Blue Stream).

At the same time that the Americans were seeing Turkey moving closer to Russia, in order to get cheap natural gas, they were also seeing Saudi Arabia moving closer to China, in order to boost her oil exports. The Iranians and the Iraqis, together with certain Saudi and Qatari circles were supporting terrorist attacks against the Americans, who were trying to bring the oil and natural gas of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to India.

The Americans were left with no allies in the Persian Gulf. After the Al-Qaeda attacks at the Twin Towers the Americans even had to move their military bases from Saudi Arabia to Qatar. But even donors from Qatar were funding Al-Qaeda. The Qataris wanted the American bases as an insurance against the Iranians and the Saudis, but they are not true allies of United Staes.

The Americans were desperate for allies, and they decide to liberate the Shia majority (65%) of Iraq, and the Kurds of Iraq, from the ruthless ruling of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein has a Sunni army of 250.000 men.

Map Enemies and Allies of USA

Χάρτης Μέση Ανατολή.JPG

The plan was that the Shia of Iraq and the Kurds would see the Americans as liberators, and the Americans would help them establish a western type democracy which would be envied by all the Muslims.

It seems simple right? You liberate some people, you give them their freedom, and you just expect them to like you. But this is the Middle East. The political elites are very very strong and very very very corrupt.

Map Kurdistan

Map Kurdistan.JPG

The Iranians did not want the Americans to become allies of the Iraqi Shia. The Iranians were also using the Iraqi Shias against Saddam Hussein for decades. But of course the Iranians did not want the Americans next to them.

The Saudis did not want the Iraqi Shia governing Iran. The Saudis hated Saddam, but Saddam was keeping the Iranians away from them. And of course neither the Iranians nor the Saudis wanted the oil and gas of Iraq to start flowing to the international markets.

The Syrian Alawites of Bashar al Assad were very upset with the Iraq War, because they were also a ruthless minority which was ruling over a Sunni majority and the Kurds of Syria, and they thought they could be the next ones. That would be a huge problem for the Russians too. After all the Iraq is a road that leads to Syria.

Map The Plan of the Islamic State

Map Iraq Syria.JPG

The Turks saw the oil of Northern Iraq falling in Kurdish hands. As long as Saddam was ruling Iraq the Turks and Saddam were hunting the Kurds of Turkey and Iraq together, and Saddam was selling cheap oil to Turkey. Turkey could buy Saddam’s oil from Northern Iraq at very good prices because Saddam was an enemy of Iran and Syria, and very often economic sanctions were imposed on him by the West.

Moreover, by gaining control of the oil and natural gas of Northern Iraq, the Kurds could become stronger, and could ask for an independent Kurdistnan in Iraq, which could ignite similar aspirations to the Kurds of Turkey. The West wanted an independent Kurdistan since the First World War.

To reassure the Turks, President George Bush was referring to the Kurds of Turkey (PKK) as “our common enemy”. I don’t know if that was good enough for the Turks because the Kurds are communicating vessels, and the Americans were helping the Kurds of Iraq. Probably the American assurances weren’t good enough for the Turks.

All these countries started a “Holly” war against the United States in Iraq, and even though one would think that it would be a piece of cake for the Americans to create a democratic Iraq, this mission started looking more like science fiction.

Besides, a democratic Iraq, which would be envied by all Muslims, would be an embarrassment for the Arabs, the Iranians and the Turks, and it was the last thing they wanted.

Iraq in 2003 was for the Americans what Afghanistan was for the Russians in 1979. And Syria was in 2003 for the Americans what Pakistan was in for the Russians in 1979. In 1979 the Pakistanis thought that the Soviet presence in Afghanistan would endanger the Pakistani Pashtunistan, and they started letting in Afghanistan Islamists from all over the world to fight the Soviets.

In 2003 Assad in Syria thought that the Americans could turn against his own Alawite minority in Syria, once they were done in Iraq, and he started letting Islamists from all over the world to enter Iraq through Syria, in order to make Iraq a living hell for the Americans. All sorts of alliances were taking place in Iraq before the war. The Generals of Assad were cooperating with the Generals of Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein was talking to the Iranians, the Iranians were talking to the Arabs of the Gulf, and all these were talking to the Russians. Therefore there was quite a simple situation. It was everyone against the Americans and the Kurds.

In 2003 there was enthusiasm in the Muslim world like there was in 1979. All the good Muslims wanted to go to Iraq and kill crusaders.

Therefore even though it seemed a piece of cake for the Americans to find an ally in Iraq, since they liberated 85% of the population, a Jihad started in Iraq against them, financed with petrodollars, financed from both from enemies and allies of the United States.

The Turks did not allow the Americans to use their military bases to attack Saddam, and the head of Human Rights in Turkey said they Americans were committing genocide in Iraq, and he even compared them to Hitler.

Creating a democratic Iraq would be great for the Americans, and it would be great for the Iraqi people, but it would be too bad fro the Arabs, the Turks and the Iranians. As a result it did not come into being.

2003: The Architect of the Islamic State goes to Syria

After the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Americans dissolved his huge Sunni army, hoping to create an Arab Shia army that would be used by the Shia majority to rule Iraq, which in turn would become an American ally. Within the 250 thousand soldiers of the Iraqi army that was dissolved there are many officers who had been fighting the Americans for years and who had been trained by the Soviets and the KGB. See “Towards an Alliance Between Russia and ISIS”?

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/towards-an-alliance-between-russia-and-isis/

Many of the ex-people of Saddam Hussein joined Al-Qaeda of Iraq in order to make a career and earn a living, and also to fight the Americans. Haji Bakr was one of the many ex-officers of the secret services of Saddam Hussein who joined Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda after the fall of Iraq. Hadji Bakr was a very capable man and he started meeting Bashar al-Assad to organize the resistance.

In 2003 things in Iraq were simple, because the war in Syria hadn’t broke out yet, and therefore there was a relatively unified front against the Americans and the Kurds. I believe that even the Turks were happy with the attacks against the Americans.

Assad closely cooperated with the ex-officers of Saddam Hussein, in order to block the Americans in Iraq and stop them from moving to Syria.

Map Syria-Iraq

Map Iraq Syria

Things got a lot more complicated in 2011, when the Turks and the Qataris used the Muslim Brotherhood to attack Assad, in order to promote the Qatar-Turkey Pipeline. Now the Arabs of the Gulf and the Turks were at opposite sides from the Russians and the Iranians.

The Russians and the Alawites of Syria were afraid that NATO would support the Turks and the Qataris, and they were very right to believe so. Therefore Assad and the Russians asked Haji Bakr to prepare a plan for the creation of an Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, which would unify the Sunnis of Syria and Iraq, in order to attack the Americans at one end (Iraq), and in order to prevent the Americans from finding allies in Sunni Syria and Sunni Iraq. The Sunnis that would be supported by the Russians and Assad (ISIS) had to kill any rebels who would cooperate with NATO.

By using the ex-officers of Saddam Hussein Assad and the Russians were trying to take control of the Sunni parts of Syria and Iraq.

Map Sunni, Shia, Alawite, Kurdish Parts of Syria

Possible IS State 1.jpg

http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/assets/4396135/sunni-shia-kurd_state_crop.jpg

Assad gave the Sunni Jihadists he was supporting the oil fields of Sunni Syria, and he started buying their oil to finance them. In reality the Jihadists that were cooperating with Assad were run by the best people of Saddam Hussein who were simply using an Islamic “coating”.

Actually the oil of ISIS was bought from ISIS by a Russian businessman close to Putin. See Wall Street Journal “An Energy Mogul Becomes Entangled With Islamic State”, May 2016.

Assad and Putin allowed Turkey to buy cheap oil from ISIS too, in order to give Turkey the motive to support ISIS. And indeed Turkey cooperated closely with ISIS in the oil sector. Remember that when things between Turkey and Russia became ugly, with the downing of the Russian plane, Putin accused Erdogan’s son Bilal Erdogan for doing business with ISIS. See the state owned Russian news agency RT “Ankara’s oil business with ISIS”, March 2016.

When Assad and Putin were angry with Erdogan, they would “fight” ISIS, by first informing ISIS, and then by substituting ISIS men with the men of Assad, in order to prevent Erdogan from doing business with ISIS i.e bying oil.

Another gift that Assad and Putin were giving Turkey with ISIS was that they allowed ISIS to hunt the Kurds of Syria, and that was a great gift for the Turks, because the Americans wanted rebels who would protect their Kurd allies. That’s why Erdogan was helping ISIS. ISIS was selling oil to Turkey, but more important than that ISIS was killing the Kurds of Syria, something forbidden by the Americans.

Essentially Putin and Assad were giving the Turks the chance to have the Sunni parts of Syira and Iraq, and also to buy the oil of the region, but only by using a force that would make sure NATO would never set foot there i.e. ISIS, which in turn means that the Qatar-Turkey pipeline would not be constructed.

The Iranians followed the example of the Russians and Assad, and in Sunni Syria they supported al-Nusra i.e. the subsidiary of Al-Qaeda. Al-Nusra was created in Syria by Al-Qaeda of Iraq, but there were many problems between Al-Qaeda of Iraq and Al-Qaeda of Syria, because Al-Qaeda of Iraq was the ex-people of Saddam Hussein who had promised the Russians and Assad not to attack Assad, and instead focus on building an Islamic State in the Sunni parts of Syria and Iraq.

Al-Qaeda of Syria i.e. al-Nusra, wanted to fight Assad, because the people of Saddam Hussein were mainly in Iraq and not in Syria. As a result there was fighting between Al-Qaeda of Iraq and Al-Qaeda of Syria, and in the end the Al-Qaeda of Iraq became ISIS. Al Qaeda of Syria i.e. al-Nusra broke ties with ISIS and started fighting both ISIS and Assad.

Al-Nusra was influenced by the mother company of Al-Qaeda, and she wanted to fight Assad. Remember that al-Qaeda is an Arab terror group, even though it was trained by Hezbollah and Iran. Al-Qaeda and Iran cooperated but they also fought each other.

Obviously not all the people of Saddam Hussein were working for Putin and Assad (ISIS). Some of them were working for Al-Qaeda too. It depends on who pays better.

In the end al-Nusra was bought by Qatar and she quit the global Jihad, and instead she focused on fighting ISIS and Assad. For the rebranding of al-Nusra see Business Insider “It looks like Al Qaeda is ‘laying a trap’ for the US — and giving Russia exactly what it wants”, July 2016.

In Syira you also had the Saudis fighting the Turks and the Qataris, because the Turks and the Qataris supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (Mohammed Morsi), who was overturned with the blessings of Saudi Arabia and UAE. The Turks and the Qataris were also supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, and the Saudis did not want the Muslim Brotherhood of Syria to have a role in the Syrian opposition. Therefore the Turks and the Saudis were supporting different rebel groups in Syria.

In 2015, with the new Saudi King, Saudi Arabia accepted the Muslim Brotherhood to play a role in the Syrian opposition.

But the whole idea of supporting an Islamic State in Syria and Iraq  was a very clever and ruthless plan of Putin and Assad. Islamic revolution and Islamic states are very popular in the Muslim World, and Putin and Assad just used a very common and popular idea to make the Sunni parts of Syria and Iraq forbidden zones for NATO.

Moreover, by uniting the Sunni parts of Syria and Iraq, and making them unreachable to the US with the use of ISIS, Assad and Putin were not only preventing the Americans from coming to Syria, but they were also attacking them at the other end of the road.

Map The Assad-Putin Plan

Assad and Putin.jpg

Obviously Assad and Putin know that at some point in the future they might have to face the Islamic State in Syria. But the Islamic State will not have the support of NATO and it will be easily wiped out by the Russians and the Syrians if they decide to do so at some point. Even if the Turks and the Qataris support ISIS they will not have NATO by their side.

Hilary Clinton wants to send American army in Syria, in order to destroy ISIS, but the Russians will not allow that, because they consider Syria to be under their protection. And obviously the Syrians and the Russians know that if the Americans “clean” Syria from the Jihadists they will be able to build an army which will be friendly to the West, and after that they might “push” the Qatar-Turkey gas pipeline with the support of Turkey and Qatar.

Obviously Putin will not say to Clinton “I do not want you to fight ISIS”, he will say that the Americans have no right to be in Syria.

The last chapter of the story, that is until July 2016, is the new agreement between Putin and Erdogan. They agreed that Putin will give Erdogan the Sunni part of Syria, and Erdogan will give Putin the Turkish Stream Pipeline. See “War or Peace”?

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/07/31/war-and-peace/

But things change so fast, so let’s wait to see what happens in August 2016.

A great article about how Assad organized the Islamic State is “The Terror Strategist: Secret Files Reveal the Structure of Islamic State”, April 2015.

Spiegel is the best political magazine of Europe. It is like the European Newsweek.

For the rise of the Islamic State see also “How Putin and Assad Created the Islamic State”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/how-putin-and-assad-created-the-islamic-state/

 

 

Articles

 

“How Putin and Assad Create the Islamic State”

http://iakovosal.blogspot.gr/2016/07/blog-post_78.html

 

Spiegel: How Assad Created the Islamic State

“The Terror Strategist: Secret Files Reveal the Structure of Islamic State”, April 2015

1 , 2, 3

Samir Abd Muhammad al-Khlifawi was the real name of the Iraqi, whose bony features were softened by a white beard. But no one knew him by that name. Even his best-known pseudonym, Haji Bakr, wasn’t widely known. But that was precisely part of the plan. The former colonel in the intelligence service of Saddam Hussein’s air defense force had been secretly pulling the strings at IS for years. Former members of the group had repeatedly mentioned him as one of its leading figures. Still, it was never clear what exactly his role was.

But when the architect of the Islamic State died, he left something behind that he had intended to keep strictly confidential: the blueprint for this state. It is a folder full of handwritten organizational charts, lists and schedules, which describe how a country can be gradually subjugated. SPIEGEL has gained exclusive access to the 31 pages, some consisting of several pages pasted together. They reveal a multilayered composition and directives for action, some already tested and others newly devised for the anarchical situation in Syria’s rebel-held territories. In a sense, the documents are the source code of the most successful terrorist army in recent history.

5

For the first time, the Haji Bakr documents now make it possible to reach conclusions on how the IS leadership is organized and what role former officials in the government of ex-dictator Saddam Hussein play in it. Above all, however, they show how the takeover in northern Syria was planned, making the group’s later advances into Iraq possible in the first place. In addition, months of research undertaken by SPIEGEL in Syria, as well as other newly discovered records, exclusive to SPIEGEL, show that Haji Bakr’s instructions were carried out meticulously.

8

The story of this collection of documents begins at a time when few had yet heard of the “Islamic State.” When Iraqi national Haji Bakr traveled to Syria as part of a tiny advance party in late 2012, he had a seemingly absurd plan: IS would capture as much territory as possible in Syria. Then, using Syria as a beachhead, it would invade Iraq.

21

It seemed as if George Orwell had been the model for this spawn of paranoid surveillance. But it was much simpler than that. Bakr was merely modifying what he had learned in the past: Saddam Hussein’s omnipresent security apparatus, in which no one, not even generals in the intelligence service, could be certain they weren’t being spied on.

24 , 25 , 26

In 2010, Bakr and a small group of former Iraqi intelligence officers made Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the emir and later “caliph,” the official leader of the Islamic State. They reasoned that Baghdadi, an educated cleric, would give the group a religious face.

Bakr was “a nationalist, not an Islamist,” says Iraqi journalist Hisham al-Hashimi, as he recalls the former career officer, who was stationed with Hashimi’s cousin at the Habbaniya Air Base. “Colonel Samir,” as Hashimi calls him, “was highly intelligent, firm and an excellent logistician.” But when Paul Bremer, then head of the US occupational authority in Baghdad, “dissolved the army by decree in May 2003, he was bitter and unemployed.”

Thousands of well-trained Sunni officers were robbed of their livelihood with the stroke of a pen. In doing so, America created its most bitter and intelligent enemies. Bakr went underground and met Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Anbar Province in western Iraq. Zarqawi, a Jordanian by birth, had previously run a training camp for international terrorist pilgrims in Afghanistan. Starting in 2003, he gained global notoriety as the mastermind of attacks against the United Nations, US troops and Shiite Muslims. He was even too radical for former Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Zarqawi died in a US air strike in 2006.

28 , 29 , 30

Bakr gradually became one of the military leaders in Iraq, and he was held from 2006 to 2008 in the US military’s Camp Bucca and Abu Ghraib Prison. He survived the waves of arrests and killings by American and Iraqi special units, which threatened the very existence of the IS precursor organization in 2010, Islamic State in Iraq.

For Bakr and a number of former high-ranking officers, this presented an opportunity to seize power in a significantly smaller circle of jihadists. They utilized the time they shared in Camp Bucca to establish a large network of contacts. But the top leaders had already known each other for a long time. Haji Bakr and an additional officer were part of the tiny secret-service unit attached to the anti-aircraft division. Two other IS leaders were from a small community of Sunni Turkmen in the town of Tal Afar. One of them was a high-ranking intelligence officer as well.

In 2010, the idea of trying to defeat Iraqi government forces militarily seemed futile. But a powerful underground organization took shape through acts of terror and protection rackets. When the uprising against the dictatorship of the Assad clan erupted in neighboring Syria, the organization’s leaders sensed an opportunity. By late 2012, particularly in the north, the formerly omnipotent government forces had largely been defeated and expelled. Instead, there were now hundreds of local councils and rebel brigades, part of an anarchic mix that no one could keep track of. It was a state of vulnerability that the tightly organized group of ex-officers sought to exploit.

42, 43

True to Haji Bakr’s plan, the phase of infiltration was followed by the elimination of every person who might have been a potential leader or opponent. The first person hit was the head of the city council, who was kidnapped in mid-May 2013 by masked men. The next person to disappear was the brother of a prominent novelist. Two days later, the man who had led the group that painted a revolutionary flag on the city walls vanished.

“We had an idea who kidnapped him,” one of his friends explains, “but no one dared any longer to do anything.” The system of fear began to take hold. Starting in July, first dozens and then hundreds of people disappeared. Sometimes their bodies were found, but they usually disappeared without a trace. In August, the IS military leadership dispatched several cars driven by suicide bombers to the headquarters of the FSA brigade, the “Grandsons of the Prophet,” killing dozens of fighters and leading the rest to flee. The other rebels merely looked on. IS leadership had spun a web of secret deals with the brigades so that each thought it was only the others who might be the targets of IS attacks.

47, 48

Until the end of 2013, everything was going according to Islamic State’s plan — or at least according to the plan of Haji Bakr. The caliphate was expanding village by village without being confronted by unified resistance from Syrian rebels. Indeed, the rebels seemed paralyzed in the face of IS’ sinister power.

But when IS henchmen brutally tortured a well-liked rebel leader and doctor to death in December 2013, something unexpected happened. Across the country, Syrian brigades — both secular and parts of the radical Nusra Front — joined together to do battle with Islamic State. By attacking IS everywhere at the same time, they were able to rob the Islamists of their tactical advantage — that of being able to rapidly move units to where they were most urgently needed.

52, 53, 54, 55, 56

Haji Bakr stayed behind in the small city of Tal Rifaat, where IS had long had the upper hand. But when rebels attacked at the end of January 2014, the city became divided within just a few hours. One half remained under IS control while the other was wrested away by one of the local brigades. Haji Bakr was stuck in the wrong half. Furthermore, in order to remain incognito he had refrained from moving into one of the heavily guarded IS military quarters. And so, the godfather of snitching was snitched on by a neighbor. “A Daish sheik lives next door!” the man called. A local commander named Abdelmalik Hadbe and his men drove over to Bakr’s house. A woman jerked open the door and said brusquely: “My husband isn’t here.”

But his car is parked out front, the rebels countered.

At that moment, Haji Bakr appeared at the door in his pajamas. Hadbe ordered him to come with them, whereupon Bakr protested that he wanted to get dressed. No, Hadbe repeated: “Come with us! Immediately!”

Surprisingly nimbly for his age, Bakr jumped back and kicked the door closed, according to two people who witnessed the scene. He then hid under the stairs and yelled: “I have a suicide belt! I’ll blow up all of us!” He then came out with a Kalashnikov and began shooting. Hadbe then fired his weapon and killed Bakr.

When the men later learned who they had killed, they searched the house, gathering up computers, passports, mobile phone SIM cards, a GPS device and, most importantly, papers. They didn’t find a Koran anywhere.

58

Haji Bakr’s state continued to work even without its creator. Just how precisely his plans were implemented — point by point — is confirmed by the discovery of another file. When IS was forced to rapidly abandon its headquarters in Aleppo in January 2014, they tried to burn their archive, but they ran into a problem similar to that confronted by the East German secret police 25 years earlier: They had too many files.

63, 64 , 65 , 66, 67, 68, 69

But in the first months of 2014, yet another legacy from Haji Bakr began playing a decisive role: His decade of contacts to Assad’s intelligence services.

In 2003, the Damascus regime was panicked that then-US President George W. Bush, after his victory over Saddam Hussein, would have his troops continue into Syria to topple Assad as well. Thus, in the ensuing years, Syrian intelligence officials organized the transfer of thousands of radicals from Libya, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia to al-Qaida in Iraq. Ninety percent of the suicide attackers entered Iraq via the Syrian route. A strange relationship developed between Syrian generals, international jihadists and former Iraqi officers who had been loyal to Saddam — a joint venture of deadly enemies, who met repeatedly to the west of Damascus.

At the time, the primary aim was to make the lives of the Americans in Iraq hell. Ten years later, Bashar Assad had a different motive to breathe new life into the alliance: He wanted to sell himself to the world as the lesser of several evils. Islamist terror, the more gruesome the better, was too important to leave it up to the terrorists. The regime’s relationship with Islamic State is — just as it was to its predecessor a decade prior — marked by a completely tactical pragmatism. Both sides are trying to use the other in the assumption that it will emerge as the stronger power, able to defeat the discrete collaborator of yesterday. Conversely, IS leaders had no problem receiving assistance from Assad’s air force, despite all of the group’s pledges to annihilate the apostate Shiites. Starting in January 2014, Syrian jets would regularly — and exclusively — bomb rebel positions and headquarters during battles between IS and rebel groups.

In battles between IS and rebels in January 2014, Assad’s jets regularly bombed only rebel positions, while the Islamic State emir ordered his fighters to refrain from shooting at the army. It was an arrangement that left many of the foreign fighters deeply disillusioned; they had imaged jihad differently.

IS threw its entire arsenal at the rebels, sending more suicide bombers into their ranks in just a few weeks than it deployed during the entire previous year against the Syrian army. Thanks in part to additional air strikes, IS was able to reconquer territory that it had briefly lost.

Nothing symbolizes the tactical shifting of alliances more than the fate of the Syrian army’s Division 17. The isolated base near Raqqa had been under rebel siege for more than a year. But then, IS units defeated the rebels there and Assad’s air force was once again able to use the base for supply flights without fear of attack.

But a half year later, after IS conquered Mosul and took control of a gigantic weapons depot there, the jihadists felt powerful enough to attack their erstwhile helpers. IS fighters overran Division 17 and slaughtered the soldiers, whom they had only recently protected.

72, 73, 74

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may be the officially named leader, but it remains unclear how much power he holds. In any case, when an emissary of al-Qaida head Ayman al-Zawahiri contacted the Islamic State, it was Haji Bakr and other intelligence officers, and not al-Baghdadi, whom he approached. Afterwards, the emissary bemoaned “these phony snakes who are betraying the real jihad.”

Within IS, there are state structures, bureaucracy and authorities. But there is also a parallel command structure: elite units next to normal troops; additional commanders alongside nominal military head Omar al-Shishani; power brokers who transfer or demote provincial and town emirs or even make them disappear at will. Furthermore, decisions are not, as a rule, made in Shura Councils, nominally the highest decision-making body. Instead, they are being made by the “people who loosen and bind” (ahl al-hall wa-l-aqd), a clandestine circle whose name is taken from the Islam of medieval times.

Islamic State is able to recognize all manner of internal revolts and stifle them. At the same time, the hermitic surveillance structure is also useful for the financial exploitation of its subjects.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html

 

The Atlantic: How Iran Created Al-Qaeda of Iraq

“The Short, Violent Life of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi”, August 2006

1 , 2, 3, 4

On a cold and blustery evening in December 1989, Huthaifa Azzam, the teenage son of the legendary Jordanian-Palestinian mujahideen leader Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, went to the airport in Peshawar,Pakistan, to welcome a group of young men. All were new recruits, largely from Jordan, and they had come to fight in a fratricidal civil war in neighboring Afghanistan—an outgrowth of the CIA-financed jihad of the 1980s against the Soviet occupation there.

The men were scruffy, Huthaifa mused as he greeted them, and seemed hardly in battle-ready form. Some had just been released from prison; others were professors and sheikhs. None of them would prove worth remembering—except for a relatively short, squat man named Ahmad Fadhil Nazzal al-Khalaylah.

He would later rename himself Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Once one of the most wanted men in the world, for whose arrest the United States offered a $25 million reward, al-Zarqawi was a notoriously enigmatic figure—a man who was everywhere yet nowhere. I went to Jordan earlier this year, three months before he was killed by a U.S. airstrike in early June, to find out who he really was, and to try to understand the role he was playing in the anti-American insurgency in Iraq. I also hoped to get a sense of how his generation—the foreign fighters now waging jihad in Iraq—compare with the foreign fighters who twenty years ago waged jihad in Afghanistan.

9

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, barely forty and barely literate, a Bedouin from the Bani Hassan tribe, was until recently almost unknown outside his native Jordan. Then, on February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell catapulted him onto the world stage. In his address to the United Nations making the case for war in Iraq, Powell identified al-Zarqawi—mistakenly, as it turned out—as the crucial link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime. Subsequently, al-Zarqawi became a leading figure in the insurgency in Iraq—and in November of last year, he also brought his jihadist revolution back home, as the architect of three lethal hotel bombings in Amman. His notoriety grew with every atrocity he perpetrated, yet Western and Middle Eastern intelligence officials remained bedeviled by a simple question: Who was he? Was he al-Qaeda’s point man in Iraq, as the Bush administration argued repeatedly? Or was he, as a retired Israeli intelligence official told me not long ago, a staunch rival of bin Laden’s, whose importance the United States exaggerated in order to validate a link between al-Qaeda and pre-war Iraq, and to put a non-Iraqi face on a complex insurgency?

16

Everyone I spoke with readily acknowledged that as a teenager al-Zarqawi had been a bully and a thug, a bootlegger and a heavy drinker, and even, allegedly, a pimp in Zarqa’s underworld. He was disruptive, constantly involved in brawls. When he was fifteen (according to his police record, about which I had been briefed in Amman), he participated in a robbery of a relative’s home, during which the relative was killed. Two years later, a year shy of graduation, he had dropped out of school. Then, in 1989, at the age of twenty-three, he traveled to Afghanistan.

22, 23, 24

“He was an ordinary guy, an ordinary fighter, and didn’t really distinguish himself,” Huthaifa Azzam said of al-Zarqawi’s first time in Afghanistan. “He was a quiet guy who didn’t talk much. But he was brave. Zarqawi doesn’t know the meaning of fear. He’s been wounded five or six times in Afghanistan and Iraq. He seems to intentionally place himself in the middle of the most dangerous situations. He fought in the battles of Khost and Kardez and, in April 1992, witnessed the liberation of Kabul by the mujahideen. A lot of Arabs were great commanders during those years. Zarqawi was not. He also wasn’t very religious during that time. In fact, he’d only ‘returned’ to Islam three months before coming to Afghanistan. It was the Tablighi Jamaat [a proselytizing missionary group spread across the Muslim world] who convinced him—he had thirty-seven criminal cases against him by then—that it was time to cleanse himself.”

A Jordanian counterterrorism official expanded on al-Zarqawi’s time in Afghanistan for me. “His second time in Afghanistan was far more important than the first. But the first was significant in two ways. Zarqawi was young and impressionable; he’d never been out of Jordan before, and now, for the first time, he was interacting with doctrinaire Islamists from across the Muslim world, most of them brought to Afghanistan by the CIA. It was also his first exposure to al-Qaeda. He didn’t meet bin Laden, of course, but he trained in one of his and Abdullah Azzam’s camps: the Sada camp near the Afghan border inside Pakistan. He trained under Abu Hafs al-Masri.” (The reference was to the nom de guerre of Mohammed Atef, an Egyptian who was bin Laden’s military chief and, until he was killed in an American air strike in Afghanistan in November 2001, the No. 3 official in al-Qaeda.)

Abu Muntassir Bilah Muhammad is another jihadist who spent time fighting in Afghanistan and who would later become one of the co-founders of al-Zarqawi’s first militant Islamist group. “Zarqawi arrived in Afghanistan as a zero,” he told me, “a man with no career, just floundering about. He trained and fought and he came back to Jordan with ambitions and dreams: to carry the ideology of jihad. His first ambition was to reform Jordan, to set up an Islamist state. And there was a cachet involved in fighting in the jihad. Zarqawi returned to Jordan with newfound respect. It’s not so much what Zarqawi did in the jihad—it’s what the jihad did for him.”

26

But perhaps as important as anything else, it was in Afghanistan that al-Zarqawi was introduced to Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi (whose real name is Isam Muhammad Tahir al-Barqawi), a revered and militant Salafist cleric who had moved to Zarqa following the mass expulsion of Palestinians from Kuwait in the aftermath of the Gulf War. The Salafiya movement originated in Egypt, at the end of the nineteenth century, as a modernist Sunni reform movement, the aim of which was to let the Muslim world rise to the challenges posed by Western science and political thought. But since the 1920s, it has evolved into a severely puritanical school of absolutist thought that is markedly anti-Western and based on a literal interpretation of the Koran. Today’s most radical Salafists regard any departure from their own rigid principles of Islam to be heretical; their particular hatred of Shiites—who broke with the Sunnis in 632 A.D. over the question of succession to the Prophet Muhammad, and who now constitute the majority in Iran and Iraq—is visceral. Over the years, al-Maqdisi embraced the most extreme school of Salafism, closely akin to the puritanical Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia, and in the early 1980s he published The Creed of Abraham, the single most important source of teachings for Salafist movements around the world. Al-Maqdisi would become al-Zarqawi’s ideological mentor and most profound influence.

28, 29

Al-Zarqawi and al-Maqdisi left Afghanistan in 1993 and returned to Jordan. They found it much changed. In their absence the Jordanians and the Israelis had begun negotiations that would lead to the signing of a peace treaty in 1994; the Palestinians had signed the Oslo Accords of 1993; and the Iraqis had lost the Gulf War. Unemployment was up sharply, the result of a privatization drive agreed to with the International Monetary Fund, and Jordanians were frustrated and angry. The Muslim Brotherhood—the kingdom’s only viable opposition political force, which had agreed to support King Hussein in exchange for being allowed to participate in public and parliamentary life—appeared unable to cope with the rising disaffection. Small underground Islamist groups had therefore begun to appear, composed largely of men who had fought in the Afghan jihad, and who were guided by the increasingly loud voices of militant clerics who felt the Muslim Brotherhood had been co-opted by the state.

After the two men returned home, al-Maqdisi toured the kingdom, preaching and recruiting, and al-Zarqawi sought out Abu Muntassir, who had already acquired a standing among Islamic militants in Jordan. “We talked a lot, over a couple of days,” Abu Muntassir told me. “He was still pretty much a novice, but very willing, very able, and keen to learn about Islam. I was teaching geography at the time in a government school, so it was easy for me to teach Islam as well. After some time, Zarqawi asked me to work with him in an Islamic group; al-Maqdisi was already on board. The idea was there, but it had no leadership and no name. First we called it al-Tawhid, then changed the name to Bayat al-Imam [Allegiance to the Imam]. We were small but enthusiastic—a dozen or so men. Our primary objective, of course, was to overthrow the monarchy and establish an Islamic government.”

31, 32 , 33

In another botched operation, al-Maqdisi (according to court testimony that he denied) gave al-Zarqawi seven grenades he had smuggled into Jordan, and al-Zarqawi hid them in the cellar of his family’s home. Al-Maqdisi was already under surveillance by Jordan’s intelligence service by that time, because of his growing popularity. The grenades were quickly discovered, and the two men, along with a number of their followers, found themselves for the first time before a state security court. Al-Zarqawi told the court that he had found the grenades while walking down the street. The judges were not amused. They convicted him and al-Maqdisi of possessing illegal weapons and belonging to a banned organization. In 1994, al-Zarqawi was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. He would flourish there.

Swaqa prison sits on the southern desert’s edge, sixty miles south of Amman, and its political prisoners, both Islamist and secular, are housed in four wings. Al-Zarqawi embraced prison life in the extreme—as he appears to have embraced everything. According to fellow inmates of his with whom I spoke, his primary obsessions were recruiting other prisoners to his cause, building his body, and, under the tutelage of al-Maqdisi, memorizing the 6,236 verses of the Koran. He was stern, tough, and unrelenting on anything that he considered to be an infraction of his rules, yet he was often seen in the prison courtyard crying as he read the Koran.

He was fastidious about his appearance in prison—his beard and moustache were always cosmetically groomed—and he wore only Afghan dress: the shalwar kameez and a rolled-brim, woolen Pashtun cap. One former inmate who served time with him told me that al-Zarqawi sauntered through the prison ward like a “peacock.” Islamists flocked to him. He attracted recruits; some joined him out of fascination, others out of curiosity, and still others out of fear. In a short time, he had organized prison life at Swaqa like a gang leader.

36

When Abu Rumman entered Swaqa, al-Zarqawi was in isolation following a prison brawl. “It was quite extraordinary,” Abu Rumman said. “My first glimpse of Zarqawi was when he was released. He returned to the ward as a hero surrounded by his own bodyguards. Everyone began to shout: Allahu Akhbar! By that time Zarqawi was already called the ‘emir,’ or ‘prince.’ He had an uncanny ability to control, almost to hypnotize; he could order his followers to do things just by moving his eyes.”

41, 42, 43

In 1998, three or four of al-Zarqawi’s tracts were posted on the Internet, after heavy editing. Soon they came to the attention of Osama bin Laden, in Afghanistan. It was the first time he had ever heard of al-Zarqawi.

In May of the following year, Jordan’s King Abdullah II—newly enthroned after the death of his father, King Hussein—declared a general amnesty, and al-Zarqawi was released from Swaqa. He had made effective use of his time there. As he had done nearly a decade before—when he befriended wealthy Saudi jihadists in Khost—he had expanded his reach and his appeal during his prison years. Among the fellow inmates he had converted to Salafism and brought into the Bayat al-Imam were a substantial number of prisoners from Iraq.

After returning for a few months to Zarqa, al-Zarqawi left again and traveled to Pakistan. He may or may not have known that Jordan was about to declare him a suspect in a series of foiled terrorist attacks intended for New Year’s Eve of 1999. The plan, which became known as the “Millennium Plot,” involved the bombing of Christian landmarks and other tourist sites, along with the Radisson Hotel in Amman. Had it succeeded, it would have been al-Zarqawi’s first involvement in a major terrorist attack.

45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51

In December 1999, al-Zarqawi crossed the border into Afghanistan, and later that month he and bin Laden met at the Government Guest House in the southern city of Kandahar, the de facto capital of the ruling Taliban. As they sat facing each other across the receiving room, a former Israeli intelligence official told me, “it was loathing at first sight.”

According to several different accounts of the meeting, bin Laden distrusted and disliked al-Zarqawi immediately. He suspected that the group of Jordanian prisoners with whom al-Zarqawi had been granted amnesty earlier in the year had been infiltrated by Jordanian intelligence; something similar had occurred not long before with a Jordanian jihadist cell that had come to Afghanistan. Bin Laden also disliked al-Zarqawi’s swagger and the green tattoos on his left hand, which he reportedly considered un-Islamic. Al-Zarqawi came across to bin Laden as aggressively ambitious, abrasive, and overbearing. His hatred of Shiites also seemed to bin Laden to be potentially divisive—which, of course, it was. (Bin Laden’s mother, to whom he remains close, is a Shiite, from the Alawites of Syria.)

Al-Zarqawi would not recant, even in the presence of the legendary head of al-Qaeda. “Shiites should be executed,” he reportedly declared. He also took exception to bin Laden’s providing Arab fighters to the Taliban, the fundamentalist student militia that, although now in power, was still battling the Northern Alliance, which controlled some 10 percent of Afghanistan. Muslim killing Muslim was un-Islamic, al-Zarqawi is reported to have said.

Unaccustomed to such direct criticism, the leader of al-Qaeda was aghast.

Had Saif al-Adel—now bin Laden’s military chief—not intervened, history might be written very differently.

A former Egyptian army colonel who had trained in special operations, al-Adel was then al-Qaeda’s chief of security and a prominent voice in an emerging debate gripping the militant Islamist world. Who should the primary target be—the “near enemy” (the Muslim world’s “un-Islamic” regimes) or the “far enemy” (primarily Israel and the United States)? Al-Zarqawi was a near-enemy advocate, and although his obsession remained the overthrow of the Jordanian monarchy, he had expanded his horizons slightly during his prison years and had now begun to focus on the area known as al-Sham, or the Levant, which includes Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and historic Palestine. As an Egyptian who had attempted to overthrow his own country’s army-backed regime, al-Adel saw merit in al-Zarqawi’s views. Thus, after a good deal of debate within al-Qaeda, it was agreed that al-Zarqawi would be given $5,000 or so in “seed money” to set up his own training camp outside the western Afghan city of Herat, near the Iranian border. It was about as far away as he could be from bin Laden.

Saif al-Adel was designated the middleman.

In early 2000, with a dozen or so followers who had arrived from Peshawar and Amman, al-Zarqawi set out for the western desert encircling Herat. His goal: to build an army that he could export to anywhere in the world. Al-Adel paid monthly visits to al-Zarqawi’s training camp; later, on his Web site, he would write that he was amazed at what he saw there. The number of al-Zarqawi’s fighters multiplied from dozens to hundreds during the following year, and by the time the forces evacuated their camp, prior to the U.S. air strikes of October 200l, the fighters and their families numbered some 2,000 to 3,000. According to al-Adel, the wives of al-Zarqawi’s followers served lavish Levantine cuisine in the camp.

It was in Herat that al-Zarqawi formed the militant organization Jund al-Sham, or Soldiers of the Levant. His key operational lieutenants were mainly Syrians—most of whom had fought in the Afghan jihad, and many of whom belonged to their country’s banned Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood’s exiled leadership, which is largely based in Europe, was immensely important in recruiting for the Herat camp, although whether it also supplied funds remains under debate. What is clear, however, is that al-Zarqawi’s closest aide, a Syrian from the city of Hama named Sulayman Khalid Darwish—or Abu al-Ghadiyah—was considered to be, until his death last summer on the Iraqi-Syrian frontier, one of al-Zarqawi’s most likely successors.

53, 54 ,55, 56, 57, 58, 59

At least five times, in 2000 and 2001, bin Laden called al-Zarqawi to come to Kandahar and pay bayat—take an oath of allegiance—to him. Each time, al-Zarqawi refused. Under no circumstances did he want to become involved in the battle between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban. He also did not believe that either bin Laden or the Taliban was serious enough about jihad.

When the United States launched its air war inside Afghanistan, on October 7, 2001, al-Zarqawi joined forces with al-Qaeda and the Taliban for the first time. He and his Jund al-Sham fought in and around Herat and Kandahar. Al-Zarqawi was wounded in an American air strike—not in the leg, as U.S. officials claimed for two years, but in the chest, when the ceiling of the building in which he was operating collapsed on him. Neither did he join Osama bin Laden in the eastern mountains of Tora Bora, as U.S. officials have also said. Bin Laden took only his most trusted fighters to Tora Bora, and al-Zarqawi was not one of them.

In December 2001, accompanied by some 300 fighters from Jund al-Sham, al-Zarqawi left Afghanistan once again, and entered Iran.

During the next fourteen months, al-Zarqawi based himself primarily in Iran and in the autonomous area of Kurdistan, in northern Iraq, traveling from time to time to Syria and to the Ayn al-Hilwah Palestinian refugee camp in the south of Lebanon—a camp that, according to the former Jordanian intelligence official, became his main recruiting ground. More often, however, al-Zarqawi traveled to the Sunni Triangle of Iraq. He expanded his network, recruited and trained new fighters, and set up bases, safe houses, and military training camps. In Iran, he was reunited with Saif al-Adel—who encouraged him to go to Iraq and provided contacts there—and for a time, al-Zarqawi stayed at a farm belonging to the fiercely anti-American Afghan jihad leader Gulbaddin Hekmatyar. In Kurdistan he lived and worked with the separatist militant Islamist group Ansar al-Islam, ironically in an area protected as part of the “no-fly” zone imposed on Saddam Hussein by Washington.

One can only imagine how astonished al-Zarqawi must have been when Colin Powell named him as the crucial link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime. He was not even officially a part of al-Qaeda, and ever since he had left Afghanistan, his links had been not to Iraq but to Iran.

“We know Zarqawi better than he knows himself,” the high-level Jordanian intelligence official said. “And I can assure you that he never had any links to Saddam. Iran is quite a different matter. The Iranians have a policy: they want to control Iraq. And part of this policy has been to support Zarqawi, tactically but not strategically.”

“In the beginning they gave him automatic weapons, uniforms, military equipment, when he was with the army of Ansar al-Islam. Now they essentially just turn a blind eye to his activities, and to those of al-Qaeda generally. The Iranians see Iraq as a fight against the Americans, and overall, they’ll get rid of Zarqawi and all of his people once the Americans are out.”

In the summer of 2003, three months after the American invasion, al-Zarqawi moved to the Sunni areas of Iraq. He became infamous almost at once. On August 7, he allegedly carried out a car-bomb attack at the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad. Twelve days later, he was linked to the bombing of the United Nations headquarters, in which twenty-two people died. And on August 29, in what was then the deadliest attack of the war, he engineered the killing of over a hundred people, including a revered cleric, the Ayatollah Muhammad Baqr al-Hakim, in a car bombing outside Shia Islam’s holy shrine in Najaf. The suicide bomber in that attack was Yassin Jarad, from Zarqa. He was al-Zarqawi’s father-in-law.

63

Of course, no one did more to cultivate that image than al-Zarqawi himself. He committed some of the deadliest attacks in Iraq, though they still represent only some 10 percent of the country’s total number of attacks. In May 2004, he inaugurated his notorious wave of hostage beheadings; he also specialized in suicide and truck bombings of Shiite shrines and mosques, largely in Shiite neighborhoods. His primary aim was to provoke a civil war. “If we succeed in dragging [the Shia] into a sectarian war,” he purportedly wrote in a letter intercepted by U.S. forces and released in February 2004, “this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands of the Shia.” (The authenticity of the letter came into question almost immediately.)

65, 66, 67, 68 ,69

Regardless of his growing notoriety in Iraq, al-Zarqawi never lost sight of his ultimate goal: the overthrow of the Jordanian monarchy. His efforts to foment unrest in Jordan included the 2002 assassination of the U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley, and, on a far larger scale, a disrupted plot in 2004 to bomb the headquarters of the Jordanian intelligence services—a scheme that, according to Jordanian officials, would have entailed the use of trucks packed with enough chemicals and explosives to kill some 80,000 people. Once it was uncovered, al-Zarqawi immediately accepted responsibility for the plot, although he denied that chemical weapons would have been involved.

Later that year, in October 2004, after resisting for nearly five years, al-Zarqawi finally paid bayat to Osama bin Laden—but only after eight months of often stormy negotiations. After doing so he proclaimed himself to be the “Emir of al-Qaeda’s Operations in the Land of Mesopotamia,” a title that subordinated him to bin Laden but at the same time placed him firmly on the global stage. One explanation for this coming together of these two former antagonists was simple: al-Zarqawi profited from the al-Qaeda franchise, and bin Laden needed a presence in Iraq. Another explanation is more complex: bin Laden laid claim to al-Zarqawi in the hopes of forestalling his emergence as the single most important terrorist figure in the world, and al-Zarqawi accepted bin Laden’s endorsement to augment his credibility and to strengthen his grip on the Iraqi tribes. Both explanations are true.

“From the beginning, Zarqawi has wanted to be independent, and he will continue to be,” Oraib Rantawi, the director of the Al-Quds Center for Political Studies in Amman, said to me. “Yes, he’s gained stature through this alliance, but he only swore bayat after all this time because of growing pressure from Iraqis who were members of al-Qaeda. And even then he signed with conditions—that he would maintain control over Jund al-Sham and al-Tawhid, and that he would exert operational autonomy. His suicide bombings of the hotels in Amman”—in which some sixty civilians died, many of them while attending a wedding celebration—“was a huge tactical mistake. My understanding is that bin Laden was furious about it.”

The attacks, which represented an expansion of al- Zarqawi’s sophistication and reach, also showed his growing independence from the al-Qaeda chief. They came only thirteen months after he had sworn bayat. The alliance had already begun to fray.

The signs were visible as early as the summer of 2005. In a letter purportedly sent to al-Zarqawi in July from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian surgeon who is bin Laden’s designated heir, al-Zarqawi was chided about his tactics in Iraq. And although some experts have cast doubt on the letter’s authenticity (it was released by the office of the U.S. Director of National Intelligence), few would dispute its message: namely, that al-Zarqawi’s hostage beheadings, his mass slaughter of Shiites, and his assaults on their mosques were all having a negative effect on Muslim opinion—both of him and, by extension, of al-Qaeda—around the world. In one admonition, al-Zawahiri allegedly advised al-Zarqawi that a captive can be killed as easily by a bullet as by a knife.

76

“Not at all,” he replied. “Zarqawi had the ambition to become what he has, but whatever happens, even if he becomes the most popular figure in Iraq, he can never go against the symbolism that bin Laden represents. If Zarqawi is captured or killed tomorrow, the Iraqi insurgency will go on. There is no such thing as ‘Zarqawism.’ What Zarqawi is will die with him. Bin Laden, on the other hand, is an ideological thinker. He created the concept of al-Qaeda and all of its offshoots. He feels he’s achieved his goal.” He paused for a moment, then said, “Osama bin Laden is like Karl Marx. Both created an ideology. Marxism still flourished well after Marx’s death. And whether bin Laden is killed, or simply dies of natural causes, al-Qaedaism will survive him.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/07/the-short-violent-life-of-abu-musab-al-zarqawi/304983/

 

Qatar is trying to convince al-Nusra to cut ties with Al-Qaeda and start cooperating with Qatar in order to jointly fight Assad and ISIS

“Syria’s Nusra Front may leave Qaeda to form new entity”, March 2015

Leaders of Syria‘s Nusra Front are considering cutting their links with al Qaeda to form a new entity backed by some Gulf states trying to topple President Bashar al-Assad, sources said.

Sources within and close to Nusra said that Qatar, which enjoys good relations with the group, is encouraging the group to go ahead with the move, which would give Nusra a boost in funding.

The exercise could transform Nusra from a weakened militia group into a force capable of taking on Islamic State at a time when it is under pressure from bombing raids and advances by Kurdish and Iraqi military forces.

It could also boost the influence of Qatar and its allies in the campaign to oust Assad, in line with the Gulf state’s growing diplomatic ambitions in the region. Qatari officials were not available for comment.

While it awaits the final word from its decision-making Shoura council, Nusra is not wasting time. It has turned on small non-jihadi groups, seizing their territory and forcing them to disarm so as to consolidate Nusra’s power in northern Syria and pave the way for the new group.

Intelligence officials from Gulf states including Qatar have met the leader of Nusra, Abu Mohamad al-Golani, several times in the past few months to encourage him to abandon al Qaeda and to discuss what support they could provide, the sources said.

They promised funding once it happens.

“A new entity will see the light soon, which will include Nusra and Jaysh al Muhajereen wel Ansar and other small brigades,” said Muzamjer al-Sham, a prominent jihadi figure who is close to Nusra and other Islamist groups in Syria.

“The name of Nusra will be abandoned. It will disengage from al Qaeda. But not all the Nusra emirs agree and that is why the announcement has been delayed,” said Sham.

A source close to the foreign ministry confirmed that Qatar wanted Nusra to become a purely Syrian force not linked to al Qaeda.

“They are promising Nusra more support, i.e. money, supplies etc, once they let go of the Qaeda ties,” the official said.

The Qatari-led bid to rebrand Nusra and to provide it with new support could further complicate the war in Syria as the United States prepares to arm and train non-jihadist rebels to fight Islamic State.

The Nusra Front is listed as a terrorist group by the United States and has been sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. But for Qatar at least, rebranding Nusra would remove legal obstacles to supporting it.

FIGHTING ISLAMIC STATE

One of the goals of the new entity would be to fight Islamic State, Nusra’s main competitor in Syria. IS is led by Iraqi jihadi Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who helped create Nusra before falling out with Golani.

Once the most powerful group fighting Assad, Nusra was weakened when most of its commanders and fighters left with Baghdadi to form Islamic State. IS then killed many of Nusra’s remaining leaders, confiscated its weapons, forced its commanders to go underground and seized its territory.

But recently Islamic State has come under pressure from air strikes by a U.S.-led coalition. It has also lost ground to Kurdish fighters in Syria and to the Iraqi armed forces. But the group is far from collapse.

But if Nusra splits from al Qaeda, some hope that with proper funding, arming and training, fighters from the new group will be able to tackle Islamic State.

Jihadi sources said that Golani suggested to the group’s Shoura Council that it should merge with Jaysh al-Muhajereen wel Ansar, a smaller jihadi group composed of local and foreign fighters and led by a Chechen commander.

The announcement has been delayed due to objections from some of Nusra’s leaders who reject the idea of leaving al Qaeda. But this was seen as unlikely to stop Golani.

“He is going to do it, he does not have a choice. Those who are not happy can leave,” said a Nusra source who backs the move.

It seems Golani is already establishing the ground.

Nusra wants to use northern Syria as base for the new group. It launched offensives against Western-backed groups who have been vetted by the U.S. to receive military support.

In the northern province of Idlib it seized territory from the Syria Revolutionaries’ Front led by Jamal Maarouf, forcing him to flee. Last week it went after another mainstream group, Harakat Hazzm in Aleppo province, forcing it to dissolve itself.

The U.S. State Department said the end of Harakat Hazzm would have an impact on the moderate opposition’s capabilities in the north.

But if Nusra is dissolved and it abandons al Qaeda, the ideology of the new entity is not expected to change. Golani fought with al Qaeda in Iraq. Some other leaders fought inAfghanistan and are close al Qaeda chief Ayman Zawahri.

“Nusra had to pledge loyalty to Sheikh Zawahri to avoid being forced to be loyal to Baghdadi but that was not a good idea, it is time that this is abandoned,” said a Nusra source in Aleppo. “It did not help Nusra and now it is on the terrorist list,” he said.

(Reporting by Mariam Karouny; additional reporting by Amena Bakr in Doha; Editing by Giles Elgood)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-nusra-insight-idUKKBN0M00G620150304

 

Al-Nusra cut ties with Al-Qaeda officially and rebrands itself

“It looks like Al Qaeda is ‘laying a trap’ for the US — and giving Russia exactly what it wants”, Juy 2016

Al Qaeda’s former affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, formally severed ties with the global terrorist organization Thursday in an attempt to “unify” as a distinct Islamist brigade with its own revolutionary goals and vision.

In its mission to rebrand itself, al-Nusra — now identifying asJabhat Fateh al-Sham — has clearly indicated that it is not committed to Al Qaeda’s brand of global jihad but to the singular goal of fomenting an Islamic revolution inside Syria.

The break was made easier by the fact that, since its emergence in 2012, Nusra has woven itself into the fabric of Syria’s communities and established military alliances of convenience with many mainstream rebel groups in the name of toppling Syrian president Bashar Assad.

But it also confirms that Nusra has no intention of distancing itself from the revolution’s non-jihadist rebel groups, many of whom are backed by the US and its allies.

For Russia, then — which has consistently used Nusra’s presence among these more moderate rebel groups as an excuse to target and eliminate any and all opposition to its ally, Assad — Nusra’s dissolution of ties with Al Qaeda is a gift. For the US, it’s a headache.

“By dissolving its ties with Al Qaeda, Nusra Front has made certain that it will remain deeply embedded within opposition front lines, particularly in the northern governorates of Aleppo and Idlib,” Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute who is an expert on Syria’s jihadist insurgency, wrote in Foreign Policy on Friday.

He continued:

“Any airstrikes by foreign states targeting the group will almost certainly result in the deaths of mainstream opposition fighters and be perceived on the ground as counterrevolutionary. Consequently, a mission defined by Moscow and Washington in counterterrorism terms would in all likelihood steadily broaden the spectrum of those potentially defined as ‘terrorists’ — to the substantial detriment of any future solution to the Syrian crisis.”

The break comes just as the US and Russia are preparing to announce a military cooperation plan, known as the Joint Implementation Group, that was meant to more clearly delineate Nusra’s positions in Syria and deter airstrikes on civilians and the more moderate opposition.

“By disavowing its ties to Al Qaeda — which, incidentally, it did with Al Qaeda’s blessing — Nusra has made it harder to isolate it from more moderate groups, some of whose members may join it now because it’s more powerful than some of the groups they belong to now,” a US official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Jeff White, a military expert and defense fellow at The Washington Institute, said the development would probably not have any effect on Russia’s military strategy in Syria.

“Russia doesn’t bomb Nusra because it’s a terrorist group,” White told Business Insider. “It bombs Nusra because it is an enemy — an effective one — of the regime. For Russia, as long as Nusra keeps fighting the regime, it will remain a target.”

As for how the break might affect the US’s military strategy in Syria, White said that while the Obama administration would “want to assess what the split means in terms of goals, objectives, and operations, I suspect the counterterrorism community will be loath to take it off the target list.”

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday that Nusra’s rebranding would not affect the US’s assessment of the group.

“There continues to be increasing concern about Nusra Front’s growing capacity for external operations that could threaten both the United States and Europe,” Earnest told reporters at the daily White House press briefing.

But the development is bound to further complicate Syria’s rebel landscape, especially as Nusra — under its new name — mainstreams itself and consequently attracts more young men to its cause.

That, Lister noted, is where Nusra’s break from Al Qaeda can be seen less as a conscious separation from the terrorist organization’s global jihadist ideals and more as a way of “laying a trap” for the US and its allies who claim to want to support the goals of Syria’s revolution.

“The most moderate FSA groups will be forced to choose between military and revolutionary unity, or operational isolation and subjugation,” Lister wrote. “In short, Jabhat al-Nusra is taking yet another step toward shaping the orientation of the Syrian opposition in its favor.”

Many experts claimed that the US and Russia sealed Al Qaeda’s fate in Syria after it was revealed that they were going to coordinate their respective air campaigns to target its affiliate, al-Nusra.

Now, by breaking ties with Al Qaeda, Nusra has all but cemented the conditions for its own long-term survival. Those include increased popular support — which will lead to a backlash against the West if the US targets the group — and, potentially, funding from Qatar and Turkey, which may interpret Nusra’s rebranding as a legitimization of its revolutionary goals.

“Placed in this quandary, international military action against Jabhat al-Nusra does seem all but inevitable,” Lister said. “At the same time, however, the consequences for doing so have become even more concerning.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/al-nusra-qaeda-syria-us-russia-2016-7

 

General Petreaus, former CIA directors says that maybe America has to cooperate with moderate Al-Qaeda fighters i.e. Al-Nusra

“David Petraeus’ bright idea: give terrorists weapons to beat terrorists”,September 2015

1

The latest brilliant plan to curtail Isis in the Middle East? Give more weapons to current members of al-Qaida. The Daily Beast reported that former CIA director David Petraeus, still somehow entrenched in the DC Beltway power circles despite leaking highly classified secrets, is now advocating arming members of the al-Nusra Front in Syria, an offshoot of al-Qaida and a designated terrorist organization. Could there be a more dangerous and crazy idea?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/02/david-petraeus-bright-idea-give-terrorists-weapons-to-beat-isis

 

The Americans and the Iraqi government did not want Turkey to take part in the fight against ISIS in Mosul.

“Why Turkish military isn’t welcome in Syria, Iraq”, June 2016

9, 10, 11, 12

“Turkey’s singularly pro-Sunni policies and support for the Muslim Brotherhood has long since been noted by the US which — like Baghdad — does not want any active Turkish participation in the push to liberate Mosul because of concerns that Turkish soldiers will refuse to leave the area when asked to do so,” Baburoglu said.

Baghdad is still calling for Turkish troops deployed in the Bashiqa camp near Mosul against Iraq’s wishes to be withdrawn. Washington has also called for these troops to be withdrawn but Turkey has refused to do so, thus fueling suspicions about Turkish intentions in Iraq. 

A Western diplomatic source who wished to remain anonymous due to his sensitive position told Al-Monitor that mistrust of Ankara’s aims has turned Turkey in the eyes of many of its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies into a complicating rather than supporting factor in the fight against IS in Iraq and Syria.

Ankara remains locked on Bashar al-Assad’s ouster, on preventing Kurds from gaining territory or political clout in northern Syria and on bolstering the position of minority Sunnis in Iraq even as it is losing on all three fronts.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/06/turkey-military-is-not-happy-with-foreign-policy.html

 

What Iran owes ISIS and what ISIS owes Iran

“What ISIS Owes Iran, and Vice-Versa”

Perhaps the world’s most infamous terrorist movement—the Islamic State of Iran and Syria (ISIS), owes something to the world’s foremost state-sponsor of terrorism—the Islamic Republic of Iran. Yet, most major media outlets have failed to note the complex history between theocratic, Shi’ite-ruled Iran and the Sunni group describing itself as the Islamic State. Instead, coverage has often fixated on sectarian differences and the simple narrative that Shi’ite Iran is fighting Sunni ISIS. This omits the important role that Iranian mullahs and their policies have played in providing support—originally direct but now indirect in the wake of open conflict—to the Islamic State.

Currently ISIS is led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but the group’s origins can be traced to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born terrorist who founded Tawhid wal-Jihad (“Monotheism and Jihad”). The Tawhid wal-Jihad terror cell eventually expanded into the Islamic State’s progenitor—al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

After fleeing Afghanistan following the arrival of U.S.-led coalition forces in Operation Enduring Freedom, Zarqawi was “based in Iran and northern Iraq” for “about a year.” After a brief arrest by Iranian authorities, he was allowed to “move freely” throughout the region to recruit, according to Michael Weiss and Hassan Hassan in their book ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror. The authors assert that according to Jordanian intelligence services, “it wasn’t Baghdad America should have been looking at [for links to Zarqawi’s group]…it was Tehran.” (pg. 17)

“The Iranians have a policy: they want to control Iraq. And part of this policy has been to support Zarqawi, tactically but not strategically….In the beginning they gave him weapons, uniforms, military equipment, when he was with the army of Ansar al-Islam [a Sunni terror group based in northern Iraq]. Now they essentially just turn a blind eye to his activities, and to those of al-Qaeda generally.”

Somewhat prophetically, a Jordanian official stated, “The Iranians see Iraq as a fight against the Americans, and overall, they’ll get rid of Zarqawi and all of his people once the Americans are out.” (pg.18) (“The Short, Violent Life of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,” July 2006, The Atlantic)

 

Shi’ite Iran supporting Sunni terrorists

 

Support from Shi’ite Iran for non-Shi’ite terror groups is hardly unprecedented: Tehran has a history of strategically supporting Sunni terrorists that share the Islamic Republic’s objectives of attacking Israel (such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad) or those who attack the “far enemy” of the United States, such as al-Qaeda. Followers of Osama bin Laden sought and received sanctuary in Iran after fleeing Afghanistan following the U.S.-invasion in response to al-Qaeda’s Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

After receiving Iranian support, al-Zarqawi eventually would turn to sectarian warfare in Iraq, targeting Shi’ite holy places and murdering members of that Islamic sect. Long-dominated by Sunni members of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party, post-U.S. invasion Iraq saw the rise of Shiite officials. While this better reflected the country’s demography, it also provided both an opportunity for Tehran to project its influence and concurrently for al-Zarqawi to exploit Sunni fears of being shut out. As Weiss and Hassan observe, the election of Shiite Iraqi officials—some of whom had lived in Iran prior to the U.S. occupation—allowed al-Zarqawi to exploit an “incipient but real problem in Iraq’s political evolution…the creeping takeover by chauvinistic Shia politicians, many of whom were spies or agents of influence of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).” (pg. 29)

Following al-Zarqawi’s death in a 2006 U.S.-drone strike, the subsequent U.S.-led surge of forces and the so-called “Anbar-Awakening”—in which Iraqi Sunni tribes rejected the brutality of AQI in favor of U.S.-provided security, Sunni extremist terror groups briefly receded in key provinces. Yet, with the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq—comprised of many former AQI terrorists—“ISIS has couched its current campaign in Syria and Iraq in exactly” the same sectarian terms as al-Zarqawi used. Meanwhile, the movement hopes to spur Sunni recruitment by targeting Shi’ites and prompting a fierce counterreaction.

Atrocities committed in Syria’s civil war by Tehran-backed Shi’ite militias and U.S.-listed terror organizations like the Quds (Jerusalem) Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and Kata’ib Hezbollah among others provided considerable help to ISIS in recruiting disenfranchised Sunnis.

In May 2011, Quds Force head Qassem Suleimani was sanctioned by the United States for “complicity…in the human rights abuses and repression of the Syrian people.” As Weiss and Hassan note, Suleimani used the head of Tehran’s Badr Corps and Iraqi Transportation Minister, Hadi al-Amiri, to funnel weapons to Syria’s General Intelligence Directorate—munitions often used in documented human rights abuses, including the targeting of civilian populations. The extensive level of Iranian involvement in Syria has also been noted by former Syrian Prime Minister Riyad Hijab who—after defecting in August 2012—declared: “Syria is occupied by the Iranian regime. The person who runs the country is not Bashar al-Assad [Syria’s President] but Qassem Soleimani.” (pg. 139)

National Defense Forces in Syria—groups trained and often led by IRGC commanders—have been accused by Human Rights Watch of singling out Sunnis for attacks in Syrian towns of al-Bayda and Baniyas. As the Wall Street Journal has noted (“Syria’s Alawite Force Turned Tide for Assad,” Aug. 26 2013), National Defense Force trainees are “told that the war in Syria is akin to epic battle for Shiite Islam, and if they die they will be martyrs of the highest rank.”

 

From torture and mockery to mockery and torture

 

These forces—and those of the Iranian supported dictator himself Bashar al-Assad—stand accused of “a broad array of torture against their captives, including pipe beatings, whippings, electrocutions, acid burns, fingernail extractions.” According to Shiraz Maher, an expert on radicalization at Kings College: “It was physical torture mixed with a campaign to mock the core aspects of Sunni belief. That’s what caught the attention and anger…..This is why the foreign fighter trend started from the Gulf and North Africa.” (pg. 135)

 

To be sure, corruption and wanton human rights abuses of the Sunni-dominated Ba’athist regimes of the Assad family in Syria and Saddam Hussein in Iraq have played an undeniable role in fomenting Islamist groups of both sects—Sunni and Shiite. So did the pro-Shi’ite policies of former Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki which were exploited by jihadi terror groups. Other papers have also noted blowback from the Assad regime’s funding and funneling of anti-coalition terrorist fighters into Iraq and elsewhere as well as connections of ousted Iraqi Ba-athist leaders connectionsto ISIS. (“Secret Files Reveal the Structure of Islamic State,” April 18 2015, Der Spiegel)

 

This is to say nothing of the ideology of the Islamic State, which overlap at its crudest with that of the Islamic Republic in sanctioning of the murders of Muslim apostates, Jews, homosexuals and repeated calls for the destruction of the United States.

The rise and growth of the Islamic State—beginning with the foundations of AQI and associated terror groups—would be hard to imagine without the initial Iranian-provided weapons, funds, and sanctuary for its founding father or the steady stream of Sunni recruits reacting to the rhetoric of sectarian holy war mouthed by Iranian-backed clerics. Such rhetoric, along with the anti-Sunni brutality of Iranian terror groups and Iranian-trained militias, has helped boost the Islamic State numbers in Syria and Iraq.

In May 2014, amidst battles between Iranian militias and ISIS and a break between ISIS and al-Qaeda, ISIS spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani noted in a message to al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri that their organization had not attacked Iran since its founding. Further, despite enduring allegations of collaboration with the Islamic Republic, the group had “refrained from targeting it” acting “upon the orders of al-Qaeda to safeguard its interests and supply lines in Iran.” The Islamic State spokesman proclaimed, “let history record that Iran owes al Qaeda invaluably.” (pg. 18-19)

It may also be said that the Islamic State owes the first Islamic Republic “invaluably”—and that people in the region and those in the West are paying immeasurably. Public understanding would be much better served by news media coverage that goes beyond the simplified narrative of Shi’ite Iran fighting the Sunni Islamic State.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=7&x_issue=94&x_article=3080

 

Washington Institute: Qataris Giving Donations to ISIS

“Qatar and ISIS Funding: The U.S. Approach”, August 2014

1 to 4

America views its close ally, Qatar, as a terrorist funding trouble spot. Washington has gone so far as to call the small Persian Gulf state a permissive environment for financing terrorist groups.

The United States says it does not have evidence that the government of Qatar is funding the terrorist group now known as the Islamic State (ISIS). But it does believe that private individuals in Qatar are helping to finance this group and others like it. And it thinks the Gulf state is not doing enough to stop this.

To influence Qatar’s policies, the United States has employed a carrot-and-stick approach. It heaps praise on its ally for developing new anti-terrorist financing regulations, while privately discouraging and sometimes publicly admonishing its support for terrorist organizations.

Yet the fundamental problem is that America’s counterterrorism agenda sometimes conflicts with what Qatar perceives to be its own political interests. Qatar’s security strategy has been to provide support to a wide range of regional and international groups in order to bolster its position at home and abroad. This strategy has involved generously supporting Islamist organizations, including militant ones like Hamas and the Taliban. Allowing private local fundraising for Islamist groups abroad forms part of this approach. Closing channels of support to militant Islamists — i.e., what Washington would like Doha to do — would be inimical to Qatar’s basic approach to its own security.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/qatar-and-isis-funding-the-u.s.-approach

 

National Interest: The Americans think that Iran will help them fight ISIS but the truth is Iran wants ISIS weak but not defeated

“Sorry, America: Iran Won’t Defeat ISIS for You”, July 2015

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

ISIS’s persistence has led some analysts to conclude—most recently Harvard’s Stephen Walt—that ISIS’s “state” will be a long-term reality in the region and one that Washington may soon have to come to terms with. From developing its own currency to managing a system of governance and terror wrapped in ideological fervidity, the Islamic State certainly has shown its resilience, despite its morphing geography since it captured Mosul in the summer of 2014.

Since the finalizing of the Iranian nuclear agreement, Iran has been touted in Washington in some policy circles as the best partner in fighting ISIS. Potential common interests between Washington and Tehran—as well as Iran’s military capabilities—could make Tehran an effective ally in rolling back ISIS at a time when the United States is wary to commit to another ground war in the Middle East. This assessment has three substantial blind spots:

First, Tehran’s strategy in Syria and Iraq has been focused more on containing and managing ISIS than defeating it. This strategy is driven by different considerations in both countries. In Syria, ISIS is seen as an effective tool in both weakening the U.S.- and GCC-backed opposition militias and buttressing the argument that President Assad is a most amenable alternative in Syria. Iraq, on the other hand, presents a difficult balancing act for Tehran that consists of both managing ISIS as a security threat to Iran’s heartland and Iraq’s Shi’a communities and avoiding empowering Sunni communities to such a degree that they could later pose a credible challenge to Iran’s influence in the Iraqi state. Tehran will prefer to keep Iraq unstable until its dominant influence is assured. Iran has been less than effective in pursuing this strategy as evidenced by its recent poor performance in Al Anbar Province and its difficult recapture of Tikrit in the spring.

Second, the best partners in defeating ISIS are Sunni Arab states and communities. ISIS’s resilience in the region has been sustained both by the effective use of military tactics and organizational strategy, but also, by a deepening ideological resonance amongst disenfranchised Sunnis in communities worldwide from Afghanistan to the banlieues ofParis. Without a sustained buy-in from leading Sunni states on both the governmental level and on the civil-society level to counter ISIS’s ideology, the Islamic State will continue to be a feature in the region’s body politic. As a senior Gulf official once noted, the responsibility of defeating ISIS isn’t an American or Iranian responsibility, but the responsibility of the Muslim community worldwide to reject this violence.

Third, Iran’s endgames in Iraq and Syria are in complete contrast to the United States’ objectives. While Washingtonand Tehran may share a few common interests in weakening ISIS, Tehran is seeking to both push the United States out of the region and to curtail the influence of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. A political solution in Syria or Iraq, which gives the United States and the GCC a further foothold in these states, would be an outcome that Iran would vigorously oppose.

Washington policymakers should be wary, then, of embracing Iran as such a partner as it considers recalibrating U.S.strategy in countering ISIS.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/sorry-america-iran-wont-defeat-isis-you-13407

 

The Atlantic: Assad’s air force is covering ISIS

“Bashar al-Assad and the Devil’s Endgame”, September 2015

2, 3, 4, 5

Assad’s plan, it seems, is to deliberately aid the rise of ISIS—what I call the devil’s gambit. The logic is simple and ruthless: radicalize the opposition so that the Syrian dictator looks like a lesser evil to domestic and foreign audiences. Here, Assad benefits from the inherently polarizing nature of civil war, as a cycle of atrocities and revenge pushes all sides to the extreme. He has further spurred radicalization by focusing the regime’s fire on moderate enemies, while reportedly releasing jihadists from jail and purchasing oil from ISIS. In recent months, the Syrian military allegedly used air strikes to help ISIS advance toward the city of Aleppo. Khaled Khoja, a Syrian opposition leader, claimed that Assad’s fighter jets were acting as “an air force for ISIS.”

In the widening gyre, the center cannot hold. Back in 2011, the relatively moderate Free Syrian Army seemed a plausible candidate to lead the resistance against Assad. Now the leading rebel factions include ISIS, the Islamic Front, and the al-Nusra Front, which is affiliated with al-Qaeda. The U.S. effort to train a moderate Syrian force has proved to be a pitiful and quixotic quest. After 10 months and millions of dollars, the United States has created a rebel army that is five strong. Not 5,000 strong, or 5 percent of the opposition. But literally five guys—barely enough to run a burger joint.

The tyrant and the terrorists have a symbiotic relationship. While ISIS rails against the secular regime, its focus is on building the caliphate, not getting rid of Assad. Meanwhile, ISIS’s advance in Iraq in 2014 was a godsend for the Syrian regime. The insurgents headed away from Damascus. And the group’s capture of the city of Mosul and much of Anbar province terrified the West. A reluctant Barack Obama could not accept the fall of Baghdad, and authorized extensive air strikes against ISIS.

The tyrant and the terrorists have a symbiotic relationship. While ISIS rails against the secular regime, its focus is on building the caliphate, not getting rid of Assad. Meanwhile, ISIS’s advance in Iraq in 2014 was a godsend for the Syrian regime. The insurgents headed away from Damascus. And the group’s capture of the city of Mosul and much of Anbar province terrified the West. A reluctant Barack Obama could not accept the fall of Baghdad, and authorized extensive air strikes against ISIS.

For both Western countries and Assad’s Alawite constituency at home, the choice is stark: the devil you know, or a pack of rapacious demons. If Assad were to fall, the chief beneficiary would be the very Islamist forces that the United States is bombing. To be reminded of the dangers of toppling a dictator, U.S. officials need only look to Libya, where the overthrow of Muammar al-Qaddafi in 2011 led to anarchy. Assad is the TINA candidate: There is no alternative.

The devil’s gambit, then, appears to have succeeded. The Obama administrationhas recently backed away from insisting that Assad must relinquish power, and signaled instead that the dictator could stay in power for a transitional period as part of a peace settlement.

But the key word here is “appears.” As with the pact between the Nazis and the Soviets in 1939, the partners inSyria’s dance of death will happily stab each other when the moment is opportune.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/assad-syria-devil-endgame-putin-obama/407635/

 

The Atlantic: Assad helps ISIS up to the point it does not become very strong.

“Bashar al-Assad and the Devil’s Gambit”, July 2014

10, 11, 12

For Assad, ISIS is priceless. The Sunni extremist boogeyman holds the key to his political survival. As ISIS continues its assault in Iraq, employing tactics that include beheadings, crucifixions, and systematic torture, Assad has cemented his alliance with Baghdad, as well as with Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia.

Even Assad’s enemies are rethinking their strategy. European countries worry about the thousands of Europeans who have traveled to Syria to fight Assad—and their potential return as violent militants. Meanwhile, the United States has dispatched hundreds of advisors to join the battle against ISIS in Iraq. Members of the Obama administration are backing away from the goal of toppling Assad. “Anyone calling for regime change in Syria,” said one official, “is frankly blind to the past decade; and the collapse of eastern Syria, and growth of Jihadistan, leading to 30 to 50 suicide attacks a month in Iraq.”

The devil’s gambit is a chancy maneuver, since the resulting radicals could grow too powerful to control. For a dictator, the sweet spot is an extremist force that’s strong enough to inspire fear abroad, but not capable enough to topple the regime—which is roughly where ISIS is right now. If the militants become too potent, Assad will probably turn on them with a vengeance.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/assad-and-the-art-of-the-devils-gambit/374501/

 

Telegraph: In 2011 Assad freed the jailed Sunni Jihadists from the Syrian prisons and gave them the oilfields of Sunni Syria and started buying their oil.

“As long as there is an Assad, there will be an Isil – he’ll make sure of it”, December 2015

2 , 3

So it is with Bashar al-Assad in Syria. From the very beginning of his country’s insurrection, Assad has done his best to help Islamist zealots hijack the Syrian opposition; he worked particularly hard to create ideal laboratory conditions for the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil). His supremely cynical aim was to convince the West to accept him as an essential bulwark against the very threat he helped to conjure into being. Put bluntly, Assad is an arsonist posing as a fireman.

This is an old trick. Every Arab dictator since Nasser has sought to confront his people and the world with a stark choice: either support me or watch the jihadists take over. The ruse is obvious, time-honoured – and remarkably effective.

6, 7, 8, 9, 10

So for as long as there is an Assad, there will be an Isil. He will make sure of it. Why? Because for as long as there is an Isil, some in the West will argue that we need Assad to defeat it.

The conclusion should be obvious: the man who needs Isil more than anyone else is not best qualified to cause their demise. Assad’s role in engineering Isil’s ascendancy is well-documented. Back in 2011 and 2012, he emptied Sednaya prison outside Damascus of its most dangerous Islamist prisoners. He must have known that these outlaws would use their liberty to infect the rebels with the jihadist virus – and they duly did so. An excellent book, Isis: Inside the Army of Terror by Michael Weiss and Hassan Hassan, names three Isil commanders who were carefully released from Assad’s jails.

Helped by the talent that the dictator had set free, Isil captured the oilfields of eastern Syria in 2013. But there is no point possessing oil unless you can sell the stuff. Fortunately for Isil, Assad bought their oil and funded their advance.

Today, Syria’s regime remains the largest single buyer of Isil’s oil and one of the biggest donors to the terrorists’ coffers. These facts are not seriously disputed, indeed the businessman accused of negotiating the oil deals between Isil and Assad – one George Haswani, the owner of HESCO engineering – has been named and subjected to EU sanctions.

Meanwhile, observers of the war have noticed a pattern. Assad strains every sinew to fight the non-Islamist rebels, but Isil has generally been immune from his barrel bombs and poison gas. Last year, only six per cent of Assad’s military operations targeted Isil, according to a study by IHS Jane’s, a defence consultancy. The other rebels felt the fury of 94 per cent of Assad’s military effort.

12

There is a bitter irony here. Without the threat posed by Assad’s forces and Russian air power, many Sunni rebels inSyria would indeed take up arms against Isil. The way to turn them against Isil would be to stop the depredations of Assad. So the idea that the dictator is indispensable to the fight against Isil is the exact reverse of the truth. In fact, getting rid of Assad would be the key that unlocks a Sunni army to defeat the terrorists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/12038032/As-long-as-there-is-an-Assad-there-will-be-an-Isil-hell-make-sure-of-it.html

 

“How Assad helped the rise of his ‘foe’ Isil”, August 2014

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Logic would suggest that Mr Assad and Isil are out to destroy one another. But logic works in curious ways in theMiddle East. As he wages a ruthless struggle to hold power, the evidence suggests that Mr Assad has quietly cooperated with his supposed enemies and actively helped their rise.

The thinking behind this apparently perverse strategy is simple. Mr Assad wants to force his own people and the West to make an unpalatable choice: either he stays in place, or Syria falls into the hands of Isil’s fanatics. When push comes to shove, Mr Assad thinks that most Syrians and the Western powers will back him over the fundamentalists.

But this plan will only work if Isil is the most powerful rebel force. The signs are that Mr Assad has done his best to make this come true.

As recently as 2012, Isil was a marginalised movement confined to a small area of Iraq. Then Mr Assad emptied Sednaya jail near Damascus of some of its most dangerous jihadist prisoners. If he hoped that these men would join Isil and strengthen its leadership, then that aspiration was certainly fulfilled. A number of figures in the movement’s hierarchy are believed to be former inmates of Syrian prisons, carefully released by the regime.

By 2013, Isil had managed to capture oilfields in eastern Syria. But to profit from these assets, they needed to find a customer for the oil. Mr Assad’s regime stepped in and began buying oil from Isil, thereby helping to fund the movement, according to Western and Middle Eastern governments.

Having provided Isil with talented commanders, courtesy of his prison amnesties, and filled its coffers with oil money, Mr Assad then chose to focus his military campaign on the non-Islamist rebels. Every town and suburb held by the Free Syrian Army was relentlessly pounded from the air and ground. A year ago, the regime even used poison gas against insurgent strongholds in Damascus.

10

The signs are that Isil has returned the favour. Instead of trying to bring down Mr Assad, Isil has concentrated on fighting the non-Islamist rebels. When the movement reached what may prove to be the apex of its military strength earlier this year, Isil did not advance on Damascus and try to overthrow the regime. Instead, it chose to invade northern Iraq and trigger the current crisis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11051566/How-Assad-helped-the-rise-of-his-foe-Isil.html

 

A Russian businessman with connections to Putin was buying ISIS oil

“An Energy Mogul Becomes Entangled With Islamic State”, May 2016

1, 2

In Syria, George Haswani sees himself as a patriot. In the West, he is a wanted man.

Mr. Haswani acts as a middleman between Islamic State and the Syrian government, the terror group’s largest customer, Western security officials allege. Islamic State controls much of Syria’s energy infrastructure and sells stolen oil and natural gas at a discount—even to the regime it is ostensibly battling.

7, 8

Buttressing Mr. Hawsani are his strong ties to Russia. He teamed up years ago with one of President Vladimir Putin’s closest associates to build the sprawling gas-production facility in Syria’s Tuweinan region that caught the attention of the Obama administration.

Administration officials said Moscow’s military and economic alliance with Damascus makes it clear Russia knows of the dealings between the Assad regime and Islamic State.

13

Mr. Haswani built the Tuweinan gas facility in partnership with a company owned by Gennady Timchenko, a Russian businessman and confidante of Mr. Putin’s. Mr. Timchenko’s firm, OAO Stroytransgaz, has provided Russian engineers for the project over the past decade, the company said.

35

The U.S. has long accused Mr. Timchenko of serving as a front for the business interests of Mr. Putin, particularly in energy. Mr. Timchenko declined to comment. He has said in the past that he was a self-made businessman, independent of the Russian leader.

37

“Timchenko’s activities in the energy sector have been directly linked to Putin,” the Treasury Department said at the time.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-energy-mogul-becomes-entangled-with-islamic-state-1462734922

 

 

Time: Assad is afraid of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and Al-Nusra and not ISIS. ISIS never really threatened Assad.

“Why Bashar Assad Won’t Fight ISIS”, February 2015

2

The regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad has long had a pragmatic approach to the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS), says a Syrian businessman with close ties to the government. Even from the early days the regime purchased fuel from ISIS-controlled oil facilities, and it has maintained that relationship throughout the conflict. “Honestly speaking, the regime has always had dealings with ISIS, out of necessity.”

7, 8, 9, 10

Assad does not see ISIS as his primary problem, the businessman says. “The regime fears the Free Syrian Army and the Nusra Front, not ISIS. They [the FSA and Nusra] state their goal is to remove the President. But ISIS doesn’t say that. They have never directly threatened Damascus.” As the businessman notes, the strikes on ISIS targets are minimal. “If the regime were serious about getting rid of ISIS, they would have bombed Raqqa by now. Instead they bomb other cities, where the FSA is strong.” That said, the businessman does not believe that the regime has a formal relationship with ISIS, just a pragmatic one. “The more powerful ISIS grows, the more they are useful for the regime. They make America nervous, and the Americans in turn see the regime as a kind of bulwark against ISIS.”

A senior Western diplomat who specializes in the Syrian civil war agrees that ISIS is seen as an asset by Assad. “They will do whatever it takes to devalue the opposition, even if it means strengthening ISIS. They know that if it comes to choosing between the black flag [of ISIS] and Damascus, the international community will chooseDamascus.” And the strategy has worked extremely well. “The way it’s going now, it’s a matter of months, not even a year, that the moderate opposition is so weakened that it won’t be a factor anymore. So in just a few months from now the regime will be able to achieve its strategic goal of forcing the world to choose between Damascus and the black flags.”

So by ignoring the conflict between the Syrian opposition and the Assad regime to focus purely on ISIS may solve problems in the short term, says the diplomat, “but there will be more problems to come. These are the ingredients for a further escalation of the conflict — alienating large parts of the Sunni population, so that they have no choice but to join ISIS. Not for ideological reasons, but because they will do whatever it takes to overthrow the regime inDamascus.” Not only that, it will widen the geographical boundaries of the conflict by making this a fight of all Sunnis. “It’s a clear recipe for further escalation well beyond the geographical boundaries of the current conflict.”

However, Damascus believes that once it has neutralized most of the opposition, it can then defeat ISIS with ease. “ISIS alone, the regime can deal with them. What Assad wants is international recognition of his legitimacy as Syria’s President,” says the businessman. “When the war is over, he can easily handle ISIS with the help of Hizballah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.”

http://time.com/3719129/assad-isis-asset/

 

“It looks like Al Qaeda is ‘laying a trap’ for the US — and giving Russia exactly what it wants”, July 2016

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Al Qaeda’s former affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, formally severed ties with the global terrorist organization Thursday in an attempt to “unify” as a distinct Islamist brigade with its own revolutionary goals and vision.

In its mission to rebrand itself, al-Nusra — now identifying asJabhat Fateh al-Sham — has clearly indicated that it is not committed to Al Qaeda’s brand of global jihad but to the singular goal of fomenting an Islamic revolution inside Syria.

The break was made easier by the fact that, since its emergence in 2012, Nusra has woven itself into the fabric of Syria’s communities and established military alliances of convenience with many mainstream rebel groups in the name of toppling Syrian president Bashar Assad.

But it also confirms that Nusra has no intention of distancing itself from the revolution’s non-jihadist rebel groups, many of whom are backed by the US and its allies.

For Russia, then — which has consistently used Nusra’s presence among these more moderate rebel groups as an excuse to target and eliminate any and all opposition to its ally, Assad — Nusra’s dissolution of ties with Al Qaeda is a gift. For the US, it’s a headache.

“By dissolving its ties with Al Qaeda, Nusra Front has made certain that it will remain deeply embedded within opposition front lines, particularly in the northern governorates of Aleppo and Idlib,” Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute who is an expert on Syria’s jihadist insurgency, wrote in Foreign Policy on Friday.

He continued:

“Any airstrikes by foreign states targeting the group will almost certainly result in the deaths of mainstream opposition fighters and be perceived on the ground as counterrevolutionary. Consequently, a mission defined by Moscow and Washington in counterterrorism terms would in all likelihood steadily broaden the spectrum of those potentially defined as ‘terrorists’ — to the substantial detriment of any future solution to the Syrian crisis.”

The break comes just as the US and Russia are preparing to announce a military cooperation plan, known as the Joint Implementation Group, that was meant to more clearly delineate Nusra’s positions in Syria and deter airstrikes on civilians and the more moderate opposition.

“By disavowing its ties to Al Qaeda — which, incidentally, it did with Al Qaeda’s blessing — Nusra has made it harder to isolate it from more moderate groups, some of whose members may join it now because it’s more powerful than some of the groups they belong to now,” a US official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Jeff White, a military expert and defense fellow at The Washington Institute, said the development would probably not have any effect on Russia’s military strategy in Syria.

“Russia doesn’t bomb Nusra because it’s a terrorist group,” White told Business Insider. “It bombs Nusra because it is an enemy — an effective one — of the regime. For Russia, as long as Nusra keeps fighting the regime, it will remain a target.”

As for how the break might affect the US’s military strategy in Syria, White said that while the Obama administration would “want to assess what the split means in terms of goals, objectives, and operations, I suspect the counterterrorism community will be loath to take it off the target list.”

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday that Nusra’s rebranding would not affect the US’s assessment of the group.

“There continues to be increasing concern about Nusra Front’s growing capacity for external operations that could threaten both the United States and Europe,” Earnest told reporters at the daily White House press briefing.

But the development is bound to further complicate Syria’s rebel landscape, especially as Nusra — under its new name — mainstreams itself and consequently attracts more young men to its cause.

That, Lister noted, is where Nusra’s break from Al Qaeda can be seen less as a conscious separation from the terrorist organization’s global jihadist ideals and more as a way of “laying a trap” for the US and its allies who claim to want to support the goals of Syria’s revolution.

“The most moderate FSA groups will be forced to choose between military and revolutionary unity, or operational isolation and subjugation,” Lister wrote. “In short, Jabhat al-Nusra is taking yet another step toward shaping the orientation of the Syrian opposition in its favor.”

Many experts claimed that the US and Russia sealed Al Qaeda’s fate in Syria after it was revealed that they were going to coordinate their respective air campaigns to target its affiliate, al-Nusra.

Now, by breaking ties with Al Qaeda, Nusra has all but cemented the conditions for its own long-term survival. Those include increased popular support — which will lead to a backlash against the West if the US targets the group — and, potentially, funding from Qatar and Turkey, which may interpret Nusra’s rebranding as a legitimization of its revolutionary goals.

“Placed in this quandary, international military action against Jabhat al-Nusra does seem all but inevitable,” Lister said. “At the same time, however, the consequences for doing so have become even more concerning.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/al-nusra-qaeda-syria-us-russia-2016-7

 

“Ankara’s oil business with ISIS”, March 2016

https://www.rt.com/business/323391-isis-oil-business-turkey-russia/

War and Peace

With the recent agreement between Putin and Erdogan the eastern borders of Europe will not have access to alternatives to the Russian natural gas from the East i.e. Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraqi Kurdistan and Iran

Map The Map of Natural Gas

Map Russia Turkey.JPG

Moreover, if the French, the Spanish and the Algerians dare to construct the Trans-Saharan Pipeline (Nigeria-Niger-Agleria), the Islamists will attack them with support from Turkey and Russia. In that case the Turks and the Russians will also threaten the uranium reserves of Niger, which are used to produce electricity in France.

The Russians have also made an agreement with Israel, because Israel, together with Cyprus and Greece could send the natural gas of Iran and Qatar to Europe. That is assuming Qatar and Iran are not happy with the agreement between Turkey and Russia. I do not know how the Qataris and the Iranians feel about this agreement, and it is something very important.

But if Israel goes with NATO, Hamas will attack Israel from Gaza with Turkish support, and Hezbollah will attack Israel from Lebanon with Russian support. The same is true for Egypt. Egypt has made an agreement with Russia, and if Egypt dares to go with NATO the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS will attack Egypt with Turkish and Russian support.

Therefore either you accept that the European Union will be addicted to the Russian gas, or you go to war. I believe that the EU must accept the rein of the Russian gas in Europe, and Russia must lower the price and relax her grip over the countries of Eastern Europe.

There is also the issue of the Middle East. According to the Russian-Turkish agreement Russia will give the Sunni part of Syria to Turkey. For Turkey the Sunni part of Syria is the entrance to the Arab world avoiding the Kurds and the Iranians. Turkey would be the queen of the Middle East, and Erdogan would blackmail the Arabs of the Gulf and ask them for higher and higher commissions.

Map Middle East and Kurdistan

Kurdistan.JPG

 

But how much influence does Turkey want to have in the Middle East? She just wants money or she wants the Middle East to be at her sphere of influence? If the Russian-Turkish agreement is for Russia to take Europe and for Turkey to take the Middle East obviously a World War will break out. But I guess Turkey will just go for the money because Putin and Erdogan know that otherwise they cannot avoid a World War

I repeat it is very important how Iran and Qatar see the Russian-Turkish agreement.

Map Natural (red) and Oil (black) of the Middle East

Map Oil and Gas Reserves and Pipelines.JPG

 

How Putin and Assad Created the Islamic State

A very good article from Reuters about al-Nusra, the Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. See “Syria’s Nusra Front may leave Qaeda to form new entity”, March 2015.

According to Reuters in 2015 Qatar was trying to convince al-Nusra to quit Al-Qaeda in order to start cooperating with Qatar against Assad.

Qatar is trying to bring al Nusra closer to it, but the Americans have designated al-Nusra as a terrorist organization. Qatar wants to isolate al-Nusra from Al-Qaeda, because Iran has a lot of influence in Al-Qaeda, and Qatar and Iran are fighting each other in Syria. Qatar is with Turkey and Iran is with Assad.

Iran, Sudan and Hezbollah trained Osama bin Laden’s men in Sudan in the early 90s. The Arabs of Al-Qaeda i.e Saudis, Egyptians, Libyans, Sudanese, Iraqis etc, were giving money to Hezbollah, and Hezbollah was giving them training and weapons. Al-Qaeda had plenty of money and Hezbollah had plenty of expertise and weapons from Iran. See “The Al-Qaeda-Hezbollah Axis”.

Qatar would also like to convince al-Nusra not to target the Americans and the French, as al-Qaeda does, but instead focus on Assad and the Islamic State (ISIS). Note that the top people of the Islamic State are the ex-officers of Saddam Hussein, who were trained by the Soviets and KGB, who were selling oil to Turkey, and who were hunting the Kurds of Iraq and Turkey together with the Turks. Today the Islamic State is using the same trade routes that were used by Saddam in order to sell oil to Turkey in the black market.

In September 2015 the ex-director of CIA, General Petreaus, said that maybe the United States should cooperate with the moderate elements of al-Qaeda i.e. al-Nusra in Syria, in order to fight ISIS. See Guardian “David Petraeus’ bright idea: give terrorists weapons to beat terrorists”, September 2015.

Capture.JPG

The Americans still consider al-Nusra a terrorist organization, and they know that sooner or later they will have to fight al-Nusra too. But maybe they could have a limited cooperation with al-Nusra without providing it with sophisticated weapons. For example the Americans can provide air-coverage to al-Nusra when al-Nusra fights ISIS, or when al-Nusra fights Assad.

On the other hand the American Foreign Minister John Kerry said that the United States must cooperate with Russia against al-Nusra and ISIS, which means that the Russians and the Americans will jointly target al-Nusra, which is attacking Assad, and Russia will allow the Americans to attack ISIS, which is targeting the Europeans and the Americans. See CNN “Kerry: US, Russia to cooperate against al Qaeda in Syria”, July 2016.

The Russians are making it very difficult for the Americans to target ISIS. Very often the Russians say they attack the Islamic State, but they don’t. They rarely target the Islamic State, mostly when they want to put Assad’s or Hezbollah’s men in a post held by the Islamic State. But they are normally letting them know before they attack. Remember that the Russians and the ex-Saddam people know each other very well since the Soviet times, which is not the case with al-Nusra, which is an enemy of Russia and Assad, and that was more so from the time al-Nusra was bought by Qatar.

Putin and Assad know very well that in the Sunni part of Syria they will have some opponents, and they do not want opponents who can cooperate with NATO. ISIS and al-Qaeda are ideal opponents for Assad and Putin from this point of view, because they both target NATO too, and therefore they can be supported by the Turks and the Arabs, but they cannot be supported by NATO.

ISIS is not attacking Assad, but even if it does at some point attack him, the Americans and the French will not be able to provide ISIS with any weapons, and that’s the same for al-Qaeda, which is attacking Assad though.

That’s the reason the Russian, the Iranian, Hezbollah, al-Nusra and ISIS, all target the Syrian soldiers who are trained by NATO. They make sure that when the Arabs and the Turks fight Assad they cannot have NATO on by their side. If there was a NATO friendly opposition in Syria NATO would provide tons of weapons in order to open the Qatar-Turkey pipeline.

Note that the Qatar-Turkey Pipeline is the true pipeline. The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline is more of a propaganda from Russia and Iran, in order to say that they have something to put in the place of the Qatar-Turkey pipeline. Otherwise it would be very difficult for Assad to explain to his people why he does not want the Qatar-Turkey pipeline.

The Qatar-Turkey pipeline could go straight from Qatar to Europe, while the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline would have to liqyefy the gas in Syria, then ship it to Europe with the very expensive LNG carriers, and regasify it there. That does not make economic sense. Iran can simply liquefy the gas in Iran and ship it from Iran without construction a multi-billion dollar pipeline which will beconstanly sabotaged by the Arabs.

Map Sunni VS Shia Pipelines

Χάρτης Σουνιτικοί Σιιτικοί Αγωγοί.JPG

Map Pipelines

Map Oil and Gas Reserves and Pipelines.JPG

 

It is not a secret that Assad and Putin helped the ex-people of Saddam Hussein to create the Islamic State. The predecessor of the Islamic State was Al-Qaeda of Iraq, which was created in 2003 by the Arabs and the Iranians to attack the Americans, when the Americans attacked Iraq without their approval. The ex-officers of Saddam were in al-Qaeda of Iraq and they were trained by the Soviet. See “Turning to Kurdistan”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/turning-to-kurdistan/

When the Muslim Brotherhood attacked Assad in 2011, with the support of Turkey and Qatar, Putin and Assad supported the ex-people of Saddam Hussein, most of whom were already in Al-Qaeda Iraq, and they created the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Two great articles which explain how Russia, Syria and Iran created the Islamic State and al-Nusra in Syria are the following:

Spiegel “The Terror Strategist: Secret Files Reveal the Structure of Islamic State”, April 2015.

and

The Atlantic “The Short, Violent Life of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi”, August 2006

The Spiegle is the largest European magazine, and the Atlantic is an American magazine with almost two hundrend years in circulation.

The Arabs and the Iranians were supporting for years the Al-Qaeda of Iraq, because in Iraq Assad and the Arabs of the Persian Gulf were allies. But when the war in Syria broke out things got more complicated, and they found themselves in opposite sides, and there were problems with Al-Qaeda too.

The Russians, the Syrians, the Iranians and the Arabs of the Gulf had different priorities in Syria, and there was a civil war in the Jihadist who were fighting the Americnas in Iraq.

In the beginning the Americans were very enthousiastic about attacking Assad in Syria, but now they have improved their relations with Iran and they are open on the Assad question, because the Iranians want Assad to stay at any cost.

In Syria the Arabs and the Turks are trying to buy as many terrorist gasgs as possible, whether from ISIS or al-Nusra, in order to use them against Assad. The Turks and the Arabs were not happy with the Americans, because they expected more support from NATO in Syria, and the Americans let them down, so they started supporting tetrorists against Assad, even if that strained their relations with NATO.

When I say that ISIS consists of the ex-officers of Saddam Hussein I am reffereing to the top people and not every little group that cooperates with ISIS. At the following picture you can see the terrorist groups of Syria. They are all for hire, and gourps are based on tribal or geographical connections.

Gangs of Syria