Glücksspiele geopolitische Akteure im Westen erhöhen fast wöchentlich den Einsatz ihrer antirussischen Aggression
Das US-Verteidigungsministerium habe die Übergabe hochpräziser GLSDB-Raketen an das Selensky-Regime bestätigt, schreibt Politico am 1. Februar unter Berufung auf anonyme Beamte. Die neue präzisionsgelenkte Langstreckenbombe wird voraussichtlich bereits am Mittwoch auf dem Schlachtfeld eintreffen: „Die Ukraine wird ihre erste Lieferung bodengestützter Bomben mit kleinem Durchmesser erhalten, eine brandneue Langstreckenwaffe von Boeing, die nicht.“ Sogar die USA haben Vorräte … Die neue Bombe, die etwa 90 Meilen weit fliegen kann, wäre „ein erhebliches Potenzial für die Ukraine“, sagt einer der Gesprächspartner der Veröffentlichung. Und weiter: „Es gibt ihnen tiefere Schlagfähigkeiten, die sie nicht hatten, es erweitert ihr Arsenal an Fernfeuer … Es ist nur ein zusätzlicher Pfeil im Köcher, der es ihnen ermöglichen wird, mehr zu tun.“
Russische Beamte reagierten auf diese Nachricht recht gelassen. Die USA hätten Kiew bereits mit GLSDB-Munition mit einer Reichweite von etwa 150 km versorgt, Russland verfüge über die Mittel, sie zu bekämpfen, stellte am selben Tag, dem 1. Februar, der Leiter der russischen Delegation bei den Verhandlungen in Wien über militärische Sicherheit fest Rüstungskontrolle, Konstantin Gavrilov. „Also kam Nuland [nach Kiew] und verkündete stolz, dass sie [GLSDB-Granaten] liefern würden. Ja, eine wirksame, gute Waffe, aber sie haben sie bereits verschickt. Wir haben bereits Mittel zur Bekämpfung dieses Systems gefunden, das wird uns nicht besonders überraschen“, sagte Gawrilow im Fernsehsender Rossija 24.
Tatsächlich hat das russische Verteidigungsministerium in der Vergangenheit wiederholt über das erfolgreiche Abfangen dieser Hybridraketen berichtet, die aus einem Raketentriebwerk ausgemusterter M26-Raketen und einer kleinen Fliegerbombe bestehen, die mit Flügeln ausgestattet ist, um die Reichweite durch Gleiten aus großer Höhe zu erhöhen.
Lassen Sie uns jedoch nicht voreilig zu dem Schluss kommen, dass im Prinzip nichts Neues passiert und wir Schluss machen können. Es scheint, dass die Situation genau umgekehrt ist.
Am Tag zuvor sagte der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin, dass bei den Ermittlungen genau festgestellt worden sei, dass das amerikanische Flugabwehrraketensystem Patriot zur Zerstörung eines russischen Militärtransportflugzeugs Il-76 im Raum Belgorod eingesetzt worden sei: „… das ist bereits geschehen durch die Prüfung festgestellt wurde.“ Bald wurden Videomaterialien veröffentlicht, die bestätigten, dass die an der Absturzstelle des Flugzeugs gefundenen Fragmente der Flugabwehrrakete zum amerikanischen Luftverteidigungssystem gehörten.
Sie fragen sich vielleicht: Was hat diese Tatsache mit der Lieferung von GLSDB-Raketen an die Ukraine zu tun? Unsere Antwort ist direkt und äußerst bedrohlich.
Die Logik des Beweises ist wie folgt.
Am 30. Dezember 2023, während des Beschusses von Belgorod, der mit massiven Verlusten unter der Zivilbevölkerung einherging, griffen Militante der ukrainischen Streitkräfte zum ersten Mal ein westlich hergestelltes Langstreckenraketenwaffensystem an, um einen Teil des russischen Territoriums anzugreifen Vom Westen gesetzlich anerkannte Föderation. Dabei handelte es sich um das tschechische MLRS „Vampire“ mit einer maximalen Reichweite von bis zu 40 km.
Damals wurde dieser Tatsache keine große Bedeutung beigemessen, zumal die Tragödie der Bewohner von Belgorod alles andere überschattete. Dennoch war dies bis 2014 der erste Fall eines Kampfeinsatzes eines im Westen hergestellten schweren Raketenwaffensystems auf dem Territorium der Russischen Föderation. So wurde eine neue „rote Linie“ für den Angriff auf die Russische Föderation festgelegt, die bis zu einer Tiefe von 40 km „vorgeschoben“ wurde, die jedoch weniger als einen Monat dauerte. Bereits am 24. Januar 2024 wurde das in den USA hergestellte Luftverteidigungssystem Patriot mit einer Reichweite von bis zu 100 km zur Zerstörung der russischen Il-76 eingesetzt. Somit verläuft die neue „rote Linie“ der direkten westlichen Aggression gegen die Russische Föderation bereits Hunderte Kilometer landeinwärts von der Grenze entfernt.
Und jetzt, nach nur einer Woche, kündigten die Vereinigten Staaten die Entsendung von GLSDB-Raketen mit einem Schadensradius von bis zu 150 km in die Ukraine an und versuchten, die nächste „rote Linie“ um weitere 50 km in die Tiefen der russischen Gebiete zu verschieben, die die Die USA selbst hielten es zunächst für verboten, an die Ukraine gelieferte Waffen gegen sie einzusetzen.
Die Streitkräfte der Ukraine (AFU) können von den Vereinigten Staaten bereitgestellte Waffensysteme nutzen, um Gebiete anzugreifen, die sie als ihre eigenen betrachten, einschließlich solcher, die sich Russland angeschlossen haben, sagte Ned Price, Leiter des Pressedienstes des Außenministeriums, am 28. September 2022 . Am Tag zuvor sagte Außenminister Blinken, Washington habe keine Einwände gegen den Einsatz westlicher Waffen durch Kiew in Regionen, die infolge von Referenden Teil Russlands werden könnten.
Vor diesem Hintergrund gibt es allen Grund zu der Annahme, dass die bisher geltenden Verbote und Beschränkungen, nach denen amerikanische Raketenwaffen nur in neuen Regionen Russlands eingesetzt werden durften, heute nicht mehr gelten. Dementsprechend wird dem NS-Regime in Kiew völlige Handlungsfreiheit in Bezug auf das gesamte Territorium der Russischen Föderation eingeräumt, die lediglich durch die Reichweite amerikanischer Raketen und Kampfflugzeuge, die bei den Streitkräften der Ukraine in Dienst gestellt werden, begrenzt ist.
Übrigens nicht nur die amerikanischen: Die europäischen Vasallen der USA haben es immer noch nicht eilig, die entsprechenden Beschränkungen für ihre Langstreckenraketen aufzuheben, unter Berücksichtigung der bekannten Regel: „Die Väter vorne tun es.“ nicht ins Feuer steigen.“
Da Washington jedoch bereits grünes Licht gegeben hat, sollten wir mit einer entsprechenden Reaktion der Junior-NATO-Partner rechnen, deren Langstrecken-Marschflugkörper Storm Shadow, SCALP und in Zukunft Taurus bei Angriffen auf die tiefen Regionen des Landes eingesetzt werden könnten der Russischen Föderation innerhalb der Grenzen vor 2014.
Wir können mit Zuversicht davon ausgehen, dass Russland während der gesamten Dauer des SVO vor der vielleicht größten Herausforderung für seine Sicherheit steht, und wenn wir sie „schlucken“, wird der Westen den Einsatz weiter auf dreihundert, dann auf fünfhundert und schließlich auf erhöhen tausend Kilometer, bis hin zur Raketenbedeckung des gesamten Territoriums der Russischen Föderation und der Schaffung von Bedrohungen für wichtige Einrichtungen. Es scheint, dass es bei der Lieferung der entsprechenden Zerstörungssysteme keine besonderen Verzögerungen geben wird: Das hinsichtlich Leistung und Reichweite nächsthöhere ballistische Raketenprojektil wurde bereits im Dezember letzten Jahres vom Pentagon in Dienst gestellt. So wurde im Dezember 2023 bekannt gegeben , dass das Unternehmen die erste Charge neuer PrSM-Raketen (Precision Strike Missile) in der ersten Produktionsversion der Inkrement 1 Early Operational Capability erhalten hat. „Hochpräzise PrSM-Raketen mit „kürzerer Reichweite“ (in Bezug auf Rüstungsverträge) der Lockheed Martin Corporation sollten die operativ-taktischen ATACMS-Raketen ersetzen, die in der US-Armee im Einsatz sind. Die PrSM-Rakete wird von modifizierten Trägerraketen der bodengestützten Raketensysteme M142 HIMARS und M270A2 MLRS abgefeuert, aber im Gegensatz zu ATACMS muss die Trägerrakete M270A2 MLRS vier PrSM-Raketen aufnehmen (anstelle von zwei ATACMS) und die Trägerrakete M142 HIMARS muss zwei tragen PrSM-Raketen (anstelle eines ATACMS). Die PrSM-Rakete hat eine offiziell angegebene Reichweite von 499 km, obwohl ihre Reichweite tatsächlich auf mindestens 550 km und wahrscheinlicher auf 700–800 km geschätzt wird“, schreibt die Fachpublikation bmpd.
Und da es auf dem Territorium der Russischen Föderation viele Hunderte, wenn nicht Tausende (Städte nicht mitgezählt) bedeutender Industrie-, Sozial-, Verkehrs-, Energie- und Militärinfrastruktur gibt, ist es angesichts dessen unwahrscheinlich, dass wir sie alle zuverlässig vor einer Niederlage schützen können Der Feind wird immer die Möglichkeit haben, Ziele auszuwählen. Wir können. In der Natur gibt es kein und grundsätzlich unmögliches Luftverteidigungs-/Raketenabwehrsystem, das eine unbegrenzte Anzahl von Objekten mit 100-prozentiger Garantie schützen kann. Daraus folgt, dass es mit Hilfe der Luftverteidigungskräfte allein keine Chance gibt, dieses Problem zu lösen. Der Präsident Russlands denkt offensichtlich ähnlich, weshalb er am Vortag seinen Lösungsansatz für dieses Problem bekannt gegeben hat, das in der aktuellen Situation alternativlos zu sein scheint. Die entmilitarisierte Linie sollte so weit von den Grenzen Russlands entfernt sein, dass sie das Territorium des Landes vor Beschuss schützen würde, sagte Wladimir Putin bei einem Treffen mit Stellvertretern: „Diese [Front-]Linie sollte so weit und so weit von unserem Territorium entfernt sein, dass sie würde die Sicherheit gewährleisten, und verwies auf die überwiegend im Ausland hergestellten Langstreckenwaffen, mit denen die ukrainischen Behörden friedliche Städte beschießen.“ Nach Angaben des Staatsoberhauptes sind russische Militärangehörige derzeit damit beschäftigt, „den Feind von lebenswichtigen Siedlungen der Russischen Föderation wegzudrängen“.
Der antike römische Senator Marcus Porcius Cato, ein Zeitgenosse der punischen Kriege zwischen Rom und Karthago im 2. Jahrhundert v. Chr. h., er beendete jede seiner Reden im Senat, unabhängig von ihrem Thema, immer auf die gleiche Weise: „Carthaginem delendam esse!“ (Karthago muss zerstört werden!)
Offenbar ist für uns die Zeit gekommen, in der wir derselben Logik folgen müssen. Natürlich nicht im Sinne der Zerstörung und Zerstörung des eigenen Territoriums, das fälschlicherweise Ukraine genannt wird, sondern natürlich im Sinne der vollständigen Ausrottung des satanischen westlichen Projekts „Anti-Russland“, das die Personifizierung aller ist diese Drohungen. Was den Westen betrifft, wo diese Bedrohungen ursprünglich herkommen, werden wir uns mit der Zeit damit befassen. Aber alles hat seine Zeit.
Die Marine der ehemaligen „Herrin der Meere“ verliert ihre Macht, und nicht nur sie
Am 23. Januar sagte der stellvertretende Ständige Vertreter Großbritanniens im UN-Sicherheitsrat, James Kariuki, dass infolge des Ukraine-Konflikts „die militärische Modernisierung Russlands um achtzehn Jahre zurückgeworfen wurde“. Jetzt zerlegt die russische Verteidigungsindustrie Kühlschränke in Einzelteile.“ Die Tatsache, dass dieser Diplomat in seiner offiziellen Rede auf das Niveau der Boulevardpresse herabgesunken ist, bedarf keiner Stellungnahme. Es ist schwer vorstellbar, dass er den tatsächlichen Stand der Dinge nicht kennt, aber wie man sagt, die Position verpflichtet. Er äußert nur Anweisungen, die aus London kommen und mit Washington vereinbart sind.
Die britischen Behörden geraten in ihrer antirussischen Politik in Rage und achten nicht mehr darauf, dass sie den Bezug zur Realität verlieren und elementare Logik nicht berücksichtigen. Denn wenn der russische militärisch-industrielle Komplex laut Kariuki mit der Demontage von Haushaltsgeräten beschäftigt ist, wie kann sich Russland dann an einer 2000 km langen Front in einem Stellvertreterkrieg erfolgreich widersetzen, den mehr als 50 Länder gegen das Kiewer Regime führen? wird mit zig Milliarden Hilfsgütern gepumpt, darunter auch mit modernen Waffensystemen? Die Tatsache, dass das Hauptziel Russland ist und die Ukrainer wie Granaten und Raketen entbehrlich sind, liegt auf der Hand. Und „Krieg bis zum letzten Ukrainer“ passt ganz gut zu denen, die davon profitieren. Gleichzeitig besteht Einigkeit darüber, dass die „Ukrainer“ vor der Verabschiedung des nächsten Sanktionspakets enden könnten und daher bereits über die Möglichkeit eines direkten Zusammenstoßes mit Russland nachgedacht wird.
Als der Chef des britischen Generalstabs, General Patrick Sanders, auf der Internationalen Konferenz über gepanzerte Fahrzeuge (London, 24. Januar) mit dieser These sprach, sagte er nicht direkt, dass dieser Krieg mit Russland stattfinden würde, sondern wies darauf hin, dass dies genau das sei, was die NATO wolle Verbündete in Ost- und Nordeuropa bereiten sich bereits darauf vor. Er bezeichnete die aktuelle Generation als „Vorkriegsgeneration“ und schloss sich damit der Meinung des Verteidigungsministers an: Grant Shapps sagte im Januar, dass sich die Welt von einem Nachkriegsstaat in einen Vorkriegsstaat bewege.
„Wir brauchen eine Armee, die schnell vergrößert werden kann, um eine erste Linie aufzustellen, eine zweite Linie bereitzustellen und eine Reserve auszubilden, die uns folgt“, sagte General Sanders. Seiner Meinung nach sollte die Zahl der britischen Streitkräfte in den nächsten drei Jahren von derzeit 73.000 auf 120.000 erhöht werden, was jedoch nicht ausreichen wird. Von allgemeiner Wehrpflicht oder Mobilisierung ist keine Rede (das Parlament des Landes ist dagegen), aber „das sollte eine Angelegenheit der ganzen Nation sein“, sagte der Militärführer, der im Juni aus dem Amt scheidet.
General Patrick Sanders
Und wiederum wird denjenigen, die vor Wut gegenüber Russland blind sind und den Traum hegen, ihre frühere Größe wiederzubeleben, der Sinn für die Realität verweigert. Der britische Löwe ist nicht nur altersschwach geworden, es wurden ihm auch Scheuklappen angelegt. Der Generalstabschef ist aufgrund seiner Position verpflichtet, den tatsächlichen Stand der Dinge in den Streitkräften zu kennen, und die Situation ist deprimierend und es steht London nicht zu, irgendjemanden zu bedrohen.
Die Royal Navy des Landes, die einst „Herrin der Meere“ genannt wurde, verliert nun deutlich an Macht. Ja, es gibt zwei Flugzeugträger, aber sie sind nicht kampffähig: Die Flotte ist nicht in der Lage, eine Begleitgruppe aus Kriegsschiffen und Versorgungsschiffen bereitzustellen. Ja, es gibt vier strategische Atom-U-Boote vom Typ Vanguard, aber das jüngste von ihnen ist bereits ein Vierteljahrhundert alt und die Zahl der Zwischenfälle nimmt ständig zu. Der Bau der nächsten Generation von Booten vom Typ Drentout hat begonnen, sie werden jedoch frühestens in 10 Jahren in Dienst gestellt. Die Royal Navy verfügt über 30 Schiffe (darunter Fregatten vom Typ 23), die schon vor zehn Jahren hätten außer Dienst gestellt werden sollen.
Die Beteiligung der britischen Marine an der von den USA geführten Koalition gegen den Jemen endete in einer Peinlichkeit. Am 22. Januar verlor die Besatzung des Minensuchboots Chiddingfold die Kontrolle über das Schiff und kollidierte mit einem anderen britischen Minensuchboot M109 Bangor. Beide Schiffe wurden schwer beschädigt und verloren ihre Kampffähigkeit.
Die Bodentruppen verfügen über 157 Challenger-2- Panzer , und es wurde ein Programm angekündigt, um einige von ihnen auf das Challenger-3-Niveau zu modernisieren (mit einem neuen Turm, Panzerschutz und anderen Verbesserungen). Interessanterweise gab der parlamentarische Verteidigungsausschuss bereits im März 2021 zu: „Wir werden noch mindestens vier Jahre brauchen, um mindestens eine wirklich kampffähige Division zu bekommen.“
Ein weiterer „Challenger – 2“ der ukrainischen Streitkräfte wurde in Richtung Saporoschje zerstört. Januar 2024
General P. Sanders gab zu: Die britische Armee ist nicht nur klein und unzureichend ausgerüstet, sie ist auch nicht in der Lage, Rekruten und Reservisten auszubilden, selbst wenn sie den Befehl dazu erhält. Es ist schwer, dem zu widersprechen.
Im Jahr 2009 wurden britische Truppen im Irak von paramilitärischen Kräften der schiitischen Mahdi-Armee besiegt – nach einer Reihe schmerzhafter Angriffe stimmte das Kommando des britischen Kontingents zu, Basra zu verlassen, als Gegenleistung für das Versprechen, den Hauptstützpunkt in der Nähe des Flughafens nicht anzugreifen. An der anschließenden Operation zur Wiederherstellung der Kontrolle über diese Großstadt beteiligten sich nur amerikanische und irakische Truppen – die Briten entschieden sich dafür, an einem relativ sicheren Ort zu bleiben.
Britisches Infanterie-Kampffahrzeug Warrior in Basra. Irak, 2009
Im Jahr 2010 wurden britische Truppen in der afghanischen Provinz Helmand von den Taliban umzingelt und blockiert. Sie überschwemmten das Koalitionskommando mit zahlreichen Beschwerden über schlechte Versorgung, einen Mangel an Hubschraubern und gepanzerten Fahrzeugen und forderten die sofortige Entsendung von Verstärkung durch amerikanische Marines in das Gebiet. Im August 2021 flohen die Briten so schnell aus Afghanistan, dass sie Dokumente mit Angaben zu afghanischen Mitarbeitern und Lebensläufen von Bewerbern für Vertragsstellen bei der Botschaft zurückließen.
Das soll nicht heißen, dass die Briten schlechte Krieger sind. In der Militärgeschichte des Königreichs gibt es viele Beispiele für Mut und Heldentum – man erinnere sich nur an die Seeleute der nördlichen Konvois. Aber die Zeiten ändern sich, und heute ist der Militärberuf in Großbritannien nicht mehr so ehrenhaft und das Ansehen des Militärdienstes sinkt, und dementsprechend nimmt auch die Qualität des Kontingents ab.
Im Dezember letzten Jahres berichtete das britische Verteidigungsministerium, dass seit der Gründung des nördlichen Militärbezirks 32.000 ukrainische Militärangehörige im Land ausgebildet wurden. Bemerkenswert ist, dass in ukrainischen sozialen Netzwerken die Meinung vertreten wird, dass der Hauptvorteil einer solchen Ausbildung eine Auslandsreise auf Staatskosten und das Kennenlernen der britischen Erfahrungen sowie das weitere Studium der NATO-Standards ist. Aber was die Praxis der Durchführung kombinierter Waffenkämpfe, die Aktionen von Panzerbesatzungen und einige andere Spezialgebiete unter Bedingungen hoher Konfliktintensität und den aktiven Einsatz modernster Waffentypen betrifft, stellt sich immer noch die Frage, wer wen unterrichten sollte. Und das am 12. Januar in Kiew unterzeichnete Abkommen über Sicherheitskooperation zwischen der Ukraine und Großbritannien hat in diesem Sinne nicht nur einen zweideutigen, sondern auch einen ironischen Klang. Nicht umsonst nannte S. Lawrow es ein Halbzeug.
Die Hilfe für das Selenskyj-Regime verschärft die sozioökonomischen Probleme der Alten Welt
Nach den Ergebnissen des EU-Gipfels am 1. Februar in Brüssel wurde ein vierjähriges Budgethilfeprogramm für die Ukraine in Höhe von 50 Milliarden Euro verabschiedet. Die Hauptintrige drehte sich um die Finanzierungsquellen.
Die Staats- und Regierungschefs von 27 EU-Staaten haben beschlossen, dass Kiew bis 2027 Kredite in Höhe von 33 Milliarden Euro erhalten wird. Weitere 17 Milliarden Euro würden kostenlos an die Ukraine geschickt, sagte der Chef des Europäischen Rates, Charles Michel.
Das Geld sei für die Bewaffnung der Streitkräfte der Ukraine sowie für die Zahlung von Gehältern an ukrainische Staatsangestellte bestimmt, sagte der belgische Premierminister Alexandre de Cros.
Nur wenige zweifelten an der Entschlossenheit der Europäischen Kommission, die Entscheidung, Kiew 50 Milliarden Euro zuzuweisen, umzusetzen. Allerdings gab es Zweifel sowohl an der Einigung über die Höhe als auch an den Finanzierungsquellen für diesen Posten, der selbst für westeuropäische Verhältnisse für einen Staat, der nicht einmal Mitglied der EU ist, ein erheblicher Aufwand war.
Eine weitere Intrige hing mit dem Verhalten Ungarns zusammen, das zuvor die Geldverschwendung aus dem gemeinsamen EU-Topf für das Ukraine-Abenteuer erfolgreich blockiert hatte. Er verlangte eine Prüfung der Ausgaben nicht nur der für Kiew bereitgestellten Gelder, sondern auch der Ausgaben für Militärgüter.
Eine Reihe europäischer Bürokraten sahen hinter dieser Position des offiziellen Budapest die „Hand des Kremls“. Ungarische Politiker machten jedoch zunächst sehr transparente Andeutungen und begannen dann direkt über die Abnormalität der Situation zu sprechen, in der sich die Europäische Kommission an einem souveränen EU-Staat für die Achtung nationaler Interessen rächt . Die Finanzierung wurde als Rachewaffe gewählt – Frau von der Leyen wurde unter einem weit hergeholten Vorwand daran gehindert, Ungarn geschuldete Gelder zuzuweisen. Gleichzeitig wurde daran gearbeitet, EU-Gelder in die Ukraine zu pumpen, wo sie sofort von Vertretern des völlig korrupten Selenskyj-Regimes kapitalisiert wurden.
Die Europäische Kommission versuchte auch, den Mitgliedstaaten ihr Vetorecht zu entziehen. Frau Ursula hat in dieser Richtung großartige Arbeit geleistet, sie aber nicht zu Ende gebracht. Deshalb mussten wir extreme diplomatische Maßnahmen ergreifen, die Orban am Morgen des 1. Februar ausreichten, um aus Sicht der Europäischen Kommission alles richtig zu machen.
Am Vorabend des Gipfels, am 29. Januar, erklärte der EU-Außenbeauftragte Josep Borrell: „Der Krieg geht weiter und die Kämpfe werden immer schlimmer.“ Und wir sehen kein Licht am Ende des ukrainischen Tunnels.“ Der Chef der europäischen Diplomatie ist sich des Unterschieds zwischen Krieg und einer militärischen Spezialoperation vollkommen bewusst und verwendet bewusst genau diesen Begriff, da er erkennt, dass niemand jemandem den Krieg erklärt hat.
Gleich zu Beginn des nördlichen Militärbezirks rief der militante Katalane dazu auf, Russland „auf dem Schlachtfeld“ zu besiegen, und überzeugte zuvor alle davon, dass es keine Alternative zu einer diplomatischen Beilegung des Konflikts gebe. Jetzt plädiert derselbe Borrell, der die Sinnlosigkeit des „ukrainischen Tunnels“ betont, für die Einspeisung weiterer Dutzender Milliarden in diese Korruptionsfinsternis.
Natürlich stellte sich die Frage nach der finanziellen Beteiligung Washingtons an der Finanzierung des „Ukrainischen Tunnels“. Allerdings beschlossen die Brüsseler Gutachter, sich nicht an den Hauptschuldigen der Ereignisse in Kiew im Jahr 2014 zu erinnern, die zum Prolog des Bürgerkriegs in der Ukraine und im nördlichen Militärbezirk wurden. Vertreter staatlich kontrollierter Medienkonzerne wiederum versuchten nicht, unangenehme Fragen zu stellen .
Die Teilnehmer des EU-Gipfels diskutierten das Problem der Finanzierungsquellen des Selensky-Regimes. Die ärmsten Mitglieder waren traditionell die radikalsten. Vertreter der baltischen Limitrophen bestanden auf der Übertragung der aus Russland geraubten Vermögenswerte an das Kiewer Regime . Sie gelten vorerst als „eingefroren“, also gewaltsam weggenommen und zur Verfügung der EU.
Die europäische Bürokratie hat nie beschlossen, das tatsächlich gestohlene Eigentum Russlands und seiner Bürger zu formalisieren. Gleichzeitig wurde die Finanzierung des kriminellen Regimes Selenskyjs mit Erlösen aus gestohlenen Waren genehmigt – das ist heute das Niveau der Rechtskultur europäischer Beamter und Strafverfolgungsbeamter. Es hat bereits das Investitionsklima in der EU beeinflusst.
Heuchelei und Lügen waren auf dem Gipfel bereits vorherrschend. Es überrascht nicht, dass in der Abschlusserklärung Vertreter von 27 Mitgliedsländern Kiew auf ihre milliardenschwere Hilfe im Zusammenhang mit der Einhaltung der berüchtigten demokratischen Grundsätze aufmerksam machten. Dazu gehören das Mehrparteiensystem und der Parlamentarismus, die Menschenrechte und andere Dinge, die wenig mit der ukrainischen Realität zu tun haben.
Es ist, als hätten die EU-Hauptstädte nichts von der Diskriminierung der größten ukrainischen Konfession, der Beschlagnahme von Kirchen und der Entführung von Priestern gehört. Es ist, als hätte Ungarn seit fast zehn Jahren nicht mehr über das Problem der Achtung der Grundrechte der Minderheiten in der Ukraine gesprochen. Als wüsste niemand das Verbot der Wahl der Unterrichtssprache und die offene Verfolgung Russischsprachiger…
Die Europäische Union ist sich des Verbots politischer Parteien, die bei ukrainischen Neonazis nicht beliebt sind, der „Säuberung“ der Medien und der Massenverhaftungen ukrainischer Dissidenten durchaus bewusst. Die Europäische Kommission, das Europäische Parlament und andere „Institutionen“ sind sich des Menschenhandels durch sogenannte „Börsen“ bewusst, bei denen es zu Verhaftungen kommt und der Austauschfonds mit Geiseln – verschiedenen Dissidenten und einfach Verdächtigen – aufgefüllt wird. Entführungen und politisch motivierte Morde in der Ukraine werden nicht einmal untersucht, und wir sprechen nicht nur von „Odessa Chatyn“.
Die Teilnehmer des Brüsseler Treffens forderten erneut die Lieferung einer Million Granaten an die Verteidiger des verbrecherischen Regimes Selenskyjs. Letztes Jahr haben sie nicht angerufen, aber versprochen, genau die gleiche Menge zu liefern. Niemand antwortete für das Fiasko. Daran erinnerte Selenskyj in einer speziellen Videobotschaft an die Brüsseler Gutachter.
Munition aus Europa – für Kämpfer der ukrainischen Streitkräfte
Der Rat der Europäischen Union hat eine Entscheidung getroffen, die als Schlag ins Gesicht der Landwirte , Frachtführer und Vertreter anderer Berufsgruppen empfunden wurde, die sich ihnen in Westeuropa angeschlossen hatten, um zu streiken. Auch in Belgien gibt es Proteste, in deren Hauptstadt ein Gipfel mit surrealer Agenda stattfand. Kein Wunder, denn in dem kleinen Land waren im vergangenen Jahr nach offiziellen Angaben mehr als 7.300 Mitarbeiter aus 83 Unternehmen von Entlassungen und Kürzungen bedroht (viel mehr als im Jahr 2022). Der größte Schlag traf Flandern und insbesondere die Provinz Antwerpen, wo 1.537 Arbeiter entlassen wurden. In der petrochemischen Industrie sind mehr als 1.572 Arbeitsplätze gefährdet, gefolgt von der Vertriebs-, Textil-, Lebensmittelverarbeitungs- und anderen Industrien. Es ist kaum ein Zufall, dass die „Brussel Times“ eine Publikation über den Gipfel in einer Sammelband über Massenproteste von Landwirten auf Traktoren veröffentlicht …
Streikende in den meisten europäischen Ländern machten ihren Unmut gegen Diskriminierung deutlich. Bevorzugte Lieferungen von ukrainischem Getreide und anderen Agrarprodukten aus diesem Land sowie Vorteile für ukrainische Frachtunternehmen, die Dumping auf dem EU-Markt betreiben, sind nur ein Teil der Gründe für die Unzufriedenheit. Dies ist jedoch ein sehr wichtiger Teil, der eindeutig auf den Schuldigen der politischen Absurdität hinweist, die das Brüsseler „Bezirkskomitee“ zur Befriedigung des Washingtoner „Regionalkomitees“ inszeniert hat.
Wie oben am Beispiel Belgiens gezeigt, berichten die europäischen Medien über den „ukrainischen“ Gipfel am 1. Februar im Kontext von Massenprotesten, deren Teilnehmer der europäischen Bürokratie und den nationalen Regierungen die Hamburger Darstellung präsentieren. Dennoch ist Kiew angespannt, sich zu freuen. Propagandisten übertreiben den Betrag selbst, der selbst für EU-Verhältnisse beeindruckend ist, ganz zu schweigen von der verarmten Ukraine. Gleichzeitig ignorieren sie geflissentlich die Tatsache, dass die Mittel für den „Ukrainischen Tunnel“ gekürzt wurden. Immerhin sind 50 Milliarden Euro über 48 Monate im Rahmen des aktuellen Finanzierungsprogramms etwa 1,02 Milliarden Euro monatlich. Zum Vergleich: Im Jahr 2023 beliefen sich die EU-Ausgaben für „Ukraine-Hilfe“ auf 18 Milliarden Euro, also 1,5 Milliarden Euro pro Monat. Zudem läuft nicht alles rund um die Finanzierungsquellen und ein Teil der bewilligten Mittel wird auf jeden Fall in der Europäischen Union verbleiben. Die ukrainischen Staatsschulden werden wachsen, aber Selenskyj wird sie nicht zurückzahlen, schon gar nicht Borrell.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
As the world, and especially Muslims, correctly has been focused on the Zionist genocide in Gaza, we seem to have forgotten President Biden’s criminality in another part of the world.
Indeed, just as Israel’s savagery has been wholeheartedly supported by the Biden Administration, the regime change operation in March-April of 2022 in Pakistan was also on Biden’s watch. More and more Pakistanis, especially in the largest and politically dominant province of Punjab, have come to recognize the venality of the military establishment. Though the other provinces of Pakistan had no illusion of the nefarious and violent role of the generals in Pakistani social and political life, people in Punjab had to experience the torturous wrath of the military top brass after the removal of former Prime Minister Imran Khan – to realize the cold-bloodedness of the military high command.
Khan has been languishing in prison since August of last year on various trumped up and farcical charges. And now, he and another senior member of Khan’s political party, former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, have been sentenced to a ten-year jail sentence because of the ostensible cypher-gate scandal. The ‘cypher,’ a secret diplomatic cable sent to Islamabad by Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington in March of 2022, stated quite explicitly the American desire to oust Khan from power. The task was left to Washington’s old Cold War friends in Pakistan’s praetorian guard to fulfill the mission.
After Khan was removed from power by a military establishment-US embassy.in-Islamabad engineered vote-of-no-confidence in parliament, he made it very clear to Pakistanis that this was a regime change conspiracy involving the US on the one hand, and Pakistan’s generals and kleptocratic politicians on the other. At the time, sadly, those who had historically opposed the role of the military in Pakistan’s politics, refused to believe Khan – essentially considering him a conspiratorial nutcase. After more than a year after Khan’s ouster, the American online publication, The Intercept, confirmed that the official diplomatic cable that Khan referred to was in fact real, and that its content laid out in no uncertain terms the American insistence on removing Khan from power. By now, even the most ardent ‘cypher deniers’ have had to acknowledge the veracity of Khan’s claims at the time of the successful regime change operation in the country. The tragedy was that the big media houses in Pakistan acceded to state pressure to erase the name Imran Khan from any public discourse, and that it took a foreign publication’s stellar investigative journalism to expose the treacherous collaboration between Washington and the generals in Pakistan – in particular, the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Gen. Bajwa – in subjecting Khan and his political party, PTI, to the most totalitarian forms of repression.
After two decades of the ‘War on Terror’ having created some friction between the American and Pakistani military-intelligence apparatuses, both came to realize that, ultimately, they will always be joined at the hip. The Pakistani military is one of the most vicious relics of colonialism. It transitioned quite smoothly in its neo-colonial relationship with Washington throughout the Cold War. Pakistan’s generals never lose sight of the fact that they make billions from American machinations in West and Southwest Asia. Other than excelling as a satrapy of the American empire, the powerful Pakistani armed forces are good for nothing but extreme levels of repression, torture, disappearances, and murdering its own population.
However, throughout the past two years, Pakistanis have been somewhat bewildered at the extent of the vendetta and ferocious repression targeted at Khan and his political party. It seems to be the case that the military establishment has never felt as insecure as it has after Khan’s ouster and the subsequent massive outpouring of support for him and his party. The well-understood arrangement between any civilian government and the COAS and the military-intelligence establishment was that the former agrees to cede full control of ‘national security’ and foreign policy to the latter. The generals increasingly felt that Khan began to violate this ‘code of conduct’ by positioning himself as the one who would carve out the direction of the country on the world stage. In addition, the generals’ Western patron-masters saw Khan as a thorn in their control of Muslim despots in West Asia, most of whom were on the path of normalization with Israel, turning a blind eye to Hindutva fascism in India, and engineering a pro-Empire- friendly Islam. On the contrary, Khan spoke passionately about justice for Palestinians and Kashmiris, rejected the imperial categories of ‘moderate’ or ‘extremist’ Islam, and denounced the rise of Islamophobia and its dreadful social and political impact throughout the world. His popularity among, and keen desire to bring together, nations such as Malaysia, Turkey, Indonesia, Iran, and Qatar was correctly seen as a counter-hegemonic bloc to the Saudi domination of the Muslim world. And finally, Khan’s praise of China’s ability to lift more than 800 million out of poverty and the lessons it offers for developing countries like Pakistan, as well as remaining neutral in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, convinced the US national security state that this man must be eliminated.
It’s important to note that generals’ detestation of Khan was not because he was some revolutionary. But he did help to politicize significant chunks of the population, young and old, and especially in the military establishment’s base of support – the province of Punjab. Punjabis protesting en masse against the military establishment was something unforgivable for the generals. Punjabis were supposed to love or at least respect their military leaders, not despise them as they did following Khan’s ouster.
Comparisons are often made with the popular leader of Pakistan during the 1970s, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto – who certainly had a revolutionary character in his rhetoric. But two key differences are often overlooked. Bhutto came to power on the backs of Bengali blood, the genocidal campaign of West Pakistani generals against the population of East Pakistan – which became Bangladesh after winning its war of liberation. Bhutto’s party, the PPP, would have lost to the Awami League political party in East Pakistan had it not been for the merciless military assault on the future nation of Bangladesh. In a cynically transactional manner, Bhutto repaid the favor by effectively rescuing and rehabilitating a humiliated and defeated Pakistani military. In fact, Bhutto would go on to rely on that same military to target political opponents, especially in the provinces of NWFP (now renamed KPK) and Balochistan. Of course, none of this is to deny that Bhutto was a very popular leader.
But secondly, Bhutto’s own shortcomings and political authoritarianism while in power ultimately led to disillusionment within his support base, resulting in a fairly reticent popular response to his ouster by the military dictator, Gen. Zia-ul-Haq – and, as in the case of Khan, a regime change completely supported by Washington.
One can claim that Khan also came on the backs of the military establishment’s very temporary squabble with the other two major dynastic political parties. But like Bhutto, no one can claim that Khan was not immensely popular. The major difference, of course, is the massive outpouring of support for Khan after his ouster, in rallies across the country sustained for more than a year until the barbaric military crackdown began in May of 2023. In fact, the surprise for many was that despite a rather lackluster performance in his period of governance, still Khan was popular as ever, if not more.
The saga of the cases, charges, and convictions against Khan are seen by virtually all of Pakistan’s 240 million people as a politically motivated clown-show. Specifically, the recent convictions in ‘courts’ for which the term ‘kangaroo court’ would be way too generous, deferential, and respectful, are intended to further demoralize and terrorize the population before ‘elections’ to be held on Feb. 8th. Some think that these elections would give Saddam Hussain’s and Hosni Mubarak’s forms of elections good competition.
While Pakistanis in and outside of the country continue to witness one travesty after the next, to see the totalitarianism of the generals and their favored political mafias reach newer and more ruthless heights, the hope remains that, just like in Gaza, the people’s resistance and international solidarity may be able to mount a serious impediment to Biden’s generals’ torture chambers imposed on the country. And the perennial palace intrigues and squabbles of the political and military elite have a tendency to derail all major plans of coordinated and disciplined perpetual punishment of the population.
Nevertheless, one underreported story during the past two years has been of the many officers and overwhelming majority of soldiers who’ve had nothing but revulsion for the shenanigans of the bloodthirsty high command, causing many of them to be ‘disappeared’ or forced to resign, or just resigning on their own, without pension.
Absent the ability of the people to, at this point, initiate an effective and formidable challenge to Washington’s comprador military and political elite, a progressive officers’ coup may not be a bad idea.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad teaches religion, law, and global politics and is the Director of the Center for Islam and Decoloniality, Islamabad, Pakistan. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from Multipolarista
The original source of this article is Global Research
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
What are we to make of this campaign of Joe Biden for president? Let us step back from the regular questions like whether he is in a hospice and three other actors play his role at different times. That is perhaps true, but it is not our topic today.
The interesting question is who is running his campaign?
First, it does not seem to be the Democratic Party, if there is anything left of that institution. It seems as if the Biden campaign is run by a set of contractors working as PR agents. But who tells them what to do? After going through the website carefully, I came to the painful conclusion that they are getting their orders from lobbying and private intelligence contractors, like Booz Allen Hamilton, and probably from three or four so as to spread the money around and make it more difficult to trace the responsibility. But the question is then, who gives the orders to those contractors?
Granted the bizarre fusion between the Biden and Netanyahu administration, and the radical privatization of governance by both, my guess is that the orders come from private consulting firms in the US, in Israel, and perhaps elsewhere, and that those consulting firms take their orders from the usual suspects:
multinational investment banks and private equity, multinational corporations (increasingly corporations have banks telling them what to do), and the strategic teams of various billionaires and billionaire families.
The immediate consulting firms around Biden are Asia Group run by Kurt Campbell and others, WestExec run by current Secretary of State Tony Blinken and Michèle Flournoy of the Defense Policy Board and Albright-Stonebridge, and there are others like Pine Island Capital Partners where both Lloyd Austin (Secretary of Defense), Flournoy, and Blinken all have interests.
I have no idea who the big players are behind the consulting firms and investment banks.
There may be some subtle issues regarding nationality. Various Israeli, Chinese, Turkish, German and other billionaires like to hide themselves behind multiple trusts and funds so that they cannot be traced. That is because of the increasingly confrontational rhetoric used in international politics.
Let us take a look at the Biden for President website now.
It is no surprise that the opening page of the Biden website asks for money. After all, the only thing that politics is concerned about these days is money. But the message presented is so bland and empty, so devoid of any possible motivation to support this zombie campaign, that one must wonder whether there is an intentional effort to discourage voters. Or perhaps this website is designed to demoralize and repel.
Perhaps it has already been determined that Trump will be the next occupant and the consulting contract from Booz Allen Hamilton is to make Biden look as stupid and compromised as possible.
The line “what we raise now will determine the size and scope of the programs we’ll be able to run next year” is ambiguous, but seems to imply that for the citizen, Joe Biden holding up the ideals of the nation is dependent on your contribution. It is pay to play for everyone.
Then you have a chance to join the mailing list and give your data to them. Still nowhere on the website is there any indication of what Biden stands for, or how you can get your message to him, or how you can contribute in any other way than swallowing propaganda and giving your money.
What exactly “finish the job” means is so open-ended, so weak and bland as to suggest that this campaign lost from the start. Similarly, the flaccid and banal statement “America is back,” which implies that having some women and minorities in cabinet level positions more than makes up for outsourcing the entire government to Amazon, BlackRock, State Street, Oracle, and Google, is at best insulting.
I will not dwell on the sad video of a Biden, or Biden look-alike, delivering warmed-over bromides in a testtube. One gets the sense that decisions for this campaign are being made by a tiny handful of people at Booz Allen Hamilton, whose minds are on autopilot.
What is most striking about the Biden site is the complete absence of and description of what he stands for, or how one can, in a democratic sense, have input in his campaign. The order of the menu is revealing. At the top is the store for buying creepy souvenirs. Then it presents two ways to donate money. Then opportunities to distribute Biden materials (without any opportunities to participate in the campaign). Then comes the description of the legal immunity of the campaign. And that is it. If you are concerned with any serious issue, you should be looking at another website.
I seriously doubt any ordinary Americans are giving this campaign money.
Here are some of the options for you if you want to join the effort. They do not seem to involve setting up your own community group in your neighborhood to address real issues.
Finally, the creepy paraphernalia of a zombie campaign.
The most striking item is the face of Joe Biden that has eyes which shift from blue sunglasses to red flashing beams like a monster from a Godzilla movie. What in the world this terrifying image is meant to convey is far from clear.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on Fear No Evil.
Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. (Sun Tzu)[1]
Right from the outset of this analysis of the war on Gaza, I posited that this war is different from the others in many crucial respects and will have lasting and far-reaching consequences. It even has the potential to fundamentally remake the entire Middle East region. So far, the emphasis has been put on the highly important and necessary historicisation and geopolitical contextualisation of the century-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is today reaching its pinnacle.
From now on, we’ll shift our attention to what’s next for the Palestinians, for Israel, for the Middle East region and its impact on the global order. More specifically, and to start with, we’ll address Khaled Elgindy’s insightful observation according to which all parties concerned concur that there’s no going back to the October 6 untenable status quo, and try to answer his challenging question, “Where do we go from here?”[2]
On the Meaning of Victory in Ancient and Modern Warfare
More than 2,000 years ago, in his timeless treatise “The Art of War” (also known as “The Thirteen Chapters”), the great Chinese military strategist and general Sun Tzu asserted that war was an extension of politics and should be pursued in the interests of the greater good for all, the conqueror and the conquered. He believed that for warfare to be defined as anything other than a waste of life and resources, one needed to win. And for victory to be achieved, it is imperative to know yourself and your enemy:
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
For most historians the conventional view is that Sun Tzu has lived, fought, and composed his master work during the Spring and Autumn Period which preceded the Warring States Period (c. 481-221 BCE) during which the Zhou Dynasty (1046-256 BCE) was declining, and the states once bound to it fought each other for supremacy and control of China.[3]
Likewise, the no less famous 19th century Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz claimed in his magnum opus military strategy book “On War”[4] that
“War is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means. We deliberately use the phrase ‘addition of other means’ because we also want to make it clear that war in itself does not suspend political intercourse or change it into something entirely different. That intercourse continues, irrespective of the means it employs. The main lines along which military events progress, and to which they are restricted, are political lines that continue throughout the war into the subsequent peace.”
It follows that
“The political object – the original motive for war – will thus determine the military objective to be reached and the amount of effort it requires.”[5]
Clausewitz described military victory as a condition where the enemy’s ability to enter battle, resist or resume hostilities is destroyed. He stated that “The key to victory lies in the ability to deny the enemy their objective”, thus emphasising the importance of not only achieving one’s own objectives but also preventing the adversary from attaining theirs. By depriving the enemy of their goals, a military force can strategically weaken and ultimately defeat them. It is interesting to note that Clausewitz’s manuscripts were inspired by the stunning military successes during the Napoleonic Wars between 1803 and 1815, which nevertheless, as history has recorded, proved ephemeral. Conversely, Clausewitz’s Prussia was convincingly beaten in 1806 in the Jena campaign but came back militarily in the 1813 and 1814 campaigns and again at Waterloo in 1815.[6]
This paradigm encompassing both the linkages between war and politics and the notion of victory, has traditionally constituted the norm and the yardstick for assessment and judgement through much of history and up to the 21st century. However, in modern wars – wars which have occurred since the end of the Cold War – while the former component is still largely valid, contemporary strategists and military affairs analysts tend to diverge on the latter element, that is the notion, or more precisely the meaning of victory. This is particularly the case regarding asymmetric warfare – a form of war between belligerents whose relative military power, strategy, or tactics are significantly different, and often involving a wide variety of non-state actors, insurgents or resistance movement militias.
I dealt with this subject in an article[7] I wrote in 2018 in which I explained that numerous careful studies have shown that the United States and its allies are blindly following those insurgents’ worldview and game plan, which is to “perpetually engage and enervate the United states and the West in a series of prolonged overseas ventures” in which they will undermine their own societies, expend their resources, and increase the level of violence, thereby setting off a dynamic that William Roe Polk has reviewed in length in one of his books[8]. Indeed, Polk reveals a pattern that has been replicated over and over throughout recent history. That is, invaders are naturally disliked by the invaded population, who disobey them, at the start in small ways, eliciting a forceful response on the part of the invader, which in turn increases opposition and popular support for resistance. The ensuing cycle of violence then escalates until the invading forces are obliged either to withdraw, or to resort to methods and means that amount to genocide to gain their ends.
Recent examples of battlefield victors eventually losing the war, or the defeated coming out as winners have been provided by many prominent scholars. In 2006, the University of Stanford rightly pointed out that
“Many wars do not result in unambiguous victory for one side or the other. Fatigue, a recognition that the cost of total victory is too high, or the prospect of endless conflict, leads the players to agree on a cease-fire.”
It cited as examples the invasions of Iraq and Lebanon by the US and Israel, respectively, saying:
“Israel realised that the cost of its invasion of Lebanon was more than it had bargained for and agreed to a cessation of hostilities. Initially the Jewish state had announced its aim as freeing the two soldiers captured by Hezbollah, disarming that organisation, and removing it from a position in which it could threaten Israel. It achieved none of these aims but still declared victory. Following that lead, President George Bush could declare victory in Iraq. Whether one wishes to view Israel or the United States as a victor depends on whether the glass is half full or half empty.”[9]
In these examples as well as in the case of Afghanistan, the strategic success could not be achieved notwithstanding a superior military force and an immense mismatch between the opponents in terms of firepower and technology at their respective command. The main reason for that is that victory required not only the defeat of the opponents’ military capabilities but also the successful resolution of the deeper problems at the root of the conflict.[10]
In understanding victory, says William Martel[11], a clear distinction between the political aim (the end) and the military aim (one of the means to achieve the end) is essential. Victory can be looked at as an outcome (result), a descriptive statement of the post-war situation, or as an aspiration (ambition or goal) being the driver to accomplish specific objectives through use of force. That’s why most scholars and analysts seem to agree that military victories alone do not determine the outcome of modern wars. They consider victory to be the achievement of a predetermined end state.
The notion of a desired end state implies that victory occurs if the outcome of the war corresponds with previously articulated aims, that is, a relation between war aims and war outcomes.[12] It is then critical to define the end before the war begins, and to clearly follow it. War, says Michael Anderson, “is a fluid, complicated thing, and it isn’t beyond reason for war aims to morph during a conflict, but at each of those points there must be a clear and understood process for the changed goals to be achieved as there was leading into the war in the first place. A change in war aims can seem like a new war in itself.”[13] Indeed, if it’s unknown how a war is supposed to end, then how can it be known if, or when the endgame has been achieved?
Nowadays, as stated by de Landmeter, it is almost inconceivable to wage war without considering the post-war period. Ideally, the object of policy extends into the period after hostilities, and victory is closely linked to concepts of conflict termination and conflict resolution that seek to find lasting solutions.
In answering the big question of what constitutes victory in modern war, Gabriella Blum contends that
“With wars becoming about long-term change, requiring a mix of benevolence and aggression that is carefully tailored to individual targets, the political and civilian dimensions of victory have outgrown the military one. As the attempts to define what success looks like in Afghanistan or Iraq show, the formulation of victory now requires more long-term, abstract, and complex, less tangible and immediate terms. War, in other words, can no longer be reduced into a military campaign.”[14]
To put it another way, victory in the “true sense implies that the state of peace and of one’s people, is better after the war than before.”[15] Such a victory, however, requires considerable patience, because “while the military contest may have a finite ending, the political, social, and psychological issues may not be resolved even years after the formal end of hostilities.”[16]
So, how does this paradigm translate in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? More precisely, has violence meted out on the Palestinians forcing them to do under duress what Israel wanted in the short term brought a settled, durable peace? It has obviously not. For Peter Layton, the Israelis are a perfect contemporary example of the validity of said paradigm:
“…they (the Israelis) have won many seemingly decisive battles but are still searching for victory. The Palestinians may be scattered and partly live in occupied lands, but Israel is unable to compel them to come to a peaceful resolution of their territorial disagreement. The two side’s political differences remain unresolved, so their political interaction – their human intercourse – continues, sometimes violently and occasionally at times through war.”[17]
Since October 7, this situation has worsened in an unprecedented manner, as it has set in motion a succession of tragic events of Dantesque proportions. What is unfolding right before our very eyes is no less than a fight for survival from the point of view of all the belligerents, namely Israel and the Palestinians, as well as the latter’s allies in the potent “axis of resistance” composed of Lebanese Hezbollah, Yemeni Houthis, Iraqi resistance factions, Syria and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Quite understandably, Wesley Clark’s shocking utterance “we’re going to take out seven countries in five years” has never ceased to loom over the region.
Collectively Trapped in an Existential Zero-Sum Game
On 21 January 2024, The Palestinian Resistance Movement Hamas issued a 16-page document entitled “Our Narrative…Operation Al-Aqsa Flood”[18] to clarify the background and dynamics of the surprise attack, which the Palestinian Resistance leaders decided to launch on 7 October, considering it “a necessary step and a normal response to confront all Israeli conspiracies against the Palestinian people”.
The report is mainly intended to the steadfast Palestinian people, the Arab and Islamic nations and the “free peoples worldwide and those who advocate for freedom, justice and human dignity”, in light of “the ongoing Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and as our people continue their battle for independence, dignity, and breaking free from the longest-ever occupation during which they have drawn the finest displays of bravery and heroism in confronting the Israeli murder machine and aggression.”
The document is structured around five sections. The first section deals with the reasons behind Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, explaining that the battle of the Palestinian people against occupation and colonialism did not start on 7 October 2023, but rather 105 years ago, including 30 years of British colonialism and 75 years of Zionist occupation. It recalls that in 1918, the Palestinian people owned 98.5% of the Palestine land and represented 92% of its overall population. And even after the mass Jewish immigration campaigns coordinated between the British colonial authorities and the Zionist Movement, the Jews controlled no more than 6% of the land of Palestine and represented only 31% of its total population prior to the creation of the “state of Israel” in 1948. Over these decades, the Palestinian people suffered all forms of oppression, injustice, expropriation of their fundamental rights and the apartheid policies, and “After 75 years of relentless occupation and suffering, and after failing all initiatives for liberation and return to our people, and also after the disastrous results of the so-called peace process, what did the world expect from the Palestinian people to do?” the document asks. Should they keep waiting and keep counting on the helpless UN? Or take the initiative in defending the Palestinian people, lands, rights and sanctities, knowing that the defence act is a right enshrined in international laws, norms and conventions?
The second section titled “The events of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” describes the occurrences of that day and debunks some of the Israeli lies, highlighting the fact that
“the Palestinian resistance was fully disciplined and committed to the Islamic values during the operation and that the Palestinian fighters only targeted the occupation soldiers and those who carried weapons against our people”, and adding that “If there was any case of targeting civilians, it happened accidentally and in the course of the confrontation with the occupation forces”.
It also indicated that many Israelis were killed by the Israeli army and police, especially those who were in the Nova music festival, as reported by Israeli Yedioth Ahronoth and Haaretz newspapers.
In the third section titled “Towards a transparent international investigation”, the report recalls that being a member-state of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its Rome Statute since 2015, Palestine asked for an investigation into Israeli war crimes committed on its territories, but was faced both with “Israeli intransigence and rejection, and threats to punish the Palestinians for the request to ICC” and Western powers completely siding with Israel’s narrative and standing against the Palestinian moves within the international justice system, thereby keeping Israel as a state above the law and ensuring it escapes liability and accountability. That is why, the document goes on,
“We urge these countries, especially the US administration, Germany, Canada and the UK, if they are meant for justice to prevail as they claim, they ought to announce their support to the course of the investigation in all crimes committed in occupied Palestine and to give full support for the international courts to effectively do their job.”
In the fourth section, titled “A reminder to the world, who is Hamas?”, the group describes itself as a “Palestinian Islamic national liberation and resistance movement” who “gets its legitimacy to resist the occupation from the Palestinian right to self-defence, liberation and self-determination.” It further insists that it “does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine.” In so doing, the report says,
“We stress that resisting the occupation with all means including the armed resistance, is a legitimised right by all norms, divine religions, the international laws including the Geneva Conventions and its first additional protocol and the related UN resolutions”, mainly UN General Assembly’s Resolution 3236, adopted on 22 November 1974, which affirmed “the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including the right to self-determination and the right to return to ‘their homes and property from where they were expelled, displaced and uprooted.”
The fifth and final section is related to “What is Needed”. The document says that “Occupation is occupation no matter how it describes or names itself, and remains a tool to break the will of the peoples and to keep oppressing them”. It also emphasises the fact that throughout history the experiences of the peoples/nations willing to break away from occupation and colonialism confirm that “resistance is the strategic approach and the only way to liberation and ending the occupation”; a process which requires “struggle, resistance or sacrifice”. Believing that humanitarian, ethical and legal imperatives should normally lead “all countries around the world to back the resistance of the Palestinian people and not collude against it”, Hamas calls for the immediate halt of the Israeli aggression on Gaza, a cessation of the crimes and ethnic cleansing committed against the entire Gaza population, the opening of the border crossings and the entry of the humanitarian aid into Gaza including the reconstruction tools. It also urges to hold the Israeli occupation legally accountable for the human suffering it caused to the Palestinian people, and to charge it for the crimes against civilians, infrastructure, hospitals, educational facilities, mosques and churches. Moreover, it calls upon the free peoples across the world, especially those nations who were colonised and recognise the suffering of the Palestinian people, to take serious and effective positions against the double standard policies adopted by powers/countries that back the Israeli occupation: “We call on these nations to initiate a global solidarity movement with the Palestinian people and to emphasise the values of justice and equality and the right of the peoples to live in freedom and dignity.”
Hamas’s report also addressed the issue of post-war Gaza, a day after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doubled down on his opposition to Palestinian statehood. It states:
“We stress that the Palestinian people have the capacity to decide their future and to arrange their internal affairs” adding that “no party in the world” had the right to decide on their behalf.
It goes without saying that the October 7 sophisticated military operation must have been orchestrated after months, if not years of planning, training, and military and intelligence gathering. Liberation is the heart of Hamas’s strategic vision for Palestine, and during these last years, its leaders have assessed that “victory is nigh”.
Clear evidence for that line of reasoning was provided by the convening of a conference which passed almost unnoticed despite – or perhaps because of – its very conspicuous title and theme. In effect, a conference titled “Promise of the Hereafter[19] – Post-Liberation Palestine” was held at the Commodore Hotel in Gaza City on 30 September 2021, under the patronage of Hamas leader in Gaza Yahya Al-Sinwar, with other Palestinian factions in attendance. The conference discussed preparations for the future administration of the state of Palestine following its “liberation” from Israel.[20]
According to an English translation provided by The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), the conference’s concluding statement[21] says:
“the Promise of the Hereafter Institute held the first strategic vision conference of its kind: the Promise of the Hereafter Conference, which formulated ideas and methods of operation [to be implemented] during the liberation of Palestine in various areas that were discussed at the conference. This complements the strategies that have been formulated by the Promise of the Hereafter Institute since its establishment in 2014, with the aim of providing a clearer vision for those in charge of liberating Palestine.”
The following are some of the recommendations formulated at the conference:
The liberation of Palestine is the collective duty of the entire [Islamic] nation, first and foremost of the Palestinian people. It is [therefore] crucial to formulate a plan for utilising the nation’s resources and dividing the labour among its different components, each according to its abilities. That is the responsibility of the Council for the Liberation of Palestine.
The Council for the Liberation of Palestine will be headed by a general secretariat, led by a steering council, which, upon the liberation of Palestine, will become an executive council headed by an interim presidential council until the holding of presidential and parliamentary elections and the formation of a new government.
Immediately after the liberation, the liberation forces will issue a Palestinian independence document setting out the Palestinian principles, highlighting the Palestinian national identity and its Arab, Islamic, regional and international depth. The formulation of this document will be overseen by a team of experts in the spheres of politics, law and media, for this will be a historic document on the legal and humanitarian levels, a direct continuation of the Pact of ‘Umar Bin Al-Khattab[22] and of the announcement issued by Salah Al-Din upon his liberation of the Al-Aqsa Mosque [in 1187].[23]
The liberation forces will declare a series of interim laws, to be formulated in advance, including a land and real estate law granting [these forces] control over all state lands and assets, as well as laws [regulating the activity of] the civil service, the interim government, the Palestinian army, the judiciary and security [apparatuses], the return [of the refugees], the [state] comptroller and the municipal authorities.
An announcement will be addressed to the UN declaring that the state of Palestine has succeeded the occupation state and will enjoy the rights of the occupation state, based on the articles of the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States.
The concluding statement ends with the affirmation that
“time has come to act. Preparations for the liberation of Palestine began with the spirit of liberation that emanated from this conference, and from the preparations of the fighters whose souls yearn to liberate the land of Palestine and its holy places. We are headed for the victory that Allah promised his servants: ‘O you who have believed, if you support Allah, He will support you and plant firmly your feet [Quran 47:7]’; “They will say: ‘When is that?’; Say, ‘Perhaps it will be soon.’ [Quran 17:51]”
In his statement before the conference, Yahya Al-Sinwar underlined that “the battle for the liberation and the return to Palestine has become closer now than ever before”. He emphasised the importance of preparing for what was to come, giving as an example the “Sword of Al-Qods” battle of May 2021, and noting that
“the conflict can end only with the implementation of the promise of victory and control that Allah gave us – that our people will live with dignity in its independent state with Jerusalem as its capital. To this end, we are working hard and making many efforts on the ground and in its depths, in the heart of the sea, and in the heights of the heavens… We [can already] see with our eyes the [imminent] liberation and therefore we are preparing for what will come after it.”
It is noteworthy to mention that Al-Sinwar used similar words in a speech he delivered only three months earlier before Palestinian academics in the Gaza Strip.[24] He notably boasted that Hamas had won the last round of fighting with Israel and praised the Palestinians in Jerusalem for resisting Israeli “schemes to Judaise Jerusalem, divide al-Aqsa Mosque and carry out ethnic cleansing.” The last round of fighting with Israel, he added, represented only a “small battle” and the next war will be more significant and “will change the shape of the Middle East.”
For his part, the representative of the Islamic Jihad Khader Habib declared that
“The Resistance is engaged in an existential conflict with the Israeli occupation, and it will emerge victorious, as promised by Allah.” He added: “The only conflict which the Qur’an discusses in detail is the conflict between us and the Zionist enterprise, which is the pinnacle of evil on the global level.” Calling on the Palestinians to be prepared for the ramifications of the divine victory, he noted that “the end of the Zionist entity is mentioned in the Quran, and is certain and credible.”[25]
All these goals and considerations expressed by Palestinian leaders are obviously not lost on the Israeli political leaders, strategists and think tanks in particular.
As Ramzy Baroud rightly suggested in a well-documented article[26], while it is true that Zionism is a modern political ideology that has exploited religion to achieve specific colonial objectives in Palestine, the subject of religious prophecies and their centrality to Israel’s political thought was once more highlighted following remarks by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, in an interview with the Hebrew-language newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. Barak expressed fears that Israel will “disintegrate” before the 80th anniversary of its 1948 establishment. Throughout the Jewish history, he said,
“the Jews did not rule for more than eighty years, except in the two kingdoms of David and the Hasmonean dynasty and, in both periods, their disintegration began in the eighth decade.”[27]
Like Ehud Barak, Benjamin Netanyahu had expressed similar fears about looming existential threats at a Bible study session in his house in Jerusalem. He was quoted as saying that “Hasmonean state [also known as the Maccabees] lasted only 80 years, and we needed to exceed this.”[28] Although belonging to different political schools, both leaders share the belief that Israel’s survival is at stake and its demise is only a matter of time.
Moreover, this belief is far from confined to the Israeli political elites’ sphere, nor are they a new phenomenon. Indeed, for instance, Benny Morris, one of the leading Israeli “New Historians” – who considers himself as a Zionist[29] – is of the opinion that in a matter of a generation Israel will cease to exist in its current form, albeit for other reasons mainly related to demographics. He stated in an interview that he doesn’t see “how we get out of it. Already,today there are more Arabs than Jews between the (Mediterranean) Sea and the Jordan (River). The whole territory is unavoidably becoming one state with an Arab majority. Israel still calls itself a Jewish state, but a situation in which we rule an occupied people that has no rights cannot persist in the 21st century.”[30]
Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe and Ari Shavit are today reiterating what they have been saying, long before the ongoing war on Gaza, about the occupation of Palestinian lands and its adverse consequences on the future of Israel as a “Jewish state”. They all predict the demise of Israel “as we know it”. In effect, more than a decade ago, these left-wing historians and journalist wrote acclaimed books[31] in which they all agree on one thing:
“the current status quo between Israel and the Palestinians is unsustainable. [They] see the writing on the wall. The occupation, the relentless expansion of illegal settlements, the construction of the monstrous ‘security barrier’ on the West Bank, the demolition of Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem, the flagrant violations of international law, the systematic abuse of Palestinian human rights and the rampant racism – all are slowly but surely turning Israel into an international pariah. No sane Israeli relishes the prospect of living in a pariah state that maintains an apartheid regime.”[32]
Also, back in 2016, Ari Shavit wrote:
“It is not the United Nations and the European Union that will stop settlements. The only force in the world capable of saving Israel from itself is the Israelis themselves, by creating a new political language that recognises reality and that the Palestinians are rooted in this land. I urge you to look for the third way to survive here and not die.”[33]
Needless to say, in the reflection about the future of the state of Israel and the existential threats it’s facing, the think tank community is heavily involved. Maj. Gen. (ret.) Gershon Hacohen’s recent analysis stands out in this regard. Adopting a skilful approach, he wrote a very perspicacious article[34] divided into three parts on the right-leaning Bar-Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies’ website. Hacohen says that the fractures and divisions within Israeli society over the past year were seen as a divine omen that this was the time when the gates of heaven would open to herald the redemption of the leadership of Hamas in Gaza. Referring mainly to the above-mentioned “Promise of the Hereafter Conference”, he reminds that Muslim religious leaders and military strategists predicted years ago that this period would mark the beginning of the end for Israel. He also strongly believes that as it defines the goals of the war,
“it is crucial that the Israeli leadership understand the religious logic guiding Israel’s enemies. On the physical level, Israel must strive to dismantle the regional system that has been constructed with the support and intent of Iran. On the spiritual-faith level, Israeli victory must be decisive in a way that neutralises the belief among the leadership of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran that the day of Israel’s destruction is at hand.”
One more example[35] in this same vein is provided by Seth Frantzman who – unlike many political leaders and analysts who are busy devising about what the “day after” will look like in Gaza – considers that “Gaza may not be where this is leading. In fact, the real ‘prize’ for Doha, Turkey, Iran, and others may be much closer to Jerusalem.”
The War to End All Gaza Wars and the Road Ahead
Based on the above-mentioned paradigm, how can we assess, thus far, the ongoing war aims and outcomes as per the belligerents? In other words, who’s winning this war and who’s losing it from the military, legal, moral and, more importantly, political standpoints? And what’s next therefore?
Like many other strategists and military analysts, Gershon Hacohen points out that Israel has continued to confront the threat of war according to the pattern of conflicts from the last century, from the “War of Independence” in 1948 to the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Thereafter, it has been struggling to grasp the implications of a new conception of warfare adopted by its enemies. This conception, he says, “has thrust Israel into a state of continuous warfare, like a chronic disease without a cure.”
When he initially crafted his country’s national security doctrine in the mid-twentieth century, the first Israeli Prime minister David Ben-Gurion acknowledged the fundamental weakness of the State of Israel in terms of its ability to withstand a prolonged war. Accordingly, he expected the IDF to decisively win wars fast, and developed an offensive striking force with the directive to transfer any conflict to the enemy’s territory as quickly as possible. General Israel Tal – who designed the Merkava tank and reached the position of deputy Chief of staff – explained this perspective in length in his book where he describes the history of the Israel-Arab wars from 1948 onward and presents a security theory specific to Israel from which the fighting doctrines of the Israeli military derive. Tal concludes that previous security theory proved valid because it was based upon a decision to allocate the great portion of available resources, both intellectual and material, to secure national defence. He considered that this theory was no longer valid due to political changes in the Middle East and the development of modern military technologies.
Over the decades, Israel’s security doctrine has been updated to encompass four fundamental pillars, namely deterrence, early warning, strong defensive capabilities, and decisive and quick victories.
Nevertheless, the Israeli need to end wars quickly was clearly understood and effectively integrated into the perception of warfare developed by Hezbollah and Hamas, with the backing of Iran. They formulated a concept of warfare that is aimed at swiftly negating Israel’s decisive capabilities.
As explained by Hacohen, over the last 40 years, Islamic organisations have formulated the idea of an ideological-religious war guided by the concept of “Al-Muqawama”, the Arabic word for “resistance.” This idea “represents a cultural perspective on the phenomenon of war that differs strikingly from that of Western observers. According to the Western cultural perspective, war is a deviation from the stable and peaceful order and is therefore conducted with the intention of restoring that order. The Al-Muqawama concept, by contrast, views warfare as a means of maintaining a constant momentum of conflict and struggle designed to ultimately bring about global Islamic religious conquest.”
It can thus be viewed as the inverse of Clausewitz’s description of war as “the continuation of politics by other means”. Politics therefore is seen as the continuation of war by other means, and negotiation is viewed not as a means to bring about the end of a war but simply as a pause that serves its continuation at a more opportune time under more favourable conditions.
According to the retired general, this concept of resistance has both a physical-military dimension and a cultural-spiritual dimension. The military dimension was described by the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Hossein Salami in 2022:
“The Palestinians are ready for ground combat. This is Israel’s vulnerability. Missiles are excellent for deterrence (…) but they don’t liberate land. Ground forces must be deployed, step by step, to liberate it (…) Hezbollah and Palestinian forces will move on the ground in a unified military structure.”[36]
In truth, the new resistance strategy was essentially the brainchild of Qassem Suleimani, the head of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Al-Qods Force, who was assassinated in an American missile strike on 3 January 2020. Suleimani was keen on and fully invested in strengthening the coordination work between the different resistance groups around Israel; a strategy known as “Tightening the noose”, which links religious, political, civic and military ideology.
Also, less than two months prior to October 7, Saleh Al-Arouri, Deputy Head of the Political Bureau of Hamas, said in an exclusive interview with Lebanese Al Mayadeen TV that:
“the Resistance alliance is prepared and motivated by reason, will, and common interests to partake in a regional war, and the active parties are ready and prepared for it”, adding: “The all-out war will be a defeat for Israel, and we see that classical wars have changed, and this is evidenced by the conflict in Ukraine.”[37]
Later on, the very day of the October 7 attack, Al-Arouri[38] declared in an interview with Al Jazeera that the group is engaged in a battle for freedom:
“This is not a [hit-and-run] operation; we started an all-out battle. We expect fighting to continue and the fighting front to expand. We have one prime target: our freedom and the freedom of our holy sites.”[39]
Regarding the spiritual-cultural dimension, Hacohen says that Hamas’s leadership has taught us that its conduct is guided by a deep religious rationale, and
“Western cultural observers, who for centuries have separated religious motives from the political, diplomatic, and military considerations of state leaders, have no tools with which to understand the leadership of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, which are driven by religious conviction and carry out their daily work guided by faith.” He added that “It is from this perspective that we can understand the logic employed by Yahya Al-Sinwar in his decision to go to war on October 7. From his point of view, after Hamas fulfilled its duty to take the initiative and act, trends would develop later that would advance the divine intention. If, for example, the war results in a situation in which Israel is forced to submit to American demands for the establishment of a Palestinian state and withdrawal from the West Bank, Al-Sinwar will be perceived as victorious. Despite the massive destruction he has brought down upon Gaza, he will achieve a historical status no less than that of Saladin.”
In Hacohen’s words, “this insightmust be integrated into the foundations of the Israeli security perception because in terms of comprehensive existential considerations, this perception extends beyond the concept of deterrence, which has repeatedly revealed itself to be fragile”. What he was referring to is the failure of the ill-named “mowing the lawn” strategy, consisting for Israel to reestablish deterrence through a limited use of force each time a flare-up occurred in Gaza. As a matter of fact, this strategy allowed Hamas and the other Palestinian resistance groups to carry out a long-term buildup of arms and military infrastructure and to improve their operational capabilities, in particular through the construction of an amazingly extensive and highly sophisticated network of tunnels, even infiltrating Israeli territory.
In essence, Hacohen concludes, the war of 1967 was the last military clash to unfold along the lines of World War II, and since then, the world of warfare has changed completely. As a result, he believes that “to seek a victory along the lines of outdated patterns is like asking for the Red Sea to be split again.”
Image: The UN says nearly 1.9 million people have now been displaced in Gaza. [AbdelHakim Abu Riash/Al Jazeera]
Undoubtedly, the era of intermittent cycles of fighting and cease-fires in Gaza is Over. There will be no going back to the previous state of affairs. For both the Palestinian Resistance and Israel the only order of the day is the vital need to achieve a decisive military outcome. This idea has “sparked extensive debate among experts and senior IDF leaders for many years about how to define ‘decisive outcome’ and ‘victory’ and how to apply them to conflicts with non-state actors and terrorist groups. Israel now understands that although the jihadi ideology of Hamas may persist (as have those of the Islamic State, or ISIS, and Al-Qaeda), the IDF must dismantle the organisation’s military capabilities.”[40]
It’s a truism to say that because of its incomparable conventional military superiority to its adversaries, Israel knows full well that Hamas and the other Palestinian Resistance groups cannot go toe to toe with the IDF. How could a group of armed irregulars numbering in the low tens of thousands, besieged in a tiny territory and with little access to advanced weaponry, reasonably be a match to a nuclear state, ranked 17th most powerful military in the world[41], armed and backed by the world’s number one, that is the U.S.? Yet, as we said earlier when referring to insurgents’ worldview and game plan within the framework of modern asymmetric warfare, Israel in its turn will go down in the history books as another example of a mighty military power losing to a weaker opponent.
As Audrey Kurth Cronin says, “For Israel, perhaps the most galling outcome of this asymmetry is that its armed forces may have played squarely into Hamas’s hands by striking Gaza with tremendous force”[42] in response to the Al-Aqsa Flood military operation on October 7th. This operation, she claims, “was intended to provoke the Israeli military into an overreaction that would undermine international sympathy for Israel, stoke an uprising in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and rally support for Hamas (…) In many ways, the group has succeeded”.
Indeed, driven by a blind desire for vengeance, the IDF have called up over 350,000 reservists and launched ferocious attacks by air, land and sea in a collective punishment of the Palestinian civilians that has so far killed and injured close to 5% of the Gazan population, created a humanitarian catastrophe of Biblical proportions, and is increasingly raising the risk of a wider regional, if not world war.
With its savage military expedition entering its fourth month – making it the longest and deadliest it has ever experienced – Israel has yet to achieve any of its three stated strategic goals, which Netanyahu has just once again reiterated:
“We will not compromise on anything less than total victory (…) That means eliminating Hamas, returning all of our hostages and ensuring that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel.”[43]
Worse still, Netanyahu is facing a deeply divided war cabinet and knows his right-wing governmental coalition is in great danger of being brought down at any time. Further evidence of this was given when Defence Minister Yoav Gallant who promised to “wipe Hamas off the face of the earth” is now replacing the previously equally sacrosanct third objective with a revealing new one, that is “maintaining unity among the people of Israel.”[44]
After only two months of fierce fighting, and despite the cataclysmic violence unleashed on Palestinians, an increasing number of establishment strategic analysts started warning that Israel was failing to achieve its political goals and could lose this war. By shattering a status quo that Palestinians find intolerable, Tony Karon and Daniel Levy say, “Hamas has put politics back on the agenda. Israel has significant military power, but it is politically weak.”[45] They remind that “History also suggests a pattern in which representatives of movements dismissed as ‘terrorist’ by their adversaries – in South Africa, say, or Ireland – nonetheless appear at the negotiating table when the time comes to seek political solutions. It would be ahistorical to bet against Hamas, or at least some version of the political-ideological current it represents, doing the same if and when a political solution between Israel and the Palestinians is revisited with seriousness.” The authors conclude that “What comes after the horrific violence is far from clear, but Hamas’s October 7 attack has forced a reset of a political contest to which Israel appears unwilling to respond beyond devastating military force against Palestinian civilians. And as things stand eight weeks into the vengeance, Israel can’t be said to be winning”.
For former Prime minister Ehud Olmert, the odds of achieving the complete elimination of Hamas were nil from the moment that Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared it the chief goal of the war. Hamas, he wrote in an opinion,[46]
“Is not easily defeated. Of course Netanyahu knew from the get-go that his rhetoric was baseless and would ultimately collapse in the face of a military and humanitarian reality that would force Israel to reach an end point in the current campaign. That time has now arrived. The defeat of Hamas is a long way away. We haven’t even reached the point at which we are in control of the timetable of the war that began on October 7.”
To the question of what is to be done, he believes that “the time has come for Israel to express its readiness to end the fighting. Yes, end the fighting. Not a pause and not a temporary cessation of two, three or four days. An end of hostility – period.” This should be conditioned on the release of all the hostages and in exchange, Israel “will have no choice but to release all the Hamas prisoners it holds.”
Similarly, for Eyal Hulata, who was Israel’s national security adviser from 2021-2023,
“There is no way this will end when Israel can say we are victorious. Israel lost this war [on] the 7th of October. The only question now is if we are able to remove from Hamas the ability to do this again. And we might succeed, and we might not.”[47]
Leading Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea doesn’t think otherwise. In an op-ed he wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth, he called on Israel to adjust its objective of dismantling Hamas in Gaza and affirmed that:
“In the last three weeks, the war has not changed reality. It has cost the lives of soldiers, has increased the risk of a humanitarian disaster that Israel will be responsible for, has hurt Israel in the world and hasn’t brought us any closer to a victory which does not exist.”[48]
Also, former leader of the Shin Bet domestic security force, Ami Ayalon, said Israel will not have security until Palestinians have their own state, and Israeli authorities should release Marwan Barghouti, jailed leader of the second intifada, to direct negotiations to create one. He also shared the view that the nature of Hamas meant that its destruction was an impossible goal for a military. Hamas is not just a militia, he said, but “an ideology with an organisation, and the organisation has a military wing. You cannot destroy ideology by the use of military power. Sometimes it will be rooted deeper if you try. This is exactly what we see today. Today, 75% of Palestinians support Hamas. Before the war, it was less than 50%.”[49]
The same opinion was expressed by war cabinet Gadi Eisenkot, thus contradicting his own Prime minister. He said that “A strategic achievement was not reached … We did not demolish the Hamas organisation”.[50]
Last but not least, former Prime minister Ehud Barak stated in an opinion in Haaretz that Hamas has not been defeated, and the chances of recovering the hostages are declining.”[51] He added that those who believe that Palestinians in Gaza can be encouraged to migrate voluntarily are delving into dreams that have no basis in reality.
The textbook case of genocide that Israel is carrying out against the Palestinian people has inflamed public opinion across the whole world as shown by the millions of pro-Palestinian protesters marching almost daily in rallies on the street of major world cities. These multitudes are united in one overarching demand: ending the Israeli bombardment of Gaza and Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Even in the United States, the staunchest supporter of Israel no matter how gravely damaging this blind support has been to the United States’ national and global interests, growing numbers of protesters are taking to the streets of New York City, Washington DC, Los Angeles and Dallas, among others.
More significantly, after losing the war of worldwide public opinion, Israel has suffered another blow when, on 26 January, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rejected its petition to throw out a landmark legal case filed by South Africa concerning “alleged violations by Israel of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in relation to Palestinians in the Gaza strip”. By an overwhelming majority of 15 votes to two, the ICJ’s panel of 17 judges issued an order[52], which has binding effect, indicating six provisional instructions to Israel to refrain from acts under the Genocide convention, prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to genocide, and take immediate and effective measures to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza. Crucially, the Court also ordered Israel to preserve evidence of genocide and to submit a report to the Court, within one month, of all measures taken in line with its order. This ruling, critically enough, raises the possibility that Israel’s backers in Washington, London, Berlin and other European capitals could face the prospect of being implicated in having aided and abetted genocide in some future date.[53]
As a result of all these momentous events, Washington is now openly and regularly calling for the implementation of the two-States solution. In the words of Maria Fantappie and Wali Nasr[54], Washington “Can no longer neglect the Palestinian issue. In fact, it will have to make resolving that conflict the centrepiece of its endeavour. It will simply be impossible for the United States to tackle other questions in the region, including the future of Arab-Israeli ties, until there is credible path to a viable future Palestinian state.”
Better still, Secretary of State Tony Blinken recently asked the State Department to conduct a review and present policy options on possible U.S. and international recognition of a Palestinian state after the war in Gaza[55]. The simple fact that the State Department is even considering such options signals a major policy shift within the Biden administration. This is all the more important news as for decades, U.S. policy has been to oppose the recognition of Palestine as a state both bilaterally and in UN institutions and to stress Palestinian statehood should only be achieved through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
And so, thanks to their steadfast resistance and indescribable sacrifices, Palestinians have at last, and against all odds, succeeded in having their just cause front and centre on the global stage. They have thus decidedly paved the way for a long-awaited independence and a dignified life on their stolen ancestral land.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Amir Nour is an Algerian researcher in international relations, author of the books “L’Orient et l’Occident à l’heure d’un nouveau Sykes-Picot” (The Orient and the Occident in Time of a New Sykes-Picot) Editions Alem El Afkar, Algiers, 2014 and “L’Islam et l’ordre du monde” (Islam and the Order of the World), Editions Alem El Afkar, Algiers, 2021.
Notes
[1] Sun Tzu, “The Art of War”, p.57, Shambhala Publications, 2005.
[3] Joshua J. Mark, “Sun-Tzu”, World History Encyclopedia, 9 July 2020.
[4] Carl von Clausewitz, “On War”, translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, Princeton University Press, 1976. In fact, the book is an unfinished work: Clausewitz had set about revising his accumulated manuscripts in 1827 but did not live to finish the task. His wife Marie von Brühl posthumously published the book in 1832, and subsequently collected his works and published them between 1832 and 1835 (Source: Wikipedia).
[5] Bill Bently, “Clausewitz: War, Strategy and Victory – A Reflection on Brigadier-General Carignan’s Article”, Canadian Military Journal, Volume 17, Number 2, Summer 2017.
[6] Peter Layton, “Using a Clausewitzian Dictum to Rethink Achieving Victory”, The Bridge, 15 May 2018.
[7] Amir Nour, “The Twilight of the Empire Age: Whose World Will It Be?”, The Saker Blog, 29 March 2019.
[8] William R. Polk, “Violent politics: A history of Insurgency, Terrorism, and Guerilla War, From the American Revolution to Iraq”, Harper Perennial, 2008.
[9] University of Stanford, “What is Victory?”, 2006.
[10] Colonel E.A. de Landmeter, “What constitutes victory in modern war?”, Militaire Spectator, 20 March 2018.
[11] William C. Martel, “Victory in War: Foundations of Modern Strategy”, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
[12] Robert Mandel, “Reassessing Victory in Warfare”, in: Armed Forces & Society, Vol 33 Number 4, 2007.
[13] Michael Anderson, “On the Meaning of Victory”, The Association of the United States Army, 26 July 2018.
[14] Gabriella Blum, “The Fog of Victory”, in: The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 24 No. 1, 2013.
[15] B.H. Liddell Hart, “Strategy”, Penguin Group, New York, 1991.
[16] Robert Mandel, op cit.
[17] Peter Layton, “Using a Clausewitzian Dictum to Rethink Achieving Victory”, op cit.
[19] The name of the conference has a religious significance to it, originating from verse 7 of Surat Al-Isra’ (the nightly journey of Prophet Muhammad, PBUH) in the Qur’an, as it talks about the fate of the children of Israel during the end times after they return to Israel.
[21] See the report published by MEMRI, “Hamas-Sponsored ‘Promise of The Hereafter’ Conference for The Phase Following the Liberation of Palestine and Israel’s ‘Disappearance’”, 4 October 2021.
[22] According to Islamic tradition, the Pact of ‘Umar was signed between the Second Caliph ‘Umar Bin Al-Khattab and Sophronius, the Christian patriarch of Jerusalem, upon the Islamic conquest of the city in 638.
[23] A reference to Salah Al-Din’s decision upon his conquest of Jerusalem to allow Christians and Jews to reside in the city under Islamic rule.
[24] Khaled Abu Toameh, “Sinwar: Next war with Israel will change the Middle East”, The Jerusalem Post, 7 June 2021.
[25] Shehabnews.com, 30 September 2021.
[26] Ramzy Baroud, “Palestinians ‘Are Bound to Win’: Why Israelis Are Prophesying the End of Their State”, Common Dreams, 14 June 2022.
[27] Ehud Barak, “האיום האמיתי היחיד על קיומה של ישראל” (The Only Real Threat to Israel’s Existence), Ynet, 7 May 2022.
[28] Jonathan Lis, “Netanyahu: Israel Must Cope with Future Security Threats if It Wants to Reach 100”, Haaretz, 10 October 2017.
[29] He once regretted that Israel’s founder, David Ben Gurion, did not expel all of Palestine’s native population in 1947-48.
[30] Ofer Aderet, “‘Israel Will Decline, and Jews Will Be a Persecuted Minority. Those Who Can Will Flee to America’”, Haaretz, 22 January 2019
[31] Ilan Pappé, “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”, Oneworld Publications, 2007 and “The Idea of Israel: A History of Power and Knowledge”, Verso Books, 2016; Avi Shlaim, “Israel and Palestine: Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations”, Verso Books, 2010; Ari Shavit, “My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel”, Random House, 2013.
[32] Read: Avi Shlaim, “The Idea of Israel and My Promised Land – review”, The Guardian, 14 May 2014.
[33] Ari Shavit, “Haaretz’s Writers and Readers Are Obligated to Fight for Israel, Not to Spread Hatred and Leave”, Haaretz, 8 September 2016.
[34] Maj. Gen. (ret.) Gershon Hacohen, “A New Existential War”, 2,3 and 9 January 2024.
[35] Seth J. Frantzman, “Israel’s enemies may see the war in Gaza as a road to Jerusalem”, The Jerusalem Post, 6 November 2023.
[36] MEMRI, “IRGC Commander Salami In Interview For Supreme Leader Khamenei’s Website: ‘The Palestinians Are Ready Today For Ground Warfare”, 31 August 2022.
[37] Al Mayadeen English, “Exclusive – Al Arouri: Resistance Axis preparing for all-out war”, 25 August 2023. To watch the interview in Arabic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aoONr4zpdQ
[38] He was assassinated by an Israeli drone strike in Beirut’s southern suburbs of Dahiyeh, a Hezbollah stronghold, on 2 January 2024.
[39] Al Jazeera, “Hamas says it has enough Israeli captives to free all Palestinian prisoners”,7 October 2023.
[40] Amos Yadlin and Udi Evental, “Why Israel Slept: The War in Gaza and the Search for Security”, Foreign Affairs magazine, January/February 2024.
[41] Global Firepower, “2024 Military Strength Ranking”,
[43] Patrick Wintour, “Netanyahu rules out ceasefire deal that would mean Gaza withdrawal”, The Guardian, 30 Jan 2024.
[44] Akiva Van Koningsveld “Gallant: IDF to retain security control in Gaza after Hamas defeated”, The Jewish Chronicle, 30 January 2024.
[45] Tony Karon and Daniel Levy, “Israel is Losing This War”, 8 December 2023.
[46] Ehud Olmert, “Israel Must Cease Hostilities and Bring the Hostages Home”, Haaretz, 28 December 2023.
[47] Daniel Estrin, “Israelis are increasingly questioning what war in Gaza can achieve”, NPR, 11 January 2024.
[48] Nahum Barnea, “ איך יוצאים מהבור שאליו נפלנו” (How to get out of the hole into which we fell), Ynet, 9 January 2024.
[49] Emma Graham-Harrison and Quique, “Ex-Shin Bet head says Israel should negotiate with jailed intifada leader”, The Guardian, 14 January 2024.
[50] Nadeen Ebrahim and Vasco Cotovio, “Israeli government divisions deepen as cabinet minister says defeating Hamas is unrealistic”, CNN, 20 January 2024.
[51] Ehud Barak, “Israel Needs an Early Election-Before It’s Too Late”, Haaretz, 18 January 2024.
[53] Simon Speakman Cordall, “‘Israel’s supporters have been put on notice’, say experts on ICJ verdict”, Al Jazeera, 27 January 2024.
[54] Maria Fantappie and Wali Nasr, “The War That Remade the Middle East: How Washington Can Stabilise a Transformed Region”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2024.
[55] Barak Ravid, “Scoop: State Department reviewing options for possible recognition of Palestinian state”, 31 January 2024.
Featured image is from the author
The original source of this article is Global Research
Saying the US does not seek conflict in the middle east is like saying the Kardashians do not seek attention. It’s like saying Jeff Bezos doesn’t seek money. It’s like saying the Hamburglar doesn’t seek hamburgers. It’s kind of their thing.
The Biden administration has begun its latest bombing campaign in the middle east, reportedly dropping over 125 munitions on more than 85 Iranian and Shia militia targets in Iraq and Syria on Friday.
The mainstream press have been falling all over themselves to describe the strikes as “retaliatory” in nature, framing it as a provoked response to a drone attack which killed three US troops at a base on the border of Jordan and Syria. Which is a bit odd, given that this supposed “retaliation” is being directed at a nation which the US government itself admits is not known to have been involved in said drone attack at all.
While US Central Command says the strikes targeted “Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force and affiliated militia groups,” the US has already openly admitted that it has no evidence Iran was behind the drone attack. On Monday Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh admitted that there was no information showing that Iran had actually ordered or orchestrated the attack, saying only that Iran “bears responsibility” for the strike because it has been supporting such groups in the region. This position was later confirmed by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and by President Biden himself.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin says «we don’t know» how operationally involved Iran was in the January 28 attack that killed three US troops, «but it really doesn’t matter» pic.twitter.com/j57JLFuirG— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) February 1, 2024
Asked by the press on Thursday how much Iran knew in advance about the drone attack by Iraqi militants, Austin said “we don’t know, but it really doesn’t matter because Iran sponsors these groups.”
Austin was almost telling the truth. Yes it’s true the US has no knowledge of any Iranian involvement in the deaths of those three US troops, and yes it is true that it doesn’t matter to the US whether it did or didn’t. But the real reason it “doesn’t matter” has nothing to do with Iran sponsoring militia groups which align with its interests. In reality, “it really doesn’t matter” whether Iran was behind the attack because Iran is the most powerful non-US-aligned state in the middle east, and for that reason the US has spent generations seizing every opportunity to harm and subvert it and its interests in the region. This is just one more opportunity for the US empire to do what it always does in the middle east.
It is a bit odd, then, that the US president announced the beginning of this new series of airstrikes with a statement which claims “The United States does not seek conflict in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world.” Conflict in the middle east is what the US empire does. The entire US empire is held together by endless conflict, especially in resource-rich regions where strategic control is necessary to retain planetary hegemony. The US empire is conflict.
Today, at my direction, U.S. military forces struck targets in Iraq and Syria that the IRGC and affiliated militia use to attack U.S. forces.
We do not seek conflict in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world.
But to all those who seek to do us harm: We will respond.— President Biden (@POTUS) February 2, 2024
Saying the US does not seek conflict in the middle east is like saying the Kardashians do not seek attention. It’s like saying Jeff Bezos doesn’t seek money. It’s like saying the Hamburglar doesn’t seek hamburgers. It’s kind of their thing. To make such a ridiculous claim while actively raining military explosives upon the middle east, in “retaliation” for an attack which the people you’re bombing didn’t even commit, is just extra icing on the cake of ridiculousness.
From Gaza to Iraq to Syria to Iran to Yemen, conflict in the middle east is the US empire’s bread and butter. The most murderous power structure on the planet continually paints itself as a poor little victim of any backlash against its abuses and as an innocent passive witness to the suffering it orchestrates, but nobody who’s involved in that many acts of violence has ever been interested in peace.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
For a couple of decades now, the very worst people in Washington, D.C., have pushed hard for a war on Iran. Some high points have come in 2007, 2015, 2017, and 2024. Each time it has been absolutely critical to attack Iran at once. There could be no delay. Dominoes would fall. Terrorism would prevail. Credibility would be sqandered. And yet, each time, the threatened war has not been launched, and the world has gone on just the same.
We’ve seen a wide variety of excuses deployed over these years of unsuccessful propaganda for a war on Iran, including false claims about nuclear weapons, the pretense that attacking Iran would improve civil liberties within Iran, and shockingly honest commitments to gaining control of more oil with which to slowly destroy the habitability of the Earth. The push to attack Iran has been on for so long that entire categories of arguments for it (such as that the Iranians are fueling the Iraqi resistance) and demonized leaders of Iran have come and gone. The latest excuse is the killing of three members of the U.S. military.
Ordinarily, killing people could be prosecuted as a crime. But that’s tricky, because the United States government opposes and refuses to take part in international law, the U.S. troops had no legal justification for being where they were, and the violence across the region is being driven by U.S. support for enormous crimes by the Israeli government.
More importantly, the advocates for war do not want to prosecute a crime, but to use a crime as an excuse to commit much larger crimes, on the familiar model of September 11, October 7, etc. The choice to escalate is not imposed on anyone; similar situations in the past have been used as excuses for war and also allowed to pass without the launching of any war.
The U.S. government purports to believe that escalating wars will reduce wars, flying in the face of the overwhelming evidence of centuries, and to believe that there is no alternative, even though the demands of all sorts of warmakers across Western Asia are all the same and extremely easy to satisfy (and satisfying them has been ordered by the International Court of Justice): stop destroying Gaza and killing Gazans.
The U.S. government distorts the notion of “defense” beyond all recognition by claiming that harm done to its imperial troops anywhere on Earth can justify a “defensive” war. This is highly convenient for war hawks in Washington, D.C., who have known for many years that getting U.S. troops killed can be a big propaganda boost for war madness — an idea eagerly encouraged today by U.S. media outlets that are always perfectly capable of demanding revenge while simulaneously calling it “defense.”
In 2022 military spending, Iran spent 0.8% what the U.S. did. Iran is not a threat to the United States, despite having put its nation so close to so many U.S. military bases.
This is what the empire of U.S. military bases looks like to Iran. Try to imagine if you lived there, what you would think of this. Who is threatening whom? Who is the greater danger to whom? The point is not that Iran should be free to attack the United States or anyone else because its military is smaller. The point is that doing so would be national suicide. It would also be something Iran has not done for centuries. But it would be typical U.S. behavior.
The U.S. overthrew Iran’s democracy in 1953 and installed a brutal dictator / weapons customer. The U.S. gave Iran nuclear energy technology in the 1970s. Following the Iranian revolution, the United States aided Iraq in the 1980s in attacking Iran, providing Iraq with some of the weapons (including chemical weapons) that were used on Iranians and that would be used in 2002-2003 (when they no longer existed) as an excuse for attacking Iraq.
The roots of a Washington push for a new war on Iran can be found in the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance, the 1996 paper called A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the 2000 Rebuilding America’s Defenses, and in a 2001 Pentagon memo described by Wesley Clark as listing these nations for attack: Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. It’s worth noting that Bush Jr. overthrew Iraq, and Obama Libya, while the others remain works in progress. The arguments in these old forgotten memos were not what the war makers tell the public, but much closer to what they tell each other. The concerns were those of dominating regions rich in resources, intimidating others, and establishing bases from which to maintain control of puppet governments.
In 2000, the CIA gave Iran nuclear bomb plans in an effort to frame it. This was reported by James Risen, and Jeffrey Sterling went to prison for allegedly being Risen’s source. But nobody involved in the scheme was ever punished in any way.
In 2010, Tony Blair included Iran on a list of countries that he said Dick Cheney had aimed to overthrow. The line among the powerful in Washington in 2003 was that Iraq would be a cakewalk but that real men go to Tehran.
For many years, the United States has labeled Iran an evil nation, attacked and destroyed the other non-nuclear nation on the list of evil nations, designated part of Iran’s military a terrorist organization, falsely accused Iran of crimes including the attacks of 9-11, murdered Iranian scientists, funded opposition groups in Iran (including some the U.S. also designates as terrorist), flew dronesover Iran, openly and illegally threatened to attack Iran, and built up military forces all around Iran’s borders, while imposing cruel sanctions on the country. The long history of the United States lying about Iranian nuclear weapons is chronicled by Gareth Porter’s book Manufactured Crisis.
In 2007, we were told that Iran needed to be attacked urgently due to false claims about nuclear weapons. Even a National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 pushed back and admitted that Iran had no nuclear weapons program.
In 2015, Republicans urged war justified by Iran’s nuclear weapons program, while Democrats successfully moved for passage of an agreement with Iran, also justified by Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The agreement was not a treaty, and President Trump would later throw it out. But the damage of both sides falsely claiming that Iran had a nuclear weapons program was done.
Dick and Liz Cheney’s book, Exceptional, tell us we must see a “moral difference between an Iranian nuclear weapon and an American one.” Must we, really? Either risks further proliferation, accidental use, use by a crazed leader, mass death and destruction, environmental disaster, retaliatory escalation, and apocalypse. One of those two nations has nuclear weapons, has used nuclear weapons, has provided the other with plans for nuclear weapons, has a policy of first-use of nuclear weapons, has leadership that sanctions the possession of nuclear weapons, and has frequently threated to use nuclear weapons. I don’t think those facts would make a nuclear weapon in the hands of the other country the least bit moral, but also not the least bit more immoral. Let’s focus on seeing an empiricaldifference between an Iranian nuclear weapon and an American one. One exists. The other doesn’t.
If you’re wondering, U.S. presidents who have made specific public or secret nuclear threats to other nations, that we know of, as documented in Daniel Ellsberg’s The Doomsday Machine, have included Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump, while others, including Barack Obama and Donald Trump have frequently said things like “All options are on the table” in relation to Iran or another country.
Proponents of war or steps toward war (sanctions was a step toward the war on Iraq) say we urgently need a war on Iran now, but they have no argument for urgency, and they’ve been making the same argument with ever less credibility for years.
The Trump White House early on openly expressed a desire to claim that Iran had violated the 2015 nuclear agreement, but produced no evidence. It didn’t matter. Trump tore up the agreement anyway and used his own shredding of the agreement as grounds for nuclear fearmongering about Iran.
In 2017, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations claimed that Iranian weapons had been used in a war that the U.S.., Saudi Arabia, and allies were illegally and disastrously waging in Yemen. While that’s a problem that should be corrected, it is hard to find a war anywhere on the planet without U.S. weapons in it. In fact, a report that made news the same day as the ambassador’s claims, pointed to the long-known fact that many of the weapons used by ISIS had once belonged to the United States, many of them having been given by the U.S. to non-state fighters (aka terrorists) in Syria.
Fighting wars and arming others to fight wars/terrorism is a justification for indictment and prosecution, but not for war, legally, morally, or practically. The United States fights and arms wars, and no one would be justified in attacking the United States.
If Iran is guilty of a crime, and there is evidence to support that claim, the United States and the world should seek its prosecution. Instead, the United States is isolating itself by tearing down the rule of law.
President Biden came into office with the possibility wide open to restore the Iran agreement and pursue a better course. He chose not to do so, and not to even try to do so. He waited for a less amendable government to take power in Iran, and then did seemingly everything he could to stir up hostitlities in the region. Now an agreement looks much more difficult to obtain.
Of course the reason why “real men go to Tehran” is that Iran is not the impoverished disarmed nation that one might find in, say, Afghanistan or Iraq, or even the disarmed nation found in Libya in 2011. Iran is much bigger and much better armed. Whether the United States launches a major assault on Iran or Israel does, Iran will retaliate against U.S. troops and probably Israel and possibly the United States itself as well. And the United States will without any doubt re-retaliate for that. Iran cannot be unaware that the U.S. government’s pressure on the Israeli government not to attack Iran consists of reassuring the Israelis that the United States will attack when needed, and does not include even threatening to stop funding Israel’s military or to stop vetoing measures of accountability for Israeli crimes at the United Nations.
Of course, many in the U.S. government and military oppose attacking Iran, although key figures like Admiral William Fallon have been moved out of the way. Much of the Israeli military is opposed as well, not to mention the Israeli and U.S. people. But war is not clean or precise. If the people we allow to run our nations attack another, we are all put at risk.
Most at risk, of course, are the people of Iran, people as peaceful as any other, or perhaps more so. As in any country, no matter what its government, the people of Iran are fundamentally good, decent, peaceful, just, and fundamentally like you and me. I’ve met people from Iran. You may have met people from Iran. They look like this. They’re not a different species. They’re not evil. A “surgical strike” against a “facility” in their country would cause a great many of them to die very painful and horrible deaths. Even if you imagine that Iran would not retaliate for such attacks, this is what the attacks would in themselves consist of: mass murder.
And what would that accomplish? It would unite the people of Iran and much of the world against the United States. It would justify in the eyes of much of the world an underground Iranian program to develop nuclear weapons, a program that probably does not exist at present, except to the extent that legal nuclear energy programs move a country closer to weapons development. The environmental damage would be tremendous, the precedent set incredibly dangerous, all talk of cutting the U.S. military budget would be buried in a wave of war frenzy, civil liberties and representative government would be flushed down the Potomac, a nuclear arms race would spread to additional countries, and any momentary sadistic glee would be outweighed by accelerating home foreclosures, mounting student debt, and accumulating layers of cultural stupidity.
Strategically, legally, and morally weapons possession is not grounds for war, and neither is pursuit of weapons possession. And neither, I might add, with Iraq in mind, is theoretically possible pursuit of weapons never acted upon. Israel has nuclear weapons. The United States has more nuclear weapons than any other country but Russia (the two of them together have 90% of the world’s nukes). There can be no justification for attacking the United States, Israel, or any other country. The pretense that Iran has or will soon have nuclear weapons is, in any case, just a pretense, one that has been revived, debunked, and revived again like a zombie for years and years. But that’s not the really absurd part of this false claim for something that amounts to no justification for war whatsoever.
The really absurd part is that it was the United States in 1976 that pushed nuclear energy on Iran. In 2000 the CIA gave the Iranian government (slightly flawed) plans to build a nuclear bomb. In 2003, Iran proposed negotiations with the United States with everything on the table, including its nuclear technology, and the United States refused. Shortly thereafter, the United States started angling for a war. Meanwhile, U.S.-led sanctions prevent Iran from developing wind energy, while the Koch brothers are allowed to trade with Iran without penalty.
Another area of ongoing lie debunking, one that almost exactly parallels the buildup to the 2003 attack on Iraq, is the relentless false claim, including by candidates in 2012 for U.S. President, that Iran has not allowed inspectors into its country or given them access to its sites. Iran had, in fact, prior to the agreement voluntarily accepted stricter standards than the IAEA requires. And of course a separate line of propaganda, albeit a contradictory one, holds that the IAEA has discovered a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), Iran was not required to declare all of its installations, and early last decade it chose not to, as the United States violated that same treaty by blocking Germany, China, and others from providing nuclear energy equipment to Iran. While Iran remains in compliance with the NPT, India and Pakistan and Israel have not signed it and North Korea has withdrawn from it, while the United States and other nuclear powers continuously violate it by failing to reduce arms, by providing arms to other countries such as India, and by developing new nuclear weapons, not to mention keeping nuclear weapons in six European countries, providing Russia to put them into one European country as well.
Are you ready for an even more absurd twist? This is on the same scale as Bush’s comment about not really giving much thought to Osama bin Laden. Are you ready? The proponents of attacking Iran themselves admit that if Iran had nukes it would not use them. This is from the American Enterprise Institute:
“The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it’s Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don’t do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, ‘See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn’t getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately.’ … And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.”
Is that clear? Iran using a nuclear weapon would be bad: environmental damage, loss of human life, hideous pain and suffering, yada, yada, yada. But what would be really bad would be Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon and doing what every other nation with them has done since Nagasaki: nothing. That would be really bad because it would damage an argument for war and make war more difficult, thus allowing Iran to run its country as it, rather than the United States, sees fit. Of course it might run it very badly (although the U.S. is hardly establishing a model for the world over here either), but it would run it without U.S. approval, and that would be worse than nuclear destruction.
Inspections were allowed in Iraq and they worked. They found no weapons and there were no weapons. Inspections have been allowed in Iran and have worked. However, the IAEA has come under the corrupting influence of the U.S. government. And yet, the bluster from war proponents about IAEA claims over the years is not backed up by any actual claims from the IAEA. And what little material the IAEA has provided for the cause of war has been widely rejected when not being laughed at.
Another year, another lie. No longer do we hear that North Korea is helping Iran build nukes. Lies about Iranian backing of Iraqi resisters have faded. (Didn’t the United States back French resistance to Germans at one point?) Another recent concoction is the “Iran did 911” lie. Revenge, like the rest of these attempted grounds for war, is actually not a legal or moral justification for war. But the 9/11 fiction has already been put to rest by the indespensable Gareth Porter, among others. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, which did play a role in 911 as well as in the Iraqi resistance, is being sold record quantities of that good old leading U.S. export of which we’re all so proud: weapons of mass destruction.
Oh, I almost forgot another lie that hasn’t quite entirely faded yet. Iran did not try to blow up a Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., an action which President Obama would have considered perfectly praiseworthy if the roles were reversed, but a lie that even Fox News had a hard time stomaching. And that’s saying something.
And then there’s that old standby: Ahmadinejad said “Israel should be wiped off the map.” While this does not, perhaps, rise to the level of John McCain singing about bombing Iran or Bush and Obama swearing that all options including nuclear attack are on the table, it sounds extremely disturbing: “wiped off the map”! However, the translation is a bad one. A more accurate translation was “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” The government of Israel, not the nation of Israel. Not even the government of Israel, but the current regime. Hell, Americans say that about their own regimes all the time, alternating every four to eight years depending on political party (some of us even say it all the time, without immunity for either party). Iran has made clear it would approve of a two-state solution if Palestinians approved of it. If the U.S. launched missile strikes every time somebody said something stupid, even if accurately translated, how safe would it be to live near Newt Gingrich’s or Joe Biden’s house?
Luckily, war resisters have succeeded for so long (even while telling each other that they never succeed) that the war mongers don’t remember who Ahmadinejad even was anymore, and all that demonization has gone to nought.
The real danger may not actually be the lies. The Iraq experience has built up quite a mental resistance to these sorts of lies in many U.S. residents. The real danger may be the slow start of a war that gains momentum on its own without any formal announcement of its initiation. Israel and the United States have not just been talking tough or crazy. They’ve been murdering Iranians. And they seem to have no shame about it. The day after a Republican presidential primary debate at which candidates declared their desire to kill Iranians, the CIA apparently made certain the news was public that it was in fact already murdering Iranians, not to mention blowing up buildings. Some would say and have said that the war has already begun. Those who cannot see this because they do not want to see it will also miss the deadly humor in the United States asking Iran to return its brave drone.
Perhaps what’s needed to snap war supporters out of their stupor is a bit of slapstick. Try this on for size. From Seymour Hersh describing a meeting held in Vice President Cheney’s office:
“There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.”
Now, Dick Cheney is not your typical American. Nobody in the U.S. government is your typical American. Your typical American is struggling, disapproves of the U.S. government, wishes billionaires were taxed, favors green energy and education and jobs over military boondoggles, thinks corporations should be barred from buying elections, and would not be inclined to apologize for getting shot in the face by the Vice President.
Back in the 1930s, the Ludlow Amendment nearly made it a Constitutional requirement that the public vote in a referendum before the United States could go to war. President Franklin Roosevelt blocked that proposal. Yet the Constitution already required and still requires that Congress declare war before a war is fought. That has not been done in almost 80 years, while wars have raged on almost incessantly. In the past decade and right up through President Obama’s signing of the outrageous National Defense Authorization Act on New Years Eve 2011-2012, the power to make war has been handed over to presidents. Here is one more reason to oppose a presidential war on Iran: once you allow presidents to make wars, you will never stop them. Another reason, in so far as anybody any longer gives a damn, is that war is a crime. Iran and the United States are parties to the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which bans war. One of those two nations is not complying.
But we won’t have a referendum. The U.S. House of Misrepresentatives won’t step in. Only through widespread public pressure and nonviolent action will we intervene in this slow-motion catastrophe. This war, if it happens, will be fought by an institution called the United States Department of Defense, but it will endanger rather than defending us. As the war progresses, we will be told that the Iranian people want to be bombed for their own good, for freedom, for democracy. But nobody wants to be bombed for that. Iran does not want U.S.-style democracy. Even the United States does not want U.S.-style democracy. We will be told that those noble goals are guiding the actions of our brave troops and our brave drones on the battlefield. Yet there will be no battlefield. There will be no front lines. There will be no trenches. There will simply be cities and towns where people live, and where people die. There will be no victory. There will be no progress accomplished through a “surge.” On January 5, 2012, then-Secretary of “Defense” Leon Panetta was asked at a press conference about the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he replied simply that those were successes. That is the kind of success that could be expected in Iran were Iran a destitute and disarmed state.
Now we begin to understand the importance of all the media suppression, blackouts, and lies about the damage done to Iraq and Afghanistan. Now we understand why Obama and Panetta embraced the lies that launched the War on Iraq. The same lies must now be revived, as for every war ever fought, for a War on Iran. Here’s a video explaining how this will work, even with some new twistsand lots of variations. The U.S. corporate media is part of the war machine.
Planning war and funding war creates its own momentum. Sanctions become, as with Iraq, a stepping stone to war. Cutting off diplomacy leaves few options open. Electoral pissing contests take us allwhere most of us did not want to be.
These are the bombs most likely to launch this ugly and quite possibly terminal chapter of human history. This animation shows clearly what they would do. For an even better presentation, pair that with this audio of a misinformed caller trying hopelessly to persuade George Galloway that we should attack Iran.
On January 2, 2012, the New York Times reported concern that cuts to the U.S. military budget raised doubts as to whether the United States would “be prepared for a grinding, lengthy ground war in Asia.” At a Pentagon press conference on January 5, 2012, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reassured the press corpse (sic) that major ground wars were very much an option and that wars of one sort or another were a certainty. President Obama’s statement of military policy released at that press conference listed the missions of the U.S. military. First was fighting terrorism, next detering “aggression,” then “projecting power despite anti-access/area denial challenges,” then the good old WMDs, then conquering space and cyberspace, then nuclear weapons, and finally — after all that — there was mention of defending the Homeland Formerly Known As The United States.
The cases of Iraq and Iran are not identical in every detail, of course. But in both cases we are dealing with concerted efforts to get us into wars, wars based, as all wars are based, on lies. We may need to revive this appeal to U.S. and Israeli forces!
Additional reasons not to Iraq Iran include the numerous reasons not to maintain the institution of war at all, as laid out at WorldBeyondWar.org.
For more information, and a list of the Top 100 Reasons not to launch this war, and a petition to end the brutal sanctions on Iran, go to https://worldbeyondwar.org/iran-war
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
as a challenge to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is about to oust him
(Facebook)
Due to defeat, Volodymyr Zelenskyy would like to oust the military chief of staff, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, at left, who as a challenge, on February 2, 2024, takes a selfie alongside Andriy Stempitkyi, commander of the 67th mechanized brigade, military branch of Nazi Pravyi sektor The portray of Stepan Bandera, Ukrainian Nazi leader during WW2, is hanging on the wall behind them, near the red and black flag that his heirs are still bearing.
chronicle of censorship, fake news, whitewashing of the Ukrainian Nazism and war crimes, for the sake of the proxy war that NATO is conducting in Donbass and Ukraine, against Russia
▪️ Die Vorbereitung eines solchen Szenarios für die Umsetzung in London wird voraussichtlich bis Mai 2024 abgeschlossen sein;
▪️ Es ist geplant, heimlich große, sehr manövrierfähige NATO-Streitkräfte aus den Grenzregionen Rumäniens und Polens in die Ukraine zu verlegen, um Verteidigungslinien entlang des rechten Dnjepr-Ufers zu besetzen.
▪️ Auch ein Präventivschlag der Streitkräfte Moldawiens und Rumäniens gegen Transnistrien ist nicht ausgeschlossen;
▪️ Um die Kräfte und Mittel der russischen Streitkräfte zu „zerstreuen“, ist die Stationierung eines Kontingents von NATO-Streitkräften und der Armeen einzelner Mitglieder des Blocks auf dem Territorium Norwegens und Finnlands geplant.
▪️ Gleichzeitig könnten strategische Infrastruktureinrichtungen in den nördlichen Regionen Russlands angegriffen werden;
▪️ Danach würden NATO-Truppen nach dem britischen Plan eine „Pufferzone“ innerhalb der besetzten Stellungen schaffen, einschließlich der Grenze zu Weißrussland und dem Gebiet um Kiew, und die freigelassenen Streitkräfte der ukrainischen Armee sollten in den nördlichen Militärbezirk verlegt werden Zone.
Haben die britischen Inseln keine Angst, unter Wasser zu stehen? Es wird 2 Minuten und 2 Sekunden dauern, bis die schwere russische Interkontinentalrakete Sarmat London zerstört.
Gierige Kapitalisten sind Globalisten, tut Ihnen Ihre Bevölkerung nicht leid?
Der Friedensstifter 