Mouood Mouood English Edition
For the uninitiated, US policy may appear contradictory but those familiar with US strategic thinking and objectives, it makes perfect sense. The takfiris, despite operating under different labels — the Free Syrian Army, Jabhat al-Nusra, Islamic Front, Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham or simply the Islamic State — were created and nurtured by the US for very specific objectives. These can be identified as:
1. disruption of the Muslim East to redraw the borders of the region based on ethnicity and sects;
2. protection of the Zionist entity by preventing the emergence of strong rivals as well as undermining the resistance front;
3. control of hydrocarbon resources of the region to deny them to rivals such as China; and
4. support of local proxies to create conflict and keep the region in perpetual turmoil.
While the imperialists’ objectives remain constant, unexpected developments can undermine them necessitating change of tactics. For instance, US policies in the Muslim world have suffered major setbacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Similarly, success of the resistance front (Islamic Republic of Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Syria) and its growing strength in opposing Zionism has undermined another imperial objective while the Islamic Awakening that swept the region threatens the old order. All these have contributed to the imperialists’ angst necessitating the use of takfiri groups.
The imperialists’ support of takfiri terrorist groups predates the current crisis in Syria that erupted in Dera‘a, an unlikely locale near the Jordanian border in March 2011. Historically, important political developments occur in major cities, primarily the capital because political and economic decisions are made there. If the “uprising” in Syria had started in Damascus, one could have surmised that there was popular opposition to Bashar al-Asad.
The imperialists’ plan appears to be working according to the strategy laid out in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 1997. Advocating “full spectrum dominance,” meaning not allowing any rival power to emerge to challenge US hegemony, the PNAC document spelled out “Four Core Missions for the US military forces.” These are:
1. to defend the American homeland;
2. to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
3. to perform the “constabulary”duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions; and
4. to transform US forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs.”
These “core missions” would be realized by making “sufficient force and budgetary allocations” for the military. The PNAC document framed by the most reactionary elements in the US establishment, popularly known as the neocons, spelled out the purpose of the mission, to “Defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the Middle East and to preserve American pre-eminence” (emphasis added).
The regions identified in the PNAC document as far back as 1997 are currently experiencing major upheavals from Ukraine to Southeast Asia to the Muslim East. America’s “pre-eminence” is being achieved through one or more wars in the Muslim East.
In order to achieve their nefarious agenda, the neocons had also called for a “Pearl Harbor type” attack on the US mainland to convince war-weary Americans to support endless war. This came about in what is referred to as the attacks of 9/11. While much skepticism exists about the official version of 9/11, we will not detain ourselves with who knew what and when or who was behind them. What is important for our purpose is that these attacks were used to launch the neocons’ agenda of endless war.
About a week after the 9/11 attacks, General Wesley Clark, retired four-star US army general and Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in 1999, revealed that he had gone to the Pentagon to meet top officials. After meeting then Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, Clark went downstairs to meet some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for him. In an interview broadcast on the Democracy Now radio program on March 2, 2007, Clark said one of the generals called him into his office to talk to him. According to Clark, the general told him, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” When asked why, whether some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda had been found, Clark was told, there was nothing new in that way.
“They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq,” the general told Clark and said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” Then he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
Clark then listed seven countries the US was going to “take down” in five years, according to the general at the Pentagon, “Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”
One does not have to be a political genius to figure out that developments in the Muslim East since 9/11 confirm that the neocon agenda is on track. Iraq, Somalia and Libya have been destroyed; Sudan has been divided and Syria is under serious threat. Lebanon was attacked in the summer of 2006 but thanks to the valiant resistance of Hizbullah, it has been able to thwart the Zionist-imperialist plot.
Lebanon, however, continues to suffer from internal divisions. In addition to the confessional nature of its colonial-imposed political system, the country is divided along ideological lines where some factions are aligned with the imperialist-Zionist camp while others are resisting such intrigue. This was evident in the immediate aftermath of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on February 14, 2005. Accusing fingers were immediately pointed at Hizbullah and Syria. Even the UN was pressed into service to undermine Hizbullah.
As Trish Schuh pointed out in an article in Counterpunch (“Faking the Case Against Syria,” November 18–20, 2005), Lebanese politicians in addition to Sa‘d Hariri (son of Rafik Hariri) were lined up to undermine both Syria and Hizbullah. One of the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) identified by Schuh that targeted Hizbullah and Syria was“the United States Committee for a Free Lebanon (USCFL). Its President, Ziad Abdel Nour is the son of wealthy Lebanese Minister of Parliament Khalil Abdel Nour. USCFL partners with designated “democratizers” such as the American Enterprise Institute (created by Lebanese-American William Baroody, Sr.), Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Republican Jewish Coalition, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Middle East Forum, the Hudson Institute and kindred pro-Israel lobbies.
The line-up of organizations supporting USCFL reads like a who’s who of the Israeli Likud party! Schuh quoted Abdel Nour as saying that regardless of the guilt or innocence of Syria and Hizbullah, both would be crushed and the regime in Syria would be overthrown! How could Abdel Nour, son of a Lebanese minister (at the time), speak with such confidence about overthrowing Bashar al-Asad? It is evident that he had assurances from the Zionist cabal that wields considerable influence in decision making in the US. The reason why al-Asad was targeted is because Syria is part of the resistance front. It is through Syria that help can be sent to Hizbullah as well as the Palestinians. If Syria were taken out of the equation, the resistance front would be seriously undermined. It is not surprising why so much effort is being invested in overthrowing al-Asad’s government and destroying Syria.
The United States Committee for a Free Lebanon (USCFL) partners with designated “democratizers” such as the American Enterprise Institute…, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Republican Jewish Coalition, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Middle East Forum, the Hudson Institute and kindred pro-Israel lobbies. The line-up of organizations supporting USCFL reads like a who’s who of the Israeli Likud party!
