In an unprecedented step that no country has ever taken , the Lebanese ruling party of March 14 decided six years ago to recur to the International Court to investigate the crime committed against PM Hariri and few other Lebanese politicians , not including the almost 200 thousands Lebanese who were killed or went missing in the civil war that broke in Lebanon in 1975 and lasted almost 25 years .The Court specialized in investigating crimes against humanity was- against all odds – to investigate a single crime to which were added later a dozen of crimes committed especially to boost the matter and make it look worth the trouble . No need to say that 14th of March people- heroes of the false flag revolution called the Cedars’ revolution – are promoters of the Fitna between Lebanese people, sectarian Fitna mostly that is supposed to make the delight of the International community .
Known for their outside links on all fronts including Israel , the !4th of March people who are the ailment of Lebanon, have always had their two eyes on the outside . What Uncle Sam wants they want , what the world order and Israel want they want , UN resolution 1559 they want in order to disarm Hizbullah , International Court they want to inculpate Syria , Israeli war on Lebanon they want to defeat the Lebanese Resistance , Syria’s trouble and instability they want in order to weaken the Syrian regime , the STL they want in order to inculpate Hizbullah . And now they are offering massive help to the Syrian so called opposition in terms of money and different weapons changing Lebanon into a recruiting place for the thugs of the opposition.
Such altruism on behalf of 14 of March people makes them not want anything for themselves or for their people , they want everything for Uncle Sam to enjoy and for Israel to feel safe. In these terms their generosity knows no boundaries . They have been rejoicing over the indictment issued by the STL which inculpates 4 members of Hizbullah in Hariri’s killing , it does not matter if the evidence of such accusation is fake and it is fake because built on forged phone calls operated by people at the communication department working for the Mossad who intercepted the communication to feed it with fake data. It does not matter if the witnesses are false hired and bribed convicts who were released from prison and fed their false testimonies against their freedom . It has no importance if the STL was established against the constitution because the parliament did not approve of it. It does not matter if the secret information was leaked many times revealing what should not have been revealed and if some of the UN investigators sold the contents of the investigations for hundred thousands of dollars to some local people . It does not matter if the STL- as a consequence of all this – had lost its credibility and became biased and unjust. It does not matter if Fitna ignites in the streets of Beirut and other places in Lebanon, it does not matter if the indictment itself is missing on the real criminals and targeting innocent people . It does not matter if Lebanon as a whole suffers from the consequences of such indictment .
Lately while waiting for the STL to start its sessions , they have been pressuring more and more Hizbullah to surrender its weapons . They tell Hizbullah to surrender their weapons to the Lebanese army so that people become weaponless in front of Israel and helpless as before . It is not they have a defense strategy or that they seek to provide weapons for the Lebanese army to become better equipped and therefore stop relying on the Resistance for defending the Lebanese territories, not at all. The original agreement of Sayyed Hassan with late PM Hariri states clearly that the Resistance will not surrender its weapons except in the context of a global solution to the Middle Eastern problem.
The Lebanese army has no weapons . All what US sends to the Lebanese Army which they want to see serve US policy are rusted guns ; and Iran has offered to fully equip the Lebanese army with the latest Iranian weapons but 14th of March will not accept the offer . To make it easier for all, Hizbullah has presented a full project that will turn Lebanon from a weak country into a country capable of defending itself militarily. No one has ever read the document .The Lebanese army is saying that it is not equipped to host Hizbullah’s weapons and that it cannot provide place and maintenance for these weapons- in case they are delivered -because it lacks the tools and materials to do so. And while Hariri people supply the Syrian so called opposition with all kinds of sophisticated weapons and devices of all sorts, they want to strip the Resistance who has liberated the land and defeated Israel from all its weapons and want to keep in the country the light weapons that are useful for internal fitna .
In fact 14th of March people want Fitna and war and instability and chaos to overcome Lebanon, they do not seek justice or any other truth, they are not after the real killer of their leader Hariri , all they care about is US and Israel’s safety and welfare and -as a first step- they want to overthrow the new born Lebanese government and in order to achieve this they are seeking help from four countries : US , France , UK, and Turkey . They think by this they will be part of the World Order they worship because they do not belong to their country or religion or even sect , they belong to the wicked World Order that is ruling, this is where their heart and commitment go.
But we are neither deceived , nor deluded , we know what they stand for and the International Community has no legitimacy and the STL no credibility and the destiny of those who feed on Fitna is too well known. The International Indictment -as we say in Arabic – they can boil and swallow with their morning breakfast ; the defeat of Israel and allies is not something they can undo or reverse , it is here to stay and to grow and expand like any good seed planted with faith and watered by blood.
LONG LIVE THE ANTI-COLINIALIST RESISTANCE !! FIE TO THE CONSPIRATORS WHOEVER THEY ARE!!!
I regard Gilad Atzmon as one of Israel’s most effective critics. But I criticized his speculation that the killing of seven people by a Muslim terrorist in France in March this year, was an Israeli ‘false flag’ operation (1). Note that his guess was tentative. He didn’t say Israeli involvement was likely.
But why would anyone even suspect that the Jewish state organised the murder of French-African soldiers and Jewish children? When Guardian writer Fiachra Gibbons misattributed the Toulouse murders, there was some slight basis to his assumption. Only one party, in French history, has killed a). black soldiers, and b). Jewish children: the Nazis. So Gibbons jumped to the conclusion that neo-Nazis were responsible (2).
In accord with the Guardian‘s liberal politics, he saw an opportunity to blame the murders on far-right anti-immigration rhetoric. The newspaper ended up with egg on its face when the killer turned out to be French-Algerian.
Atzmon’s idea was more tentative; it had no basis in fact whatsoever.
In the first place, there is no history of the state of Israel murdering people inside Western countries.
Secondly, unlike the Guardian, he made his mistake after the fatal shooting of Mohamed Merah by the police, commenting lamely that the suspect may have visited Israel. This evidence falls some way short of overwhelming.
Finally, homicidal Islamic extremists exist; Israel has no need to invent them.
To deduce, from the fact that Islamophobia benefits Israel, the idea that the Israeli government has organised a large and varied series of attacks, successfully making them all look like Islamic terrorist acts, which in turn provoked Islamophobia among idiots, is a complicated example of the logical fallacy known as ‘cui bono?‘.
After I posted an article mildly criticizing Atzmon’s comment linking Merah and Mossad as ‘pointless and tasteless‘ (3), commenters on deliberation.info continued to defend the view that alleged terrorists are really Israeli agents.
Following a bit more discussion, in which I was repeatedly called a ‘hasbara troll‘ for my ‘cognitive dissonance‘ in the face of the ‘overwhelming evidence‘ that terrorist attacks are really false flag operations, and accused of having a ‘Jewish power mentality‘ for using formal logic, I began to ask myself whether it’s inevitable that defenders of the Atzmon perspective believe this nonsense. Whether they are subject to a process where fanatics are selected, and doubters driven away. It wouldn’t be the first time this has happened. Stalin’s communist parties got loonier and loonier during the twenties and thirties. Modern examples of self-reinforcing cults include Scientology and the 9/11 truth movement.
To be fair, many of the responses to my arguments on deliberation.info are not as daft as the ones I cited above. But most of them suffer from the same circular logic.
Believers can’t understand why their position is circular, because it’s circular. Julian Assange needs our support, but he is called a ‘gatekeeper‘ by conspiracy theorists because he hasn’t published evidence proving that Israel is the root of all evil. Rather than using Wikileaks to test their theory, they blame it for failing to confirm it. Circular theories undermine solidarity, just as they did in the thirties.
It’s like when a Bible literalist hears the case for Darwin’s theory of evolution. He reminds himself that the Devil has the best arguments. For him, the fact that evolution sounds plausible, is evidence of its falsehood. Someone trapped in a religion like that cannot get out of it, since no possible argument could refute it, even in principle. It’s the same with the notion that Israel is behind Islamic terrorism. If you question this idea, the faithful think it’s because you are a ‘controlled asset‘. So why do I bother?
Atzmon writes about ‘anti-Zionist Zionists‘ undermining Palestine solidarity. Some of his readers mistranslate that into talk of ‘infiltrators’. Dismissing falsification as ‘controlled opposition‘ is bad enough, but some followers of the creed have an unjustifiably high opinion of their own ability to detect spies, and this delusion could be as harmful to the cause as the crypto-Zionists themselves.
- its history and role over the past 150 years
Zionism is, according to its own prominent figures, a religious/political movement the aim of which is to create a socialistic model state for Jews in the land of Palestine where Mount Zion is located. Its roots are found in Judaism and in the middle of the nineteenth century Moses Hess, Karl Marx’s mentor in socialism, developed it into a political movement. Hess was named The Communist Rabbi and with his book Rome and Jerusalem, 1862, laid the foundations for Zionism. Before this, he had formulated the first written principles of Communism – Socialism and Communism, 1843, A Communist Credo: Questions and Answers, 1846, and Consequences of a Revolution of the Proletariat, 1847. In keeping with this, he assisted Marx and Engels in their work with The Communist Manifesto, 1848, particularly concerning the role of religion. (1)
Theodor Hertzl, usually called Zionism’s official founder, planned the colonisation of Palestine in a more practical book, The Jewish State, 1896, which was approved by the first Zionist congress in 1897. He described Hess’s book Rome and Jerusalem as the book that says everything you need to know about Zionism. “Race”, people, nation and the chosen all merge in Zionism to create a national socialism, colonial style, synonymous with “lebensraum” and “blut und boden”. Later on, German national socialism was created with the same ideological components and with similar practical effects on society. Nazism is the Germans’ national socialism and Zionism is the Jews’.
I too, like Hitler, believe in the power of the blood idea.”
Chaim Nachman Bialik, national bard of Israel, wrote this in “The Present Hour” in 1934.
The Balfour Declaration, signed 1917 by Britain’s foreign minister and lord Rothschild, created the prerequisites for a national identity for the Jewish group through a Jewish state in the land of Palestine, in accordance with Zionism’s short-term goals. Britain gave away a country owned by others to a third party, in exchange for the cooperation of the Jewish mafia on Wall Street, partly to fund Britain’s military endeavours in the First World War and partly to get the US on the side of the British in the war against Germany.
There was little support for Zionism among Europe’s Jews to begin with, nor among Jews in German concentration camps during the Second World War. However, the panic-stricken exodus of Jews from Germany to Palestine was engineered by a collaboration of Jewish Zionists and German Nazis, thus blocking a more substantial exodus to other countries. This was done through cooperation between The World Zionist Organisation and Germany, the so-called Transfer Agreement in 1933. Preceding this, world Jewry had declared war on Germany in the form of a worldwide economic boycott. However, much earlier on, as part of Europe’s colonisation, Zionism, since the end of the nineteenth century, had guided the Jews in the colonisation of Palestine. Politically Zionism had its great break-through after WWII with the proclamation of the Jewish state in Israel in 1948.
Eastern European Marxist Jews, lead by Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding father who saw himself as a Bolshevik, came to play a crucial part in the colonisation. The socialist kibbutzim where only Jews could become members, paved the way to the theft of land and ethnic cleansing of approximately 750,000 Palestinians in 1948, the Nakba cataclysm. These Palestinians and their offspring still live in refugee camps or in exile and are denied their right, laid down by the UN, to return. The eviction was carried out by the Jewish army Haganah helped by Jewish fascists from the Stern and Irgun terrorist gang groups, founded by Zeév Jabotinsky who cooperated with Benito Mussolini. That same year, the Stern gang murdered Folke Bernadotte, the Swedish UN envoy and negotiator of the UN plan for partition (2).
However, it was not until after the 6-Day War in 1967 that Zionism (post-Zionism) became a significant force in the US, through Jewish influence on banking, media, the film industry, the academic sphere and the Jewish lobby organisation AIPAC, and the neo-conservatives’ (neocons) influence on US foreign policy and the neo-colonial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US neocons comprise an alliance of Jewish and Christian Zionists and neo-liberal conservatives, with Leo Strauss as their foremost ideological figure. A kind of rightwing Zionism that bears great similarity to Jabotinsky’s in Palestine. But neocons also have roots among Trotskyites in the US, who like Ben Gurion in Palestine, were Bolsheviks. The Soviet Union took a very active part in the work leading up to the admittance of Israel as a member state of the UN. To what extent this was made to reinforce their influence among communists in the US who were predominantly Jews, or the first importand act of SU Social-imperialism, may be disputed.
Most religious Jewish assemblies worldwide today, see Zionism as a positive development of Judaism (3). But some smaller groups of orthodox Jews such as Neturei Karta, consider Zionism incompatible with Judaism because the creation of a Jewish state can only be the work of God, not of people as in the case of Israel. Christian Zionism has considerable support in the American Bible Belt, but also Christian congregations such as The Swedish Pentecostal Movement give support. Christian Zionism is a large organisation but is subordinate to Jewish Zionism in its support of a Jewish state in Zion where the supposition is, however, that one-day the Jews will become Christians (4).
Today, Zionism has become the most dominant ideology in the western world and is the most significant expression of Anglo-American imperialism. It is used to control people’s thoughts by restricting freedoms of speech and press, and to motivate neo-colonial wars aimed at Islam. This is accomplished by presenting an official picture of “The Holocaust” as an exclusively Jewish affair and it is treated like a religion; questioning it is taboo and liable to punishment by law. Today, in many countries there are academics in prison for their criticism. The European Union is promoting economic and military collaboration with Israel.
The new Hitler is said to be in Iran. Ahmedinajad is accused of wanting to wipe out the Jewish state in a “holocaust”, using nuclear weapons he doesn’t have but Israel does. Criticising Israel’s policies and its influence in the US is labelled “anti-Semitism”; questioning parts of the Zionist picture – 6 million Jews in one Holocaust – is called “Holocaust denial”; criticism of the Jewish mafia’s dominance within the power elite, mainly on Wall Street and The Federal Reserve, is named “racist conspiracy theories”.
Considerable efforts are being made in the US and the EU to promote further restrictions and legal punishment of such criticism. It is reasonable to consider that the concerns surrounding details of Hitler’s war crimes against diverse groups of people, including the Jews, should primarily be a matter of discussion between researchers of history, in the same way that the crimes committed by Stalin in the 1930s in Ukraine during the great hunger catastrophe are studied.
In Sweden, organisations such as The Expo Foundation (the Swedish Searchlight), and The Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism (the Swedish ADL), play a significant part as front organisations for the government authority Forum for Living History (FFLH) in its defence of the Jewish state and the promotion of Zionist ideology. FFLH, the witch hunt and subsequent sentencing of Ahmed Rami (Radio Islam webbsite), are a few of the signs of Zionism’s influence over Sweden’s institutions of government. The business world has its equivalent in the way that the Jewish family corporation, Bonnier, influences the media. The extreme rightwing Sweden Democrats, is the political party that is most Israel-friendly, consequently also the party that launches the most aggressive attacks on Islam.
Spreading information about the destructive influence Zionism has on humanity in today’s world, and in Sweden, is predominantly an ideological struggle against control and manipulation of people’s thinking. Especially since Zionism hardly exists in public debate. And the reason for this is that the means of production of culture and ideology are to a great extent owned or influenced by Zionist interests.
The heavily nuclear-armed Jewish apartheid state – Israel, is today the greatest threat to world peace through its influence in the western world, and Zionism is the greatest threat to humanity, including the majority of Jews. Zionism is used by the power elite in its efforts to secure a new world order with one Big Brother state and continual conflicts and wars between various religious, ethnic and cultural groups from disintegrated national states. In this light, Israel is the capital of the world and the Palestinians are the oppressed peoples of the world. Hence, Zionism is dangerous and must be resisted.
1) It should be stressed that although Zionism is a religious and Jewish national socialist project, while Marxism is a secular and international socialist project open to all, both can be seen as Jewish projects, as can the neocons, because of the dominance of Jews in the leadership of these projects. Karl Marx was not a Zionist, but nevertheless Moses Hess was his personal stand-in at the meetings of the Internationale in 1868 and 1869, 6 years after having written Zionism’s Magnum Opus: Rome and Jerusalem.
2) Marxism and Zionism can be seen as complementary survival projects for Jews in Europe, lasting a hundred years, from the middle of the 19th century up to the middle of the 20th century – a double faced tribal strategy. Zionism created the necessary conditions for a nation for the Jews, while at the same time Marxism reduced the strength of all other nations through its internationalism. Regardless of whether this came about intuitively, or was launched as a conspiracy by the Freemasons, or Moses Hess planted the seeds or it was a combination of all these and other factors, the tangible result was that the Jewish group was reinforced. To such an extent that even Hitler and Stalin’s attempts to reduce its influence failed. We see today, that these strategies were successful regarding Jewish power, especially in the West, and in post-Zionism’s role in the neo-colonial wars. The fact that the majority of Jews are exploited by the Zionist power elite does not alter this fact.
3) Religious Jewish assemblies today, for example in Sweden, consider that a person born of a Jewish mother, who does not belong to any other religion, is religion-wise a Jew. It is also possible to convert to Judaism. But many who consider themselves Jews are in fact secular. Being a Jew today then, is primarily a question of taking on board an identity that is tied to the Jewish state and “The Holocaust”, and sometimes also religious conviction. Every individual Jew can choose to be or not to be a Jew.
4) Judaism, Jewish mentality and Zionism are conceptions with fluid boundaries. They are connected but must at the same time be kept apart. This is because of the diverse opinions amongst religious Jews about Zionism, and because the number of non-Jews influenced by Jewish mentality and Zionism is much bigger than the number of Jews. Modern research has shown that Jews are neither a homogenous ethnic group or a people in the common meaning of the word, but rather, instead, a scattered group held together by a common tribal mentality and religious rules (Halakha) that give guidance as to how matters stand with non-Jews (goim) who, in this context, are considered less than human.
A few important references:
Hess, Moses. ”The Holy History of Mankindand Other Writings”, ed. by Shlomo Avineri. Cambridge University Press, 2005
Shahak, Israel, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years”, Pluto Press, London, Sterling, Virginia (1994, 1997) 2002
Sand, Shlomo. ”The Invention of the Jewish People”, Verso Books, 2009
Slezkine, Yuri. ”The Jewish Century”, Princeton University Press, 2004
Felton, Greg, ”The Host and the Parasite”, Dandelion Books, 2007
Atzmon, Gilad. “The Wandering Who?”, Zero Books, 2011
The US “withdrawal” from Iraq last year and the planned “withdrawal” from Afghanistan in 2014 cannot help but change the face of Central Asia and the Middle East. But how does Russia fit in, asks Eric Walberg
The world is living through a veritable slow-motion earthquake. If things go according to plan, the US obsession with Afghanistan and Iraq will soon be one of those ugly historical disfigurements that — at least for most Americans — will disappear into the memory hole.
Like Nixon and Vietnam, US President Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who “brought the troops home”. But one cannot help but notice the careful calibration of these moves to fit the US domestic political machine — the Iraqi move to show Americans that things on the international front are improving (just don’t mention Guantanamo), the Afghan move put off conveniently till President Barack Obama’s second term, when he doesn’t need to worry about the fallout electorally if things unravel (which they surely will).
Of course, Russia lost big time geopolitically when the US invaded Afghanistan, and thus gains as regional geopolitical hegemon by the withdrawal of US troops from Central Asia. Just look at any map. But American tentacles will remain: Central Asia has no real alternative economically or politically anymore to the neoliberal global economy, as Russia no longer claims to represent a socialist alternative to imperialism. The departure of US troops and planes from remote Kyrgyzstan will not be missed — except for the hole it leaves in the already penurious Kyrgyz government’s budget and foreign currency reserves. Russia is a far weaker entity than the Soviet Union, both economically and politically. Thus, Russia’s gain from US weakness is not great.
Besides, both Russia and the US support the current Afghan government against the Taliban — as does Iran. In fact, in case US state department and pentagon officials haven’t noticed the obvious, the main beneficiary of the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq has been Iran, again by definition. The invasion brought to power the ethnic Persian Tajiks in Afghanistan, and the invasion of Iraq set up a Shia-dominated government there.
Similarly, when the US invaded Iraq, Russia lost politically and economically. The US cancelled Sadam Hussein’s state debts, which hurt the Russians and Europeans but not the US. The US just happened to be boycotting Iraq for the previous decade and took pleasure from shafting its sometime allies for ignoring US wishes. However, once Iraqi politicians begin to reassert some control over their foreign policy, Russia will be seen as a much more sympathetic partner internationally.
Ironically, on many fronts, Iran now holds the key to readjusting the political playing field and establishing rules that can lead away from the deadly game being played by the US, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, with broader implications for broader nuclear disarmament, EU-US relations, but above all, for the continued role of the dollar as world reserve currency. This encourages Russia to maintain its alliance with Iran over vague (and empty) promises of US-Russian world hegemony as envisioned by the now-discredited Medvedev Atlantists in Moscow.
Russia’s relations with both Central Asia and the Middle East since the collapse of the Soviet Union have been low key. In the Middle East, it maintains relations with Palestine’s Hamas, and, as a member of the so-called quartet of Middle East negotiators (along with the EU, the US and the UN), insists that Israel freeze expansion of settlements in the Occupied Territories as a condition of further talks. It appears to be trying to regain some of the goodwill that existed between the Soviet Union and Arab states, supporting the UN Goldstone Report which accused Israel of war crimes in its 2008 invasion of Gaza.
It embarked on a diplomatic offensive with Arab states in 2008, offering Syria and Egypt nuclear power stations, and is re-establishing a military presence in the Mediterranean at the Syrian port, Tartus, though Syria’s current civil war, with Russia and Iran lined up against the West and the Arab states could leave Russia on the losing side. Western attempts to portray Russia as the power-hungry bad guy in Syria do not hold water. Russia is concerned about heightened civil war in an evenly divided population, with rebel groups openly armed by Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s Arab and Western foes. The hypocrisy in the Arab world is appalling: Gulf monarchies and Saudi Arabia loudly demand that Egypt’s new government swear off any attempt to “interfere” in their internal politics, but brazenly arm Syrian rebels.
Russia is still struggling to leave its own tragic civil war in Chechnya behind, and to make sure there’s a place at the table for its Muslims. With its 16 million Muslims (about 12 per cent of the population), it has expressed interest in joining the Organization of Islamic Conference. Its unwillingness to let Syria slide into civil war does not gain it any brownie points among its own separatist Muslims in the Caucasus and elsewhere, but it is not willing to carve up either Syria or the Russian federation in the interests of some fleeting peace.
The importance of Jewish financial and economic interests in post-Soviet Russia — both the banking and industrial oligarchs and the Kosher Nostra mafia — ensures that Israel gets a sympathetic hearing from Russian leaders. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is a Russian Jew who emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1978.
Israel is also able to take advantage of the persistence of Muslim unrest and dreams of independence in the Caucasus within Russia to prevent Moscow from taking any strong position to pressure Israel. Russia’s prickly neighbor Georgia harbors Chechen rebels and Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, uses Israeli and US military advisers. Of course, the US benefits from Israeli pressures on Russia. This is a key feature of the current Great Game, where the US and Israel act as the new imperial “centre”.
It is popular to call this era a new Cold War. However, history never repeats itself. There certainly is a new tension in world politics following 9/11, and the failure of the newly aggressive US to successfully assert its hegemony around the world, including Russia, keeps the fires of chauvinism hot in the US. On the US right, Russia is seen merely as the Soviet Union reborn, a ruse to hide the KGB’s agenda of world communist control. For the saner Obamites, it is a more diffused Cold War, dominated by a new US-Israeli imperial centre, the “empire-and-a-half”, with shifting alliances of convenience, though with a strong, new opposition player on the horizon — a savvier, more articulate Islamic world, with Iran, Turkey and Egypt in the first rank.
The desire by both the US and Israel to overthrow the Iranian government is now the only common goal left in this “empire-and-a-half”, but it is a common goal only because Israel is in the driver’s seat. Israel resents Iran as an existential threat not to Israel itself, but to Greater Israel and regional domination. Iran serves as a powerful example, a third way for Muslim countries, and is most definitely a rival to Israel as Middle East hegemon.
Among the new Arab Spring governments, it is only Egypt’s that worries Israel. Just imagine if Egypt and Iran start to cooperate. Add in Shia-dominated Iraq, Turkey and Russia, as Russia has good relations with all four, and common objects on the international scene. Suddenly the Middle East playing field takes on a totally different appearance.
A rational US policy to join with Russia and China to accommodate Iran could save the teetering dollar, or at least give the US a chance to prepare for an orderly transition to a new international currency. If Russia, China and Iran defuse the current nuclear crisis between the US and Iran peacefully, with a nod to Turkey and a resolve to make Israel join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, this could pave the way for a new Eurasian playing field. If and when the US withdraws from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India will be drawn in as well.
This would set off a chain of events that could change the whole nature of the current Great Game leading to a Russia-India-Iran-China axis (Russia-India-China summits have already been held yearly since 2001), leaving Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Israel to sort out their regional conflicts outside of a new, very different great game. US interests would be considered but without US diktat, forcing, or rather allowing the US to put its own house in order. Iran would finally be accepted as the legitimate regional player that it is. If the US cannot bring itself to make a graceful exit from its self-imposed crisis in the region, this will only accelerate its decline.
Russia inherits fond memories across the Middle East region as the anti-Zionist Soviet Union’s successor. It now has the chance to gain long term credibility as a principled partner not only in the Middle East but to non-aligned countries everywhere, and should hold the fort, the anti-imperial one, against what’s left of empire.
Eric Walberg writes for http://weekly.ahram.org.egy/ and is author of Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games http://claritypress.com/Walberg.html
You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/