UNCLE SAM-THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY PREACHER IS SHOWING ‘APOCALYPTIC MENTALITY’
by Syarif Hidayat
US rulers -the Human Rights and Democracy preachers are showing ‘apocalyptic mentality’. They are risking major wars to retain dominance in the world. They are also in bed with militants and terrorists around the world especially in the Muslim world.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Webster Griffin Tarpley, a historian and lecturer, from Washington, about a speech made by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei concerning the US foreign policy.
The following is an approximate transcript of the interview.
Press TV: How do you interpret the leader’s comments of the US in terms of their dividing countries into three groups:
2) do not obey and should not be tolerated; and
3) disobedient ones?
Our guest Frederick Petersen said ‘obedient’ would be equal to ‘allies’ and disobedient would be equal to ‘aggressors’.
But first your reaction to the leader’s comments in terms of the US dividing countries into three groups.
Tarpley: I think the analysis offered by the leader Mr. Khamenei has much to recommend. We can situate it in the following way: we’re coming to the end of a period of about one quarter century of unipolar United States domination of the world; and this has more or less gone together with the weakness then collapse of the Soviet Union and the impotence of the government in Moscow during the 1990s and in the first decade of this century.
But now things have changed.
To guide our thinking about this, we can go back to the 19th century there was a period of British world domination between about 1848 and 1871, which was punctuated by a similar kind of aggression – the British were attacking Russia, China, India, the United States, Mexico… on and on.
So, the danger we have is that as the period of absolute or unipolar domination subsides we risk major wars because the mentality of the US ruling elite is in some ways apocalyptic, it’s a kind of… ‘The Twilight of the Gods’, you see it with people like Kerry or Nuland or Samantha Power or Miss Rice or any number of others and therefore I think his analysis very interesting.
I would first of all… on the first group – Saudi Arabia, this is of course broadly speaking, correct. In other words Saudi Arabia is one of the pillars of US domination in the Middle East; and also financially.
However, what we’ve had in the last year is a period where Prince Bandar has been demanding that the United States wage war against Syria and at least a faction around Obama seems to be very reluctant to do that.
If we get into the second group – the Europeans, we find something of the same thing: Fabius and Hollande of France are in some ways bigger warmongers certainly than Obama.
And then when we get to the third group, I would say that it is beneficial for the world to have ‘opposition’. In other words it is not a healthy situation for example if the United States neo-Cons or the United States’ responsibility to protect humanitarian bomber-types like Samantha Power – It’s not good for them to see no opposition to what they’re doing.
So I think there’s actually a benefit from having people like Putin or the Iranian government or others around; and China could fit into this. There’s got to be some kind of a barrier or counter weight or a push back against these really crazy excesses that we see here in Washington. It’s a kind of ‘a ruling class gone mad’ and the only thing that seems to deter them is counterforce.
Press TV: Military coups; supporting seditionists; provoking people to come out ino the streets; opposing elections; and causing rifts were among the measures they took or tried to take – Iran’s leader in reaction to the US. And I’m giving in reaction to Frederick Petersen’s comments and US policy in Ukraine?
Tarpley: Absolutely. Just to deal with Ukraine first… We have to remember here that what happened here was a fascist coup d’état in Kiev, organized by NATO with CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and all the rest of them contributing to this. It was an absolutely, I think, lunatic provocation of Russia – knowing the sensibilities of Russia; knowing that Russia has been invaded through this land corridor by the Swedes, by the French, by the Germans, by Poland even if you back far enough.
Secondly that this has this Nazi coloration knowing the sensitivity, which I share, of Russia to this kind of ideology – people like (Dmitry) Yarosh and the Svoboda Party are on the European Fascist List. And similarly, the question of a warm water port – over many centuries the desire of Moscow to have an ice-free warm water port. The idea that NATO cold go in and send in leading politicians to make incendiary speeches and then somehow Russia would do nothing. Look at what the United States did for example to Cuba – you get an idea of the sensitivity that big powers have to nearby areas. It’s simply not the case that the United States is somehow committed to support and defend any lunatic excess of this clique that’s running Ukraine.
But now let’s also look a little bit further away… In the US ruling class there’s a general fear off Russia. The imperialist mind is reluctant to mix it up with Russia because of these very large thermo-nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles, which ultimately seem to be the language which they find clearest. However, we do have this group around Anne-Marie Slaughter, which says you can’t counter-attack Putin in Ukraine, but you can do so in Syria. Bomb Syria you can humiliate and defeat Putin.
Now I think what the Iranian Leader is saying is somehow that when she says Syria this also includes Iran. In other words, I think he’s responding to some kind of war danger, which has appeared on the horizon. Maybe this is not evident in the outside world, but the mood of the Washington elite is that they’re looking for a way to fight back from a position of some weakness; and above all that they’re afraid of Russia.
And it’s easier to tell people, let’s attack Syria – Syria is seen here as a relatively weak state, but ultimately it could be that Iran is their true target and they see Syria is a way to wage war against Iran. So, I think this is a very serious speech and it doesn’t just come out of the blue. Probably in some days or weeks we’ll get a better idea of what this speech is responding to.
Press TV: This question to you… You’ve got to options here and it doesn’t seem like the US wants to take the option that doesn’t require force.
And this is the case of the voting that’s taking place today; over 72 percent of Syrians came out to vote. Out of the 15 million, 11 million of them and this could be a point where this crisis could end, but obviously the countries supporting the insurgents don’t want this to happen do they?
Tarpley: If I could just comment on this… the news I think we ought to pay attention to, to put this speech into context, the reports in the last 24 hours is that a new and unpredicted difficulty has arisen in the P5+1 talks – So the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany – this is the Iranian nuclear question. Now… it ought to be obvious to everyday that a nation state if it wants to be independent in the 21st century must master the full nuclear fuel cycle – that includes centrifuges, enrichment, all the rest – in order to have a full-set economy and be truly independent and pursue economic development for one’s own people, this is all indispensable.
Any attempt to take this away it seems to me is a crime against humanity in the highest order. Now… the new P5+1 position is that Iran has to demolish essentially most or all of it.
West in bed with terrorists-death squads
Press TV has conducted an interview with Sukant Chandan, a political commentator, from London, about the US stance that ISIL militants pose a grave danger and that Iraq should form a new inclusive government.
The following is an approximate transcript of the interview.
Press TV: Do you agree with that analysis made by our guest Mr. Lawrence Korb, do you think that the Obama administration is taking a lot of caution and the right path by starting to send 300 advisors, but not directly getting involved as of yet?
Chandan: I think in order to understand what is actually going on to go beyond the fog of war, the deceit and the double-dealing that’s ever-present in the mainstream media, I think a simple question has to be asked – and that simple question is – Who benefits the most? Who benefits the most from ISIL’s activity and similar, what I call death squads basically, sectarian death squads – who benefits from this? The United States, Britain and France are in direct alliance with similar forces in Syria as they were in Libya – which the top came off on that issue way back in 2011 when all these people who were broadly under that term al-Qaeda – we were told they were the existential terrorist threat to the West.
And suddenly the West is deeply embedded and in bed with them in relation to a regime change operation against a resistant global south country, which was the Jamahiriya of Libya and an open alliance on Syria.
So really on Iraq, who benefits the most?
Now… whereas I would agree that the sectarian death squads are definitely a part of the disturbances we’ve been seeing for the last couple of weeks in Iraq, there are other forces at work here, which are sometimes in an uneasy alliance and sometimes has antagonism and basically that’s the members of former ruling party in Iraq under Saddam Hussein – the Baath Party – who are also involved in the disturbances in the towns and cities impacted.
So really the question has to be who benefits from the situation? Clearly I think the United States and Britain and France benefit in as much as it basically opens up a buffer area for the death squads in Syria to develop their capacity. And we already are hearing in the Financial Times today in London of US-made HUMVs being used by the death squads taken from Iraq and used in Syria.
Also it draws in Iran in a very sophisticated operation to soften it up because Iran still at the end of the day is targeted for war by London, Paris and Washington and the white settler Zionist; State and several other strategic things, which are to the benefit of the United States and not to their detriment. So, this I think clearly is how we can see the situation.
Press TV: I’d like to link this to a quote by Tony Blair, he said and I’m quoting here -”Unfortunately Iraq’s leaders have been unable to overcome too often the mistrust and sectarian differences that have long been simmering there”. And this is seen as his support of the idea that this is the fault of the Iraqi government, nothing to do with the US or British role in the country. What do you think about that?
Chandan: It’s once again crazy words from Mr. Blair like what the British and United States’ involvement in Iraq did not fundamentally contribute to the situation that we’re seeing now of course it did. It did for the last 15 years; it did for the last several decades; it has for many generations.
Indeed, Iraq was a colony of Britain’s – a colony that was given literally to someone from another part of the Middle East to rule over, which became the king of Iraq who was then overthrown and there was a successive amount of coups.
Of course the United States and Britain are deeply implicated. Just last week Foreign Secretary of Britain William Hague was co-hosting a conference about Rape in Conflict with Angelina Jolie. Did not the British bombing of Libya contribute to sexual violence in that country on a massive scale, which they contributed to Ghaddafi, which is actually more attributable to their own allies in the rebels? So, really, these are the masters of war; these are the masters of trauma and destruction across the globe and then trying to project it all onto black and brown people. I wanted develop and perhaps clarify for Mr. Korb – I’m not suggesting or advocating that the United States or Britain conduct any airstrikes in Iraq, not at all; but what I am clearly suggesting is that events there do benefit them.
Now… I’ve been discussing with quite a well known advocate against Iraqi sanctions and the war of aggression in Iraq before and just after 2003 and he put an interesting point to me – he said, maybe the United States wants some limited access to some of the oil fields around the area where we’ve been seeing the disturbances; that they’ve been reaching out to the Baathists who are involved – and probably in terms of non-combatant level of disturbances they’re probably the most present political force.
So, the United States is reaching out for them to clean up the death squads – ISIS actually – and so they can have some limited access, because obviously the United States and Britain are very concerned that if it does not have some kind of access to the hydrocarbons in Iraq, well, they really don’t want people like China and Russia having access.
And if it’s the case that they cannot have the kind of access that they want, they’re willing to destroy whole regions. I think this is really the big strategy as well. So my Iraqi friend was saying that some of the patriotic Iraqi Shia forces in Iraq will be discussing with the Baathists in a possible alliance of convenience against the death squads and so these kind of machinations are going on – which is nothing new actually because that’s what happened with the siege of Fallujah (twice) and with the siege of Najaf by the USA occupation forces previously.
Some interesting machinations and speculative analysis is at work, but I think those who believe in unity – and ‘unity ‘is the only thing that can foil all of the dastardly and nefarious plans for the Iraqi people. Unity is the only course of action; unity against the common enemy, which will save Iraq from really falling off the precipice on which they’re seeing themselves right now.
Press TV: Do you agree with Mr. Korb’s comments about Mr.Maliki wanting US troops back in Iraq to do more bombing and that al-Qaeda were driven out of Iraq at the time the US left there in 2011?
Chandan: The thing is that Britain and the United States is allied to all the main funders and facilitators of ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra and all these death squads. Britain is in a primary strategic alliance economically and geo-politically with the Persian Gulf monarchies – which actually they historically set up anyway. It’s in primary strategic alliance with the intelligence service of Pakistan in relation to its fight against the Afghan Taliban. The ISI are the main supporters and the backbone essentially of the Afghan Taliban.
Obviously Britain is not going to say, yes these sectarian death squads are our proxy forces on the ground in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Mali, Yemen etc, they’re not going to say that obviously and we’re not going to have any hard evidence easily to provide that. But we don’t need hard evidence. What was Christopher Stephens (murdered US Ambassador to Libya) doing in his Benghazi compound working with different death squads who eventually lynched him and killed him? The same alliance is in Syria. The common beneficiaries of this dynamic, the synthesis between these death squads and London, Paris and Washington – particularly London and Washington is very clear.
These death squads are an upgrade, it’s a new generation of death squads to those death squads Britain used in the trouble, so-called, in its occupation, which is ongoing in Northern Ireland with the loyalist death squads. The loyalist death squads were trained and armed and financed by the London government, but sometimes the loyalist death squads fought the British army occupying Ireland and even killed members of the British army very similar to this broad umbrella movement called al-Qaeda. And similarly Mr. Negroponte of the United States was the architect of the death squads in central and so-called Latin America in the 1970s and 1908s.
And really these are the models of death squads that we have to understand, which the West has directed and facilitated and given birth to. Then only can we understand the nature and the relationship of the London and the Washington government’s relation to their current upgraded death squads, which they are absolutely unleashing across the Muslim world, which is negatively traumatizing and dividing and destroying much of the homelands across the so-called Muslim world.
Press TV: One issue that was raised by Mr. Korb is Maliki being responsible for a lot of the troubles that Iraq is currently facing. When John Kerry says that Iraq needs an exclusive government it does look like he’s suggesting the Maliki government is responsible for a lot of what’s happening in the country because they are saying that – as Mr. Korb, said – Baathists are involved; people are against the way Maliki is running the government – seeing this as an opportunity to rise against them.
Is that how you’re seeing the picture?
Chandan: Sometimes we have a manifestation of neo-colonialism where there is a lot of deception and sophistication from the West in projecting its power and domination and monopoly of power across the world. Sometimes it’s just straight up simple colonialism. Mr. Kerry goes to Iraq, demands and dictates to the Iraqis what type of government, when and how should institute it, or else, basically.
Similarly he went to the Democratic Republic of Congo, gave bit of money and lectured and dictated to its president that you must not stand for another term. It’s ridiculous colonialism and no one should have any truck with it, not least Mr. Maliki and the Iraqi government. I’m not about to go into the internalized and projected trauma, which the United States and Britain have put upon the Iraqi people and its leadership. What I’m more interested in is what the greatest purveyors of violence on our planet still today – that’s NATO and particularly the governments of Washington and Britain are doing to Iraq and the world.
And really they have no right to dictate to Maliki and the people of Iraq. They put them in the fire; they put them in this mess and it’s up to the Iraqi people to rise to this challenge and try and get themselves out of that mess.
Mr. Korb is right actually both the United States and Britain don’t want to majorly commit militarily to Iraq because actually really their proxy forces are doing the work. They are – Mr. Korb is correct – going on to try and fry bigger fish and that remains to be seen with the pivot to Asia, which is war on all of Asia particularly China.
ISIL threat to whole world, not just Iraq
Press TV has conducted an interview with Entifadh Qanbar, political commentator from Beirut, about the Iraqi army continuing mop-up operations against Takfiri militants of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in the east and north of the country.
What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.
Press TV: Let’s jump right in. Tell us about the level of success that the Iraqi army has had against the militants and how it has affected the morale of the Iraqi people in the wake of this new crisis in their country?
Qanbar: Well I think I always said that the ISIL attack on Mosul has awakened the Iraqi giant against terrorism. I think however this is not going to be an easy battle. This is going to be a meter to meter battle as you yourself mentioned in your report. The Iraqi army has liberated the main highway to the holy city of Samarra. That means this is going to be a very fierce battle. I think the terrorists’ next step will try to surround Baghdad and siege Baghdad but I think Baghdad will not fall in the hand of the terrorists. I think Iraqis will defend Iraq and defend Baghdad and I think but again this is not going to be an easy battle. I think there is a lot of bloodshed we will see unfortunately in the coming future but this is as I always tried to describe it, this is an existential battle.
Press TV: And how do you assess the international response to the ISIL’s surge in Iraq, most notably the US and Britain which are seen by many of being responsible for the spreading of the violence?
Qanbar: Well what we saw here, there is a political aspect of this violence. There is no doubt. Some analysts or some politicians describe this as an uprising and some describe it as a solely ISIL operation. Therefore I think it is important to gather all Iraqi forces and international support for an inclusive government, an inclusive political solution in order to pull the ground, to pull the carpet from underneath ISIL and that will be the political arm of fighting terrorism.
I think Iraq needs more support from the US and Britain and the West and this battle, it is very clear by even Western reports that some of these terrorists are going back to their countries, Western countries such as Germany or Europe or United States and they could launch terror attacks inside these countries. So this threat is not only against Iraq, it is against Iraq and the region and the whole world.
Iraq victim of imperialistic crusaderism
Below is an approximate transcription of the interview:
Press TV: Dr. Short in your perspective, why is Washington continuing to say that there needs to be a government change in Baghdad when a parliamentary election was held and Prime Minister Nouri Maliki party actually won?
Short: Yes. Well, the United States is deeply stained by the ISIL or ISIS. This is basically a force that allows a plausible deniability. They trained, funded and supported them via proxies in Jordan and Turkey, and they wished to dismember Iraq into three states. As well, this new fighting allows them to resume the conflict in Syria, another state that had a resounding election, success for the Baathist party of President Bashar al-Assad, so they don’t want to let go.
Press TV: Dr. Short, Mr. Nashashibi just mentioned the key word or the phrase of the day “the sectarian strife” and we are seeing this being mentioned a lot on the mainstream, if you want to call them, networks, and yet on the ground right now in Iraq, we see Shias, we see Sunnis, we see Kurds, we see Turkmens, all of them working together to try to fight ISIL. I’d like your take on this sir. Is what we are looking at sectarian?
Short: They are all represented in the government. We have projects like Blue Beam. We’ve had the CIA and other people Mockingbird get involved with the media. So, a lot of what we are fed is created in the Pentagon and Langley, or by the British intelligence MI6. We have journalists who are essentially covert spies who feed a lot of toxic information to the public. When you say it’s sectarian that would say that there are only Shia in the government. That is impossible. They had all kinds of people in the government of Iraq, the same way you have all kinds of people in the government of Syria. In fact, you have them in Iran. This is really an effort to smear Shia and to build up hatred.
This is part of a gang-counter-gang strategy that is being used by Mossad and all of them to make the different Muslim brothers and sisters fight each other and it is not going to succeed and they act as if Iraq is a theocratic state when it is a secular state still. If they elected to have theocracy that is still the will of the people, what difference does that make to Washington or London, what kind of government do the Iraqi people want for themselves?
Press TV: Let me get you in on this, because Mr. Nashashibi has just said the ISIL are killing Shias and Sunnis and Kurds, and anyone and everyone, basically, that they want to kill. So, if they are the main entities behind the violence that we are seeing take place in Iraq and are killing across the board, then does that not negate the sectarian factor, not that sectarianism may not exist, but that this is a war based on sectarianism?
Short: OK. There is a sectarian dimension, but it is not Muslim. It is called imperialistic crusaderism, masquerading behind perhaps some great alleged Abrahamic religions. This is a replay of people in other places seeking to divide up and to take from others. It is greed, is the religion of capitalist imperialists and which you see so many people, regardless of their religion dying. And there are parties Mr. Nashashibi can’t say, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the United States, Great Britain, Israel, Turkey, and to some degree, Egypt, all of these parties that are partnered in the elites benefitting at the expense of most of the people, they are the ones guilty. And the manipulation of the media is to make Islam bad, to make Muslims bad, to make Shia sinister, to make Sunnis sinister, instead of looking at the wickedness that is perpetrated by a global system that needs oil, water, and warfare, and drugs to make huge profits.
That is what is at stake here and it does benefit, I differ with Mr. Nashashibi, dividing up Iraq allows for them to destabilize the whole region to the benefit of Israel and private corporations that want water, oil, drugs, and confusion. Follow the money. It’s not the people.
Press TV: Dr. Short, your take on that. We are looking at for example Iraq. As I mentioned earlier, it hasn’t been that long that there was a parliamentary election. Your take on what our guest in London has just said sir.
Short: Well, he’s giving it in a vacuum. Maliki is far more democrat than the dictator Saddam Hussein that the US supported. Syria is more a democracy than the dictatorship that the United States supported in Iran under the Shah. Dictatorships have facilitated the imperialism in the post-second World War era where Britain, the United States, and this so-called New World Order have facilitated having strong men that steal from their people whether it’s [Hosni] Mubarak, whether it’s Saddam Hussein or the Shah [of Iran], or for that matter Saudi Arabia.
Those monarchies are leaders that enrich themselves at the expense of the masses of people as long as they support capitalism and are obedient to the West, they are not opposed. They only talk about human rights when they have leaders that stand up to them, whether they are democratic like [Mohamad] Mosaddegh or if they have a dictatorial streak. Look at what happened to Chavez. (HSH)