Chris Stevens a diplomat or spy

Killing of Christopher Stevens, US Ambassador in Libya and his portrayal as friend of ‘freedom’ fighters raises a question, was he a diplomat or an ace CIA operator? In the recent past many countries have been alleging that spies have become an integral part of the US diplomatic core.

His death has been termed the first death of a US ambassador in the line of duty since 1979. Stevens, 52 and single, served as a special envoy to the Libyan Transitional National Council last year from March to November. During his 21 years in the Foreign Service he also served in Jerusalem, Damascus, Cairo and Saudi Arabia.

President Barack Obama rushed 50 Marines to Libya to safeguard American personnel and critical facilities there, and ordered a worldwide review of security at diplomatic posts. The moves were made amid escalating worries that a deadly attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi stemmed from a carefully planned extremist plot, not a spontaneous riot.

Killing of Stevens can be termed a fall out of operating in the countries the United States wishes to keep its hold. Presence of CIA operators in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and even Iran has a history spread on decades. New found territories are those falling in ‘uprising in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

It has been reported in media, “Stevens, whose diplomatic foothold were a couple of battered tables, was on literally on the rebels' side while the revolution was at its most vulnerable and in danger of being crushed by troops loyal to Moammar Gadhafi.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “Stevens will be remembered as a hero by many nations. He risked his life to stop a tyrant then gave his life trying to help build a better Libya. The world needs more Chris Stevenses."

Hannah Draper, who is in the US on leave from the embassy said, “He loved Libya and Libyan people and died doing what he believed in." Draper said the ambassador was "legendary" in Libya because he stayed in the country through the revolution, "Liaising with the rebels and leading a skeleton crew of Americans on the ground to support humanitarian efforts and meeting up-and-coming political leaders."

US Proxy War in Syria

From the early days analysts have been saying that the United States is fighting a proxy war in Syria. It is not an attempt to dislodge Assad but to prove that the super power enjoys complete control in Middle East and North Africa (MENA). An article recently written by David Ignatius for The Washing Post gives more credence to this belief.

According to David the United States and its allies are moving in Syria toward a program of covert support for the rebels that look very much like what super power and its friends did in Afghanistan in the 1980s. In Syria, as in Afghanistan, CIA officers are operating at the borders, helping Sunni insurgents improve their command and control and engaging in other activities. Weapons are coming from third parties.

He even goes to the extent of saying that major financier for both insurgencies have been Saudi Arabia. In his view Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who as Saudi ambassador to Washington in the 1980s worked to finance and support the CIA in Afghanistan and who now, as chief of Saudi intelligence, is encouraging operations in Syria.

As the proxy war in Syria is gaining momentum it is necessary to understand similarities/dissimilarities between Afghanistan and Syria. Afghan mujahedeen won their war and eventually ousted the Russian-backed government. CIA-backed victory opened the way for decades of chaos and jihadist extremism that are still menacing Afghanistan and its neighbors, especially Pakistan and Iran.

Therefore, before entering into any adventurism it is necessary to ask a question, will the intervention yield any result in case of Syria? The reply is evident if one keeps in mind the strategy of the covert war against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The Saudis understandably would prefer that Sunnis who oppose autocratic rule should wage their fight far from the kingdom; Damascus is a far safer venue than Riyadh.

But there are hazards of fueling Sunni-Shiite dynamic in Syria, though rage against Shiites and their Iranian patrons has been a useful prop for the United States and Israel in mobilizing Sunni opposition against Assad, who as an Alawite is seen as part of the Shiite crescent.

But this is the most lethal and potentially ruinous sectarian battle, the kind that nearly destroyed Iraq and Lebanon and is now plunging Syria into the inferno. The Saudis want to fight Shiites but away from their Kingdom.

United States is also using the tribal card, which may be as crucial in Syria as it was in Iraq. The leaders of many Syrian tribes have been supported to wage war against Assad. It may be said that the engine of this insurgency in Syria is rural, conservative and Sunni.

David’s conclusion is thought provoking. He cautions the rebels fighting Assad deserve limited US support, just as the anti-Soviet mujahedeen did. The intervention will cause chaos and extremism that can take a generation to undo if the United States and its allies aren’t prudent.

United States biggest arms seller

Over the years it is being said that the United Sates creates most of the conflicts around the world but very few people are able to understand the underlying motive. It is the lust to keep its arsenal factories running at highest capacity utilization.

My second blog posted on 26th June highlighted this aspect. One of the latest reports by Reuters provides the latest numbers, though these pertain to 2011 and a lot has changed lately.

The report says that during 2011 the US arms sales touched record level US$66.3 billion, mainly because of $33.4 billion sales to Saudi Arabia alone. Other key buyers included United Arab Emirates and India.

The US sales were nearly 78 per cent of the global arms sales, which rose to $85.3 billion during 2011. The previous US record sales of $38.2 billion were achieved during 2008.

While Washington remained the world’s leading arms seller, nearly all other major suppliers, except France, recorded decline in sales during 2011. France signed arms sales valued at $4.4 billion in 2011, up from $1.8 billion a year earlier.

Russia, the world’s number two arms dealer, saw its sales nearly halved to $4.8 billion in 2011. The four major European suppliers — France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy — saw their collective market share drop to 7.2 per cent in 2011 from 12.2 per cent a year earlier.

Saudi Arabia emerged the biggest arms buyer among developing countries, concluding $33.7 billion weapons deals in 2011, followed by India with purchases of $6.9 billion and the United Arab Emirates with $4.5 billion. A point worth laughing is ‘Iran is fueling arms sales especially to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates’.

The three major beneficiaries of the arms sales were Boeing, United Technologies and Lockheed Martin. The sale of $33.4 billion to Saudi Arabia comprised of 84 Boeing F-15 fighters, dozens of helicopters built by Boeing and Sikorsky Aircraft, a unit of United Technologies Corp.

The sale of $3.49 billion to the United Arab Emirates comprised of Lockheed Martin Corp’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, an advanced missile shield and $940 million for 16 Chinook helicopters built by Boeing.

The United States seems to be following a unique strategy whereby extreme volatile situation in created in the Middle East and imposition of economic sanctions on Iran. This helps in keeping crude oil price high. However, all these petrodollars are bagged by selling arms to oil rich countries.

The only point of concern is that the arms sales are on the rise due to growing animosity among the Muslim countries, especially Arabs vs. Iran. In the past Iraq assaulted Iran and the war continued for a decade.

During this war Saudi Arabia and Kuwait gave billions of dollars to Iraq to wipeout Iran from the global map. The stage is being prepared once again for a better coordinated assault on Iran but all remain shy of the nuclear capabilities of Iran. Though, Israel keeps on talking about attacking Iran, threat of nuclear war makes all jittery.

US waging war against Iran

While the countries living under the influence of United States have been imposing newer and tougher sanctions on Iran, Israel has been threatening to take unilateral action against the country irrespective of the outcome of 5+1 negotiations. 

However, cursory look at the chronology of decisions made against Iran support the perception that the United States has been waging war against the country for more than three decades.

Many observers say that the war against Iran is already underway. A vicious media campaign, regular war threats, assassinations and acts of sabotage all testify that Iran is the target of an all out war. 

While all sorts of aggression and belligerence are taking place, an intensive campaign against Iran is being run in the mainstream media.  Hawkish, pro-Israeli think tanks in the United States are portraying a biased and distorted image of Iran to their people with the aim of preparing ground for a possible military attack.

Iran’s enemies say that they have a problem with Iran's nuclear program because they fear it may one day develop nuclear weapons and use it against Israel. They are also preaching Iran poses a threat to global peace and security. All this in incorrect as the reality is Iran refuses to be a slave to the Zionists financial and political interests. One may not be amused if one day it is announced that Iran is financing international terrorism through the export and sale of pistachio nuts.

Washington's animosity is neither new nor related to Iran's nuclear program. Soon after the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and dethroning of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the US initiated hostility and enmity.  Under President Jimmy Carter, the US imposed a set of sanctions on Iran's oil sector and then blocked US$12 billion of Iranian government's assets in Washington.

After the deadly 1983 Beirut barracks bombing in which 241 US marines were killed, the US government renewed its sanctions, under the orders of President Ronald Reagan. The Bill Clinton administration toughened the sanctions in 1996 when US Congress unanimously passed the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act that penalizing the foreign companies investing in Iran's oil sector.

On September 30, 2006 the act was renamed to Iran Sanctions Act as Libya was excluded. The George W. Bush administration, also antagonistic toward Iran imposed several rounds of sanctions against its oil, gas, insurance, agriculture and aviation industries. He also signed a law the Iran Freedom and Support Act on September 30, 2006 which allocated $10 million for anti Iran groups.

Barack Obama instead of finding a sustainable solution to end the nuclear standoff, assumed an aggressive position, intensified the sanctions, banned transactions with the Central Bank of Iran and even created hurdles for Iran to receive the payments for its oil exports.

It seems the sanctions have been imposed to bring Iran to its knees and undermine its position as a regional superpower. The Obama administration has vehemently pursued a policy of running covert operations in Iran through training, funding and assisting anti Iranian organizations such as MKO and Jundallah with the objective of spreading fear, sabotaging its security and also impeding its nuclear program.

Damaging Iran's nuclear program through sophisticated computer worms and malwares such as Stuxnet was another attempt by the US and Israel aimed at causing major blow to Iran. The Stuxnet worm was coded to sabotage computers operating at Iran's Bushehr nuclear facilities.

Will US pull troops out of Afghanistan?

A question is often asked by the citizens of countries directly or indirectly affected by the Proxy War in Afghanistan; will United States pull out its troops occupying the country after 2014? 

The overwhelming perception is, it will not. To understand this it is necessary to explore reasons why the country is being occupied under the disguise of Nato and ISEAF.

One point is very clear that the objective was not to liberate Afghanistan from the control of USSR or Taliban but to occupy it for economical and political reasons. Presence of Al-Qaeda was not an excuse for attack. Iraq was also not attacked because of Al-Qaeda but oil. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had attack the world trade center.

One could find two possible reasons for occupying Afghanistan; valuable metals and geopolitics. Studies conducted by USSR showed that trillions of dollars worth precious and rare metals are present in Afghanistan.

Being the super power United States maintains its military dominance by brining countries all around the world under its hegemony to combat enemies. Afghanistan has an important place in the US foreign policy due to common borders with Pakistan, Iran, China and many oil and gas rich Central Asian countries.

After the Islamic Revolution Iran is being projected the biggest threat for the world, especially Arab monarchies and more recently for its nuclear program denouncing US hegemony. United States is planning for the ultimate day when troops will be deployed in Iran to takeover its nuclear assets. It needs an outpost near Iran and Afghanistan is the ideal country.  The two countries share a long mountainous border, which is virtually impossible fully monitor and defend.  

China is the second most powerful superpower, which is likely to surpass the gross domestic product of the United States by 2020 and become world’s strongest economic superpower.  United States already has outposts in Taiwan and South Korea, Afghanistan gives them a third root of attack should it be necessary.

Afghanistan was a hostage of the Cold War. The United States supported Pakistan and the USSR patronized Afghanistan and India against Pakistan. After Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 the Soviet leadership anticipated that in order to compensate its defeat in Iran the United States might seek to expand its influence in Afghanistan.

The USSR believed that getting control over Afghanistan could give it a perfect foot hold in South Asia and the Middle East. It would have access to a new ocean and proximity to the vast oil riches of the Middle East. There are no warm water ports in Afghanistan, but getting control over the Khyber Pass, an ancient trade route to China on the East and one step closer to Iran and Turkey on the West and Pakistan on the South, all with warm water ports.

With the disintegration of USSR, despite having tons of lethal arsenals and China focusing on its economy, the sole surviving super power seems too ambitious in establishing its hegemony in South Asia and MENA and Afghanistan appears to be the most ideal outpost. Therefore, probability of end to the US occupation of Afghanistan is hoping against the hopes. 

Pakistan in the grip of terrorists

On the last Friday of Ramadan in Pakistan killers were on the rampage, especially in Karachi capital of Sindh and Quetta capital of Balochistan. Earlier Kamra Air Base was attacked and nearly two dozen Shias were killed point blank in KP province. Though, on the face value these appear separate incidents but establish a common point ‘security forces in Pakistan are incapable of protecting Pakistanis as well as strategic installations of the country.

Many local and foreign analysts term these ‘security lapse’ but the reality is Pakistan in a state of war for more than a decade. Despite doing the best it has to hear ‘do more manta’ from the United States and face the pressure of ‘domestic constituency’ to pull the country out of proxy US war. There is growing perception that Afghan occupation by Nato forces may have other motives but bringing any change in the quality of life of Afghans, bearing the brunt of war for more than three decades. Some even go to the extent of terming it war of drug barons.

In the recent past Shia Hazaras have been the worst victim in Balochistan but now killers are on the rampage in KP and GB. For a considerably long time efforts are being made to show that that Shias and Sunnis are killing each other. However, with the Shia-Suni conflict becoming too visible in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, efforts are being made to instigate armed conflict between the two Muslim sects in Pakistan also.

Attack on the bus carrying participants of Youm-e-Qudus Rally in Karachi was to convey a message that any group following Iranian plan can face death in Pakistan. However, the cynics fail to understand that it is not the attempt of Iran to create its hegemony in the region but to remind the Muslims that Israel is occupying Palestinian territory for decades and Arabs have failed in getting the holy city of Jerusalem free from Zionist occupation.

Many Western critics say that Iran has expansionist designs and attaining uranium enrichment technology is the first step for producing atomic warheads. Though, Iran has been refuting this allegation, United States under the pressure of Zionists want to teach it a lesson. More than 32 years of economic sanctions have failed to deter Iranians from their path. In fact Iran has emerged as a symbol of resistance against the US hegemony.   

Blaming Iran for supporting Syrian Regime

Suffering from extreme Iran obsession United States never misses an opportunity to prove that Iran is a threat to Arabs. It had played on Sunni Shia divide in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and even in Pakistan.

There is growing perception that a proxy war is being fought in Syria in which on one side are US-supported rebels and on other side are Syrian forces, allegedly supported by Iran.

Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff while talking to ‘Pentagon Reporters’ has once again alleged Iran for supporting the Syrian militia, which is generally made up of Syrian Shiite forces and being used for taking the pressure off the Syrian regime forces that have been at war for almost 18 months. In fact he openly accused Iran for playing a growing role by supporting the Syrian regime and helping in building and training a militia to fight opposition forces.

Dempsey was very cautious in admitting that US-supported rebels are now equipped with arsenal to down Syrian jets but said, “It appears Syrian rebels were able to shoot down a Syrian warplane” but insisted “I have no indication that they are armed with heavy weapons or surface-to-air missiles, at least not yet”. He admitted the MiG fighter could have been shot down with small arms fire. 

Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta voiced concerns about Iran's growing presence in Syria, even as President Bashar Assad's regime steps up its aerial attacks against the rebel forces. Fierce fighting and attacks from warplanes and helicopter gunships have pushed the opposition forces back in key fronts, such as Aleppo.

"We do not think that Iran ought to be playing that role at this moment in time," the defense secretary said. He said that "it's dangerous, that it's adding to the killing that's going on in Syria and that it tries to bolster a regime that we think ultimately is going to come down."

This clearly indicates that the United States is openly supporting the rebels because it doesn’t wish Assad to remain in power, the same ‘regime change saga’ it has earlier played in many countries but does not wish to do the same in Bahrain.  The duality of standards clearly indicates that the grand US plan is not the dismissal of Assad but to create a justification for an assault on Iran.

Makkah Summit

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has called an emergency Islamic Summit in Makkah to discussed key issues facing Muslim Ummah.

This offers an opportunity to Muslim leaders to discuss the prevailing situation, showing deep divided and to come up with solution that can exhibit their unity and solidarity. 

However, there is no mention of Iran, enduring economic sanction imposed by the Western countries for more than three decades. One can still recall that some of the Arab countries had provided huge funds to Iraq when it attacked Iran, which helped in extending the war for nearly a decade.

World renowned, Abdullah Omar Naseef emphasizing the significance of the Summit has said, "There is nothing strange in this call by King Abdullah for an emergency summit. It shows his deep concern toward Islamic issues as a prominent Muslim leader in the world," He also said, "This summit is being held at the right time, when the Islamic nation is facing a lot of challenges and crises, such as the worsening situation in Syria, the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, and the continuing Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians.”

A member of the World Council for Mosques, an affiliate of the Makkah-based Muslim World League, Dr. Baheej Mulla Owais said, "We are pinning great hope on this extraordinary summit and pray that it will be a great success in realizing its objectives." He also mentioned another summit held in Makkah, called by King Abdullah about five years ago to reconcile Iraqi factions. "That summit was successful in reducing the bloodbath between Iraqi groups and narrowing their differences. Sitting in front of the Holy Kaaba, they had pledged to stop fighting each other," he added.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian called on Muslim leaders to address the Syrian and Bahraini crises simultaneously in their gathering in Makkah. Iran has also proposed that the Palestinian issue and solidarity in the Muslim world should be discussed at the meeting and that divisive issues would not be raised. 

 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad leaving Tehran to attend the emergency Islamic summit said is likely to express the views of the Iranian nation on the issues facing the Muslim world. “This meeting is an opportunity for our nation’s standpoint to be explained clearly and for efforts to be made toward the convergence and protection of the interests and integrity of Muslim nations.”   

One just can’t resist from mentioning meeting of leaders of 42 countries who have given their node to participate in the XVI Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which is scheduled to be held in Tehran from Aug 26 to 31. 

While efforts by Saudi Arabia and Iran deserve appreciation, the bottomline remains can Arabs really come out of the pressure of United States? There is growing consensus among the analysts that toppling of Asad regime in Syria is part of the grand agenda to isolate Iran, which is considered a threat for Arab monarchies.

US Hegemony in South Asia and MENA

According to media reports US ambassador-designate to Pakistan Richard Olson expressed that Islamabad has moved away from the old concept of finding strategic depth in Afghanistan and stressed encouragement for the positive development in the South Asian country’s strategic thinking.

Appearing in his confirmation hearing, Olson, who until recently served as a senior diplomat in Kabul, cited to Capitol Hill Pakistani actions as well as the avowed policy statements by its leaders to move away from the old thinking.

His apprehension may be right but he must also listen to others rather than basing his strategy on CIA-based information. Over the years CIA had been proved wrong repeatedly, may be because its designs conflicted with the policies of the democratically elected representatives of the largest democracy of the world. The CIA seems to be working on global agenda to make countries subservient to the US policies, including providing funds and arsenal to rebel groups around the world in the name of ‘regime change’.

For the information of designate ambassador there is a growing feeling that Pakistan has remained subservient to the US administration and never allowed to improve relationship with USSR, China and even India. At the best it may be said that Pakistan enjoys good relationship with China, only because it has been helping Pakistan in overcoming its economic problems. Pakistan was put against USSR in Afghanistan and India has been pampered and used against Pakistan and China.

Over the years Pakistanis have realized that their role has been reduced to ‘mercenaries’ killing Afghan and the US has been actively trying to create Indian hegemony in the region. This impression was further consolidated when the United States offered India ‘nuclear technology for civilian use’ but denied the same to Pakistan. Despite fully cognizant of the fact that Pakistan’s economic growth is constraint by energy shortage, the country is neither allowed buying oil, gas and electricity from Iran nor given money to construct hydel projects.

On the question of doctrine that Pakistanis over the years have talked about strategic depth and, one of the ideas that Afghanistan represents strategic depth against a potential conflict with India Olson said “My sense is that the Pakistani military and Pakistani government has moved away from that.”

The reason is obvious because President Obama visited India and termed it ‘strategic economic partner’ but keeps on saying ‘Pakistan should do more’ and at times voices were raised to stop assistance for Pakistan and declare it a ‘terrorist country’. The United States has created Taliban, a new breed of mercenaries to fight against USSR and if it can’t put the genie back in bottle Pakistan should not be blames.

There is also a growing realization in Pakistan that if USSR assault on Afghanistan was an attempt to get access to ‘warm waters’, the US occupation of Afghanistan is for getting control on production and supply of drug. Those Taliban who don’t support cultivation of poppy are termed ‘bad’ and those who have agreed to become partner in trade ‘good’. One of the reasons for stopping Nato supplies was aimed at stopping supply of chemicals under the disguise of goods of strategic importance for the combat soldiers.

The operation by Pakistan army is northern areas is aimed at weeding out infiltrators mostly coming from Afghanistan. Balochistan has also become centre of covert operation of foreign intelligence agencies against Iran. The much talked about Baloch uprising is to facilitate an independent Balochistan, comprising of three slices on each from Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan and creating a hostile country against Iran, which has survived more than 32 years of economic sanction and refused to bow down before the US hegemony in the region.

Arabs Falling in Deadly US Trap

The United States is killing two birds with one stone. It is keeping crude oil prices high in the global market but taking bulk of the income of oil rich Arab countries back by creating Iran phantom and luring them to buy lethal arsenal. Those who are familiar with hoax call of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq say the story of Iran-Syria alliance is the name of new strategy.

The EIA Inspectors have failed in providing any credible proof that Iran is busy in the production of atomic warheads. The economic sanctions on Iran and 5+1 negotiations are only to make Iran forgo its right to enrich uranium to be used for power generation mainly.

According to an AP report over the past two months, the Defense Department has notified Congress of possible deals totaling more than $11.3 billion to Gulf States Qatar and Kuwait, which are seen as some of America's critical front-line partners in containing Iran.

The proposed sales including Patriot missile batteries and Apache attack helicopters are still modest compared with massive Gulf purchases such as Saudi Arabia's $60 billion package last year. That deal included more than 80 new F-15SA fighter jets, missiles, radar warning systems and other equipment.

Under an elaborate plan fear is being created among the Arab monarchies about possible Iranian retaliation. According some unconfirmed news US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon briefed Israeli officials on possible US attack plans if diplomacy and sanctions fail to force Tehran to rollback its nuclear enrichment program.

To create the hype Washington plans to keep at least 13,500 troops in Kuwait with an expanded mission as a potential rapid-reaction force for the region. The Pentagon also has scores of warplanes and other assets across the Gulf, including air bases in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

At sea, the US Navy plans to lead maneuvers in September that include minesweeping drills — a clear response to Iran's threats to block oil tankers from passing through the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Gulf in retaliation for the tightening Western sanctions.

The US is also boosting its Gulf flotilla, directed by the Navy's 5th Fleet in Bahrain. Among the additions a floating assault base aboard the retrofitted USS Ponce and accelerated deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Stennis to ensure two carriers are in the Gulf region at all times.

Syria ‑ The Bitter Truth

According to an editorial published in Pakistan’s The Financial Daily, “Reports about Syria by the Western media were often said to be tinted but little was there to refute. One of the allegations is that they are not reporting what’s happening in Syria correctly because at times propaganda prevails over truth and disclosures are incomplete.”

It has also pointed, “Syrians are struggling to prevent Western conquest, exploitation, and control. They’re fighting for their lives to stay free. Followers of this policy say the issue isn’t whether Assad’s government enjoy public support or not but its sovereign independence has made it vulnerable.”

Even bigger accusations have been leveled by the Syrian authorities. They have accused regional powerhouses Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey of trying to destroy the country and vowed Sunday that they would defeat rebels who have captured large swathes of the commercial hub Aleppo.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, on a visit to Iran, leveled some rare public criticism of Sunni powers in the Middle East, saying Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are supporting a plot hatched by Israel to destroy Syria. "Israel is the mastermind of all in this crisis," Moallem told a joint news conference in Tehran with his Iranian counterpart Ali Akbar Salehi.

Syrian opposition had appealed on Sunday its foreign allies to provide with heavy weapons to fight President Bashar al-Assad's killing machine and said it would soon start talks on forming a transitional government to replace him.

"The rebels are fighting with primitive weapons. We want weapons that we can stop tanks and planes with. This is what we want," Abdelbasset Sida, head of the Syrian National Council (SNC) opposition alliance, told a news conference.

However, criticism about the SNC's legitimacy is likely to complicate its efforts to form a transitional government. It backs the Free Syrian Army rebel force, despite having not always overtly supported it in the past.

Last week, Brigadier General Manaf Tlas, one of the highest ranking defectors to flee Syria, said he would try to help unite Syria's fragmented opposition inside and outside the country in order to agree a roadmap for a power transfer.

Reportedly al Queada has joined and supporting the rebels. A question is being raised is this the same as the US supporting the Taliban when USSR attacked Afghanistan but turning hostile once the motive was achieved.

Observers say Syria was calm and peaceful until Washington imposed violence, mass killing and destruction. They say Syrian conflict isn’t an uprising, revolution or civil war but Western media orchestrated by Washington is distorting the reality.

The Financial Daily has rightly concluded, “Insurgents are fully supported by Washington proxies. Subjugating is termed liberating the oppressed. In fact they are aiming at assault if other methods fail. Opponents of Assad are being provided funds and arsenal to initiate a full scale war. This is exactly what they did in Libya.”

Proxy War in Syria

It is becoming evident that the uprising in Syria is a Proxy War among the various power groups. The latest pleading by the US-subservient Arab League to President Bashar al-Assad to accept a safe passage is part of the campaign to establish Zionist Hegemony in the region. Some experts also say that toppling of Asad is aimed at proving that Iran is moving towards isolation.

While different analysts/experts may have diversified opinions it is difficult to ignore Iranian point of view. According to Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Iran’s armed forces the US plot against Syria is primarily aimed at creating a safe zone for Israel, the occupiers of al-Quds. They are seeking to bring Wahhabis to power in Syria with the help of certain regional countries and through sending armed mercenaries and terrorists to the country, he said. 

Russia has been pleading an international meeting on Syria and insisting that sanctions or military intervention would only aggravate the already complicated situation. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov had said, “Our logic is that it is not necessary now to apply additional pressure rather than introducing sanctions or use the threat of force. Gatilov said Iran should be asked to participate and use its influence on Syria as it could play a more constructive role in seeking ways to resolve the Syrian conflict.

But Russian stance is being taken as eagerness to maintain its firmest Middle East foothold and stop the West pushing governments from power. Earlier Russia had used its UN Security Council veto and other tools to protect President Bashar from coordinated condemnation and sanctions.

Some analysts say Syria is not only the scene of a challenge between secular and Islamist figures, but has also given rise to more profound groupings at regional and international levels.  At a regional level, Syrian developments have fanned the flames of sectarianism in the region with Saudi Arabia and Qatar taking sides with the Islamist figures, while Iran and the Lebanese Hezbollah are supporting the ruling secular elements.

At international level, the situation in Syria has prompted Russia and China to support President Bashar that is trying to maintain the existing secular situation. Deployment of political forces at international level has become so serious that it has led some experts to believe that Syrian crisis can lead to a new Cold War and establishment of a new world order. They go to the extent of saying that situation in Syria may even lead to rearrangement of political power poles within unipolar and multipolar frameworks.

  DPC opposing opening up Nato routes

Sheikh Rashid Ahmad speaks during All Parties Conference held under Difa-i-Pakistan Council at Lahore Hafiz Muhammad Saeed,  Maulana Samiul Haq, Syed Munawar Hasan and General (R) Hameed Gul also present

The Difa-i-Pakistan Council (DPC) rally that started from Lahore, stayed at Gujrat overnight and finally held a meeting outside parliament building in Pakistan’s federal capital.The meeting was addressed by some of the stalwarts belonging to banned religious outfits, among these the most prominent was Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, Lashkar-e-Teba fame.

The entire proceedings went very well because at no point either the provincial government headed by PML-N or the federal government led by PPP made any attempt to stop the rally. However, attack at an army camp in Gujrat spoiled the entire game. It was certainly not a reward to the government for providing a safe passage to the leaders and the participants of rally.

Lahore is the stronghold of PML-N and Gujrat the home town of Pervez Elahi, Deputy Prime Minister and Ahmed Mukhtar, ex-defence minister and presently heading ministry of water and power. PML-N chose not to participate in APC held earlier but fully compensated. PML-N has often attracted criticism for having deep-rooted relations with some of the banned religious outfits.

The number of people attending Islamabad meeting were quoted from as low as 15,000 to as high as 30,000. Creation of an elaborate stage, assembly of such a large number of demonstrators and appearance of leaders of banned outfits in ‘red zone’ raise a question, what was the federal home ministry and capital police doing?

One of possible explanation could be that the ruling junta to which PML-N is also a part has realized the gravity of situation, extreme anti United States sentiments among Pakistanis and just wanted to avoid any confrontation. The demand for pulling out Pakistan out of US proxy war in Afghanistan is on the rise

It is becoming difficult for the ruling junta as it can’t satisfy the domestic constituency on supporting the US, which is no longer considered a friend. Most of Pakistanis strongly believe that the United States has been playing the most active part in creating Indian Hegemony in the South Asia. An impression is being created that Pakistanis are mercenaries fighting Proxy US War in Afghanistan and India a major trading partner of the United States. 

Pakistan Succumbing to US Pressure

And finally Pakistan has opened Nato supply route, without demanding any transit fee on simple sorry by Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State.

In return Pakistan is likely to get US$1.1 billion due under Coalition Support Fund, which has been subject of wrangling between the two countries.

Pakistan’s claims often rejected and smaller sums approved by Washington for reimbursement. It is not a favor because the amount had been approved and already gone through the process and pertains to services rendered before closure of the supply route.

The announcement coming from the two governments suggest that the suspension of Nato supplies was not in the interest of Pakistan, which seem incorrect. In fact Nato had to incur almost three times the expense in using alternate routes. On top of all opening of route was necessary for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, expected to commence in 2014.

Most offending is one of the editorials published in The New York Times alleging that the military of the 'crippled and chaotic' state continues to play a double game of accepting aid from America while enabling the Afghan Taliban. It also said that Pakistan's political system is growing ‘ever more dysfunctional’.

Pakistanis fail to understand because on one hand says the US administration says it needs Pakistan’s help in reopening a critical supply route to Afghanistan and in urging the Taliban to engage in peace talks so that combat troops can be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and on the other hand Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says “reaching the limits of our patience.”

According to the editorial the US President, Barak Obama declined to hold an official meeting with President of Pakistan, Asif Zardari at the NATO summit meeting in Chicago in May. It also said The United States has little choice but to continue drone attacks on militants in Pakistan. It has urged India to become more involved in Afghanistan. Surprising was the phrase ‘Pakistan is paranoid about India’, which it sees as a mortal adversary.

Equally disturbing for Pakistan and United States should be the threats from Pakistani Taliban to attack Nato supply trucks and kill its drivers if they tried to resume supplies to troops in Afghanistan. Prior to the closure they have carried out dozens of attacks; disrupting supplies destined for Afghanistan, and have repeatedly warned of more if Pakistan reopened supply route.

Opening up of Nato route is likely to get fierce response from religious groups and politicians who have been demanding Pakistan should pull itself out of proxy US war in Afghanistan. Opponents of the present regime enjoy street power and if these demonstrations turn violent containing these would be difficult.

Colonialism proliferating, though in a different form

It may not be wrong to say that the World War-III started no sooner did World War-II ended. Under the new arrangement countries are not conquered using military but by subjugating their sovereignty.

In the past the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund used to take control of policy making of recipient countries but now power of these countries to make decision are curtailed by establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO).

After the World War-II, super powers namely USA, USSR, and later on China have emerged. While USSR faced disintegration after its failed attempt to get access to warm waters by attacking Afghanistan, China preferred to focus on becoming an economic power. The USA got a free hand to establish its hegemony.

China is a perfect example of ‘If you can’t kill your enemy, make him friend but never forget you have to kill him one day’. USA has emerged a major investor in China and also a major buyer of made in China products. The policy is driven by the lust to control Chinese economy.

Economic sanctions are imposed on countries trying to the US policy but all the decisions are driven by protecting its own interest and/or its peripheries. This is evident from the latest US decision to exempt India, Malaysia, South Korea, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Taiwan buying oil from Iran. These countries are either the major buyers of made in USA arsenal or supplier of goods and services to the super power.

United Nations (UN) has also become subservient as most of the decisions are made by the permanent members enjoying veto powers. Any decision by the international community can be turned down by these countries.  However, if a rubber stamp is needed, UN endorses military action, the most recent examples being Libya and Syria. Iran has been facing economic sanctions for more than three decades.

Different blocs have been created for the collective exploitation and now to establish US hegemony and developing regional powers. India has been given the status of regional super power. Commonwealth keeps on reminding the sovereign countries that they were British colonies and are still under the thumb of Monarchy.

Economic assault has been initiated under the WTO that gives legal cover to the financial atrocities of the developed countries. These countries control economies of poor sates through multinational companies (MNCs). This is best understood when one looks at the balance sheets and profit and loss statements of Fortune-500, which has further reduced to Fortune-50 companies,

But armies still play key role in conquering countries, with US leading Nato member counties. Usually the campaign starts in the name of restoration of democracy. Regime Change Plans are executed by funding rebels and proving them arsenal. This is in no way any attempt to make their lives better but to keep the armament factories running at full capacities.

Egypt in the lap of Muslim Brotherhood

While the United Sates seem adamant at maintaining its hegemony as it is often termed the sole surviving super power. Its focus remains oil producing countries, the most obvious being Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Egypt and many more.

The recent uprising in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) was funded and even arms were supplied by the United States. Other ongoing conflicts are mostly related to Israel with Hamas, Lebanon and Turkey. Memories of attack on Turkish flotilla and killing of Hamas top notches in UAE still haunt.

Failure to tame Iran after more than three decades of economic sanctions is making both the United States and Israel desperate as well as jittery. Many failed attempts to intimidate Iran have led to even stringer sanctions. Israel’s threat that it reserves the right to attack Iran irrespective of the outcome of 5+1 negotiations upsets countries located in close vicinity.

If Iran was a headache the outcome of election in Egypt has prompted The United States and Israel to render the newly elected president ‘feeble’ by retaining power with the general who have been running the country. Winning of majority votes by Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi has suddenly shifted focus to Egypt and away from Iran. Hosni Mubarak outset was driven by decades old saying, ‘Eliminate the agent when he becomes redundant’. He was removed after three decades to install another obedient partner, who could also keep Israel happy.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague also congratulated Morsi, saying it marked "An historic moment for Egypt". A White House statement said: "We believe it is essential for the Egyptian government to continue to fulfil Egypt's role as a pillar of regional peace, security and stability. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he hoped the long-standing peace treaty between the two countries would continue.

The other reports says The Islamists' rise to power in Egypt will send shockwaves through the courts and palaces of conservative Arab kings and presidents who have tried for decades to put the lid on political Islam. But foremost among Egypt's neighbors who watched the brotherhood's success with increasing alarm is Israel. It was the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel and the brotherhood has traditionally been vehemently opposed to that.

According to another report, it also remains uncertain whether the low-key, little-known Morsi can serve as a unifying figure in a nation that has splintered politically since the revolution, with many Egyptians fearful that Islamic leadership will impose strict moral codes or try to dominate politics. His victory will serve as an inspiration for Islamist movements across the region; it is likely to be seen as a potential threat for Israel, which has regarded Egypt as a linchpin of Middle East peace through their 35-year-old treaty.

According to Dr Boris Dolgov, a leading expert at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, “Egypt is split down the middle”. Half of its people, mostly the more conservative and less educated folk living in underdeveloped outlying provinces, side with the Islamist principles of Mohamed Morsi. The other half, which mostly consists of educated city dwellers, supports the secularist principles of Ahmed Shafiq, the last prime minister under Hosni Mubarak.

Dolgov has also warned that jubilation of Morsi’s followers can be short-lived. He said “Indeed, the governing Military Council has already curtailed the powers of the President by assuming sweeping powers over fiscal matters and lawmaking. The military will be the ruler, not Morsi. As soon as his supporters realize this, they will start protesting against the governing Generals.”

US – The biggest Arm Seller

Civilian Suffurings in Syria

I am one of the millions of people who fail to understand why conflicts are created and allowed to grow that often lead to anarchy, civil war and war among the countries.

One of the hypotheses is that when conflicts between rulers and being ruled grow the story starts with peaceful demonstration, when often get violent and soon it becomes ‘free for all’.

Lately, the uprising in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) has become a thorn as super powers are taking active part in dethroning or consolidating the positions of rulers. Whatever is happening in Bahrain is being condoned but arms and funds are being supplied to rebel groups in Syria, the same was done in Libya in the recent past. Earlier efforts were made to develop rebel groups in Iran.

One of the conspiracy theories is proxy wars of the super powers is fought by smaller countries, the most notorious being Afghanistan. The United States prepared Taliban to defeat USSR and the war continued for nearly a decade because warlords started claim in booty.

According to one of the latest reports during 2012 the United States will make a record sale of armaments to the world but Saudi Arabia has emerged the biggest buyer. Is this the preamble of another attack on Iran? People still have in their memories that when Iraq attached Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia supported his war mania.

I have read somewhere a quote that over the next five years, seven Muslim countries may come under attack, the most probable top two being Pakistan and Iran. The saga is likely to start once withdrawal of Nato solider from Afghanistan starts in 2014. It is believed that military hardware will be kept in Afghanistan and can be used against these two countries.

Pakistan Must Opt for Oil for Food

While the United States continues to say that Iran is busy in production of nuclear warheads, it hasn’t come up with any credible proof. Many doubt it is a hoax call like presence of Osama in Afghanistan and Iraq busy in production of weapons of mass destruction.

The growing perception is the United States considers Iran a hurdle in creation of its hegemony in the region, the major supply of crude oil.

There is also growing feeling among Pakistanis that due to the US pressure the ruling junta the country had already stopped buying oil from Iran, construction of Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline being delayed and even supply of wheat in exchange for being put on hold. Even in the worst scenario ‘oil for food’ program was followed in Iraq.

The United States has exempted seven countries, 10 member countries of European Union and no mention has been made of China.

The US fully aware that Pakistan’s GDP growth is being pegged due to looming energy crisis and the country needs low cost energy products immediately. However, Pakistan is not being allowed crude oil, gas and electricity from Iran.

The time has come Pakistanis should assert themselves and convince the US that buying energy products from Iran bodes well for Pakistan. If India can pay Iran in Rupee, Pakistan should be allowed to buy energy products from Iran against supply of wheat.