Political Analysis - Outlook on US Policy and Some of the Region’s Issues

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Analysis - Outlook on US Policy and Some of the Region’s Issues

1 – Prior to attempting to perceive what is occurring in the region, it is imperative to recognize that the unfolding events are occurring according to the comprehensive Greater Middle East Initiative (GMEI) announced in 2004 at the G8 Summit; the execution of this initiative passes through phases fraught with deception, aberration, political manipulation and horse changing in midstream; the phases of execution are subject to the reality and latest developments on the ground; some aims are declared and others remain secret even to the functional states and the tools of execution; all the states and regimes of the region are involved in the initiative and at the same time targeted by it. The centre of attention of the executive tools is seeking the pleasure of America and salvation from the fallout of the GMEI on their future; hence, they execute their roles with extreme suspicion and caution and they often stray from the path when their fate is undermined. They jostle with each other, befriend and estrange each other and establish their alliances in line with what achieves America’s interests while keeping emergency channels and escape routes available. This is evidently reflected in the frequent unpredictability of the regimes, politicians, parties and factions.


It is also imperative to recognise that the conventional major powers do not take part in the planning and decision-making though they partake in the execution. They may also make proposals, express reservations or have some limited or pointless objections. They conduct themselves with America as defenders of their interests rather than powers with rival initiatives and they tend to put up a resistance to avert the consequences of US policies on their lebensraum within their continental scope.

2 – US president Donald Trump and his position vis-à-vis US decision-making.

The nomination for the post of president in the US is only effectuated after careful consideration and according to the nature of the task assigned to him by the deep state. This is evident from the conversation that took place between former Fox News CEO, Roger Eugene Ailes, and Steve Bannon. In his explosive and scandalous book, Fire and Fury, Michael Wolff wrote “Does he get it?” asked Ailes suddenly, pausing and looking intently at Bannon. He meant did Trump get it. This seemed to be a question about the right-wing agenda: Did the playboy billionaire really get the workingman populist cause? But it was possibly a point-blank question about the nature of power itself. Did Trump get where history had put him? Bannon took a sip of water. “He gets it,” said Bannon, after hesitating for perhaps a beat too long. “Or he gets what he gets.” With a sideways look, Ailes continued to stare him down, as though waiting for Bannon to show more of his cards. “Really,” Bannon said. “He’s on the program. It’s his program.

Pivoting from Trump himself, Bannon plunged on with the Trump agenda. “Day one we’re moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Netanyahu’s all in. Sheldon”—Sheldon Adelson, the casino billionaire, far-right Israel defender, and Trump supporter— “is all in. We know where we’re heading on this.” “Does Donald know?” asked a sceptical Ailes. Bannon smiled—as though almost with a wink –".

Besides, US decision-makers tend to buttress the US administration with an army of consultants whose task is to fine-tune the work of the White House, especially in foreign policy. Hence, the personality and performance of Donald Trump reflect exactly what the capitalists and the dominant wing of the deep state want. Evidently, divergent opinions among the decision-makers of the White House, or the deep state or pressure groups affect the US international relations such as the files of the US-European relations or Russo-American relations. They also affect the fates of the rulers in client states such as the Arab and Islamic countries, and this is what happened in the stance vis-à-vis the Saudi-Qatari crisis and the handling of the various ruling wings in Saudi as the State Department was at odds with the White House in respect of these files. Divergent opinions also emerged concerning Afghanistan, US aid to Pakistan, the handling of Erdogan, Iran and the Syrian file. However, the collaborating rulers are not expected to rebel or resist American blackmail since they deal with US policy rather than the president in person and his narrow interests and are puppets manipulated by CIA intelligence officers, as were Abdul Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak, or by the US embassies, which execute key policies and US national security interests within an institutional framework, that are considered the deep state in the Arab countries.

Choosing Donald Trump with his laughable personality and amplifying his reckless and unstable behaviour is a painstakingly calculated move that matches the nature of the issues to be endorsed which are justified by his behaviour and personality domestically and internationally. Such issues then act as the benchmark for further issues irrespective of whether Trump remained in office or not. Michael Wolff’s book, Fire and Fury, indicates that the issue was carefully planned by the deep state to exploit Trump for a specific mission. The author pretended to defend Trump in the face of US media to gain his trust and have unrestricted access to the White House to obtain the material which would allow the removal of the president or his manipulation to achieve the agenda of the forces currently dominating the scene in the US, especially as the conservative wing is aware that Trump is unfit for political work and his lack of popular and partisan support does not impact negatively on them; this led to the scandals revolving around his personality rather than his agenda. Trump “neither accepts nor listen to advice”. He has been used and it has been rumoured that Steve Bannon controls him. Trump has defended himself by tweeting that he did not follow orders from anyone.

3 – The information leaked by Fire and Fury about the issues of the region.

Leaked information is usually the work of either the concerned party or its rivals. Since the leaks are directed at foreign issues, such as recognising al-Quds as a capital of “Israel” or the Saudi white coup, or plunging Jordan and Egypt in chaos, they should be read according to their context, circumstances and timing. The leaks came in the context of demonising president Trump in order to trick the global community into accepting the policies that had been internationally unwelcome and exonerate the US from the “foolish” actions perpetrated by the president, though nothing came from the US administration to retract from his decisions.

As for the surrounding circumstances and the timing, the book was published following some of the most important decisions the US administration had undertaken which virtually constitute the hub of its mission in the Middle East, namely tackling the issue of al-Quds and the Palestinian file, putting the Saudi household in order and upping the ante in the Iranian and Turkish files in order to expand the scope of chaos and fragmentation across the Middle East. And when the leak targets nations incapable of defending themselves and unable to react, this tends to entrench their powerlessness, deepen their despair and compel them to seek their solutions from reality; it also tends to alienate them from the path leading them back to the ideology and the Aqeedah. The leaks also carry threatening messages to several countries such as the threat to plunge Egypt and Jordan into chaos and the threat to the masses in Saudi; they are also designed to muzzle the opponents of Bin Salman and his ghoulish usurpation of power and protect him from his rivals abroad by describing him as America’s man in Saudi. At the same time, the leak may simply be a trap, contrary to the message it carries, namely reassuring Bin Salman while grooming another agent to replace him if necessary; this is because the declaration of intentions in this manner may have two possibilities: on the one hand, America may confirm to bin Salman in a convincing manner that he is her man and she may offer him full protection at this stage, but only to harbour a sinister plot against him, akin to what she did to Saddam Hussein, or Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, when he was persuaded to leave; on the other hand, America may leave the door open for his possible replacement.

4 – The Process of Settling the Palestinian File:

The decision of president Trump on al-Quds and the leaks by the New York Times have not revealed anything new in terms of settling the issue save for the preparations to impose the dictates amid the incapacity of the Muslims and their depletion, engrossment in their own infighting and their shackling with criminal regimes affiliated to the West, and to enable the collaborators to announce their conspiratorial stance against al-Quds and Palestine and to curb any movement opposing this process.

The two-state solution is the declared policy that has been internationally accepted and projected as the most realistic outcome in terms of achieving the interests of all the stakeholders including "Israel" irrespective of the Zionist leaders’ vision of the two-state concept or the reality of the viability of a Palestinian state. Nevertheless, the two-state solution formula is nothing but a deceptive slogan designed to pull the wool over the Muslims’ eyes, even if it resulted in the rise of a freak Palestinian state to pacify the anger of the Islamic public opinion. Events on the ground denote that al-Quds will be handed over as a whole according to what Abbas approved in the notorious document he signed with Yossi Beilin in 1995, and that the Palestinians will be given a self-rule to be referred to as a Palestinian state. The document stipulated that the boundaries of the greater city will include Abu Dis, al-Ayzariah and Salwan and the Palestinian Authority would be able afterwards to turn the newly established districts into a capital and an administrative centre known as al-Quds in Arabic and Latin, and not Jerusalem, whereas the other districts of the old city with its current municipal boundaries will be known as Yerushalayim to avoid any confusion, and it would be recognized as the perpetual capital of "Israel". …. “The newly generated districts such as Abu Dis, Salwan and al-Ayzariah would constitute an independent geographic and political unit which would become the capital of the state to be announced once the interim period is over, in response to the spiritual and historical aspirations of the Palestinian people.” The Geneva document that Yasser Abed Rabbu signed on behalf of the PLO under the leadership of Arafat stipulates the same substance save for the right of return for the Palestinians; and this means the dividing of al-Quds has been voided of its significance and the conspirators have been given a cover to effectively surrender the whole of al-Quds.

Consequently, when we state that the process is geared towards the two-state solution, we in fact mean that the settlement is being conducted under this deceptive theme since the Oslo Accord was designed to give leeway to expanding the Jewish settlements and prevent the rise of a Palestinian state in the political sense of a state through dividing the Palestinian lands into three administrative divisions: Areas A, B and C. Area A which represents 18% of the Palestinian lands, is to be exclusively administered by the Palestinian Authority, Area B, which represents 21% of the lands is to be administered by the Palestinian Authority in terms of education, health and economy with security issues under "Israeli" control, and Area C, which represents 61% of the lands and is totally controlled by "Israel".

5 – America’s Targeting of her client States

When America targets one of her client states, this does not necessarily mean the state has severed its affiliation or it has turned into a state proceeding in America’s orbit. A client state would move to proceed in America’s orbit, or its leaders would proceed to strike an alliance with a specific foreign power when the circumstances necessitate such an undertaking, which is often prompted by the stance of the superpower vis-à-vis her agent. This is because the agent does not have the power to take decisions but he can defend himself when targeted if he is not shackled by precarious constraints. The system of a client state and its political milieus are designed as such rather than as an independent state. Hence, the agent tends to forestall the port that targets its system without interfering with the other parts of the plot imposed from abroad while keeping the channels of communication open with his employers until the last moment. This is what happened with Saddam Hussein despite being warned by Primakov that America had tricked him and wanted to get rid of him.

Agents cannot execute all that is demanded of them especially in respect of the issues from which they derive their authority, particularly those related to religion and nationalism; and this is well perceived by America. Hence, when America proceeds in this direction, it means she is willing to sacrifice her agent. The agents for their part are aware of this endgame, which sends shivers down their spines.

Henry Kissinger said: “No Arab leader, however moderate, could accede to Israel’s demands and survive in the climate of humiliation, radicalism and Soviet influence of the period. No Israeli Prime Minister could stay in office if he relinquished the claim to some of the occupied territories as an entrance price to negotiations.” This is why feigned victories and defeats are engineered to deceive the masses and act sometimes as cover for the rulers as was the case in the fiasco of the October War when Kissinger specified and restricted the function of the Egyptian army. The New York Times reported three years later that Kissinger wanted to see Israel “bleed just enough to soften it up for the post-war diplomacy he was planning.”

6 - Iran’s Affiliation to America

The fact that Iran is affiliated to America is self-evident and needs no elaboration. When the US targets Iran, it does not mean her reality has changed. Iran is a nationalistic and sectarian state; thus, she has no foreign initiatives save within the framework of her vital, nationalist and sectarian interests. When she exceeds the boundaries of her interests, she would be proceeding functionally according to an international agenda. Once her regional role is over, and if a new development necessitated downsizing her regime, a cover would be generated to allow for her retraction and withdrawal, and to clip her wings and retune her according to the requirements and interests of the US, especially when the project reaches a stage where the narrow interests of the client state clash with the interests of the superpower.

The recent events in Iran are part of the endeavour to regulate the regime according to the requirements of the forthcoming phase and according to the requirements of reshaping the regime. Perhaps the recent exposing of the manner in which the republic’s spiritual guide, Ali Khamenei, attained his post is a part of the restructuring of the Iranian regime without stripping it of its role as a scarecrow working towards diverting the compass of the supposed Arab-"Israeli" struggle and justifying the Arab regimes’ submission to America and their forsaking of the issues, suppressing the masses and establishing an alliance with the Jews.

26 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1439h
13 January 2018