Will Russia be first to unite the Middle East?

Will Russia be the first to bring Shiites and Sunnis together?


by Don Hank


Today’s situation in the Middle East is very confusing to the uninitiated because US policy is secretly based on a decivilizing and disordering strategy that, to survive, must masquerade as being beneficial to all and designed to bring peace and justice. A major challenge for deceitful policy makers. For example, Obama originally had decided not to send arms and troops to the Syrian “rebels,” but when he saw the Russians bombing rebel bases, he decided to send more troops and arms (perhaps to appease the Neocons or perhaps because he has become one), as reported here.

BTW, note that Israel has apparently done the same, as reported here.

A few months ago Ted Cruz addressed a group of Syrian Christians living in the US. Like many naive Americans, he assumed that the Middle East Jews and Christians share the same plight and therefore sympathize with each other. However, the Christian-killing terrorists in Syria have the moral support of many Israelis and the Israeli government because these terrorists are, for now, also opposed to Hezbollah and Iran, which the Israelis see as enemies. This complexity is overwhelming for most Westerners because the pertinent dots are never connected in our media.

The ingenuous Cruz was surprised at these Christians’ hostile response when before this crowd of Syrian Christians, he repeated the shibboleth “I stand with Israel,” indicating that, like nearly all US politicians, he hasn’t a clue as to Syrian sentiments and the reality there. (Ben Carson, unlike Trump, also wants to ratchet up the cold war).

To state this reality as simply as possible, the Shiites (the Iranian people and the Syrian government–supported by Russia) are perceived as enemies of Israel while the Sunnis (essentially the Saudis, Gulf states and Turkey), who hate the Shia, are perceived as allies.

This unintentionally pits US supporters of Syrian Christians against Israel in the sense that to support these Christians, one naturally supports Russia’s efforts to defeat ISIS and the rebels, but Israel perceives Russia as a threat because she is defeating their Sunni “allies” in ISIS. Thus, when Israelis hear Americans sympathizing with the Syrian Christians, many of them tend to get nervous. On the other hand, US Christians and others who mouth the slogan “I stand for Israel” make Syrians nervous because this suggests that the person who says this is seen as a threat to the Syrian Christians and other minorities.

Thus far, geopolitically illiterate Western politicians (the vast majority) and by far the majority of US analysts, seem to think that not only are Sunnis and Shia irreconcilable, but that in the outside chance they could be brought together, their newfound unity could threaten US interests.

Yet they also perceive perpetual war to be in the US interest, a proposition that is counterintuitive and morally untenable. I have tried to explain here how this absurd and dangerous idea came about and why it has been perpetuated for a half-century with almost no opposition in politics and media.

So how can both sides be brought together?

Putin is an unrivaled statesman who obviously wants to do unite these enemies of long standing. He recognizes that the US-aggravated rivalry between the Sunnis and Israel on the one hand and the Shia and Russia on the other is untenable in the long run and will lead to war. He is clearly trying to defuse the tension nurtured by the US. While attacking the Syrian terrorists who have the tacit support of Israel, he has shown Israel his support by meeting with and speaking with Netanyahu and by agreeing with the latter to involve Russia in the extraction of the Leviathan gas deposit, part of which is claimed by Israel. This tacitly implies several important things:

1—Russia accepts Israel’s existence as a nation

2—Russia agrees with Israel’s claim to its share of Leviathan even though Israel has stretched international law by extending its waters from 12 miles to 200 miles to include the relevant part of the deposit.

3—Russia will not allow encroachment on this deposit during its extraction and will protect any portions of the pipeline that cross Israeli territory.

It is a virtual military protection agreement for Israel. Further, none of this will come as a surprise for Russia watchers of the non-Neocon variety because Putin had visited Israel years ago and gave a press conference relating to this trip in which his respect for the Jews and the people of all faiths is reflected. This video of the conference best illustrates the fact that Putin is by his very disposition a true uniter of peoples and a man of good will.

It was only a matter of time before Israel’s tenuous support of the Sunni terrorists would be discovered and would therefore backfire mightily.

The US and Israel were playing with fire by cultivating Sunni Saudis and, by extension, the Saudis’ pets in ISIS,as their main allies (with the US all the while pretending to fight ISIS for cosmetic purposes). They had set a trap for themselves that has now been sprung by Russia.

Russia is now the only country in the world that intends to bring the Sunni world – and  its allies Israel and the US – and the Shia world – ie, the Iranian people and Syrian government – together as clearly suggested by this report showing that in September, Putin either spoke by phone or met with not only the Shia leaders of Iran and Syria but also their supposed arch enemies the leaders of the Sunni countries Palestine, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, and most amazingly, Israel. This convergence of the Middle East in Moscow represented nothing short of an epoch making plate shift but went almost completely unreported in the West, a benighted region which still seeks answers solely in policies that divide the Middle East and make it more barbaric, supposedly to benefit US interests but in fact to no one’s benefit.

After years and years of relentless brainwashing, the idea of a relatively peaceful Middle East is now alien to Americans, most of whom would scoff at the idea.

Putin, however, understands the commonality of these seemingly divergent peoples (if only based on economic expediency) and his effort to unite all of their leaders is by far the most ingenious, monumental and momentous peace effort ever attempted in the Middle East. Yet no one, not even the brightest and best of geopolitical analysts, seems to have noticed. They are too busy taking sides in an effort to prop up a falling empire.

Some will say that my analysis is weighted in favor of our one-time enemy Russia. Yet what I have shown suggests a happier ending for the US than most would admit to.

Putin continues to refer to the US as a partner, and if only for economic reasons, he is deadly serious about this.

Putin knows that an economically failed US does not favor Russia or its Eurasian partners, all of whom are seeking the greatest prosperity for all, if for no other reason than to benefit from trade with us. After all, what is the percentage in trading with poor countries?

This came in since I wrote the above and it substantiates my commentary:



Up close with the real bad guys

Fellow American: consider what your candidate would do to the killers described in the next column. Would he “negotiate” (=appease) or would he fight?

Donald Hank

Up Close with the Real Bad Guys

by Charles R Lewis

Samir Kantar was released from an Israeli prison yesterday and returned to his Hezbollah comrades in Lebanon (itself a former Christian nation, since absolutely ravaged by that terrorist menagerie), in what was sardonically portrayed as a “prisoner exchange.” In return for the unleashing back on the civilized world of Kantar and four similar demons, Israel received the two soldiers whose kidnapping two years ago provoked a war between that nation and Lebanese Hezbollah – Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser.

[This five-for-two “swap” was actually more in line with reason than previous “deals,” in which the ratio has often been 500 (terrorists) to 1 (Israeli).]

There was just one hitch in the “mega-trade” (the same one present in some of the above referenced prior “transactions”). “Prisoners” Regev and Golwasser were returned somewhat dead – no doubt having been tortured to slow, agonizing deaths. Contrastingly, the Hezbollah “players” were whole, sound, and healthy, having flourished in Israeli prisons, where their lives were likely much better than the squalor in which Hamas forces its Palestinian subjects to live (for purposes of keeping them desperate enough to continue their campaigns of suicide attacks).

Kantar’s words, upon his return: “We swear by God … to continue on your same path and not to retreat until we achieve the same stature that God bestowed on you [referencing a fallen heinous comrade – now ostensibly busy deflowering his 70-odd maidens – at whose grave the words were spoken].”

That Kantar had been considered worthy of release taxes one’s imagination, in terms of how despicable must have been the crimes of those still imprisoned. Kantar had shot an Israeli father on a beach in front of his 4-year-old daughter, then drowned him, as she was forced to watch. Next he bludgeoned the girl to death via quite a few blows with the butt of his rifle.

He wasn’t finished. He proceeded to the family’s home, where he sought out more victims. The girl’s mother and 2-year-old sister were hiding in a small storage area adjacent to a bedroom. The toddler began to cry, and the mom held her hand over the little girl’s mouth to silence her, accidentally smothering her to death. A few minutes later, Kanter killed an Israeli policeman.

And this was one of the types Israeli Traitor-in-Chief Ehud Olmert felt worthy of release – in exchange for Israeli corpses. Actually makes a sick sort of sense. Israeli corpses – both sides seem to agree – are worth more than these scumbags are, alive and kicking.

Some reflection is in order. These are the sort of people that presidential candidates like Obama, Paul, Baldwin, and Barr tell us we should sit down with and talk to. The ones we supposedly provoked into attacking us on 9/11.

The kind of vermin whom the last three of these candidates depict as victims of American “imperialism.”

The genre that Obama finds so minimally threatening he advocates dismantling our defenses and ceasing any future upgrades.

The term, “animal” is too generous for swine like Kantar and his millions of clones worldwide. “Monster” says it better, but there really isn’t an English word that adequately describes them.

Perhaps “monster” does suffice to characterize the aforementioned “leaders” who would appease them.

I’m not sure.