Tuesday, April 18, 2017
Kemal Okuyan: “Turkey does not have any other choice. We need socialism as we need air and water” (Interview with TKP’s First Secretary)
And still more importantly, the resistance in big cities increased rather than decreased. Istanbul and Ankara have been added to Izmir. We should also count Adana, Mersin, Diyarbakır, Antalya, Denizli, Aydın, and Eskişehir. With this picture you cannot change the constitution whatsoever. You only think you can.
Saturday, April 15, 2017
Turkey referendum: The aspiring Sultan Erdogan and the militant activity of Turkish communists
The referendum which will take place in Turkey on Sunday is certainly a historic and important one. Voters will decide whether to approve constitutional changes that would replace the current parliamentary system with a presidential one.
When we talk about constitutional changes we actually refer to 18 constitutional reforms which will strengthen the powers of the President thus giving Rejep Tayyip Erdogan a much more advanced status of authority (e.g. declare state of emergency, issue decrees, appoint government ministers, appoint half of the highest judicial body etc).
Erdogan and his AKP government are the current political representatives of the most powerful part of Turkey’s bourgeois class. Through the consolidation and invigoration of Erdogan’s internal power, Turkey’s plutocracy aims in strengthening its own strategic presense in the broader region, claiming large shares from the huge energy “pie” in the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean, as well as significant gains in multiple fronts (e.g. in Cyprus, the Kurdish Issue, Syria, the “war against terrorism”, etc).
Taking into account the above, it becomes clear that the proposed constitutional reforms consist part of Turkey’s intra-bourgeois processes which are taking place within the framework of the general inter-imperialist competitions in the region. No matter the result of the referendum, it is sure that the attack on people’s rights and against the working class, will escalate in the coming future. This is why the popular strata of Turkey, the country’s working class, must not be entrapped in fighting under the false flags of bourgeois political powers.
All these days, the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) unfolded a militant activity, highlighting the need to reject the reforms from the perspective of people’s interests. Despite the numerous obstacles by the authorities (such as the ban of the TKP rally by the Governorship of Istanbul), the communists of the TKP defied the difficulties, headed into the streets and raised the voice of “Hayir” (No!).
Nonetheless, the “No” vote supported by the TKP is not the same as the “No” promoted by the bourgeois opposition: for the communists a “No” to the referendum must be accompanied by the fight against the capitalist system itself in order to open new channels of struggle for the revolutionary, working-class movement.
On Monday, regardless of the referendum’s result, the class-struggle will continue. The working people of Turkey, under the continuous, militant guidance of the communists, must raise their own flag of struggle against the major enemy: the exploitative capitalist system which gives birth to poverty, inequality, authoritarianism and wars.
Tears of a Clown Over Syrian Deaths
Boris Johnson, Britain’s foreign secretary, likes to clown around, even by his own admission. So much so, it seems, that when news emerged last week of an alleged massacre of children choking from chemical weapons in Syria, Johnson was still up for jolly-good fun.
Take a look at the above picture again. This was taken at a summit in Brussels last week when some 70 nations assembled in the Belgian capital pledging financial aid for war-torn Syria. Britain’s top diplomat Boris Johnson was central to the proceedings.
On the very same day, it emerged from Syria that more than 80 people, including dozens of children, were killed in an alleged chemical weapons incident in the town of Khan Shaykhun, Idlib Province. The politicians in Brussels immediately made political capital on the deaths.Johnson and other Western leaders, including US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, have cited those deaths as “evidence” of Russian “complicity.” Western media have been non-stop peddling the claims that Syria and Russia are to blame – without a shred of evidence.
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is in Moscow this week to lay down an “ultimatum” to Russia to withdraw its military support for Syria.
Within two days of the chemical weapons incident, US President Donald Trump ordered his warships to strike Syria with 59 cruise missiles, which resulted in several civilian deaths, including children. Where are the Western tears for those children? Or supposed Western principles for international law?The emotional denunciations that have emanated from Boris Johnson and others over the chemical weapons incident, accusing Syria of barbarity, were instrumental in creating a political cover for Trump’s subsequent military strikes.
What actually happened in Khan Shaykhun is not yet known. Russia and Iran have condemned the US missile strikes as unlawful aggression against a sovereign state, and they have called for an impartial investigation into the previous chemical incident.
But immediately, last Tuesday, Western governments and media began blaming the deaths on Syrian government forces dropping toxic munitions. Britain has absurdly accused Russia of being responsible for “all the civilian deaths” last week in Syria owing to its support for Syria.
The only initial “evidence” on the Khan Shaykhun incident were videos and claims made by “activists” belonging to the so-called rescue group known as the White Helmets.That Western-funded group has been shown to be integrated as a “media outlet” for the Nusra terrorist network and have been implicated in fabricating propaganda videos, such as during the liberation of Aleppo at the end of last year, in order to smear the Syrian government and its Russian ally.
The Damascus government denies categorically that its air force used chemical weapons in Khan Shaykhun last week, or at any previous time. It says, besides, that its chemical weapons arsenal was destroyed in a United Nations-monitored process under a 2013 decommissioning deal brokered by Russia.
Russian military has said that the incident at Khan Shaykhun may have been caused by the Syrian air force bombing the militant base using conventional weapons, which could have resulted in an accidental release of toxic materials stored in an arms depot used by the insurgents. Alternatively, the militants could have deliberately deployed toxic chemicals on unwitting civilians for the despicable purpose of a false-flag propaganda stunt.The prompt video recording of dying children gasping for breath and the rapid dissemination of the images by Western media outlets raise suspicions. The same nefarious stunt involving mass murder by militants with lethal Sarin nerve agent was carried out in August 2013 near Damascus. To this day, Western governments and media continue to blame the Syrian government forces for that atrocity, when it has been convincingly demonstrated that it was actually perpetrated by the foreign-backed militants precisely for propaganda purpose.
In any case, what actually occurred at Khan Shaykhun last week remains to be seen.
Nevertheless, based on dubious information, Western governments and media have since last week asserted, apparently without the slightest doubt, that the incident was a horrific “war crime” carried out by the Syrian government. The West has also accused Russia and its President, Vladimir Putin of “complicity” since Moscow is the principal ally of Syria.Britain’s Boris Johnson said this week while attending the G7 summit in Italy: “If you think about the position of Vladimir Putin now, he’s toxifying the reputation of Russia by his continuing association with a government which has flagrantly poisoned its own people.”
Johnson is the lead voice lobbying the West to slap more economic sanctions on Russia as “punishment” for the alleged atrocity at Khan Shaykhun.
Tellingly, he says there is a “window of opportunity” for Russia to withdraw its support for Syria and to assist Western powers to negotiate a “peaceful” settlement in Syria’s six-year war by removing President Bashar al-Assad. In other words, this “window of opportunity” is not for Russia, but rather it is for the Western powers to achieve their objective of “regime change” in Damascus.
Washington and London are shamelessly using the deaths of Syrians to push their criminal agenda of regime change. First in the form of unleashing American military force directly in the Syrian conflict – a conflict that the Western powers instigated in the first place by using proxy terror groups. And secondly, by pressuring Russia into abandoning its Syrian ally with claims that Moscow is complicit in war crimes.The whole US-British double-act is nothing but a sordid charade to cover up for their own complicity in waging a covert war on Syria. The trumping up of war crimes charges against Syria and Russia over the alleged gas attack in Idlib last week is a sordid pretext to further the West’s aggression towards Syria.
Russia has rightly dismissed the British foreign minister as a clown whose antics are a flagrant bid to play politics over Syrian deaths.
As the saying goes, a picture is worth of thousand words. The image of Boris Johnson joking around with other world leaders in Brussels last week – as with his fooling around with other members of the G7 this week – shows a person who obviously does not believe in the gravity of what he is publicly claiming about “war crimes” in Syria.
As children were choking from exposure to lethal chemicals, Johnson was all-too-evidently more concerned with joking. And playing politics for his master in Washington.Concerns about war crimes in Syria are real enough. But, primarily, those concerns should be directed at Washington, London and other Western governments, along with their regional allies in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, who have sponsored and armed terrorist proxies to ravage that country. The continued bombing of Syria by US, British and French warplanes, as well as now cruise missiles, resulting in thousands of civilians being killed is another category of monumental war crime.
Western ultimatums to Russia over alleged war crimes are a base distortion of the truth about what is happening in Syria. One day, Western leaders should face prosecution for their crimes. Maybe then, just maybe, the stupid grin will be wiped off Boris Johnson’s face.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.
Sunday, April 9, 2017
Communist Youths in Thessaloniki: “Solidarity with the refugees. Our enemy is capitalism”
|Singing the ‘Internationale’ with the fists raised.|
Daesh, Creature of the West
James Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Emerging Threats at NATO – now that’s a lovely title – recently gave a talk at a private club in London on the Islamic State/Daesh. Shea, as many will remember, made his name as NATO’s spokesman during the NATO war on Yugoslavia in 1999.
After his talk Shea engaged in a debate with a source I very much treasure. The source later gave me the lowdown.
According to Saudi intelligence, Daesh was invented by the US government – in Camp Bacca, near the Kuwait border, as many will remember — to essentially finish off the Shiite-majority Nouri al-Maliki government in Baghdad.
It didn’t happen this way, of course. Then, years later, in the summer of 2014, Daesh routed the Iraqi Army on its way to conquer Mosul. The Iraqi Army fled. Daesh operatives then annexed ultra-modern weapons that took US instructors from six to twelve months to train the Iraqis in and…surprise! Daesh incorporated the weapons in their arsenals in 24 hours.In the end, Shea frankly admitted to the source that Gen David Petraeus, conductor of the much-lauded 2007 surge, had trained these Sunnis now part of Daesh in Anbar province in Iraq.
Saudi intelligence still maintains that these Iraqi Sunnis were not US-trained – as Shea confirmed – because the Shiites in power in Baghdad didn’t allow it. Not true. The fact is the Daesh core – most of them former commanders and soldiers in Saddam Hussein’s army — is indeed a US-trained militia.
True to form, at the end of the debate, Shea went on to blame Russia for absolutely everything that’s happening today – including Daesh terror.
Mr. Sykes and Monsieur Picot, you’re dead
Now let’s go back to the proclamation of the Daesh Caliphate in June 29, 2014. That was choreographed as a symbolic abolition of the Sykes-Picot border that split the Middle East a century ago. At the same time, abandoning the option of a military push to take Baghdad, Daesh chose to regionalize and internationalize the fight, creating their own transnational state and denouncing regional states as “impostors”. All that coupled with the amp up of any chaos strategy capable of horrifying Western public opinion.For large swathes of a Sunni Arab audience, this was powerful stuff. Daesh was proclaiming themselves, in a warped manner, as the sole real heir of the different Arab Springs; the only totally autonomous regional movement, depending exclusively on its own local base, made up of numerous Bedouin tribes.
But how did we get here?
Let’s go back once again – now to Iraq in the 1990s, during the Clinton era. The strategic logic at the time spelled out an instrumentalization of UN resolutions — with Washington de facto controlling Iraq’s oil, manipulating the price as a means of pressure over trade competitors much more dependent on Iraqi oil such as China, Japan and selected European nations.9/11 turned this state of affairs upside down – leading to the 2003 neocon ideological stupidity and subsequent amateurism managing an occupation in total ignorance of history and the ultra-complex dynamics between the Iraqi state and society. Saddam Hussein was the de facto last avatar of a political arrangement invented by imperial Britain in 1920. With the invasion and occupation, the Iraq state collapsed. And the Cheney regime had no clue what to do with it.
There was no Sunni alternative. So Plan B, under major pressure by Shiites and Kurds, was to give voice to the majority. The problem is political parties ended up being religious and ethnic parties. The partition of power, Lebanese-style — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds – turned out to be a dysfunctional nightmare.
Between 2005 and 2008, this American attempt to rebuild the Iraqi state yielded a horrendous confessional civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. The Sunnis lost. And that largely explains the subsequent success of Daesh in creating a “Sunniland”.
The US occupation-Arab Spring love affair
Now let’s turn to the Syrian version of the Arab Spring in February/March 2011. Initial protests against Assad’s iron rule were peaceful – multi-communitarian and multi-confessional. But soon anti-Alawite rancor started to radicalize a significant part of the Sunni majority.
As historian Pierre-Jean Luizard, a specialist in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon at the French CNRS reminds us, Syria was the favorite land of Hanbalism – a most conservative branch of Sunni Islam that highly influenced the emergence of Wahhabism in the Arabian Peninsula. That implies a virulent anti-Shiism. Thus the emergence among the Syrian armed opposition of multiple Salafi-jihadi groups, most of all Jabhat al-Nusra – a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria.
Meanwhile, Assad fine-tuned a message to the West and his own Sunni bourgeoisie oscilating between allegiance and dissidence; it’s me, or chaos. Chaos ensued, anyway; horrendous structural violence, all-around institutional decrepitude, total territorial fragmentation.
So it’s fair to argue that both US occupation and the Syrian Arab Spring ended up producing the same result. With some differences; in Iraq, Daesh enjoys the (silent) support of a majority of Sunni Arabs. In Syria, Sunnis are divided; Daesh may rule the desert — Bedouin culture, but it’s Jabhat al-Nusra that captured significant Sunni support in big urban centers such as Aleppo. In Iraq, the borders between the three large communities – Sunni, Shiite, Kurd – are more or less frozen. In Syria, it’s a never-ending jigsaw puzzle.
What happens next is a mystery. The de facto independence of Iraq Kurdistan may solidify. The Baghdad government may increasingly represent only Shiites. Yet it’s hard to see Daesh consolidating its control of Sunni Iraq – not with the ongoing Battle of Mosul.
Blowback rules the wilderness of mirrors
It’s easy to dismiss Daesh as the apex of barbarian cultural idiosyncrasies. Even wallowing in gruesomeness, Daesh has been able to project a universalist dimension beyond its Sunni Arab Middle Eastern base. It’s like the clash of civilizations playing in a wilderness of mirrors. Daesh amplifies the clash not between East and West, or the Arab world and the Atlanticist hegemon, but mostly between a certain (warped) conception of Islam and assorted infidels. Daesh “welcomes” everyone, even Catholic Europeans while persecuting Arab infidels and bad Muslims.
It’s no wonder the Caliphate — a concrete utopia on the ground – finds an echo among young lone wolves living in the West. Because Daesh insists on the colonial Franco-British – and then neocolonial American — history of Muslims being trampled upon by a dominating, infidel West, they manage to channel a diffuse sentiment of injustice among the young.
Everyone – US, France, Britain, Russia, Iran — is now at war with Daesh (Turkey only half-heartedly, as well as the House of Saud and the GCC petrodollar gang; for them this not a priority.)But this is a war without a serious political long-term perspective. No one is discussing the place for Sunni Arabs in an Iraq dominated by the Shiite majority; how to put the Syrian state back together; or whether private donors to Daesh from Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates will simply disappear.
The encirclement of Raqqa and the re-conquest of Mosul will mean absolutely nothing if the causes of Daesh’s initial success are not addressed. It starts with the West’s mission civilisatrice as the cover story for unbounded colonial domination, and it straddles the methodical, inexorable, slow motion American destruction of Iraq. Blowback will continue to reign over the wilderness of mirrors; an attack near the British Parliament by a knife-carrying lone wolf “soldier answering “its call” killing four people mirrored by US jets bombing a school near Raqqa killing thirty-three civilians.
Petraeus may have trained them in the deserts of Al-Anbar. But most of all that rough beast, slouching towards Camp Bacca to be born, bore the touch of a Western mind.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.
The ‘Birth Pangs’ of a New Middle East, Remixed
You all remember former US Secretary of State Condi Rice’s notorious 2006 prediction about “birth pangs of a New Middle East.” True to the George “Dubya” Bush/Cheney regime, Condi got it all spectacularly wrong, not only about Lebanon and Israel but also Iraq, Syria and the House of Saud.
The Obama administration duly maintained a tradition that we could, light-heartedly, call The Sex Pistols School of Foreign Policy (“no future for you”). That’s perfectly exemplified by unflappable Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova in just a few sentences.Zakharova points out how Team Obama “didn’t have a consistent Syrian strategy in entire eight years: one day we bomb it, the next day we don’t, one day we pull out of Syria, the next day we go in.” That’s because “one branch of government did not understand what the other branch was doing.” And in the end “they just went ahead and dropped all Syrian politics without seeing it to its logical end. Then they focused on Aleppo, but not on resolving this situation, but solely on building up hysteria and an information campaign geared exclusively to the elections.”
And that leads us to the adults in the room in the Trump era, the ones that are actually monitoring the birth pangs of the real new Middle East: Russia.
That Iranian base in Latakia
Let’s start with the recent visit by Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu to President Putin.Bibi hit Moscow infused with biblical wishful thinking, essentially trying to seduce Putin to ditch the strategic partnership with Iran – complete with joining the much advertised, US-led from behind “Arab NATO” anti-Iran, anti-Shiite coalition featuring Israel coupled with the GCC petrodollar racket plus minor associates (Jordan and Morocco).
Bibi is desperate because Iran, with facts on the ground (Iranian and Hezbollah fighters) in partnership with Russian facts in the air, is actually winning the Syria proxy war for Damascus. And whatever happens next, post-Astana negotiations, Tehran will keep a permanent foothold in Syria – much to the ballistic outrage of the NATO-GCC-Israel combo.
A parallel implication is that Israel can’t attack southern Lebanon anymore. Last month, in Tehran, I had the confirmation that Hezbollah has now up to 40,000 fighters stationed and/or monitoring a maze of underground installations ready to defend Lebanon from everything; that’s up to ten times more than in 2006, an invasion that resulted in a humiliating Israeli retreat.
Ther’s nothing that Bibi could have offered Putin – apart from a hazy, unsubstantiated promise to order the powerful Israeli lobby in D.C. to soften hysterical, 24/7 Russia demonization.
Meanwhile, reports emerged that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave the green light for an Iranian naval base in Latakia, close to the Hmeymim airbase used by Russi’s Aerospace Forces. That came after Mohammad Bagheri, Chief of Iran’s General Staff, stressed that the Iranian Navy would soon need bases in Syria and Yemen.
Tehran sent mostly military advisers and instructors to Syria but the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) also contributed with hardcore soldiers.In Tehran, I had the pleasure of meeting Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the top IRGC commander and a supreme tactician/organizer specialized in asymmetrical warfare, his vast experience acquired during the Iran-Iraq war and Hezbollah success in Lebanon in 2006.
That’s like meeting Marine Corps. Gen Joseph Dunford, the head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff – but without the pomp and circumstance. A courteous, graceful man, Jafari did not have time to get into details, but other sources confirmed that without his battle-hardened knowledge Damascus by now would have been in big trouble.
What Russia wants in Syria
Then there’s an interview by Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Mikhail Bogdanov, former ambassador in Tel Aviv and Cairo, and now also Putin’s special representative in the Middle East, that has, metaphorically, parted the Red Sea all over again.
Bogdanov offered to Arab audiences a concise guide to Russia’s Middle East policy – the absolute opposite of loony US neocon regime change dementia.
He compared the “tens of thousands” of foreign Salafi-jihadi mercenaries at war with Damascus to the Russia-Iran military presence officially request by “the legitimate government.” He dismissed the warped notion of Iran exporting the Islamic revolution (that applied to the early 1980s). He stressed how Moscow wants some sort of US-Iran entente cordiale – with (unlikely) the House of Saud on board. Negotiations could be held in Moscow or elsewhere.
The Kremlin, as Bogdanov expressed it, wants a secular Syria, beyond sectarianism, springing up out of free and fair elections supervised by the UN. Predictably, his words barely masked Moscow’s exasperation with Washington’s obsession in keeping Tehran out of Syrian peace negotiations. And he firmly dismissed the “moderate rebels,” whose only goal is “Assad must go” to stand trial in The Hague (“With this goal, the war can go on forever”).
And then, the clincher: “Russia wants to abide by international legitimacy. We are committed to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of any country, including non-interference in our internal affairs. We respect the democratic process and not color revolutions.”
Team Trump members might entertain the wishful thinking notion that Moscow will ditch Tehran – not only in Syria but in terms of Eurasia integration. Not a chance. Yet tell that to the House of Saud.
The House of Saud spent fortunes investing in Salafi-jihadi provoked regime change in Syria and an unwinnable war on Yemen conducted with US weapons that has generated a massive famine. Moscow might be able, with time, to instill some geopolitical sense into Riyadh. Once again, not a chance. Because the House of Saud is now convinced their best ally is President Trump.Geopolitically cornered, unable to shackle itself off its trademark paranoia, the House of Saud decided to go on the offensive, with King Salman investing in a lavish Asian tour, Beijing included, where he signed a rash of deals, and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman – actually The Warrior Prince, responsible for the civilian tragedy in Yemen – courting Trump in Washington.
The resulting spin now rules that Saudi Arabia will be an influential “close consultant” to Trump on Middle East security and economy, including the Palestinian tragedy and the Iran nuclear deal. No Dante circle of hell could have provided a more perfect “birth pangs” recipe for unmitigated disaster in a new Middle East.
All eyes on the Syrian Kurds
Predictably, neither Moscow nor Tehran was invited for the anti-Daesh meeting of 68 nations hosted by Washington next week. Yet another chapter of hardcore information war; for US public opinion, Russia and Iran simply cannot be allowed to be perceived as actually fighting – and winning — a real war on terror.Smash Daesh is a major Trump campaign promise. He won’t do it with several hundred US Marines with their sights on Raqqa – by the way, technically a minor invasion, because Damascus did not request their presence. So it’s back to Plan A, a.k.a. the Syrian Kurds.
First the top US commander in the Middle East, General Joseph Votel, went to Kobane to pledge Pentagon support for the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Then the Pentagon released its (revised) Trump-ordered strategy to defeat Daesh, which boils down to No Sleep Till Raqqa.
That implies a brand new geopolitical alignment. Team Obama – especially the CIA and the State Department — was hostage to Turkey’s view of the Syrian Kurds as “terrorists.” Not Trump. And not Bogdanov, by the way: “Why Turkey agreed on Iraqi Kurdistan, but does not agree to the Kurdistan in Syria? I think that this is not their business. This is an Iraqi affair and Syrian affair. Syrian people and not the Russian or Turkish state should decide.”
The Pentagon is, to put it mildly, fed up with Ankara. For many reasons: from the non-stop purges (which get rid of strategically placed American assets) to the Turkey-Russia rapprochement, inbuilt in Erdogan’s threat to pivot East for good in case Washington supports the Syrian Kurds and/or does not extradite Fethullah Gulen, accused by Erdogan of being the mastermind of the failed 2016 military coup against him.
So how about the taste of the new blueberry cheesecake in town; Washington, Moscow and Tehran all allied behind the Syrian Kurds.
It’s complicated, of course. In the Astana negotiations, Turkey, Russia and Iran are theoretically on the same side. Yet Tehran backs some sort of Kurdish autonomy in Syria – an anathema for Erdogan, for whom the only acceptable Kurdish autonomy is for his Barzani-controlled friends in Iraqi Kurdistan.
So it’s up to Moscow to strike a balancing act – trying to explain to Ankara that there’s no other way apart from Syrian Kurd self-administration in a future Syrian federal state. The concept is extremely ambitious; Moscow aims to show East and West how the Syrian Kurds, as a real non-Islamist, secular Syrian actor, are the perfect instrument to fight Daesh and other forms of Salafi-jihadism.
No wonder Saudi Arabia is not impressed; fighting Daesh was never their priority. But what really matters is that Ankara is not convinced.
Erdogan has his total focus on the upcoming referendum that may turn him into a sort of Presidential Sultan. To win decisively he must court Turkish nationalism by all means necessary. At the same time, geopolitically, he cannot go against Russia/Iran and Washington in one go.Only a few weeks ago no one would have imagined the Syrian Kurds harboring potential strategic leverage capable of turning Middle East geopolitics – linked to Asia, Africa and Europe — upside down. China’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) – that building frenzy of ports, pipelines, high-speed rail — firmly targets the Southwest Asia passage, from Iran (a key hub) to Saudi Arabia (China’s top oil supplier). Syria is also a future OBOR hub – and for that Syria must be peaceful and free of Salafi-jihadis. In silent, discreet Eurasia integration fashion, China supports what Russia and Iran are deciding.
By now it’s much clearer who’s configuring the birth pagans of a new Middle East. It’s not Israel. It’s not the House of Saud. And it’s not exactly Trump.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.