HIDEN FACTS OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS ......

 

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Gsyz25881dlG74EsG156S4

Prince Muhammad bin Salman gave a dangerous interview to the American newspaper The Washington Post, in which he exposed the hidden and exposed the lie of what the Salafists called the Islamic awakening, and he admitted that Saudi Arabia’s spread of Wahhabism was not purely for God’s sake, but was a response to an American demand and an employment of Islam to serve American interests.

Bin Salman said that this was the result of a political deal that America concluded with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, and that the marketing of this extremist religious ideology was only to serve the battle against the Soviet Union.

This statement was a scandalous scandal, and the Washington Post commented on this scandal by saying:

“It has now been confirmed that the spread of Wahhabism was nothing but a tool of the Cold War between America and the Soviet Union, and that all these Qur’ans and those mosques, and the headscarves, the chins, and the short jilbabs. etc., all of this was in fact nothing but makeup, costumes, and accessories for the role required to be represented in the Cold War movie; And that the Islamic peoples were naive puppets in a dirty political game that has nothing to do with Islam.”

The story began on December 27, 1979, when the US National Security Council approved a plan entitled:

(Jihad in Afghanistan against atheism)
Written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor
Immediately Brzezinski began a tour of the Middle East to convince the leaders of Islamic countries of his plan.
Brzezinski began his tour with a secret visit to Cairo on January 3, 1980, where he met Anwar Sadat.
Then he met King Khaled in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on January 4.
Then he met President Zia-ul-Haq in Islamabad, Pakistan on January 5.

Muhammad Hassanein Heikal says in his book Unholy Wars, p. 31:
Brzezinski called on these countries to play a leading role in the war against the atheist Soviet Union, which invaded an Islamic country.
There are those who mobilize and train fighters, etc.
The strange thing is that the Jew Brzezinski was speaking as if he was one of the companions of the Messenger of God who were jealous of Islam, and Brzezinski succeeded in convincing the Arab leaders to agree to its legitimacy and enthusiasm for it unconditionally.

Muhammad Hassanein Heikal says:

Sadat's meeting with Brzezinski lasted 3 and a half hours, during which Brzezinski focused on that both Al-Azhar and the Muslim Brotherhood would have a major role in the war against the Soviets. They are graduates of Al-Azhar colleges and have close relations with him (for example, Burhan Al-Din Rabbani and Abd Rasoul Sayyaf).
Brzezinski added that the role of the Muslim Brotherhood may be more important than that of Al-Azhar, especially since they have branches affiliated with them in most Islamic countries, in addition to the fact that the largest leaders in Afghanistan belong to the Brotherhood (such as the famous leader Abdullah Azzam, for example).
Brzezinski stressed the need for coordination between Al-Azhar and the Brotherhood, and asked Sadat to undertake the task of uniting the joint efforts for them.

Indeed, this trinity of Sadat, Al-Azhar and the Brotherhood played the role assigned to it, exactly as Brzezinski defined it.. The implementation of the scheme began with a statement by Sadat in which he said:

“The world should not be satisfied with issuing statements of condemnation of the Soviet Union, but practical measures must be taken.”

On 12/30/1979, Al-Ahram published the fatwa of the Mufti of the Republic, Sheikh Gad Al-Haq Ali Gad Al-Haq, calling on the Muslims of the world to support the Afghan revolutionaries.
Only two years later, the President of the Republic issued a decree appointing Sheikh Jad al-Haq as Sheikh of Al-Azhar.

As for the Brotherhood, they were at Brzezinski's good faith and played a role that exceeded what was required of them!
In Egyptian universities, Brotherhood students ignited the enthusiasm of students, held conferences and seminars, and organized campaigns to collect donations of money and blood.
On the other hand, and on the authority of the group’s guide, Hamid Abu Al-Nasr, the Brotherhood’s leader, Dr. Kamal Al-Helbawi, stayed for 6 years, traveling between Afghanistan and Pakistan to follow up on the implementation of the group’s orders and instructions. In addition, the relief committee of the Egyptian Medical Syndicate led by Dr. Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh sent many doctors. to Afghanistan, and also raised huge sums to contribute to the training of fighters and to provide them with weapons, medicine and food commodities.

In the book Sleeping with the Devil for the CIA officer Robert Baer, ​​the author mentions that the Brotherhood was the largest supplier of fighters in Afghanistan, and the writer revealed in detail how America used the Muslim Brotherhood to do dirty work in many countries, especially in Afghanistan!

Muhammad Hassanein Heikal wrote in "Consultations" magazine, February 2000, that Egypt and Saudi Arabia transferred 35,000 fighters from 43 countries to Afghanistan.

In the book The Hidden Relations between America and the Arab Countries by John Robert, and the book is available on the internet and can be downloaded, the author says that more than 300 fatwas were issued in Saudi Arabia by official clerics, such as Abdul Aziz bin Baz and Muhammad bin Uthaymeen, independent sheikhs, academics, preachers and preachers, all agreed. On the premise of jihad with money and soul in Afghanistan.

In conclusion, despite all that Prince Muhammad bin Salman has revealed about the reality of Wahhabism, it is unfortunate that the manifestations of Wahhabism are still spreading like the plague in our societies, as if Islamic peoples do not learn from their experiences and that they can be bitten from the same hole a hundred times without learning.

Mahmoud Hosni Al-Radwan - Quoted from Al-Jawhar website 30/10/2022*

As always my profound many thanks to all my readers all over....

DIFFICULT SITUATIONS REQUIRING DIFFICULT DECISIONS.....

 

According to the Washington Post and the NY Times, who both reported in late Sept. that the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, offered his own version of giving the order to Russian forces that were under severe pressure from a Ukrainian attack in the southern city of Kherson not to withdraw, but maintain their ranks and positions. Putin seemed unwilling to withdraw from the entire area of western Dnieper river, however if that was the case back then, it does not appear to be the case now. 

The Russian defense minister, Sergey Shoigu, announced few days ago, that Russian forces are in fact withdrawing to the eastern side of the Dnieper. Assuming this move is not a hoax, nor a bluff to facilitate another attack and further massacres, the Russian forces in fact withdrew to the eastern banks of the river out of the city, and are leaving behind the only regional capital they captured more than 8 months ago. 

This is not something a man like Shoigu would or can do on his own, it is clear that orders came from higher authorities, the president himself in this case. From a Russian military perspective, this withdrawal makes a lot of sense, as general Sergey Surovikin, commander of the Russian forces in Ukraine said himself, in a televised interview with Shoigu, this step will save the lives of many of our military forces, and it will enhance our fighting abilities. The east banks will prove much easier for our forces to defend, as the Ukrainians will have to cross the river to continue their offensive. 

The newspaper continues " But this decision, although a military necessity, nevertheless it represent a humiliating defeat for Putin and the Russian forces". The original story goes back to World War Two, whereby during the German invasion of the Soviet Union, Hitler was famous for his refusal to give permission for his forces to withdraw, even when it was the only logical tactical military move. Even when the Red army was besieging the German Sixth army on the outskirts of Stalingrad in the late 1942. The German leader refused permission for his forces to withdraw, " I will not return from the Volga" he shouted. 

Kherson is an important port practically on the Black sea, and the capital of one of the four regions that Putin illegally annexed in Sept. Moreover, the Russians hoped to use Kherson as a base to widen their attacks and deployments. By which they could capture nearby cities like Mykolaiv and eventually Odessa. This would have allowed them to strangle Ukraine from the Black sea, which forms the main artery for their commerce and exports. 

Apart from the difficulty of retreating, and crossing rivers under fire, the Russians are losing an important defensive position west of the Dnieper, and more importantly they are losing access to the northern Crimean canal, an important source of water for the entire Crimea, this will render control of Crimea more difficult and complex. And more so, since the land bridge built by Mr. Putin to connect main land Russia with Crimea was heavily damaged. 

This new situation will only help demonstrate within Russia the real difficulties of the war and its impossibilities on the ground. It is already providing much-needed encouragement to Ukrainians, within the country and from outside, where both sides of the fight will be facing a tough time with winter. The West in general is acclimatizing itself with shortages of energy and their rising prices. 

Even the American Congress is getting more ready to approve new military packages with even more highly sophisticated armory, thus diminishing the side of Donald Trump that was pushing for less aid and giving up the Ukraine. But all of this, in my opinion, should not make us fully optimistic for a total win, nor a total defeat of the Russian invasion. 

Mr. Putin has shown, and more so lately, a fair willingness to negotiate, his approval to allow grain export from the Black sea, rolling out his nuclear threats, and his acceptance to military weaknesses leading to tactical withdrawals, all indicate that the man is not unstable nor suicidal, he's not going to start world war three. He will not for sure declare nor admit defeat, let's give the man a half honorable way out, he's already tarnished and heavily bruised, and I'm certain he could be convinced to a fair end of his miscalculated colonial invasion and destruction of Ukraine and its people. 

Let the West, led by America, seize the opportunity and push Ukraine to try and solve the conflict, in an intelligent and a more pragmatic and peaceful way. Both sides need to show some rationality, pragmatism and willingness to back down if and when it works in their favor.

 As always, my profound thanks to all, stay safe and well.                                

PRAGMATISM PAR EXCELLENCE.....

Israel Lebanon: Hezbollah's pragmatism in the maritime dossier Thursday, October 27, between Israel and Lebanon on the delimitation of their maritime border is a victory that Hezbollah fully claims. In a televised speech, the leader of the Party of God, Hassan Nasrallah, hailed "a very great victory for Lebanon: for the state, the people and the resistance". The Lebanese Shiite movement can only applaud an agreement it has called for, because of the economic benefits that Lebanon hopes for from the exploitation of gas fields in the Mediterranean. It nevertheless places him in an uncomfortable position.

Spearhead of the "axis of resistance" to the Jewish state, Hezbollah is forced to justify the signing of an agreement with the enemy against those who raise the bogeyman of normalization. It is "not an international treaty, nor a recognition of Israel", insisted Hassan Nasrallah, presenting the agreement as a simple "technical arrangement". He was responding to Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, who on Thursday welcomed a "recognition" of Israel by Lebanon, two countries technically in a state of war.

The idea is also being debated in Lebanon, agitated by detractors of the armed movement such as the leader of the Lebanese Phalanges (Kataëb, Christian party), Samy Gemayel, who estimated, in a tweet, on October 12, after the finalization of the agreement, that Hezbollah “has fully recognized Israel (…) and has moved on ideologically to another stage”. Denouncing a "deception", Hassan Nasrallah insisted on the precautions taken by the Lebanese side to avoid this pitfall. At the end of indirect negotiations carried out under the aegis of the American envoy Amos Hochstein, the Lebanese and Israeli delegations signed the agreement on Thursday, each in a room, and on two separate letters, at the headquarters of the Interim Force of United Nations in Lebanon (FINUL) in Naqoura, southern Lebanon.

"It's not normalization in the strict sense, but it's still an agreement between two warring states, which creates a precedent for negotiation," said Mohanad Hajj Ali, researcher at the Carnegie Think Tank in Beirut. It broke a taboo in Lebanon, broke the argument that if you support the resistance, you can't negotiate with the enemy. Avoiding the collapse of the country It is a paradigm shift for the Party of God, created forty years ago under the aegis of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, to lead the "resistance" to Israel, and which still refuses to disarm, on the grounds that the Jewish state has occupied the disputed area of ​​Shebaa Farms since its withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000.

On the issue of the maritime border, Hezbollah has played the card of pragmatism. Throughout the negotiations, which he followed down to the smallest detail without being a party to them, he showed support in principle for the position of the Lebanese authorities. On July 13, Hassan Nasrallah finally came out in favor of an agreement. "The extraction of oil and gas will bring billions of dollars to the Lebanese state, and it is the only way - economic and financial - to save the country", he said then. The Party of God is anxious to avoid a total collapse of Lebanon, both economic and security.

Already criticized for his involvement in Syria alongside the Assad regime, he is accused by many Lebanese of bearing responsibility for the country's financial sinking and the deadly explosion in the port of Beirut. “Hezbollah is keen to reap the benefits [of the deal], both to bolster its national legitimacy and narrative of 'resistance' – which has been fading for years – and to secure a sustainable cash flow for its operations at home and abroad,” said analyst Hanin Ghaddar in a note for the Washington Institute think tank. In party rhetoric, Hezbollah coerced Israel into concessions by using weapons of deterrence. On July 2, the Israeli army intercepted unarmed drones that the movement had launched over the Karish gas field to prevent the Jewish state from starting its exploitation.

The gesture, which caused a rise in tensions on both sides of the border, was interpreted as a tactic to relaunch negotiations then at a standstill, rather than as a real desire to rekindle a front, which had remained relatively calm since the war in 2006.

The Party of God has compromised. He gave the green light to the sharing of the Cana gas field and to the payment of compensation to Israel by the Total Energies group, which operates the field. He endorsed maintaining the status quo on the "line of buoys", which was established by Israel after its withdrawal from Lebanon as a presumed maritime border. And he implicitly recognized the mediating role of the United States. The signing of the agreement has the effect, in the short term, of avoiding a conflict.

On Thursday, Hassan Nasrallah announced the end of his party's "exceptional" mobilization against Israel. “Hezbollah can afford to pacify the Lebanese front in view of the new regional role it has assumed since 2016 as military adviser to resistance groups in Syria, Iraq and Yemen,” said Mohanad Hajj Ali. The agreement reduces the risk of escalation between the two parties, who are now interested in preserving their respective economic interests, without, however, eliminating the threat of a new conflict.

 Hélène Sallon .    This Saturday at 12:00 Négar DJAVADI Screenwriter, director and author of “Désorientale” answers questions from Dominique Laresche (TV5MONDE) and Ghazal Golshiri (Le Monde). Broadcast on TV5MONDE and on Internationales.fr Le Monde - October 29

A good article depicting some important tactical and strategic shifts in the local policies of all parties and sides surrounding the Lebanese and Israeli conflict.... As always , my usual many thanks to you all.