Al-Jazeerah History
Archives
Mission & Name
Conflict Terminology
Editorials
Gaza Holocaust
Gulf War
Isdood
Islam
News
News Photos
Opinion
Editorials
US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)
www.aljazeerah.info
|
|
Zionist Neocons Reemerge, Promoting More
Destruction of the Middle East, for Israel
By Ramzy Baroud
Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, December 24, 2015
|
|
The pro-Israel neocon map of
the Middle East, which aim at destroying the Arab states, to
enable Israel to be extended from the Nile to the Euphrates |
|
Beware ‘Sunni-Stan’: Neocons are Back and Their ‘Vision’ is
Darker than Ever
John Bolton is a
tarnished character. The once United States Ambassador to the United Nations
is now promoted as a ‘scholar’ in the
pro-Israel lobby group, the American Enterprise Institute
(AEI). Bolton is not a peacemaker, nor, in his defense, did he
ever try to appear as one. When he was appointed as the US Ambassador to the
UN by George W. Bush, his stint lasted for only one year, starting August
2005. His time in this position was marked with discord and conflict. He
stole the limelight with such statements as "The (UN) Secretariat
building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't
make a bit of difference.” When the Iraq war failed to achieve any
of its objectives, thus signaling an American retreat in the Middle East,
neo-conservative politicians like Bolton retreated to their right-wing,
neo-conservative institutions. Those who did not have one, established an
organization of their own and began issuing press releases at random,
hailing Israel at times, and chastising their President, Barack Obama, for
one thing or another. When the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ took place,
neocons, like Bolton, saw in it an opportunity, but one that was difficult
to discern. On one hand, they understood little of the mechanisms that
propelled popular actions, for they are used to operate at the highest level
of power with total disconnect from the people. On the other hand, it was
clear for them from the start that Obama was taking no chances by stepping
back into a Middle East quagmire that was originally designed by his
predecessor. Unable to affect much change in the region, as they
once envisioned under the leadership of the likes of
Richard Perle and his Project
for the New American Century (PNAC), the neocons mounted a strategy
predicated mostly on discrediting their administration’s lack of strategy.
In a sense the ‘Arab Spring’ invigorated the neocons, but also reminded
them of their political impotence. Gone were the days of concocting foreign
policies from neo-conservative think tanks such as the Washington Institute
for Near East Policy (WINEP), the Center for Security Policy (CSP) and the
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), of which, among
others, Perle is an active member. In fact, Perle is quite a
cherished member of the American Enterprise Institute, where Bolton often
mounts his occasional articles in mainstream US media, offering a ‘vision’
regarding how
to take on Iran, how to reform Arab states and how to redraw the map of
the Middle East in ways that are conducive to US foreign policy interests.
The latest of such intellectual charges by Bolton was published in
the New York Times on November 24. Under the title, “To
Defeat ISIS, Create a Sunni State,” he theorized once more, raging
against "Obama's ineffective efforts" to destroy ISIS and demanding,
instead, a “clear view shared by NATO allies." The main drive behind his
logic is that once ISIS is destroyed, the region that the militant group
designated as a 'state' should be turned into a Sunni state, which, as a
working title he called "Sunni-Stan." Bolton’s reasoning is as
predictable as it is arrogant. It is predictable in the sense that, like
other neocon initiatives in the past, it has no respect for the wishes of
the people of the Middle East. His arguments are constructed upon the same
world view that sees conflict as an opportunity, and warring nations as
pawns in a larger game, aimed at subduing people to achieve ‘security’ and
‘stability’ for the US and its supposed allies. It is also
arrogant for the obvious reason that he believes the world should be
designed to fit the narrow, self-serving and often violent visions of failed
politicians like himself, who, alas, has access to the US’s most respected
newspapers. Bolton’s conceit has completely blinded him to the
failures of the Bush administration and the entire collapse of the
neo-conservative’s intellectual discourse during, and following the Iraq
war. On the contrary, he is asking to repeat exactly what went wrong in
Iraq. “As we did in Iraq with the 2006 ‘Anbar Awakening,’ the
counter-insurgency operation that dislodged Al Qaeda from its stronghold in
that Iraqi province, we and our allies must empower viable Sunni leaders,
including tribal authorities, who prize their existing social structure,” he
wrote. Only an unreasonable person cannot appreciate how
the sectarian seed that the US has sowed in Iraq, based on the
recommendations of the likes of Bolton, has resulted in the disfiguring of
the Iraqi nation. This massive tampering with the social, cultural,
religious and political fabric of society – by first empowering the Shia,
oppressing the Sunni, then turning the Sunnis against one another, and so
forth – has paved the way for unity among various Sunni groups, which
ultimately formed ISIS. It is the grand experimentations of Bolton
and his peers that made ISIS the ‘state’ that it is today, which he is
proposing to replace with yet another sectarian state, thus slicing up two
Arab countries that were once the seats of the two most prominent Caliphate
civilizations in history, the Abbasid and the Umayyad. But for
what purpose and at what price? If meddling at a relatively small scale has
turned the Middle East into a perpetual inferno, and roped in regional and
international rivals into a war that seems to be in constant expansion, one
can only imagine what such a large scale reconfiguration of the region could
lead to; and for what? So that Bolton can
ensure the complete dismantling of the region in favor of Israel
and that a buffer state can be established to block the Iranian
influence in Syria and Lebanon? So that his country could gain access to
more oil supplies? So that Russia’s attempt at having a stake in the future
Middle East would be thwarted? Whatever it is, the
neo-conservatives should never be allowed access to the Middle East
discourse, and their visions, those of doom and destruction, should remain
confined to their ever mushrooming think tanks. True, it is the
perpetual war and horrific rivalries in the Middle East that have finally
empowered the neocons to stage a comeback; but considering the damage that
these groups have already done, one is certain that no good can possibly
come from Bolton and his clique. – Dr. Ramzy Baroud has been
writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an
internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of
several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His books include
‘Searching Jenin’, ‘The Second Palestinian Intifada’ and his latest ‘My
Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story’. His website is: www.ramzybaroud.net.
***
Share this article with your facebook friends
|
|
|