The Kurds of Bashur were disappointed, the U.S. did not back the Referendum of Kurdistan and does not support an independent Kurdish nation. At the same time, the axis of evil Hezbollah-Iran-Assad keeps lying to the world that the U.S. wants to partition the Middle East. They call it the Zionist plan, the Yinon plan, the Condoleezza Rice “New Middle East”, while in reality Condoleeza Rice saved Hezbollah’s embarrassing defeat in 2006 during the 34 days war between Hezbollah and Israel.
Back then Hezbollah declared war against Israel and kidnapped two of its soldiers – as usual without asking the Lebanese whether they want to go to war or not. Then Hezbollah began begging around to stop the war. All Lebanese politicians then begged the U.S. to pressure on Israel to stop the war. The result was the UN resolution 1701, which Israel, Hezbollah and the Lebanese government keep violating.
Condoleezza Rice’s “New Middle East” plan was the export of democracy to the barbarians of the Middle East. Exporting civilized behavior and progress to the savages who, in 2017, still live in 5000 B.C. Some U.S. citizens call it the Neocons plan, and it is hard for me as Middle Eastern to understand why it is an insult to export civilized behavior to barbarians. Is the U.S. supposed to export more cannibalism to the cannibals, who sacrifice their very own flesh and blood, their own children?
Rice saved Hezbollah, after all the begging. I sat in my office in Beirut, I was head of the Mass Media at DTMC back then. I had watched and heard the begging and beggars LIVE, then suddenly out of nothing, Nasrallah came out and declared a “Divine Victory”!
Nasrallah even claimed that the “divine victory” of HIS war against Israel in 2006, which HE waged without asking the Lebanese, just like HE did in Syria, was a war against the “resistance” (Islamic Resistance) and to topple the Syrian regime.
Incredible, but true. Back then, my jaw fell. Hassan Nasrallah really declared that he won against Israel, and the worse part is that Israel confirmed his statement and declared it was defeated. That I witnessed the begging to stop the war with my bare eyes, heard it with my ears, and lived the U.S intervention in favor of Hezbollah, which stopped the war, did not count.
The Zionists were defeated and the plan of Rice was defeated too. This plan which saved Hezbollah and has nothing to do with partitioning the Middle East, saved Nasrallah, who declared that now Rice’ plan was thwarted. I don’t know if you are understanding what I am saying, I reiterate that Rice saved Hezbollah, but Nasrallah keeps coming out and accusing the U.S. and Rice of having a plan. A huge Zionist plan, to partition the region.
And if you think that only Hezbollah claims the partitioning plan, then you never heard Assad, Jumblatt, Wahhab and so many other “geniuses” brainwashing people in the Middle East about the alleged plan, as if Hezbollah and Assad have no evil plan, which is worse than partitioning nations and which contrary to the U.S. they fulfilled and is not some theory. And as if these nations and sects and ethnicities love each other – and a WORLD PLOT needs to separate them.
This picture will be the content of my next article – Role of Hezbollah and Amal in the Shiite expansionism.
So far, the U.S. proved that it has no partitioning plan and despite this fact, the axis of evil, which yearns for bloodshed and wars “fida al-sayed” falsely claims otherwise. I personally hope their countries are fractured into tiny pieces, they are tribes living in the ice-age and as such they will remain, they deserve no nation, they deserve no country, which they call home, sweet home. But the U.S. has a different opinion.
A U.S. Strategy? The Lebanese Model?
The Lebanese government cannot function if Sunni alone take a decision, nor can it function if Christians or Druze or Shiite have a specific policy. Lebanon is based on a consensus between those four elements or at least between the majority of the votes of these four fractions: Christians, Druze, Sunni and Shiite. To make it clearer, let us assume Sunni have a pro-Russia policy, while Shiite a pro-U.S. (Allah forbid) policy, nothing can occur, but the decision of Christians and Druze will make the difference.
In Syria, pre-2011, only dictator Assad had all powers. And Assad has been and is on Russia’s political and economic axis despite his deals with the U.S. and European countries. In Iraq, a dictator ruled, Saddam was backed by the U.S. during the Iraq-Iran war, till he assaulted Kuwait and then 9/11 occurred. With the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, a catalyst was formed, which should have been in the favor of the U.S. if Iran (which is a Russian proxy) would have not intervened, and later Obama would have not made concessions in favor of a Nuclear Deal, which was supposed to open new markets for the U.S. but Iran and Russia tricked Obama and the EU.
At the same time, U.S. established an autonomous Bashur in North Iraq, a dream for Kurds came true. And since 2015 till now, a canton was created in North Syria, Kurds call it Rojava, Sunni call it Jazeera and Syriac Christians call it Beit Nahrayn. The U.S. led the SDF – Syrian Democratic Forces. which are basically formed by Kurds (main and leading element), Christians (Syriac MFS the second major element), Sunni (the religious majority of SDF) and few Turkmen.
I cannot guess whether it is a U.S. Strategy to decline the establishment of a state called Kurdistan in North Iraq and North Syria, I do not sit in the U.S. Ops rooms, but I keep reading, that the U.S. does not have a strategy for Syria although Mattis confirmed lately that the U.S. will stay in Syria to avoid an ISIS 2.0 and to ensure that the Geneva talks resolve Syria’s future. However, maybe the U.S. has an undeclared strategy for the next decades? Maybe it rejected a Kurdistan in favor of an Iraqi government which looks like the Lebanese model? Maybe the same is intended for Syria?
So how will the Lebanese model look like if applied in Syria and Iraq?
So far, Assad chose his Sunni and Christian l”oyals” in the government. A political opposition never existed in Syria, and actually there is only one licensed political party: The Baath. Other political parties exist only by name but do not have a legal status. And the Sunni, Christian and Druze figures chosen by Assad do not have the possibility for an independent policy. Hence, if Syria’s new government would be formed from the five or more elements: Sunni, Alawite, Christians, Druze and Kurds – and eventually the Turkmen to satisfy the Turks – however, Assad should not be able to pick the representatives this time – the fractions would be from the pro-Assad as well as anti-Assad camp including SDF and FSA, then the new government cannot be hijacked by Russia – nor by U.S. However, this would be a victory for the U.S., which had been ousted since more than 40 years from Syria, while Russia ruled it through its proxy: Assad. In Iraq, the same procedure would be applied with these components: Shiite, Sunni, Kurds, Christians, Druze – and Turkmen. These sectarian factions would also create a regionally balanced state regarding the Saudi-Iran rivalry.
Is this an ideal solution?
The other solutions include:
- Partitioning these states between Sunni and Shiite, which means the Christians who are regionally dispersed, will leave the country in their majority. The Druze an Turkmen will survive in a small enclave, along Turkey’s (Turkmen) and Israel (Druze of Syria). A map similar to what the sociologist and political scientist Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama foresaw – a map falsely attributed to the U.S. and to Bernard lewis, as a diabolic partitioning and “New Middle East” plan. In reality, no one needs to be a genius or a prophet or even a “planner” to predict the occurrence of such a map if he studied the Middle East accurately. Huntington did not have a Zionist plan either when he wrote “Clash of the Civilizations”:
— Joumana Gebara (@JoumanaGebara) July 17, 2016
— Joumana Gebara (@JoumanaGebara) July 17, 2016
— Joumana Gebara (@JoumanaGebara) July 17, 2016
This option would create a sectarian religious identity, instead of a national identity. Like all options, it has its advantages and disadvantages. The Christians will immigrate, the Kurds will have a state in permanent war with its neighbors despite international peacekeepers, evolution will regress to a more cannibal and barbarian status. But to be clear, this partitioning occurred unofficially, as the demographic changes prove, the Western coast is Alawite/Shiite in Syria, the Eastern part is Sunni, the North of Syria is mainly Kurdish, while Christians are dispersed, the Druze at Israel’s borders and Turkmen at Turkey’s borders. In Iraq, the Shiite Crescent extended from Iran through Iraq to Syria and Lebanon while Kurds are located in the North, Sunni mainly in Anbar in West Iraq bordering to the Eastern Sunni part of Syria.
2. The second option would be a deal between Russia and the U.S.: Syria goes to Russia, Iraq to the U.S. which would mean that the U.S. will be sandwiched between Iran and Syria, permanent wars would occur inducing huge losses for the U.S.
3. The third option would be as elaborated at the beginning of this article: Create a government including factions which are pro-U.S./Saudi and pro-Russia/Iran which would be the best option to keep the balance in the region.
Whether the U.S. had this strategy on its mind is till now unclear, but as a Lebanese I knew since 2011 that the Syrian war will end, despite demographic changes, in a Taef-like agreement: The Lebanese Model. Can the Kurds live with it? The Kurds will always have kind of a semi-autonomy, who knows what can occur in the future.
Joumana Gebara ~ Senior Middle East Analyst.