Os argumentos de 6 países árabes para romper com o Catar, acusado de apoiar extremistas


Fonte da imagem: Sputnik


Seis países árabes, incluindo a Arábia Saudita e o Egito, cortaram relações diplomáticas com o Catar nesta segunda-feira, acusado de desestabilizar a região.

Eles dizem que o Catar tem apoiado grupos extremistas como Estado Islâmico (EI) e Al-Qaeda.

Com isso, as fronteiras da Arábia Saudita com a pequena península do Catar, rica em petróleo, foram totalmente fechadas, segundo a agência estatal saudita de notícias SPA. O governo do Catar respondeu que a medida é “injustificada” e “sem base em fatos”.

A iniciativa sem precedentes mostra uma profunda divisão entre países poderosos do Golfo Pérsico, que também são aliados dos EUA, e vem num momento de aumento de tensões entre os países do Golfo e o vizinho Irã.

O governo saudita acusa Catar de colaborar com “grupos terroristas apoiados pelo Irã” na sua turbulenta região de Qatif e no Bahrein.

Continuar lendo


Bin Laden’s True Legacy


Published on May 5, 2016

May 2 marked the five-year anniversary of the U.S. raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. In the wake of that operation, we noted that while bin Laden’s death fulfilled a sense of vengeance and closure for the 9/11 attacks, in the big picture, it was going to have little effect on the trajectory of the wider jihadist movement. A man was dead, but the ideology of jihadism was going to continue to pose a threat.

The jihadist movement has progressed closer to bin Laden’s vision for the world in the past five years than it had in the almost 10 years between 9/11 and his death. An arc of jihad now spreads from West Africa through the Middle East and into Southeast Asia. Reflecting on bin Laden’s demise provides a reminder not to lose sight of the forest — the wider jihadist movement — by focusing on the trees — individuals and groups.

The Vision

Bin Laden aspired to a world ruled by a Muslim caliph who would be guided by the principles of Sharia. To get there, he envisioned the establishment of a series of Islamic emirates practicing “true Islam” that eventually would expand into a global caliphate. Until his death, bin Laden maintained that jihadists should focus primarily on attacking what he termed the far enemies — the United States and its “European crusader allies.” He believed that until they were driven out of the Muslim world, it would be impossible to establish such emirates because the United States and its allies would overthrow “true Muslim” leaders as they did Mullah Mohammad Omar and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Furthermore, unless the far enemies were stopped, they would continue to support the “apostate” governments, such as those in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, that did not share bin Laden’s interpretation of Islam.

Bin Laden’s strategy centered on use of spectacular terrorist attacks to draw the United States into invading the Muslim world. He believed that once the United States invaded, Muslims would be compelled to join a defensive jihad to fight the “crusader armies” in a long war of attrition. Bin Laden believed that this action would lead to the collapse of the U.S. economy and government in much the same way he believed the jihad in Afghanistan had precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union. In his plan, once the United States and its allies were defeated, local uprisings would be able to overthrow the corrupt governments in the Muslim world, clearing the way for the global caliphate to rise.

Realizing the Vision

Bin Laden and al Qaeda’s early attacks against the United States such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings and the failed Millennium bombing plot did not provoke the desired U.S. response. But the spectacular 9/11 attacks certainly struck the proper chord, prompting the United States to invade Afghanistan in 2001 and topple the Taliban government. The reaction was fierce and fast, and a large number of al Qaeda and other foreign jihadists fled Afghanistan. Many settled in the friendlier confines of Pakistan’s wild Pashtun areas, while some fled to other havens in the region. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his followers relocated to northern Iraq, a lawless region that had thrown off the yoke of Saddam Hussein’s rule.

But the stricken American behemoth was not finished. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam, who had absolutely no connection to the 9/11 attacks. This proved a boon to the jihadist cause. While Afghanistan was a relative backwater, Iraq was seen as the heart of the historical Muslim world, and therefore alluring to those wanting to fight a defensive jihad. It also helped that Iraq was wedged between Iran and Syria, two countries hostile to the United States that would aid jihadists in their efforts to bleed the United States and drive its troops out of the region.

Iraq quickly became a jihadist magnet, and as money poured in, the number of foreign fighters traveling there rapidly surpassed the number that were in Afghanistan. This infusion of men and cash (Iraq was already awash with weapons) helped dramatically increase al-Zarqawi’s profile. He merged his Jamaat al-Tawhid and Jihad group into al Qaeda, but as we have noted since 2005, the marriage was precarious from the beginning.

Other jihadist groups adopted the al Qaeda ideology and even its brand name, and soon there were franchises in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Algeria and sympathetic or aligned groups in the Philippines, Indonesia, Somalia and Nigeria. Grassroots cells and lone attackers sprung up across the globe. Some groups conducted noteworthy attacks in places such as Bali, Madrid and London. But mostly, jihadists did not make any appreciable headway and struggled merely to survive. The places where jihadists were able to thrive were mostly wild or ungoverned, such as along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and in Somalia, the deserts of the Sahel and Yemen, and the Indonesian/Philippine archipelago.


Even though al-Zarqawi’s group had proclaimed an “Islamic State in Iraq” a few months after his death in 2006, by 2010 the group had been severely damaged and was in danger of annihilation. But 2011 was about to bring dramatic change. First, the United States was in the middle of a drawdown that would remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by December 2011. Second, events in Tunisia in December 2010 sparked a regional uprising, later called the Arab Spring. The wave of protests that broke across the region would not only result in the overthrows of rulers such as Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh and Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, but also led to civil wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen and Mali. Even in countries such as Tunisia and Egypt where the existing order was not overthrown, the uprisings would provide room for jihadist groups to gain a foothold and grow.

But in most places, the Arab Spring itself did not inspire the growing acceptance of jihadist ideology as much as the failure of democratic reform efforts and the government counteractions that threw many into the arms of the jihadists. When nonviolent protests are met with violence, it is hard to keep protesters from responding in kind, and that is what happened in Syria, Libya, Yemen and even Iraq, where Shiite authority violently put down Sunni protests. This spiral of violence provided a recruiting bonanza for jihadist groups.

This created a no-win situation for the United States and its allies. They intervened on the side of the crowds in Libya and helped smash Libya’s army, plunging the country into anarchy as fighting erupted along regional, tribal, religious and ethnic lines. In Syria, the United States and its allies helped equip and train anti-government forces but did not directly intervene as in Libya. Nevertheless, Syria still fell into the same sort of chaos, and jihadists have benefitted greatly from the resulting civil war. Syria became such a large jihadist prize that a nasty fight erupted over who would control the jihadist movement there, leading the Islamic State to break from al Qaeda and engage it in open combat.

The division would eventually spread globally, with the Islamic State and al Qaeda each competing for primacy — and ideological control of the jihadist movement. In Libya, Somalia and Afghanistan, this struggle has shifted from ideological battles to armed conflict. In many ways this struggle mirrors those waged between Marxist and Maoist ideologues for the leadership of the communist world. It is hard to see an end to the Islamic State-al Qaeda conflict, and we are skeptical of claims that al Qaeda and the Islamic State could eventually patch up their differences and reunite.

The Future

People and governments alike tend to focus on personalities such as bin Laden and self-declared caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and groups such as the core of the al Qaeda and the Islamic State organizations. In fact, governments struggle greatly in combatting more amorphous targets, such as movements and ideologies. But there is a danger that by focusing on the trees, one can miss the forest.

Certainly, governments must continue to apply all the tools of counterinsurgency and counterterrorism against these jihadist groups and their leadership, but it is also crucial to recognize that the world simply cannot kill or arrest its way out of this problem. The broader jihadist movement, whether inside the arc of jihad or in other parts of the globe, will continue to pose a threat until the ideology of jihadism is defeated as Marxism and Maoism largely were. The struggle is going to require strong U.S. leadership and cooperation from an array of regional allies and alliances.

Despite the internal al Qaeda/Islamic State conflict, overall the jihadist movement is larger and casts a wider shadow now than it ever has. The number of foreign fighters who have flocked to Syria, Libya and elsewhere in recent years has far surpassed the number of fighters who made similar jihad pilgrimages in past decades.

The realization of bin Laden’s dreams is nowhere close, but the jihadists’ utopian vision of a just and secure society ruled under Sharia remains especially appealing to Muslims who are living under a dictatorship, kleptocracy, or anarchy in the case of Afghanistan after the fall of the Mohammed Najibullah administration. However, this utopianism quickly fades once it meets reality. People who have lived under jihadist rule in Afghanistan, Yemen, Mali, Libya, Somalia and Syria have learned that oppression and corruption do not disappear in a jihadist society — they merely take on a new form. Jihadist polities have consequently proved to be unpopular and short-lived, and the jihadist dream of creating lasting emirates is clearly more delusional than practical.

The modern form of jihadism that bin Laden helped nurture and propagate will eventually be relegated to history’s rubbish bin of failed ideologies where it will languish next to Marxism and Maoism. But until that happens, jihadists will continue to kill and destroy, much like the communists who went before them. The death and destruction that jihadists will leave in their wake as the ideology withers will be his true legacy.



The Middle East Big Geopolitical Game: South Front’s Forecast of the Syrian conflict

How the Policies of U.S. Ally Egyptian Dictator, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Have Led to a Surge in ISIS Recruitment

Michael Krieger | Posted Friday Aug 7, 2015 at 2:01 pm

Screen Shot 2015-08-07 at 1.48.40 PM

Oh ISIS. The latest existential enemy that we are supposed to relinquish all of our civil liberties in order to battle. The terror group that has everyone so afraid, yet no one asks where they came from, and why their ranks continue to grow.

Here at Liberty Blitzkrieg, we have asked those questions, and the clear answer is that ISIS arose out of the chaotic power vacuum created by the U.S. government’s unprovoked war in Iraq. But it’s worse than that. Far worse. Some of the biggest funders of ISIS from the very beginning, were represented by America’s Middle East “allies.” This is something I highlighted last year in the post: America’s Disastrous Foreign Policy – My Thoughts on Iraq. Here’s an excerpt:

But in the years they were getting started, a key component of ISIS’s support came from wealthy individuals in the Arab Gulf States of Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Sometimes the support came with the tacit nod of approval from those regimes; often, it took advantage of poor money laundering protections in those states, according to officials, experts, and leaders of the Syrian opposition, which is fighting ISIS as well as the regime.

“Everybody knows the money is going through Kuwait and that it’s coming from the Arab Gulf,” said Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies. “Kuwait’s banking system and its money changers have long been a huge problem because they are a major conduit for money to extremist groups in Syria and now Iraq.”

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been publicly accusing Saudi Arabia and Qatar of funding ISIS for months. Several reports have detailed how private Gulf funding to various Syrian rebel groups has splintered the Syrian opposition and paved the way for the rise of groups like ISIS and others.

Today, I bring you the latest example of America’s dangerously inept and inhumane foreign policy. In this case, I want to highlight the excellent article in Foreign Affairs, titled: Sisi’s Regime Is a Gift to the Islamic State. Of course, Sisi is Egypt’s latest brutal dictator who came to power during a coup in 2013. Naturally, he is a close ally of the U.S. government.

Here are some excepts from the article, outlining how his repressive policies have led to a surge in ISIS recruitment:

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi came to power on a classic strongman platform. He was no liberal or democrat — and didn’t claim to be — but promised stability and security at a time when most Egyptians had grown exhausted from the uncertainties of the Arab Spring.

Sisi’s raison d’être of security and stability, however, has been undermined with each passing month. By any measurable standard, Egypt is more vulnerable to violence and insurgency today than it had been before. On July 1, as many as 64 soldiers were killed in coordinated attacks by Egypt’s Islamic State affiliate, which calls itself the Province of Sinai. It was the worst death toll in decades, and came just days after the country’s chief prosecutor, Hisham Barakat, was assassinated.

If this is what a “stability-first” approach looks like, Egypt’s future is dark indeed. Of course, it shouldn’t be surprising that the country is growing less secure: Since the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi on July 3, 2013, Egypt has seen shocking levels of repression. On Aug. 14, 2013, it witnessed the worst mass killing in its modern history, with at least 800 killed in mere hours when security forces violently dispersed two pro-Morsi sit-ins in Cairo. WikiThawra, a project of the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights, estimates that nearly 36,500 people were arrested or detained from the day of the coup through May 15, 2014 — one can only imagine how high that figure has grown a year later.

Naturally, this hasn’t stopped the U.S. government from sending Sisi a battalion of weapons and then bragging about it on Twitter. See: U.S. Government Enthusiastically Tweets About Arm Sales to the Brutal and Autocratic Egyptian Regime.

Since April 2015, meanwhile, at least 163 Egyptians have “disappeared.” As one prisoner recalled of his time at Azouli, a military jail which can’t be seen by civilians: “There is no documentation that says you are there. If you die at Azouli, no one would know.”

Yet, the repression has merely resulted in a massive surge in terrorist attacks….

There’s no denying that violence surged following the coup. According to the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, the month of the coup, July 2013, saw a massive uptick in violence, from 13 attacks the month before to 95 attacks. The number of attacks dipped in subsequent months — to 69 in August and 56 in September — but remained significantly higher than before the coup. The pre- and post-coup discrepancy becomes even more obvious when we zoom out further:From July 2013 to May 2015, there were a total of 1,223 attacks over 23 months, an average of 53.2 attacks per month. In the 23 months prior to June 2013, there were a mere 78 attacks, an average of 3.4 attacks per month.

That leaves us with the coup and what it wrought — namely the Sisi regime’s increasingly repressive measures — as the key event that helped spark the wave of violence. How many people, who otherwise wouldn’t have taken up arms, took up arms because of the coup and the subsequent crackdown? Obviously, there is no way to know for sure. The strength of Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, the group that eventually pledged allegiance to the Islamic State and renamed itself Province of Sinai, is estimated to be in the thousands, so even a tiny increase of, say, 500 militants — representing 0.00055 percent of Egypt’s overall population — would have an outsized effect. Recruitment, however, takes time, so it is unlikely this would have mattered in the days immediately after the coup.

This is not to say that the creation of a buffer zone transformed people into ideological hard-liners in a matter of weeks, but, rather, that groups like the Islamic State seek to exploit local grievances and depend on local sympathy to stage successful attacks. Zack Gold, a researcher who specializes on the Sinai, wrote that due to the army’s scorched-earth tactics, “whole swaths of North Sinai civilization no longer exist.” One resident of the border town of Rafah, after learning his home would be destroyed, said: “I won’t lie. I’m more afraid of the army than the jihadis. When you’re oppressed, anyone who fights your oppression gets your sympathy.” Another Sinai resident, according to journalist Mohannad Sabry, said that after 90 percent of his village was destroyed in a security campaign, around 40 people took up arms, where through 2013, he knew of only five Ansar Beit al-Maqdis members in the village.

It might be hard to imagine why the Egyptian army would appear so intent on alienating the very citizens whose help it needs to defeat the insurgency. Yet, this appears to be Sisi’s approach to conflict resolution across the country — more state power, more control, and more repression. As the saying goes, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Because authoritarian regimes are forged and sustained by force, they are perhaps the worst candidates to develop a nuanced, holistic counterinsurgency strategy.

Then again, Egypt starts from a different set of assumptions than the United States does. At the most basic level, the Egyptian government fails the first test of counterterrorism, which requires correctly identifying who the actual terrorists are. It continues to act as if the Islamic State and the Muslim Brotherhood are interchangeable — something that no Western intelligence agency takes seriously. As a result, Egypt has made itself a burden. The Egyptian regime is not — and, more importantly, cannot be — a reliable counterterrorism partner. This is no accident of circumstance. Hoping and claiming to fight terrorism, Egypt, however unwittingly, is fueling an insurgency.

U.S. government officials couldn’t be more inept if they tried.

Fonte: Liberty Blitzkrieg

2013: o que mudou de fato no mundo?

O mais importante foi a mudança de clima no cenário mundial. Desde o triunfo na guerra fria, os EUA militarizavam os conflitos. Não foi assim com Síria e Irã.

Por Emir Sader

Como sempre, se acumulam uma quantidade de fatos – entre mortes, eleições, sublevações, etc. – que se destacam jornalisticamente no mundo, mas dificultam a compreensão das alterações nas relações de poder, as que efetivamente contam na evolução da situação internacional.

No emaranhado de acontecimentos, o mais importante foi a mudança de clima no cenário internacional. Desde que triunfou na guerra fria, os EUA tem tido como postura diante dos conflitos internacionais, sua militarização. Transferir para o campo em que sua superioridade é manifesta, tem sido a característica principal da ação imperial dos EUA. Foi assim no Afeganistão, no Iraque, por forças intermedias na Líbia. E se encaminhava para ser assim nos casos da Síria e do Irã.

De repente, pegando ao Secretario de Estado norteamericano, John Kerry, pela palavra, o governo russo propôs ao da Síria um acordo, que desconcertou o governo norteamericano, até que não pôde deixar de aceitar. Isto foi possível porque Obama não conseguiu criar as condições políticas para mais uma ofensiva militar dos EUA. Primeiro o Parlamento britânico negou o apoio a Washington.
Depois, foi ficando claro que nem a opinião publica, nem o Congresso norteamericano, nem os militares dos EUA, estavam a favor da ofensiva anunciada ou do tipo de ofensiva proposta.

O certo é que os EUA foram levados a aceitar a proposta russa, o que abriu as portas para outros desdobramentos, entre eles, combinado com as eleições no Irã, para a abertura de negociações políticas também com esse país por parte dos EUA. No seu conjunto, se desativava o foco mais perigoso de novos conflitos armados.

Como consequência, Israel, a Arábia Saudita, o Kuwait, ficaram isolados nas suas posições favoráveis a ações militares contra a Síria e até contra o Irã. Foi se instalando um clima de negociações, convocando-se de novo uma Conferência na segunda quinzena de janeiro, em Genebra, para discutir um acordo de paz. Uma conferência que não coloca como condição a questão da saída do governo de Assad, como se fazia anteriormente.

A oposição teve que aceitar participar, mesmo nessas condições. E ainda teve a surpresa que os EUA e a Grã Bretanha suspenderam o fornecimento de apoio militar aos setores opositores considerados moderados, que foram totalmente superados pelos fundamentalistas, apoiados pela Arabia Saudita e pelo Kuwait.

Como dois pontos determinam um plano, as negociações sobre a Síria abriram campo para as negociações dos EUA com o Irã, aproveitando-se da eleição do novo presidente iraniano. Desenhou-se, em poucas semanas, um quadro totalmente diverso daquele que tinha imperado ao longo de quase todo o ano. Os EUA passaram da ofensiva à defensiva, a Rússia, de ator marginal, a agente central nas negociações de paz, a ponto que a Forbes, pela primeira vez, elegeu Vladimir Puttin como o homem mais forte do mundo, na frente de Obama. Isso se deve não ao poderio militar ou econômico da Russia, mas ao poder de iniciativa política e de negociação que o país passou a ter.

Fonte: CartaMaior

A primavera árabe foi uma ilusão?

Não sou daqueles que, preconceituosamente, supõem haver uma incompatibilidade entre democracia e mundo árabe. Mas, há tensões históricas que hoje comprovam o fracasso da tese, romantizada pela mídia, de “primavera árabe”.

Vejamos. Depois do colapso do Império Otomano e do fim dos protetorados europeus no pós-Segunda Guerra, surgiu no Egito o modelo autoritário de modernização (Gamal Abdel Nasser, com a queda do rei Faruk), que procurou silenciar a hierarquia muçulmana e se fundamentar nas Forças Armadas essencialmente laicas, a exemplo do que havia ocorrido com a Turquia, nos anos 1920, com Kemal Ataturk.

O modelo nasserista se espalhou rapidamente pela região, com o pan-arabismo frustrado da RAU (República Árabe Unida), entre 1958 e 1961, e a ascensão do partido Ba´ath no Iraque e na Síria.

Negociação de soluções intermediárias entre grupos antagônicos não está ocorrendo, e é pressuposto para democracia

Esse modelo se enfraqueceu diante das derrotas militares para Israel e, um pouco mais tarde, com a Guerra Civil na Argélia (1991-2002), quando grupos islâmicos desafiaram a hegemonia discricionária da Frente de Libertação Nacional, vitoriosa na guerra de independência contra os franceses.

Eis que, na década de 1980, surge a “guerra santa”, no distante Afeganistão, auxiliada pelos Estados Unidos para a expulsão dos invasores soviéticos. Foi um sinal poderoso que, bem mais tarde, no momento oportuno, foi interpretado corretamente pelos grupos e partidos muçulmanos moderados, da Tunísia ou do Egito, e não tão moderados assim, na Síria e na Líbia.

A simples citação desses países já nos fornece o mapa do malogro da chamada “primavera árabe”. É saudável a articulação para derrubar ditaduras pós-nasseristas. O problema é o que criar no lugar delas.

A democracia supõe a capacidade de negociar soluções intermediárias entre grupos antagônicos. É justamente o que não está ocorrendo. Na Líbia e na Tunísia, sem um Exército nacional verdadeiramente forte, o poder de pressão se pulverizou entre milícias, grupos religiosos e entidades da sociedade civil. No Egito, com Forças Armadas bem ou mal arraigadas na sociedade, as tentativas de islamização das instituições resultaram na deposição do presidente Mohammed Mursi e no banho de sangue estancado pela volta dos militares ao poder. E na Síria, apoiada pelo Irã e ao mesmo tempo hostilizada pela Turquia e pela Arábia Saudita, a Guerra Civil deixou de ser um problema interno para ganhar contornos regionais.

Vejam que esse quadro não espelha o simplismo confessional que procura interpretar o quebra-cabeça segundo a lógica de autodefesa e expansão dos interesses xiitas (associados aos alaouitas) ou sunitas. Estamos diante de um quadro generalizado de desorganização institucional. Depois da etapa do grito, chegou a etapa das armas, prevalecendo o poder dos mais fortes. O que viabiliza e de certo modo legitima a tutela sob a qual os militares conseguiram novamente submeter o Egito, país que hoje é o “mais comportadinho” da região.

Isso é primavera? Com certeza, não. É o prosseguimento, com novas formas de dogmatismo, do longo inverno que dissocia a democracia dessa região do mundo.

 (*) João Batista Natali é jornalista, colaborador da Folha de S. Paulo, onde foi repórter por 38 anos. É professor de Ética na Faculdade Cásper Líbero e comentarista da TV Gazeta. Formado em jornalismo e filosofia, é mestre e doutor em semiologia.

Fonte: OperaMundi

Robert Fisk: O verdadeiro alvo do Ocidente é o Irã, e não a Síria

O Irã está profundamente envolvido na proteção ao governo sírio. Além disso, uma vitória de Bashar representa uma vitória do Irã. E vitórias do Irã não podem ser toleradas pelo Ocidente. 

Antes que comece a guerra ocidental mais idiota na história do mundo moderno – eu me refiro, é claro, ao ataque à Síria que todos nós vamos ter que engolir – podemos dizer que os mísseis que esperamos ver cruzando os céus de uma das cidades mais antigas das humanidade não têm nada a ver com a Síria.

Eles têm como objetivo atacar o Irã. Eles pretendem atacar a república islâmica agora que ela tem um presidente novo e vibrante – diferente do bizarro Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – e bem quando ele pode estar um pouco mais estável.

O Irã é inimigo de Israel. Então o Irã é, naturalmente, inimigo dos EUA. Então dispare os mísseis no único aliado árabe do Irã.

Não há nada de agradável no regime de Damasco. Nem esses comentários livram a cara do regime quando se trata de uso de armas químicas em massa. Mas eu tenho idade suficiente para me lembrar de que quando o Iraque – então aliado dos EUA – usou armas químicas contra os curdos em Hallabjah em 1988, nós não invadimos Bagdá. De fato, esse ataque esperou até 2003, quando Saddam não tinha mais armas químicas ou qualquer outra arma com as quais tínhamos pesadelos.

E eu também me lembro de que, em 1988, a CIA disse que o Irã foi o responsável pelo uso de armas químicas em Hallabjah, uma mentira deslavada, que mirava no nosso inimigo, contra quem Saddam estava lutando em nosso nome. E milhares – não centenas – morreram em Hallabjah. Mas aí está. Jeitos diferentes, padrões diferentes.

E eu acho que vale a pena notar que quando Israel matou 17 mil homens, mulheres e crianças no Líbano em 1982, numa invasão supostamente provocada pela tentativa de homicídio pela OLP do embaixador israelense em Londres – foi o amigo de Saddam, Abu Nidal, quem organizou o atentado, não a OLP, mas isso não importa agora – os EUA pediram aos dois lados que tentassem “se conter”. E quando, poucos meses antes dessa invasão, Hafez Al-Assad – pai de Bashar – mandou seu irmão para Hama para exterminar milhares de rebeldes da Irmandade Muçulmana, ninguém soltou um murmúrio que fosse condenatório. “Regras de Hama” foi como meu velho amigo Tom Friedman cinicamente classificou esse banho de sangue.

De qualquer forma, há uma Irmandade diferente por aí esses dias – e Obama nem se dignou a dar uma vaiadinha quando seu presidente eleito foi deposto.

Mas espere um pouco. O Iraque – quando era aliado “nosso” contra o Irã – também usou armas químicas contra o exército iraniano? Usou. Eu vi os resultados desse ataque horroroso feito por Saddam – oficiais dos EUA, devo dizer, fizeram um tour pelo campo de batalha depois, e se reportaram de volta para Washington – e nós não demos a mínima bola para isso. Milhares de soldados iranianos foram envenenados até a morte por essa arma terrível na guerra entre 1980 e 1988.

Eu viajei de volta para Teerã em um trem noturno com soldados feridos e cheguei a sentir o cheiro da coisa, abrindo as janelas dos corredores para diminuir o cheiro. Esses jovens tinham feridas dentro de feridas, literalmente. Eles tinham dores que surgiam dentro das dores, algo próximo do indescritível. Ainda assim, quando os soldados foram enviados para hospitais ocidentais para serem tratados, nós, jornalistas, chamamos esses feridos – depois de evidências das Nações Unidas muito mais convincentes do que as que podemos encontrar hoje em Damasco – de “supostas” vítimas de armas químicas.

Então o que diabos estamos fazendo? Depois de incontáveis milhares de mortes na terrível tragédia síria, de repente – agora, depois de meses e anos de prevaricação – estamos indignados com algumas centenas de mortes. Terrível. Inconcebível. Sim, é verdade. Mas nós deveríamos ter ficado traumatizados por essa guerra em 2011. E em 2012. Mas por que agora?

Suspeito que eu saiba o motivo. Suspeito que Bashar Al-Assad esteja ganhando a guerra contra os rebeldes que temos armado secretamente. Com a ajuda do Hezbollah libanês – aliado do Irã no Líbano – o regime de Damasco quebrou os rebeldes em Qusayr e podem estar no processo de quebra-los ao norte de Homs. O Irã está cada vez mais envolvido na proteção ao governo sírio. Portanto, uma vitória de Bashar é uma vitória do Irã. E vitórias iranianas não podem ser toleradas pelo Ocidente.

E enquanto estamos falando de guerra, o que aconteceu com aquelas ótimas negociações entre palestinos e israelenses de que John Kerry andava se gabando? Enquanto expressamos nossa tremenda angústia com o terrível uso de armar químicas na Síria, a terra palestina continua sendo destruída. A política do Likud de Israel – de negociar a paz até não haver mais Palestina – continua a toda, e é por isso que o pesadelo do Rei Abdullah, da Jordânia, (muito mais potente que as “armas de destruição em massa” que imaginávamos em 2003) só aumenta: que a “Palestina” fique na Jordânia, não na Palestina.

*Robert Fisk é correspondente no Oriente Médio do ‘The Independent’. É autor de vários livros sobre a região.

Fonte: CartaMaior

%d blogueiros gostam disto: