Hezbollah-Hamas-Iran Alliance

Ramzy Baroud

To serve his limited political agenda, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, may have unwittingly unified various resistance groups in the Middle East after years of separation and discord.

On August 24-25, Netanyahu ordered the Israeli army to strike several targets of parties he perceives to be allies of Iran in the region. The unprecedented military campaign included Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Gaza.

Within hours from the strikes, triumphant Netanyahu swooped in to collect the political rewards, bragging about the military operation, and warning Lebanon “to calm down”, because in his opinion, Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, “knows very well that the state of Israel knows how to defend itself well, and to repay its enemies”.

Tel Aviv’s friends in Washington were ready with statements of support about “Israel’s right to defend itself,” as bizarrely reiterated by the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.

Israel’s friends in the mainstream media also clamored to make connections between Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

The truth, however, is that the Syria war had severed the once-strong alliance between the Palestinian resistance group, Hamas and Iran, and by extension, Hezbollah as well.

The Syrian bloodbath has done much damage beyond these alliances as well, dividing the Middle East region in a proxy war that roped in, not only politicians and fighters but intellectuals as well.

That aside, the Syria war is now winding down and Israel is terrified by the possibility of having a permanent Iranian military presence near its northern borders, and is especially concerned that Hezbollah has already neutralized Israel’s military advantage in Lebanon.

While there has always been a faction within Hamas (mostly centered in Gaza) that viewed an alliance with Iran as a strategic advantage – a view that was cemented by years of Iranian support for the Gaza resistance – others moved very carefully so as not to upset delicate regional balances.

However, following the isolation of Qatar by several Gulf and other Arab and Muslim countries, Hamas’ political margins began expanding again. Hamas has been particularly close to Qatar and Turkey but since these two countries were forced to rethink their foreign policy in the region, Hamas enjoyed more breathing space.

On June 6, 2017, Qatar left the so-called Arab coalition that has devastated Yemen in a lethal war that began more than four years ago. Meanwhile, the changing realities in Syria forced a Turkish rethink about its own alliances in Syria and within the Middle East.

Iran is also finding itself in a political transition. The US decision to abandon the Iran nuclear deal – The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – and the levying of yet more debilitating sanctions on Tehran, are placing tremendous pressure on the Iranian economy. However, Washington’s efforts to isolate Iran are encouraging Tehran to seek political alternatives, especially as Iran’s new feeble European allies are incapable of circumventing the hawkish US agenda.

Since the Qatar siege, Iran has sent many friendly signals to Doha while reaching out to Istanbul, mending fences and exploring new alliances.

This changing reality has emboldened the Hamas branch that was never convinced of breaking up with Iran in the first place. In February 2017, Yahya Sinwar was elected as the new leader of Hamas, shifting the center of the group’s decision making back to the besieged Strip. A resumption of strong ties between Hamas and Iran seemed inevitable.

The Israeli bombing of several targets at multiple fronts was meant to send a message of strength to Netanyahu’s constituency just before the September 17 elections. The strategic Hezbollah response on September 1, following days of dread and anticipation in Israel, hardly helped Netanyahu’s struggling image.

On September 2, Hezbollah revealed more details about its military response. The group released a video showing the targeting of an Israeli military vehicle by two separate missiles shot with total accuracy only seconds apart. The video also showed aerial images taken by a Hezbollah drone hovering above Israeli settlements and military bases.

Once more, Hezbollah has demonstrated its ability to balance out Israeli aggressions. But equally important, Hezbollah’s calculated response, laden with political and military messages, was the opportunity that Hamas needed to make its move.

On September 1, Iranian media reported on a letter attributed to former Hamas leader and Palestinian Prime Minister, Ismail Haniya, expressing “his appreciation to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khamenei, for his support for the Palestinian Resistance”. Various Iranian news agencies reported on the letter, along with archival photos of the Hamas leader in a meeting with Khamenei.

Israeli and pro-Israeli media also reported on the letter to retrospectively justify the Israeli bombings of the multiple targets, by demonstrating that indeed, such an alliance exists.

However, the Hamas-Hezbollah-Iran alliance has been forged and strengthened by Netanyahu’s military miscalculations.

Soon after Hezbollah declared that it had responded to the Israeli attacks, Hamas issued a press release, congratulating the Lebanese group, saying that “the Lebanese resistance has the right to defend itself and its people in the face of (Israeli) aggression”.

This by no means suggests that Hamas will now lease its foreign policy to Tehran. The same is true for Hezbollah which, despite its strong alliance with Iran, has its own national agenda, political balances, and priorities as well.

What remains clear, however, is that Netanyahu has foolishly, though unwittingly, helped Hamas cross the final obstacle in its efforts to return to the Iran-Hezbollah camp in the region.

Now that the war in Syria is coming to an unceremonious end, this fact could prove very costly to Israel and its drive to dominate the region and its peoples.

Resistance against Imperialism Duty of Every Nation: Italian Analyst

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – A political expert based in Italy highlighted the successful experiences of countries that chose to resist imperialism and world powers’ bullying, saying that any nation who seeks economic and military sovereignty, should adopt the same strategy.

“International resistance against imperialism (and unbridled capitalism used as an economic weapon) ought to be the duty of every country wishing to guarantee economic and military sovereignty,” Federico Pieraccini, who is based in Milan, said in an interview with the Tasnim News Agency.

“The dawning of the multipolar age bodes well for the future of the resistance axis, representing a fundamental turning point in our era,” he added.

Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer and political expert based in Milan, Italy. He specializes in international affairs, conflicts, politics, and strategies. He has covered conflicts in Ukraine, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq.

The following is the full text of the interview:

Tasnim: International developments are full of examples of how regional and trans-regional countries have successfully adopted strategies of resistance against oppression and unilateralism that have borne good results. As you know, countries like Iran, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, and Palestine have protected their national sovereignty against foreign threats and have achieved many gains through this strategy. In contrast, some countries have adopted a strategy of appeasement or reconciliation when being hectored and bullied by world powers. Given the experiences of these resistance countries, what do you think about their approach and the concept of resistance?

Pieraccini: International resistance against imperialism (and unbridled capitalism used as an economic weapon) ought to be the duty of every country wishing to guarantee economic and military sovereignty. The example of countries in the Middle East and beyond (Venezuela, DPRK) that form the axis of resistance ought to be an example to countries currently finding themselves under the military and economic dominance of the United States, sometimes improperly referred to as the Atlantic alliance (NATO).

The dawning of the multipolar age bodes well for the future of the resistance axis, representing a fundamental turning point in our era. The military umbrella offered by countries like Russia, helping to ward off possible conflicts, guarantees greater stability in the region, given that the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia know that Russia would be more inclined to help Iran and other allies rather than remain neutral in the event of a conflict. Similarly, Chinese economic aid is essential in supporting the economies of the countries in the axis of resistance as they face illegal sanctions imposed by Washington to crush their economies.

Tasnim: Do you think that countries which currently toe the line of major powers like the US ought to emulate these experiences of resistance countries to protect their independence and stand against unilateralism?

Pieraccini: The multipolar world order in which we live today needs an expansion of centers of power around the globe. If China, Russia and the United States currently represent three poles of global power, India and the major European powers continue to play a role that is ambiguous and difficult to analyze. New Delhi is trying to gain its strategic autonomy, helped by Washington's unilateral impositions, which only serve to drive the Modi-led country into full Eurasian integration, as seen at the G20 and the SCO meetings with (Vladimir) Putin and Xi Jinping.

In this respect, imports of oil and gas from Iran should be increased to demonstrate to the rest of the world that Washington's sanctions and diktats have no effect on great powers in a multipolar world order.

The situation is even more embarrassing for European countries, with little hope that Berlin, Paris and Rome will be able to distance their economic and military policies from those of Atlanticism and the US dollar. Although Trump is a person who inspires fights rather than harmony, Merkel, Macron and Conte do not have the means, will or ability to create strategic distance between European countries and the United States for the purposes of greater economic and military autonomy and freedom.

Tasnim: In an op-ed article written for Tasnim, the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, warned the European countries of the risks of inaction regarding the US administration’s unilateral policies, saying the current EU leaders will be held accountable for Europe’s future challenges. Shamkhani criticized Europe for becoming an unimportant and passive actor that accepts humiliation at the hands of the US and has to live with the destructive effects of Washington’s unilateralism that have affected several international treaties. What is your take on that? Isn’t it better for the EU to stand up to US bullying and unilateralism?

Pieraccini: Washington's abandonment of the JCPOA (2015 Iran nuclear deal), and its insistence that its European allies not trade with Tehran, has made plain Europe’s subordination, obliged to genuflect before what effectively amounts to their American overlords.

Although Europeans have slowly activated an alternative payment system to that of SWIFT called INSTEX, it is still unlikely to see any European banks bold enough to circumvent the US ban and accept payments from Iran. The likelihood of US retaliation is high, and a fragile European banking system that is tightly linked to the US dollar would suffer a significant blow.

A ban on operating in the US market would be devastating to any European entity, especially a bank, and this weighs heavily on the minds of Europeans when they consider whether to continue trading with Iran.

As correctly stated by Shamkhani, history will remember America’s subjugation of Europe, and as a European, I feel responsible for the actions of my government, actions that are certainly not creating a prosperous, free and independent future.

In the long run, sovereign countries like those of the axis of resistance will have more options to choose from in a multipolar environment, being able to act in favor of their own national interest. Whereas we Europeans will continue to be subject to Washington and her interests in exchange for absolutely nothing.

Iran in 2017: Boosting regional power, confirming US distrust policy

December 31, The Iran Project – The year of 2017 was full of ups and downs for the Islamic Republic of Iran. In one hand, coming to power of US president Donald Tramp created serious challenges for Iran in dealing with its most important international treaty after the end of Iran-Iraq war (the eight-year war imposed by the regime of former Iraqi dictator Saddam on the Islamic in the 1980s). On the other hand, Iran’s endeavors to restore its regional power during the past years had brought up fruitful results.

Tramp vs Iran: Mutual Confrontation

Although, Trump became president in November 2016, he actually came to power on January 19, 2017. From the very first moments after he took the presidency helm, the viewpoints of many Americans and non-Americans changed about the US.

The ex-US president, Barack Obama’s strategy in dealing with Iran was based on a soft approach and changing the officials’ opinions in decision-making. In the meantime the slogan of “regime change” also had been removed from the American authorities’ literature. But after Trump presidency, the American authorities’ literature also changed, and what they were thinking behind the scene about the Islamic Republic of Iran publicly become apparent.

Tramp, who described the nuclear agreement clinched with the P5+1 group of countries as the worst deal for US, was looking for a way out of deal or at least was seeking to withdraw from the deal, known as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in words.

For sure, the US’ withdrawal from JCPOA is not appropriate for Americans’ dignity and even speaking of it would fuel a wave of distrust to  United States among other countries. Of course, the disloyalty of US had already been predicted by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and inside Iran the move reinforced the oppositions’ stance that were against amending relations with US.

Syria: End of Daesh, resistance Neighborhood with Israel

One of the most pivotal achievements of Iran, which its ground was prepared in the past years, was the official annihilation of Daesh terrorist group in Iraq and Syria and the terror campaign approximate destruction.On Nov 21, Commander of Quds Force of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Major General Qasem Soleimani in a letter to Supreme Leader announced the termination of the corrupt tree of Daesh and congratulated the glorious victory to the Islamic World.

Thanks to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s leading role, the resistance axis managed to defeat the evil axis in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United States which were undermining the process of defeating Deash in Syria. This resistance also brought about another important results which paved the way for stationing of resistance forces in joint border areas between Syria and Israel, and if Iran and its allies intend to “cut the head off the snake”, then land access from Syria and Lebanon would be provided to them.

Tearing out of Persian Gulf Cooperation Council and Iran’s big hug for Qatar

Another achievement for Iran in 2017 was Saudi Arabia’s siege against Qatar which was formed far from Tehran’s will and eventually served the interests of the Islamic Republic.  The siege of Doha in fact fanned the flames of Saudi Arabia’s rivalry with Qatar in the region. Riyadh believed that Qatar’s siege would change its foreign policy and even its rulers, but thanks to Iran and Turkey supports, Riyadh’s dreams did not come true and led to a change in Qatari mass media viewpoints toward the Saudi Arabia.

Yemen, friend of Iran, the thorn in Saudi Arabia’s eye

Saudi Arabia will have the right if it finishes 2017 year with a blockade nightmare from Iran.Thanks to enjoying US, UK and other Western countries’ state-of art weapons, Saudi Arabia is incessantly bombarding Yemen and not yet succeeded in defeating this Arab country. In a meantime, the nightmare of missile attacks to Riyadh by Houthis has been terrified them.

The Houthis mostly shared same stances with Iran and are considered the new member of resistance axis. Besides, this new member is Saudi Arabia’s neighbor, and it is possible to get involved in more conflicts with Al Saud.

To sum up, it could be said that the 2017 was a triumphant year for Iran’s regional policy, and on the other hand, with regard to Trump’s threats to tear up the JCPOA, the correctness of Tehran’s policy of  distrust to US proved again.

It seems the 2018 year would be considered for Iran as the year of development of regional power and extension of influence in the international arenas. Despite the presence of global and regional rivals, Iran will be more successful to achieve its goals.

Attempts to take down Assad are all about weakening Iran

By 5Pillars

In a reply to Abdul Latif Halimi’s recent article on 5Pillars, Zafar Bangash argues that Muslims need to stop deluding themselves and realise that the Syrian conflict is nothing more than an imperial war to take down the Resistance Axis. While decrying Muslims’ reliance on “ill-informed” or “biased” sources vis-à-vis the war on Syria, Abdul Latif-Halimi urges them to build their own think-tanks and do more “lobbying” (presumably of Western governments and media). Wonderful! He also tells us that Bashar al-Assad has only 12% core constituency. One wonders what his source is? More troubling, he implies that Muslims need to continue relying on the same bunch of criminals – the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey – to rescue the people of Syria by overthrowing Assad. But these malign forces have been the primary source of instability and mayhem in Syria and the broader Middle East region for decades.

Syrian president Bashar al AssadSyrian president Bashar al Assad Allah warns the committed Muslims in the noble Qur’an: “O you who are firmly committed to Allah (the covenant-bearing Muslims)! Do not take the political Jews (Zionists) and political Christians (imperialists) as your masters; they are allies of one another; and whoever amongst you takes them for a master, then he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people” (5:51). The opposite is equally true: Christians and Jews would never accept Muslims dictating to them. Have we no independence and pride? There is no secret about who is supporting the so-called “rebels”. From day one they have publicly called upon the imperialist powers and their regional proxies to attack Syria (by imposing a no-fly zone) so that they can come to power in a repeat of the Libya regime change operation. And look how well that ended. Prophetic history offers important lessons for Muslims. Moments before the Treaty of Hudaybiyah was formally signed, Abu Jundal (ra), a Muslim held captive in Makkah, managed to escape and arrived in Hudaybiyah. He showed visible signs of torture. But under the terms of the treaty, the Prophet (pbuh) handed him back to the Makkan torturers. The objective was to save the wider Islamic “project” emerging in Madinah. In other words to see the bigger picture, something that short-sighted Muslims obsessed with their paranoid conspiracy theories about “Iranian expansionism” are lacking nowadays. No wonder the Muslim world is on its knees with this level of schoolboy geo-political analysis! Iran The same applies to Islamic Iran and Hezbollah. By supporting the Syrian state they are maintaining a base on the borders of occupied Palestine to confront Zionism. Like them or not, the reality is that Iran and Hezbollah are the most effective Islamic models that resist imperialism and Zionism. They have actually fought Israel – directly and indirectly – and have expended much blood and treasure in doing so. The Syrian rebels, on the other hand, haven’t lifted a finger in support of Palestine and maybe when they do they will have the right to talk about it. Syria is also the only Arab state with a defence treaty with Iran that has facilitated help to Hezbollah to confront the Zionist occupiers of Palestine. So why should Iran violate this treaty with the side that has kept its part of the bargain? Islam forbids this. Those that disagree, go ahead, create an alternative to Hezbollah to expel the Zionists as Hezbollah did in Lebanon; like Iran provided the means for Sunni Bosnians and continues to do so for Sunni Palestinians to exercise self-defense when facing aggression. But the truth is that while Israel laughs at the non-existent threat posed by the takfiris and their supporters, it genuinely fears the threat of powerful Iran and Hezbollah. Rebel weakenesses Anyone who believes the Syrian government has 12% core support and is about to collapse lives in a CNN/BBC/Al Jazeera created bubble. If this were true, it would have collapsed long ago. Assad has the support of the overwhelming majority of Syria’s minorities as well as a large proportion of its Sunnis. Remember the Syrian Arab Army is majority Sunni and has done the overwhelming majority of fighting for the government side. British journalist Robert Fisk has interviewed many Sunni, Druze, Shia and Christian military personnel in Syria over the past year confirming their support for Assad. In 2012, prominent Arab journalist Jihad El-Khazen (former editor of Saudi owned Al-Hayat and Asharq Alawsat, the two largest Arab newspapers) wrote “the President [Assad] had the support of a clear majority of his people: all minorities are on his side, along with a majority of Sunnis.”

Syrian rebelsSyrian rebels In June 2014, Bashar al-Assad won the presidential election hands down. An estimated one million Syrian refugees that had fled to Lebanon allegedly because of Syrian army attacks came out in droves to vote for Assad – to the embarrassment of Al Jazeera TV station which loves to pretend that the “Syrian people” all hate Assad. Even the BBC could not deny this fact. The Canadian government did not even allow Syrians to cast ballot! Moreover, while Halimi points out Assad’s frailties, he completely neglects to mention those of the imperialist-Zionist-backed rebels who are busy fighting among themselves a lot of the time. Two more facts: 1) In 2014 it took one year for the takfiri terrorists (ISIS) to capture Tabqa airbase which was under siege for over a year within territory almost completely under their control. 2) Last month, another terrorist group, the Al Nusra Front captured Abu Alduhur, a Syrian military airbase in Idlib region after besieging it for nearly two years in an area dominated by NATO’s proxy forces since 2011. These two takfiri groups are supposedly the “best” fighters against Syria and would be the first to benefit should Assad fall. In fact, the war has come down to a straight choice between him and them? So if you want the rebels to win you know who you’ll get – the liberal human rights activists of ISIS and al Qaeda. All of this “spectacular” blitzkrieg to capture military bases (we are not talking about cities) is taking place with open logistical, financial and military support from NATO states, the GCC and the Zionist entity. It also shows Syrian army dedication – instead of surrendering a military base they choose to resist under siege for over a year. Russian manoeuvres Unlike the US, Russia does not appear interested in dominating the Middle East. Its strategic long-term goal is to gain leverage over Western powers and use it as a negotiating tool to strengthen its own position to deter Western interference in the territories of the former Soviet Union.

Vladmir Putin has vowed to stand by Syria Vladmir Putin has vowed to stand by Syria Dmitri Trenin articulated as early as 2009 in the Washington Quarterly the most accurate Western assessment of contemporary Russia within the current global power pyramid. He wrote: “Russia was not to be integrated into the core West, but managed by it… Putin aimed at integration with it [West]. Unlike [Boris] Yeltsin, Putin put a price on his country’s cooperation with the United States. Washington would have to recognize Moscow’s primacy in the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States].” Moscow’s involvement in Syria has a credible domestic component – the north Caucasus takfiri group the Caucasian Emirate split into pro-ISIS and non-ISIS factions last summer. There are also thousands of Russian citizens of north Caucasian ethnicity fighting to implement the NATO project in The Levant. Russia is taking preemptive steps before the takfiri virus reaches the north Caucasus on a larger scale. Assad will not fall Since 2011 there have been predictions of the imminent collapse of the Syrian government. These continue to be repeated today by an army of wishful thinkers, sectarian nutcases and the deluded. But the Syrian conflict has little to do with Bashar al-Assad or human rights. NATO supports regimes far worse than the one in Syria (ever heard of Saudi Arabia or Zionist Israel?). The primary objective of the war on Syria is to cut Iran’s presence on the borders with Palestine and destroy the logistical base for Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad that Syria used to be. This grouping is the only real military and political force that poses any threat to the Zionist entity while the Syrian rebels (with their fanatical sectarian mindset and lack of capacity to build anything worthwhile) never will. NATO thought this would be easy, but they have badly miscalculated. Iran’s actions at the political level, the P5+1 deal and its principled role in Yemen and Syria show that Tehran is not going to surrender to the imperialist project, no matter how much the West and the takfiris condemn and insult it. Muslims must stop formulating their views on events within the framework peddled by NATO through the corporate media – whether they realise it or not. It is time to think outside the neo-colonial box and analyze contemporary events within the Islamic philosophical and legal framework. The war on Syria is all about the imperialist project in defence of the Zionist State. Lobbying the imperialists – directly or indirectly – to solve Muslim problems shows how shallow such thinking is. Zafar Bangash is a Sunni Muslim Scholar, the director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought and Editor-in-Chief of pro-Iran Crescent International magazine.