While
President Trump seems to have sorted out his problems of interior authority –
more or less – the conflict has now moved on to concern NATO. Washington is
currently speaking against the manipulation of terrorism, while London has no
intention of giving up such a useful tool for the extension of its influence.
The Bilderberg Group initially organised as a sounding board for
the Alliance, has just been the stage for a difficult debate between the
partisans and the adversaries of imperialism in the Middle East.
There exist no photographs of the meeting of the Bilderberg
Group, whose work is confidential. Security for the meeting is not handled by
the FBI, nor the Virginia police force, but by a private militia organised by
NATO.
The
Bilderberg Group was created in 1954 by the CIA and MI6 in order to support the
Atlantic Alliance. It was intended to gather personalities from the economic
and media sectors with political and military leaders in order to sensitize
civil society to the « Red Peril ». Far from being a place for decision-making,
this very exclusive club has historically been a forum where the elders had to
juggle with their fidelity to London and Washington, and the younger members
were expected to show that they could be trusted with the opposition to the
Soviets [1].
It was during the annual reunion of 1979 that Bernard Lewis
revealed to those present the rôle of the Muslim Brotherhood in the resistance
to the Afghani Communist government. This Israëli-British-US Islamologist then
proposed that the « War for Freedom » (sic) should be extended to all of
Central Asia.
It was in
2008, in other words two and a half years in advance, that Basma Kodmani
(future spokeswoman for the Syrian opposition) and Volker Perthes (future
advisor to Jeffrey Feltman for the total and unconditional capitulation of
Syria [2]) explained the interest of supporting the
Muslim Brotherhood in order to dominate the Middle East. They stressed the «
moderation » of the Brotherhood faced with the West, and the contrast offered
by the « extremist sovereignty » of Iran and Syria [3].
And it was
in 2013 that the chairman of the German executive board, Ulrich Grillo, made a
case for the organisation of a massive migration of 800,000 Syrian workers to
German factories [4].
Bilderberg
2017
The
Bilderberg Group has just held its 2017 meeting, from 1 to 4 June, in the
United States. Contrary to habit, the 130 participants were not all defending
the same project. Quite the opposite – following the speeches by Donald Trump
at the Arab-Islamic-US summit, and at NATO [5], the CIA and MI6 organised a first-day
debate which opposed those who are partisans of the fight against Islamism and
those who support it. The point was, obviously enough, either to find a
compromise between the two camps or to acknowledge the dissension without
allowing it to destroy the initial objective of the Alliance – the fight
against Russia [6].
On the anti-Islamism side (that is opposed not to the Muslim
religion, but to political Islam as formulated by Sayyid Qutb), we noted the
presence of General H. R. McMaster (President Trump’s National Security
Advisor) and his expert Nadia Schadlow. McMaster is a recognised strategist
whose theories have been verified on the battle-field. Above all, Schadlow has
worked on the ways of transforming military victories into political successes.
She is particularly interested in the restructuration of political movements in
conquered countries. She should soon be publishing a new book about the
struggle against Islamic radicalism.
On the pro-Islamism side, we note the presence, for the United
States, of John Brennan (ex-Director of the CIA) and his ex-subordinates Avril
Haines and David Cohen (financing of terrorism). For the United Kingdom, Sir
John Sawers (ex-Director of MI6 and a long-time protector of the Brotherhood)
and General Nicholas Houghton (ex-Chief of Staff, who prepared the land
invasion of Syria). For France, General Benoît Puga (ex-Chief of Staff for the
Elysée and commander of the Special Forces in Syria) and Bruno Tertrais
(neo-conservative strategist for the Ministry of Defence). Finally, for the
private sector, Henry Kravis (Director of the investment fund KKR, and
unofficial treasurer for Daesh) and General David Petraeus (co-founder of
Daesh).
And if this imbalance were not enough, the organisers had
planned for the presence of experts capable of justifying the unjustifiable,
like Professor Neil Fergusson (historian of British colonialism).
The
possible reversal of alliances
It will take a little time before we know what was said during
this meeting, and understand the conclusions that were reached by the various
attendees. However, we already know that London is pushing for a change of
paradigm in the Middle East. If the model of the « Arab Spring » (reproduction
of the « Arab Revolt of 1916 » organised by Lawrence of Arabia in order to
replace the Ottoman Empire by the British Empire) is abandoned, MI6 hopes to
create a new agreement on the basis of political Islamism.
As a
result, while Washington has renewed its alliance with Saudi Arabia, and has
convinced it to break with the Brotherhood in exchange for 110 billion dollars
worth of armament [7], London is pushing for an agreement between
Iran, Qatar, Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood. If this project were to be
realised, we would experience the abandon of the Sunni/Shiite conflict and the
creation of a « croissant of political Islam » encompassing Teheran, Doha,
Ankara, Idleb, Beyrouth, and Gaza. This new distribution would enable the
United Kingdom to maintain its influence in the region.
The only thing upon which the Allies seem to agree is the
necessity of abandoning the principle of a jihadist state. Everyone admits that
the devil has to be put back in his box. Which means getting rid of Daesh, even
if some people keep working with Al-Qaïda. This is why, worried about its
survival, the self-proclaimed Caliph has secretly transmitted an ultimatum to
Downing Street and the Elysée.
Choosing
sides
We shall see within the next few months if Saudi Arabia’s
about-face is genuine. It would be good news for the Syrians, but bad news for
the Yemenites (whom the Western world would then ignore). It would offer King
Salman the possibility of stimulating the evolution of Wahhabism from a
fanatical cult to a normal religion. Already, the sudden conflict which opposes
Riyadh to Doha on the question of Iran is doubled by an argument about the
possible kinship between the founder of the cult, Mohammed Ben Abdelwahhab, and
the Qatari Al-Thani dynasty – a claim which has enraged the Saudi’s.
The
project of « political Islam » consists of uniting the Muslim Brotherhood and
the Khomeinists. It would mean that Iran, and even Hezbollah, would have to
substitute this problem for the fight against anti-imperialism. If this were
come to pass, it would most certainly lead to the withdrawal of Iran from
Syria. The White House is taking this very seriously and is frantically
preparing for it. In his speech in Riyadh, Donald Trump already designated
Teheran as his new enemy and has just nominated Michaël D’Andrea (who organised
the assassination of Imad Mougniyeh in Damascus in 2008) as the representative
for the Iranian section of the CIA [8].
Russia had already prepared for a potential new deal in the
Middle East. Consequently, by supporting Syria, it pursued its ambition of
gaining access to « warm waters », and by seeking rapprochement with its
hereditary adversary, Turkey, of being able to navigate freely via the
Dardanelles and the Bosphorus (indispensable for entering the Mediterranean).
However, in the long term, political Islam could only cause it problems in the
Caucasus.
As always when the players sort their cards, they all have to
define their positions. The United Kingdom defends its Empire, France defends
its ruling class, and the United States defends its people. In the Middle East,
some people will fight for their community, others for their ideas. But things
are not always so simple. Thus, Iran might follow the ideal of Imam Khomeini,
confusing the end and the means. What was, in the beginning, an
anti-imperialist revolution led by the power of Islam could evolve into a
simple affirmation of the political use of this religion.
The consequences
for the rest of the world
MI6 and the CIA took a huge risk by inviting a non-Atlantist to
the meeting of Bilderberg 2017. The Chinese ambassador, Cui Tiankai, who was
scheduled to speak only on the fourth day of the seminar, was thus able to evaluate
the positions of each member of NATO as from the first day.
On one
hand, Beijing is counting on the collaboration of Donald Trump, the opening to
the United States of its Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and the
development of all its commercial routes. On the other, it is hoping that the
Brexit will lead to an economic and financial alliance with London [9].
Ambassador Cui, who was the Director of the Centre of Political
Research for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, might possibly be
satisfied with the simple destruction of Daesh. But he is not unaware that the
people who organised the Caliphate in order to cut the « Silk Road » in Iraq and
Syria, and then the war in Ukraine in order to cut the « new Silk Road », are
preparing, preventatively, to open a third front in the Philippines and a
fourth in Venezuela in order to cut off other communication projects.
From this point of view, China, which, like Russia, has an
interest in supporting Donald Trump, if only to prevent terrorism in its own
country, will be asking itself about the possible long-term consequences of
British hegemony in the « croissant of political Islam ».
Notes
[1] “What
you don’t know about the Bilderberg-Group”, by Thierry
Meyssan, Komsomolskaïa Pravda (Russia) , Voltaire Network, 9 May 2011.
[2] “Germany
and the UNO against Syria”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete
Kimberley, Al-Watan (Syria) , Voltaire Network, 28 January 2016.
[3] Sous nos yeux. Du 11-Septembre à Donald Trump,
Thierry Meyssan, Editions Demi-lune, 2017.
[4] “How
the European Union is manipulating the Syrian refugees”, by Thierry
Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 2
May 2016.
[5] “Trump
advances his pawns”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete
Kimberley, Al-Watan (Syria) , Voltaire Network, 30 May 2017.
[6] « La
réunion 2017 du Groupe de Bilderberg », Réseau Voltaire, 1er juin 2017.
[7] “Donald
Trump against jihadism”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete
Kimberley, Al-Watan (Syria) , Voltaire Network, 23 May 2017.
[8] “The
CIA is preparing to take rather harsh measures against Iran”,
Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 5
June 2017.
[9] “The
Brexit reshuffles world geopolitics”, by Thierry Meyssan,
Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 28
June 2016.
French
intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace
Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in
daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last
two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate.
The articles
on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided the source is cited,
their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial purposes
(license CC BY-NC-ND).
