President Trump won the election on his promise to overthrow financial capitalism and restore productive capitalism. From this standpoint, he considers that war damages owed to Syria should not be paid by the United States, but by transnational corporations. Is this revolution in international relations desirable or even possible?
Author: Thierry MEYSSAN
If we consider the war in Syria not as a singular event, but as the culmination of a world war which has persisted for a quarter of a century, we have to ask ourselves about the consequences of the imminent end of hostilities. Its completion marks the defeat of an ideology, that is to say globalisation and financial capitalism.
During the Cold War, the pro-US states experienced a bloody precedent of illegal, secret repression. While it is clear that this system has been progressively dismantled in Europe, it has never been interrupted in the « Greater Middle East » although it has been transformed. The Benalla affair allows us to admit the possibility that this story is not yet over.
Is Vladimir Putin’s Russia a Wild West where Power can strip a billionaire of his fortune? Is Russia interfering with the United States electoral process? According to the US ruling class, these are questions which leave no room for doubt. And yet all it needed was for President Putin to propose that President Trump accept a mutual exchange of letters rogatory to see panic taking hold of Washington.
Contrary to mainstream thinking, the NATO summit did not set the United States against the other members of the Alliance, but President Trump against the intergovernmental senior administration. The problem is not whether or not people appreciate the personality of the tenant of the White House, but whether they support him because he is the elected representative of them, or if they prefer the system’s bureaucrats.
According to the Western Press, the « fall » of the « cradle of the revolution » marks the end of all « hope of overthrowing Bachar el-Assad ». No doubt, but would it not be fairer to say that the Syrian Arab Republic, its army, its people and its President « liberated » the « cradle of foreign aggression »?
President Trump is absolutely not the « unpredictable » character so often described. Quite the contrary, he acts in a clearly thoughtful and logical manner. Donald Trump is preparing a reorganisation of international relations. This change is against the interests of the transnational ruling class.
The US project for the Middle East is not a peace plan for Palestine. President Trump is approaching this question from a radically different angle – not attempting to render Justice between his vassals, as an emperor would, but to unblock the situation in order to improve the daily lives of the populations involved.
Relations between Germany and Syria, which used to be excellent under Emperor Wilhelm II, are today abysmal. This is because since the Cold War, Berlin has become the backyard for the Muslim Brotherhood in their attempt to overthrow the Syrian Arab Republic. Since 2012, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the federal think-tank SWP have been working directly on behalf of the US deep state for the destruction of the country.
Elected for his promises to change the paradigm, President Trump continues to astonish all those who take him for an idiot. Yet all he is doing is implementing the ideas that he developed during his electoral campaign, thus taking his place in a political tradition which, although long neglected, is solidly anchored in US history. Leaving aside the President’s public relations communications, Thierry Meyssan analyses his acts as compared with his engagements.
Are the Jordanian demonstrations a sign of a new episode of the Arab Spring, or, on the contrary, are they a means of pressuring King Abdallah II to accept the US plan for Palestine?
Contrary to appearances, Libya’s problem is not so much the rivalry between its leaders as the absence of pacification between tribes and the exclusion of Kadhafists. The solution can only be negotiated between the four leaders united in Paris, but only within and around the House of Representatives of Tobruk, whose authority now covers 80 % of the territory.