The wave of Arab revolutions, bearing the global political and social upheaval, now coming up to Syria, is now one of the most popular topics, which is given a considerable place in the Russian information space. However, as it happens, is puzzling at times. If relatively recently to the Russian reader and listener it was obvious that the next coup, whether in Syria, catalyzes the extremely negative processes, although recently the domestic media increasingly serves the opinion of the representatives of the opposition, increasing sympathy for the cause of the "Arab spring" to a mass audience. If ultraliberal will deny that the layman just do not think about it for the specialist it is obvious that stability in Syria is also connected with the security of our country.
Vyacheslav Matuzov, President of the Society of friendship and business cooperation with Arab countries, is an extremely sought-after expert on the middle East, particularly the Syrian subject. Both the Arab and American TV channels go to him when you need reasoned opinion based on a thin knowledge of the subject matter and specifics of diplomatic work. This is Vyacheslav Nikolaevich not take away 20 years he was engaged in the Middle East in the International Department of the CPSU Central Committee, five years he was the cultural attache in Lebanon, was the adviser of Embassy of Russia in Washington; headed a group of Arab-Israeli negotiations. He told "the Russian Bulletin" about information sabotage in Russian media about the background of the Syrian conflict and technology of the Arab revolutions.
- How Your position is consistent with the official position of the state?
- I have received in recent years a rare opportunity to address the world media, not because I aspire to it, but because the media themselves are turning to me with that request. It's an American Arabic-language TV channel "al-Hurra", the Qatari "al-Jazeera", the Saudi channel, "Arabia", state television Syria. Also the number of channels from Tehran in Arabic and English.
Just today I have 447 performances, of which 141 were direct outputs on the air, including discussions with high-ranking American diplomats at the level of Deputy Secretary of state. In the "Jazeera" was the debate with John McCain – Senator, former candidate for President of the United States; another opponent – David Pollack, a former military analyst at the White House, the state Department expert, now works at the Washington Institute for middle East studies (funded by the American-Israeli Committee, AIPAC), a leading American think tank on Middle East.
All performances before global television audience demand me to present the position of the Russian Federation, because the world needs not my personal point of view, he needs the position of Russia, the Russian leadership. I believe that this is our mission - the need to convey the true position of his country to the Arab TV viewers and radio listeners.
It has not come out of the Internet, keeping track of all the official statements of the Minister of foreign Affairs on the website of the foreign Ministry or the President of our country. Of course, as a person, not associated with government agencies, I could say what I would think, up to some fantastic conspiracy theories, but I see the problem is in the reflection of the real position of Russia, which, incidentally, until December 2011, I myself had to understand, then, distinctly and clearly. Because up to this point the state's position was simply not always clear-cut, and sometimes blurred: the website MFA one piece of intelligence, and parallel with it – statements by officials, the same Mikhail Margelov – special presidential representative of the Russian Federation across Africa, completely contrasting with the position Ministry of foreign Affairs.
This discordance was intolerable. After all, the MFA and the presidential administration should be guided by two factors: Russia's national security and Russia's national interests at the global level. If they deviate from this course, they do not protect national interests of the country. At that time I came from your life and professional experience to determine those interests. Subsequently, I have already seen that the foreign Ministry takes this very position. For me it meant only one thing – the official assessment of the situation in the region are based on the same principles that guide me.
Kind of a miracle, one might say, occurred in December 2011 when I started to clearly manifest itself in the Russian foreign policy on key issues receded into the background of controversie politically engaged figures publicized by the Western media, and the real role of the Minister of foreign Affairs of Russia considerably "alive". Apparently, this is due to a more clearly defined political course of the country, when it became clear that Vladimir Putin becomes President of the country and that he will determine the foreign policy of the Russian Federation.
But the fight for the Russian position was, and continues to go now. The US now realized that the UN security Council, the Libyan variant on Syria fails, that is, Russia will not repeat that rash step, which was admitted when we allow a resolution of the UN security Council No. 1973 of 17 March 2011, authorizing military intervention of foreign States in the civil war in Libya. Then step away from the veto opened the door for the defeat of the independent state by NATO troops. Subsequently, it was recognized this error, but the train, as they say, is gone. With Syria, this factor was practically offset.
- We can designate the current position of Russia?
- At the same time, even some American think-tanks like Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting Inc. American private intelligence and research company. – Ed.) and this "shadow CIA", sees the background of the events more realistic. Its leader, George Friedman is one of those analysts, utilized by the largest American corporations and the government writes in a recent article that the Syrian government relies on the support of the people, and without this support it would have long ago overthrown. And it recognizes the largest analyst USA! Then the question arises: who is fighting this regime in Syria advocated by the majority of people on the basis of which the rights are arming the Syrian opposition and there is an information war against the government?
When you participate in TV shows, faced with the dominance of crying, the roar of genocide and accusations against the Syrian authorities. Although really it is important to establish, so who is killing people who cut the heads off babies and women in the village of Hula near HOMS? This is clearly not the government troops. But all the sins of America and personally Hillary Clinton are trying to impose on the Syrian government. This is an open big lie.
As shown by recent debates on all channels from the "Jazira" to bi-Bi-si and us "Hurry", at the moment everyone is anxious in anticipation that Russia must change its approach to the Syrian issue is to accept the reasoning of the Americans and join the demand of the removal of Bashar al-Assad of Syria, to agree on the overthrow of the regime. There is a clear attempt of external pressure on the Russian leadership reasoned that not to spoil relations with the American administration because of Syria that it pushes Russia not only from Western, but allegedly from the Arab world, because it supports the "losers" – the losing party in the form of Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar al-Assad, and to maintain ties with Arab countries, it needs urgently to reconsider their views, to recognize the claims to power of Islamic fundamentalists in Syria. And this propaganda campaign meets with no resistance in the external information field. Pressure from outside is huge! I can give the highest marks to the courageous position of the presidential administration, Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation, our representative in the UN security Council Vitaly Churkin, who clearly performs the instructions of the Minister and the President, speaking or voting on the subject. This is a highly professional job, well thought out with a view to the future development of the situation in the middle East and in tandem with global development.
- Let's clarify for those who do not yet understand: why would be beneficial for Russia to preserve stability in Syria?
- This is a very important question, because we are trying to blame the fact that the reason for our support of the Syrian regime lies in vested economic interests in the contracts, for which Russia is insisting on its position. Already encountered this approach: if so, then it must buy to offer other contracts in the military field, for example, procurement of weapons by the Gulf States, so that she moved away from Syria and left her America. Also speak of a naval base in Tartus, which can only be retained with the Assad regime.
On all these speculations I will say one thing: today Russia has no major economic interests in the middle East. They were in the Soviet Union, but not now. But we have direct geopolitical interests, based on the protection of national security all over the southern borders – from Sochi to the Mountain Altai. Our relationship with the same Syria in the field of military-technical cooperation are built largely on the principle of material benefit, although an important aspect is the return of old loans and debts: the Syrians owe us huge money. We have no real income from Syria do not have, it is not an oil country. When it comes to a naval base, I remind: in Russia today, except Sevastopol, overseas there are no bases – no sea or air or land. We've gone from the maintenance of military bases: closed the base in Lourdes in Cuba, closed the base in Cam Ranh in Vietnam, we passed the time in Somalia. In the horn of Africa we had one of the most powerful bases, which controlled the Indian ocean. But now we have no bases.
In military cooperation with Syria, we have a technical service on the basis of our floating dock, standing at anchor in the Syrian port of Tartus. There is actually a Syrian naval base, and we have – only item logistics ships for the Russian Navy.
In Soviet times our vehicles are used not only pmto of Tartus. Under international law, warships can enter at any port of the Mediterranean sea, and we often used the port is configured such Pro-American States like Tunisia, in Bizerte and we also had a technical support, where we restock food, water, the sailors went on land. This is common international practice, which does not need to have military bases. That is what we have in Syria, similar to what services can provide and any other state, such as recently happened in Italy. So when we say that we cling to naval base, that lies and slander.
All the rhetoric is reduced to charges of Russia in Mercantile foreign policy and attempts to influence the Arab leaders to convince: we cannot rely on Russia – she will betray you tomorrow and sell. But the issues that are now solved in Syria is very far from purely economic interests. This is not a Bazaar! This is the national security of the Russian Federation. When we stand for the preservation of the Assad regime, we proceed entirely from other principles very clearly before the conference said the Minister of foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Lavrov: Russia does not protect the regime of President Syria – Russia protects existing international law, because if it is destroyed, the world will plunge into chaos and will be guided only by the law of force.
This applies not only to Syria but to Saudi Arabia, and to Qatar, which is now a clear advocate of the war. In fact, all countries in the region are already lined up, and tomorrow, after Syria will come their turn. I see only one excuse for Arab leaders: they are under the Damocles sword of US fear and try to curry favor with the Americans, to save their necks. That is why today, the League of Arab States organization protecting the interests of the Arabs, passed practically into the hands of the Americans and became the instrument of United States policy in the middle East is already evident.
Therefore, it is a fierce struggle for Russia's decision, for its position. If she doesn't approve of the military actions of the Americans against Syria in the UN security Council, I think that they are bypassing will not go, because it will be a serious challenge not only to Russia but to China and all countries of the SCO. It will be a challenge and the destruction of existing norms of international law and the entire system of international relations. They undermine them secretly, but to do it openly, they, in my opinion, just not ready. The firm position of Moscow is the main brake to the American tyranny in the middle East.
- Obviously, this is a serious conflict of international level, and its adequate media coverage is a must. What is Your assessment of the work of the Russian media in this direction?
- Syrian subjects up to a certain point pop up very rarely, and suddenly from the month of June, on the eve of the meeting 20 in Mexico, as if on command, simultaneously, synchronously all channels organize talk shows on the issue. The first channel – "In the context of" Maxim Shevchenko, the third channel – Roman Babayan organize the same debate, "Duel" on VGTRK Nikolay Svanidze and Dmitry Kiselyov.
When I'm watching all this, horrified by what is happening! I see Svanidze bench of our analysts, on the side Kiselev – second, and there was Alexander Prokhanov, Anastasia Popova and the Deputy of the Caucasian Republic. In General there are said the right things, but more importantly, what I see on the opposite side! Georgy Mirsky is the Institute of world economy and international relations Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Shumilin is the Institute of USA and Canada, Director of the center for analysis of middle East conflicts, another observer "the Moscow news" Elena Suponina and Nikolai Zlobin – Director of Russian and Asian programs of Institute of world safety of the USA.
It is clear that on this question all the contradictions are on the boundary positions of Russia and America. So today all depends on what bench you're sitting next to Zlobin or with Prokhanov. And here I see that with the American analyst Zlobin located Mirsky, Vladimir Akhmedov of the Institute of Oriental studies, and it's the staff of the analytical centre of the Russian state from the Russian Academy of Sciences! When I listen to their speeches on our TV channels, I see the American neocons, rabid demanding regime change in Syria.
I ask the question: dear scholars, analysts, political scientists and receiving salary from the state pockets, but at least you know the policy of our state? Who allowed you to deal with the political course of Russia by Russian TV channels and to protect the line and the strategic position of the United States of America, with which our country has faced head-on in the international arena? If you do not agree with the position of the Russian President and Foreign Minister, please, give up your identity the staff of the Academy of Sciences and engage in free political activity. But if you stay and fight with his state is immoral, unacceptable. If in the US someone from think tanks, funded by the state, allowed himself to oppose U.S. policy, such centers would probably be closed, and these people there wouldn't be. The U.S. government is closely watching how public funds are spent. I feel that we have the control of the state entirely lost.
I'm amazed when Vladimir Akhmedov – a senior researcher of the Institute of Oriental studies – the first state television channel openly declares: I completely disagree with the foreign policy position of the Ministry of foreign Affairs of Russia. How to understand this? Within the closed discussions in the circle of specialists he can make any – the fantastic – theory, which then as a recommendation to consider or reject the appropriate Department. But when the Central channels of the woodwork as hell, popping up these Worldly, Ahmetovi, Shumilina and begin your own point of view as the main issue, but there is no alternative, ask the question: where are the official position of the Russian Federation? For all the time I heard only one sentence Vyacheslav Nikonov, who still said he supports Mead – very gently and carefully. We can invite Nikolai Zlobin, which clearly outline the U.S. position, if necessary,more hard line, you can connect by teleconference Dmitry Simes or Ariel Cohen, how did this Maxim Shevchenko. But why Russian specialists instead of lighting the position of our Foreign Ministry are engaged in protecting American interests? All this scum is poured on the heads of Russian TV viewers who watch with interest the political debate. After listening to these performances, they will see that most experts on the Middle East support and share the American approach.
Besides, I don't understand why so actively given a voice to the Syrian opposition are in Moscow? There are several Arabic names that do not descend from the TV screen, moving from one channel to another. It's the Syrians, the Egyptians, the Arabs, who have Russian passports, are in the news agencies or just come as representatives of the opposition. They are given the widest release through the media, which further increases the disorientation of the Russian public.
In my opinion, there is clearly a negative role is played also by RIA Novosti. From late may to June on all round tables, held there, the same persons who present the same concept, including opposing foreign policy line of Russia. In particular, teleconference was organized with Beijing, where they met the specialists of the institutes of Oriental studies of Russia and China. Moscow and Beijing's allies in opposing the US on the Syrian issue. The two countries coordinate their actions at the level of heads of States. And suddenly on a platform of RIA Novosti research staff of the Russian Institute of Oriental studies live the Chinese claim that the Assad regime has exhausted itself, and he will fall in the next two weeks. It was two months ago. They openly said Assad is a dictator, and it must be immediately removed from office. The President is trying to coordinate the foreign policy line of Russia and China, the foreign Ministry arranges regular consultations to create greater stability in international negotiations, and our research and analytical centers along with the media are just subversive activities against our foreign policy. I have a question: how can I pay for these analysts, if they work in favor of a foreign government, specifically the United States of America? Institute of USA and Canada, Institute of world economy and international relations, Institute of Oriental studies – I tried to find some positive moments, but couldn't.
I remember one interesting conversation with an American TV channel "al-Hurra". I was attracted by the Syrian state TV from 12 until one o'clock, I agreed. They rented a Studio where I needed to drive. At exactly the same time "Hurra" invites me to "Hours of freedom", and I say I don't have the opportunity because I had agreed to speak on Syrian TV. They ask the question: "Tell me, Mr. Matuzov, who else in Moscow can clearly and distinctly Express the official views of the Russian government?"
They had no hangers, and Analytics, reflecting the position of Russia. Of course, they can read the statements of the official representative of Russian foreign Ministry Alexander Lukashevich – everything is clear. But for live need someone, who can explain, not for the Americans, and through the American TV channels to put this information in the Arab world – these broadcasts are in Arabic. They could not find in Moscow such people! All this our political, analytical non-scientific audience reflects the strategy of the United States. But the Americans have enough of their own analysts, for discussion, they need not Pro-American and Russian approach. And they can't find in Russia.
How is it that the representative of the President of the Russian Federation Mikhail Margelov arrived in Benghazi and declares that he, by order of D. A. Medvedev, will act as a mediator between the opposition and the authorities? He said he admired how everything is organized, what educated and intelligent people meet him at the airport, says: "the Gaddafi Regime has outlived its usefulness". And then he has to go to Gaddafi and to negotiate with him...
Muammar Gaddafi, naturally, refuses – just is not takes Margelov. But on the eve of Sergey Lavrov openly said that Russia will not act as an intermediary that it relies on the African Union and will support him in the mediation. This amateurism in foreign policy is one of the most dangerous phenomena of our time. By the way, the Syrians refused to receive a delegation of the Federation Council, which was going to lead Margelov, as I said one of the Syrian representatives in Moscow. Were sent to other people, and the trip was very productive.
- So, in addition to unfair media and experts, we can talk about some of the official parties?
They, referring to his powers, lead line, which undermines the activities of our Ministry of foreign Affairs. It causes enormous damage to Russia. I encounter this daily. Every dissonance with our official position is fixed by the Western media and immediately reflects new questions for me as a person representing this position. So I am literally on the edge of this conflict. Have directly and openly to say that these people do not represent the official position of the Russian Federation, despite all occupied high positions. If you want to know this position – go to the website of the Russian foreign Ministry. But, unfortunately, until recently, was also not so simple: we must grasp, understand diplomatic language, think about that for the General public uninviting. With the new year, the situation has clearly changed in favor of Russia. However, it is necessary to give detailed political commentary with generalizations and explanations, and here it is completely absent.
I have questions: what is the purpose of unfolding the said shaft talk show on this topic and the actions of leading think tanks and political circles? What lies behind this opposition to our government rate? Can this opposition to exist without any governance arrangements or it occurs spontaneously? After all, if these people are brave enough to subvert the provisions of the adopted leadership course, then, this is something there. What are the forces that articulate this point of view? The answer to this question to give I can't: I only gave addresses, and the generalization may make the Federal security service and the structures that are responsible for information work in the foreign policy area. I feel the opposition, but to identify the source should not I, and the relevant authorities.
I remember Maxim Shevchenko asked me to transfer "In the context of" exactly one day before the recording – in the morning. I was warned that if it's another "Oriental Bazaar", where sits 14-15 people, and my voice will not be heard, I will not participate. It turned out to be 2-4 people, an hour-long program – favourite format. And at 23.30 I called back and the representative channel, and reports: "the List of participants was reviewed by the leadership of the First channel, and you, Mr. Matuzov, struck out". That is, some people with certain views on the Syrian question have been replaced. I know that also the Syrian Ambassador invited to participate in this program, but when he learned that there he will engage in combat with the Syrian oppozicioneri live, he simply refused.
It's not a coincidence. Shaft information coming from Russian TV channels, RIA Novosti and other agencies, is an attempt to influence the position of the leadership of the country, and it was organized just a few days before the meeting of Vladimir Putin with Barack Obama in Mexico. Coincidence? Unlikely. Actually, it is not for the masses, namely, to reverse the current foreign policy of Russia. This fully coincides with the requirements that we hear from Hillary Clinton or the Syrian opposition. It is in the interests of a foreign state, namely the United States of America.
- What steps should be taken by the country's leadership to solve this problem?
- In my opinion, it is necessary to put forward the demand in front of our TV channels, news agencies prior to their General direction was consistent with the foreign policy attitudes of the Russian leadership. If Russia is in a tough confrontation with the United States on the world stage in the UN security Council on Syria at the IAEA on Iran's topics – why we have these areas remain completely free for interpretation? For example, columnist of "Kommersant-FM" Konstantin Eggert, who positions himself as an expert on the Middle East (I don't ascribe to this category), has the moral right to say whatever he wants, he is independent journalist. And if the First channel invited him to speak something as a specific person with a specific position. But if you are invited specialists from the Institute of USA and Canada, Institute of Oriental studies, Institute of world economy and international relations, they are obliged by their official position to reflect and present the official line of Russia, and not protivostoyat her.
- Returning directly to the U.S. position, I would like to mention insinuations related to Russian pmto in Tartus. It seems Hillary Clinton has stated on the deployment of a whole division of Russian Marines...
- American influence on Arab public opinion the main direction is to prove that Russia has in Syria some serious interests, and that led to its support of the existing regime. Their thesis is the same: the regime falls out of the Syrian people, and Russia clings to the dictatorial regime for their own benefit. To fix these "Mercantile interests of Russia", and they focus the world's attention to alleged military bases, military-technical cooperation, etc. How long I have to fend off accusations, as if the poor Syrian children, women and old people killed by Russian weapons! "You, Russians, are accomplices in the bloodshed, you are criminals, patorski genocide!", they cry.
Now on the Internet "walks" the most powerful hour program with channel "Jazeera", where my opponent was the former assistant to the mufti of Syria Sheikh Abdel al-Jalil said, now escaped to Qatar. Was horrible, what vile accusations against Russia collapsed this former religious servant! The story of my conversation with Sheikh al-Jalil, was translated into Russian language for Americans – we don't lift a finger. But what did the American translators? Cut all my contrarguments, leaving only bare allegations that came to bullying. But they did not understand that it worked against them because the normal population of his words and manner was not accepted.
"Russian should be killed, cut! Russian base in Tartus and Russian in Syria will be targeted by the liberation army. Russia will be crushed by the Islamic world!" - about such theses sounded from him.
I'm just reminded that our military-technical cooperation with Syria were begun in July 1967. And in what conditions? The war, the Israeli aggression against the Arab countries. The West does not give a single cartridge, and manages to survive only thanks to our support. 1973, when Israel bombed Damascus, and only our missiles ABOUT saved the city from air raids. 1982 – invasion of Lebanon, and again protects our guns. Yes, we supplied arms, but what? In case, if NATO invades Syria, they have modern missiles, which neither the Turks nor the Americans, such as coastal defense "Bastion", which will not allow any missiles, no planes, no ships closer to the Syrian coast. Or anti-aircraft missile systems "Buk" and "tor", provides protivozdushnoy defense. This weapon, guaranteeing national security and sovereignty of the state. As correctly noted by Sergey Lavrov, Russia is not supplying weapons to combat protesters. But America has invaded all the countries of the Persian Gulf by means of police suppression of demonstrations. And while they try to arrange the situation so that our Marines have already landed in the Tartus, ostensibly for the suppression of popular uprisings.
- If you look at the US strategy at all, is it possible to consider a specific scenario of the situation in the middle East according to their calculations?
We cannot consider the Syrian topic in isolation from the geopolitical plans of the USA. If we approach this conflict parochial: to be Bashar al-Assad or not to be, we go into the maze of small contradictions, of which a great number of inside Syria, as in any other country in the world. We lose sight of the main question: who is manipulating these processes, what are these Arab revolutions? But the sense is the same: in order to realize certain geopolitical plans of U.S. foreign policy.
These plans published since the days of Condoleezza rice and George W. Bush and aimed at creating a "greater Middle East", which is confirmed by maps of a military analyst Ralph Peters (ex-officer of the National United States military Academy), where there is a complete redrawing of the state borders of the countries of the region according to ethnic groups living in different countries. And the new borders are the years of the new bloodshed, perhaps unprecedented since the middle Ages.
- Is there any specific forecasts at its worst? What countries supported the American line may be the following?
- The difficult situation in Saudi Arabia, where the ruler is seriously ill, and the heir has already died. Competitors a huge number, growing struggle for power, but the country itself is divided into three regions. As shown by the maps a retired Lieutenant Colonel Peters, in the near future Saudi Arabia will be divided into three States. All of the East coast will be a Shiite state. There is also a Kuwait, Bahrain and southern Iraq and Iran, populated by Arabs – the oil. All of this is already planned as part of a future state with its capital in Basra. We have reformatted the boundaries on ethnic and religious principles. Yet are Arab Shia state, Sunni ruling now, wahhabity remain in the wilderness, cut off from the East coast and petroleum resources, doomed to nomadic life. The West coast of Saudi Arabia – Mecca and Medina – become like the Vatican as an independent state – a place of worship and pilgrimage for all Muslims. Saudi Arabia as a sovereign state disappear. That's the American vision of the future of this country.
Iraq shatters into pieces. Already mentioned the southern state centered in Basra, which is adhered to the oil-rich Saudi and Iranian territory. The centre is cut off from the sea, a Sunni part, and the Northern part of Kurdistan, which already has real economic independence: he does not share their oil revenues with the government. And on this map of Kurdistan through Turkish territory gets access to the Black sea. This is a sleeve that captures the Turkish city Diyar Bekir, where the American military base, and extends to the border with Georgia.
Syria in accordance with these ideas, losing control of the state, steeped in anarchy, strife, coming out of them, losing all the Mediterranean coast, which is annexed to Great Lebanon. Severe reformatting are Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan... All of this could be attributed to the fantastic ideas of a crazy Colonel, if his job wasn't one of the fundamental textbooks for educational establishments of NATO. And ten years ago, when the Turkish officers under training in Italy, I saw these tutorials, the scandal broke. It's all part of the American strategy to create a "greater Middle East" of which Condoleezza rice referred to the period when the USA during the month blocked the discussion of Israel's aggression against Lebanon in the UN security Council. She then uttered the historic phrase that in the fire of the Israeli war against terrorism in Lebanon is born a new Big middle East.
- New boundaries focused primarily on the oil fields?
- You know, it is very tempting to write everything off on a purely economic interest. I see here another aspect because Americans already a long time kept under control all the resources of the Middle East due to the oil companies. Even in the days of Saddam Hussein, Iraqi oil went to the United States. So we are talking about geopolitical interests of the United States.
What happens as a result of the implementation of this strategy? To power throughout the region come the Islamic fundamentalists. This great Islamic Caliphate is being built under the management of "Muslim brotherhood" radicals, who since the 1930s, coordinated by first British and then American intelligence. Then they were created as a religious Bastion against world communism centered in Egypt, but soon spread to different Arab countries and compete with al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Therefore, to replace all the fallen regimes will come one power, controlled from behind the scenes by the Americans.
I studied the biography of the new President of Egypt Mohammed Morsi: he studied 10 years in the United States. His two daughters also studied in the USA and nowadays there are. Once during a conference in Qatar for a whole week I had Breakfast with the current President of Tunisia marzouki and the leader of the local "Muslim Brothers" Ghannouchi. I looked at these Islamist thought: what are they Islamists? Rachid Ghannouchi – a purely secular people. And he has two daughters studying medicine at a canadian University.
All of these games in religious fundamentalist – driven work the purpose of control. Subsequently, this Islamic factor can be sent to Central Asia, at the same time touch our Caucasus. But, above all, in countries such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan. This is not domination over oil resources and economic relations, and global strategic objectives.
Creating a lobby in the Arab world, America is now safely engage in the so-called revolution, but really – coups, relying on its powerful economic presence in the region. No Arab revolution does not exist – there is a program developed by American global structures led by the neo-cons (and this is a real Jewish lobby in the United States, as defined by the French press), global corporations headed by Baron Rothschild, which involved all major international companies, like Google, MacDonald's, American Airlines, to 20 schools, which for 6-7 years, trained dozens of leaders of the Arab "revolutionaries". It's an elaborate technology of the organization of political upheavals, which resulted in the movement of the entire Arab world, bringing to power in these countries come the Islamic fundamentalists, controlled by the CIA.
Do not rule out that the Barack Deception can be very far from these plans. To whom do the threads of control, it's easy to learn, carefully reading the material on the Internet. Only our intelligence that, apparently, simply do not do. Apparently, they face other problems.
Tags: Iran , war , Syria , NATO