Imperial nations threatened by the Libyan Army victory in Libya’s oil crescent

Global Research, November 09, 2016
Jamahiriya News Agency 12 September 2016

By August 22 plans were in place to seize Libyan oil fields and ports that were under the control of the oil installation guards led by Ibrahim Jadhran who is allied with Tripoli’s government of accord, working under the command of the presidential council’s national guard (LIFG).

To prepare the way for the liberation of the oil crescent, Sheikh Saleh Alatyosh delivered a stern warning to the men serving under Jadhran.

*I ask the people of my tribe to ensure that no one has a son in the oil installations guards…and advise them to return to the embrace of the tribe…We are with the national army under the leadership of the Khalifa Haftar, with Parliament headed by Saleh and the government emanating from it and we in Cyrenaica do not recognize the legitimacy of the presidential council.

الأول من اليسار شيخ قبيلة المغاربة صالح الاطيوش. (تصوير: صلاح الاطيوش) (photo: )

In 2013 Ibrahim Jadhran declared war on Tripoli’s GNC, announcing Cyrenica’s autonomy and return to the kingdom of Libya’s 1963 regional borders.
Libya-map-AI
With Sheikh Saleh Alatyosh’s announcement, not only were Jadhran’s political ambitions annihilated. The imperialist plot to partition Libya was crushed.

The Libyan National Army launched their strategic strike on the oil installations on Sunday. Aerial bombardments were immediately followed by ground assaults. Within hours the oil fields and ports were firmly under their control.

In an appeal following the victory, Sheikh Saleh Alatyosh offered assurances to Jadhran that if he surrendered to the army he would be well treated. He urged employees of the oil installations to cooperate in a peaceful handover of the facilities to the armed forces in Ajdabiya. He cautioned them to refrain from further sedition and bloodshed and return to their homes.

The victory was a humiliation for the UN-instated presidential council and the foreign nations backing the puppet regime. Fayez al-Sarraj was in the midst of a meeting in Italy when the news of the LNA victory reached him. Clearly shaken, he returned to Tripoli to assess the damage and save what he could of his reputation and that of the sham regime propped up by the United Nations and NATO.

After months of the government of accord’s show battle in Sirte under the command of al Qaeda and LIFG forces, where hundreds of Misratan fighters lost their lives as Da’esh left the city in concerted waves seeking a new base, the Libyan National Army, impeded by international sanctions, proved itself to be the superior, most effective force in the country, capable of defeating terrorist armies, securing Libya’s resource wealth for the people, restoring the rule of law and protecting the civilian population.

The power of the Tribes must also be considered. This victory was achieved through the Libyan National Army’s alliance with Tribal leaders. While the United Nations and foreign interlocutors continue to exclude the Tribes, this victory demonstrates that nothing of benefit to the people in Libya happens without their cooperation. However many meetings the United Nations may host in the name of national reconciliation, they have no power or authority. Their efforts, their declarations and political agreements are dismissed as irrelevant, illegitimate, unwarranted interference in Libya’s sovereign affairs – the most recent deprecation being the Supreme Council of Libyan Tribe’s response to the Tunis meeting held earlier this month.

Authentic Libyan dialogues are the sole province of the Libyan people and the Tribes.

Today the governments of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom and the US issued a joint statement condemning the Libyan army’s victory, demanding that the legitimate armed forces withdraw immediately, without preconditions. They falsely claim that the energy infrastructure is under threat and that only their client regime in Tripoli should have control over Libya’s rich reserves.

Continue reading

Advertisements

US-NATO ground forces, escalation in Syria leading to global war

Global Research, December 05, 2015
turkey-syria

The recent developments show significant changes in the strategy of the Western countries involved in the Syrian conflict. The US has sent ground forces, including special operations units, into the region. French Air Force has sharply increased the number of sorties, and France’s rapid-reaction troops and naval units are being moved closer to Syria.

The United Kingdom has also begun to participate in the US-led anti-ISIS coalition strikes on Syrian soil. Likewise Germany has begun to deploy its aircraft and relocating almost 1200 quick-reaction troops to the Syria-Iraq battlefield. Turkey is deploying a large military attack force, including a number of armored units, at the border with Syria. It seems that NATO powers have realized the strategy aimed at Assad’s ouster by a diverse range of militant groups including ISIS which is backed by Turkey and the US has failed.

According to the initial scenario implemented by the West, ISIS and other militant groups, deceitfully called the moderate opposition, were to carry out a Libya-like scenario in Syria and oust or preferably kill Assad and plunge the whole country into chaos. Then the US-led coalition would start a full-scale military operation to stop the terrorists threatening the “moderate opposition” in Syria, deploy NATO forces on the ground and take control of the crucial oil and logistic infrastructure. Western oil corporations supported by NATO would then restore the state of affairs as it existed more than 40 years ago. Syria would fall victim to total exploitation by overseas powers. The Mediterranean would become Alliance’ internal lake.

Now it’s clear that Syria won’t fall under terrorist group pressure. The Syrian forces backed by Russia and Iran are gaining momentum, recapturing cities and facilities earlier controlled by militants. The NATO allies urgently need a new plan to hold control at least of the northern oil corridor from Iraq and try to take advantage of this opportunity to involve Russia in a long expensive war, in other words, to accomplish that which they failed to do in Ukraine. It means that the NATO contingent must occupy crucial infrastructure including oilfields before the Syrian government forces liberate it. Anti-government, meaning anti-Russian and anti-Iranian, forces would be established in parts of divided Syria. The need for an excuse to implement the changed approach could be the reason why the Nov.13 Paris attack wasn’t prevented by the Western special services.

The implication of the Western plan to divide Syria in a number of vassal entities leads to 3 main scenarios:

1)   Military buildup and escalation in the region could lead to open military conflict between NATO and the alternative anti-ISIS coalition that is led by Russia. This regional conflict could easily lead to a global war. Moreover, Turkey, a NATO member state, has already shown that it’s ready to escalate the situation to defend its illegal oil business linked with ISIS.

2)    If the Syrian Arab Army with support by militia forces, Iran, and Russia isn’t able to show a significant success on the battlefield, Syria could be easily divided by the Western-backed ground forces supported by NATO airpower and intelligence assets. A direct military intervention to take control of the oil structure and crucial logistical points also remains possible. Even if NATO and its regional allies successfully take control of a significant part of the country, this escalation is unlikely to be avoided. The situation will become more acute due to the establishment of an aggressive puppet regime on the Syria’s territory. Considering that the alternative anti-ISIS coalition won’t lay down its arms, an open conflict could be easily provoked by the interested powers.

3)   If the Syrian government forces supported by Russia and Iran take control of the country’s key areas, the US-led coalition will face the fact that Syria is de-facto liberated from terrorist groups. It could prevent a direct military intervention by NATO. In this case, the NATO countries would strengthen their presence in Iraq and use it as a foothold to launch further destructive actions against Syria. However, it’s the safest scenario most likely to avoid a global escalation.