Military Review

Negotiations between Washington and Hezbollah: friendship against al Qaeda?

Negotiations between Washington and Hezbollah: friendship against al Qaeda?For at least a month, Eastern media have been writing about some secret talks between the White House and Hezbollah. It is noted that Washington suddenly turned its back on the "rebels", and turned its face to Syria, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. Curious about turning 180 degrees, especially if you recall the slogan of the US Secretary of State (former) Hillary Clinton: "Assad must leave." And remember that Mr. Obama called Madame Clinton America's best secretary of state for all history country. And now it has come to the point that the Tomahawks have been canceled, and the “rebels” are ready to unite with the forces of Assad in order to defeat the sharmatchik-sponsored Wahhabi Saudis. And then there's the weird news about negotiations with Hezbollah, whose fighters are not very likeable to the US ally Israel.

At the beginning of November, many media outlets, including those in Russian, reprinted a message from the newspaper Al-Anbaa (Kuwait). The note dealt with negotiations between representatives of the United States and Hezbollah, and not just anywhere in the bunker, but directly at the US Embassy in Beirut. The source of information, of course, wished to remain anonymous.

According to him, they talked about some "indirect" contacts (apparently, through intermediaries). Anonymous also noted that we can talk about warming in relations between the United States and the Lebanese movement: after all, Sheikh Nasrallah in his last speeches had never attacked the United States. Previously, he could not afford such peace. Moreover, later the US ambassador to Lebanon, David Hale, stated that “the Lebanese government cannot be formed without the participation of Hezbollah.

An anonymous person, who called himself a Lebanese deputy, also expressed an opinion on the new geopolitical priorities of the United States. The talks between Washington and Hezbollah, in his opinion, are the result of improved relations between the United States and Iran.

At the end of November, there were other reports of secret negotiations between the United States and Hezbollah. Their source was this time the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai. Moreover, it was reported that between the Lebanese Shiites and the Americans were mediated by the British - unnamed diplomatic staff. Hezbollah was brought closer together by the Americans and the British, allegedly by al-Qaeda’s general rejection and issues of regional stability in general.

The newspaper does not name its informants, citing certain "high-ranking British diplomatic sources." The very process of negotiations was allegedly set as follows: the British are talking to the Lebanese, and then sharing information with the Americans. Why do we need intermediaries? Because Hezbollah is recognized as a terrorist organization in the United States. Washington can't have conversations with her.

Just as in the previous case, the journalists suggested that the Americans went for a negotiation rapprochement with Hezbollah because of the thaw in relations with Iran.

Finally, quite fresh news (or news in quotes): A few days ago, the United States again held some kind of secret negotiations with Lebanese Shiites. These negotiations were associated with another major strategic defeat that the Syrian rebels suffered on December 8 in Kalamuna. The main Lebanese supply route to the “oppositionists” from Lebanon is blocked by the Assad army, and the Damascus-Beirut highway is controlled by Hezbollah.

To this we must add something.

The other day the Syrian army regained control over the Damascus-Homs highway. This will allow to start the export of chemical stocks weapons to the Mediterranean port of Lattakia.

It is unlikely that after all this, Assad considers the scattered and thinned rebel detachments as a significant military and political force. In addition, the rebels themselves are ready to go to rapprochement with Assad - even ready to fight with him against the Islamists.

About the possible unification of the opposition forces with the government army in Syria, said the commander of the Syrian Free Army Salim Idris. He even abandoned the previously set precondition of peace talks that Assad should leave power before the meeting in Geneva.

Idris complains that his people are fighting on two fronts: against Assad and against al Qaeda branches. Idris doesn’t like the fact that the West does not help him, although he promised, but the Saudis help the Islamists (for example, “Dzhebhat an-Nusra”).

Desperate attempts at propaganda are also going on - absolutely stupid.

Anonymous representatives of the "opposition" accused the Assad troops of using chemical weapons during the battles for the city of En-Nebq. Some opposition anonymous sources told Reuters that in the vicinity of the rebel-controlled city government forces fired two gas-charged projectiles. As a result, not seven died, not nine. Reuters acknowledges that no confirmation of this information was obtained.

The media noted that the White House turned away from the "rebels" because they are basically terrorist forces like the aforementioned Dzhebhat an-Nusra. That is why the United States is now ready to conduct a dialogue not only with Hezbollah, but also with B. Assad. It turns out that it took almost three years for Washington to understand who was on which side and for what “ideas” it was fighting. Congressmen and the White House even began to fear that yesterday's Syrian militants were about to trample on to America. Stupid some Washington, right? The militants have long said that their goal after Syria is the statue of Liberty.

However, the Department of State has previously admitted that it does not understand exactly who the isolated Syrian opposition consists of. In Libya, they say, everything was clear, but in Syria - no. It is only incomprehensible then, where the slogan "Assad should go" came from and Obama’s dubious statements about chemical "red lines". Attacks of democratization, perhaps, tortured? Or did the selfish interests of the military-industrial complex, which Mr. McCain so unsuccessfully lobbied for? Yeah, I would have been silent better!

No, it’s not at all a fact that Washington has led or is in secret negotiations with Hezbollah. One thing is clear: there are no such rumors from scratch. After an extremely unsuccessful policy 2012-2013. in the Middle East, the Americans took a step back. Obama really looked like a “lame duck” - the so-called American president on a second term. You don’t need to worry about winning the election, you don’t really care about the image: you can only hear from Obama that excuses about the “red lines” and absurd maxims about American “exclusivity”. Want to enter the story? Yes, it is unlikely to succeed; but at least it would not plunge - and that's great. Hence the collapse of regional policy, hence the fact that analysts call the “change of priorities”. The “tomahawks” did not fly to Syria, the plans for chemical disarmament of Damascus are being implemented, and Iran received half a year of rest and a slight sanctions relief. The United States, which is rather busy with the difficult situation with China and its new air defense zone, which is not very popular with South Korea and Japan, now all we need is to get a small initiative in the Geneva-2 conference - that is why, perhaps, negotiations are being held with those and these forces. If Syria wasn’t able to be bombed, then at least Hezbollah, which receives its fighting experience, needs to be returned to its native hearths, and to maintain the status of a peacemaker leading Damascus directly to human rights, democracy and peace. Not the place of the white dove is deservedly taken by Russia. Dare, the Nobel laureate Obama!
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Igor39
    Igor39 16 December 2013 08: 32
    I wonder how the Jewish "tovarischi" will react to the news, the allies are negotiating with the terrorists, the dip is broken. relationship or have to endure?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. builder
      builder 16 December 2013 08: 40
      They will die as usual
      1. tilovaykrisa
        tilovaykrisa 16 December 2013 09: 13
        It’s not a fact that if Jews consider that they are cornered, then they will fuck all that they have, but there are a lot of things there, there have already been examples.
        1. Orel
          Orel 16 December 2013 10: 27
          Changing the vector of American policy in the Middle East can help resolve the situation. Israel, having lost unconditional US support, will be more inclined towards negotiations and diplomacy. The same can be said about various paramilitary groups that cannot but feel the danger from radical Islamists in Syria. Everyone understands that if Islamism wins in Syria, it will be bad for everyone. This is sufficient ground for convergence of positions. In such a situation, Saudi Arabia may find itself in opposition to the entire Middle East. So it is not far from the "democratization" of the Saudis. I wouldn't mind that.
          1. tilovaykrisa
            tilovaykrisa 16 December 2013 21: 50
            There will not be, just the opposite, remember the past wars where the states were exactly against (diplomatically) Israel and this did not stop them, just a year behind Uncle Sam they could play diplomacy if the mustache turn away start to get nervous and the nervous ones have just one solution questions, namely by force.
    3. APASUS
      APASUS 16 December 2013 21: 03
      Quote: Igor39
      I wonder how the Jewish "tovarischi" will react to the news, the allies are negotiating with the terrorists, the dip is broken. relationship or have to endure?

      The United States as a rule does not abandon its undertakings (a case in point is the deployment of missile defense systems in Europe, canceled the deployment in Poland - moved to Romania.), I do not know what these negotiations mean, but most likely we should expect a new turn of the war in Syria.
      Probably they will try to lead the movement against al-Qaeda while they are looking for an approach to Assad, I would not be particularly happy.
  2. makarov
    makarov 16 December 2013 08: 34
    In my opinion, everything is a little easier. Hezbollah, as a combat unit, not only gained experience in military operations in Syria, but also showed the world its real capabilities and abilities, and this has become impossible to ignore.
    1. tilovaykrisa
      tilovaykrisa 16 December 2013 21: 51
      Well, Shiites and have been pecking for more than 10 years, all the United States and Israel, how else can they survive then)
  3. Stiletto
    Stiletto 16 December 2013 09: 00
    For America, there are no terrorist or non-terrorist organizations. The whole question is which of them is currently beneficial for them in their selfish interests to be recognized as such.
    1. tilovaykrisa
      tilovaykrisa 16 December 2013 21: 51
      "He's a cook's son, but he's our cook's son."
  4. Black
    Black 16 December 2013 10: 54
    Here's something wrong here ...
    Well, I can’t believe that the Overseas Jews will leave the Shores to eat Hezbollah.
    1. Ascetic
      Ascetic 16 December 2013 15: 39
      Quote: Chen
      Well, I can’t believe that the Overseas Jews will leave the Shores to eat Hezbollah.

      Overseas and mother will sell their mother if necessary, not like tribesmen in Israel.
      The capital of the Jewish bankers of America and Germany worked for Hitler, who gave him carte blanche in 1929 to seize power in Germany with the financing of the Nazi party.

      In total, in the Third Reich, thanks to the Fuhrer, more than 150 “honorary Aryans” of Jews appeared, the vast majority of them were large industrialists who carried out the personal instructions of the Fuhrer to finance various political events.
      For the Nazis, the principle of dividing the Jews into the rich and everyone else was characteristic almost until the collapse of the Reich. And yet, interestingly, the moral (if this term is generally applicable here) aspect did not bother either side at all. Pragmatism was more important.

      Jewish sponsors Jewish fighter
      Do not forget about the catch phrase attributed Roosevelt (according to one of the versions said in relation to Somoza) - 'He may be a son of a bitch, but this is our son of a bitch. '.Reliance on bitch children and there is a cornerstone of the policy of essentially the same American bankers - geshefters. It is beneficial to support Wahhabis - Saudis will support despite any ideology. Ayatollahs will be profitable will support Ayatollahs and no Israel decree.
    2. tilovaykrisa
      tilovaykrisa 16 December 2013 21: 54
      They’ll throw it, the project of controlled chaos in the BV is approaching the final stage, Jews have already thrown shaving and the United States more than once in Europe, now the batch will be in the region where China, Israel are stealing spent material.
  5. FormerMariman
    FormerMariman 16 December 2013 11: 42
    It turns out that it took Washington almost three years to understand who is on whose side and for what "ideas" he is fighting. Congressmen and the White House even began to fear that yesterday's Syrian militants were about to trample into America. Some kind of dumb Washington, right? The militants long ago said that their goal after Syria is the Statue of Liberty. Oleg said well. But seriously, it looks a lot like a Lebanese duck. "an unnamed source", "to some" high-ranking British diplomatic sources "," An anonymous person who identified himself as a Lebanese MP also expressed his opinion ", etc. Everything is clear, the east is a delicate matter!
  6. kelevra
    kelevra 16 December 2013 12: 15
    Who said terrorists, Hazball and al-Qaeda, these are spontaneously organized radicals. The CIA created at one time Al Qaeda and Binladen to dictate their will in the East with terror. Now, the United States seeks to destabilize the entire Middle East, it is clearly seen in Libya, Syria, Egypt. The US Constitution has a section that says that any negotiations with terrorist organizations, individual terrorists and countries collaborating with terrorists should never be conducted! And here again, negotiations, and even those if you believe am Rican, and mainly carry out attacks throughout the East against US citizens and military!
  7. mizantropi
    mizantropi 16 December 2013 13: 12
    In this situation, the alignment is much more complicated than the distinguished Oleg outlined. In short: "grandmother said three things." Let's take a look, the options can be curious ...
  8. Shomik
    Shomik 16 December 2013 17: 42
    That's right. I have repeatedly said 2 years ago, if Assad persists, we will come closer to both him and Iran. It was confirmed!
  9. Leshka
    Leshka 16 December 2013 18: 46
    the hot mixture will turn out if they combine
  10. alone
    alone 16 December 2013 20: 44
    Information looks like OBS.
    reprinted the newspaper Al-Anbaa (Kuwait).

    A very, very trusting source)) laughing
  11. knn54
    knn54 16 December 2013 21: 06
    Al-Qaeda ", once nurtured not without the help of American intelligence services, has recently become a qualitatively different organization - very effectively managed, well-organized and financed, with excellently trained technically, physically and" politically "fighters. That efficiency and speed, with which managed to prepare, equip, train and send thousands of militants to Syria cannot but amaze the imagination. THESE jihadist brigades can be EASILY deployed to any region of the world - be it the Nile Delta, Pakistan ... France, the USA or Tatarstan. Technologies have been developed and tested in Afghanistan , Iraq, Chechnya and Libya. In Somalia, the Al-Shabab group announced its full affiliation with this organization. In Libya, its members easily arrest the Prime Minister and then release him. In Yemen, Al-Qaeda actually rules entire provinces In Syria itself, besides her, there are no serious opponents of Assad left.
    “With an iron hammer in hand, the United States can defeat any visible traditional troops, but Washington cannot defeat invisible terrorists. The United States will be able to physically destroy terrorists using its military and informational power, but its foreign policy of double standards will not help eliminate the social soil of terrorism. Moreover, the counter-terrorist forces are in plain sight, and the terrorists are in the shadows. As soon as the latter get only one chance, they use it one hundred percent, and if the former makes only one mistake, they suffer one hundred percent defeat. "
    Now the USA is Frantically looking for "cannon fodder" to fight the monster they have generated throughout the whole world ...
    PS And the Turks, supporting Al Qaeda against Assad, are waiting for (I would like to make a mistake) the fate of Pakistan ...
  12. 123_123
    123_123 17 December 2013 07: 17
    Washington’s attempts are understandable. The question is why there is no rhetoric about the role of Russia in resolving the conflict? At least from the side of Russia itself. Or having received good trump cards at the expense of diplomacy, is it now permissible to lose in the information war? I would like to see more activity in the media. In RT for example.