Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Chossudovsky: NATO, the Middle East and the "defacto exit from NATO" of Turkey

"Michel Chossudovsky discusses the recent US/Iran clash in the Persian Gulf; Iran’s capability as a military power; the breakup of the Gulf Cooperation Council; the Al-Udeid military base in Qatar the largest US base in the Middle East, and Qatar an ally of Iran; the flop of the proposed Middle East Strategic Alliance, also known as the Arab NATO; the July 2016 failed coup d’etat against Turkish President Erdogan; the US/Israel/Turkey “triple alliance” now a Turkey/Iran/Russia “triple entente”; Turkey’s purchase of the Russian S-400 missile defense shield constitutes its de facto exit from NATO; the geopolitical realignment of the Middle East and its repercussions on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization"
One item of importance that has been failing to get coverage in the 5/6 eyes media, alt and otherwise, has been this fallout of NATO allies. And the potential repercussions in the region. As well as for the NATO alliance. The shortfall in this interview is there is no mention of the shift in allies the US has made from Turkey to the PKK as a huge reason for the defacto exit from NATO of Turkey. Though that was a major reason for the fall out. Qatar is discussed. Also just last week I'd wrote about the Israeli concerns and plans made years ago, for Israel to attack Iran. This attack would have needed a friendly Turkey, without S-400's

  Saker featured an article written by Eric Zuesse claiming that there were no Kurdish forces backed by the US in Manbij. (they had withdrawn) Eric Zuesse was mistaken in his claim and I'm not sure how he could have gotten such a significant bit of information so wrong? (I'm not sold on the work of Eric Zuesse and have said as much previously here at the blog) Considering the latest news had a Saudi minister visiting the PKK forces in Manbij, alongside the Americans. (What is al-Sabhan doing in  Manbij? ) To my mind the reporting of  the still occupying PKK  Kurds as having withdrawn from Manbij is like claiming American forces have withdrawn from Syria as well ( U.S Forces Staying in Northern Syria INDEFINITELY, That sure hasn't happened!

The interview is about an hour long- give it a listen and share some thoughts


  1. One factor I never hear about anymore is the military pact between Iran and Russia for mutual defense. I believe that Russia has committed to come to Iran's aid [and vice versa] should one of them be attacked. Is this still the case?

  2. Hey GC:
    I don't know a whole lot about this military alliance between Iran and Russia..

    Chossudovsky made a point that I agree with- there won't be a conventional attack on Iran- And irregular warfare ie destabilization will, in fact, already has been at play. It will be ramped up.


    "Irregular warfare favors indirect and asymmetric warfare approaches, though it may employ the full range of military and other capabilities, in order to erode the adversary’s power, influence, and will. It is inherently a protracted struggle that will test the resolve of a state and its strategic partners"

  3. Writing from Greece, while Choussodovsky's article is correct concerning the shift of alliances, I can't agree - no matter what it looks like - that Turkey has left NATO or that it will ultimately leave NATO simply because Turkey's power in the region is 100% dependant on its geo-strategic and military importance to Washington. Put simply, Washington's No.1 international concern is Israel and No.2 is Turkey.
    - Without Turkey NATO is a joke. NATO is Turkey.
    - Without Turkey USA loses its No.1 Eurasian base equipped for decades with ballistic missiles and every scale of nuclear weapon trained on Russia's underbelly. - Russia's cooperation with Turkey is 100% conditional: they are traditional enemies and Russia knows full well it cannot trust Turkey as an ally. For proof review the last 2 years of Astana and full range of interactions.

    Finally, in answer to Bonnie Faulkner's prodding, Choussodovsky mentions only at the end the 2006 New Middle East plan [NMEP] as the start of bad relations between Turkey and USA, which is true. However he completely underestimates its overwhelming impact on the region - the hubris and monumental stupidity of publishing this plan 13 years ago put every country in the region on notice, and it has been the single greatest factor leading directly to the situation we have today. This cannot be stated loudly and emphatically enough. Between themselves and with the help of outside actors China and Russia the region has discreetly re-woven its alliances, improved its military strength and reduced its vulnerabilities into the conundrum it presents today to the US military POV.

    Alongside this hubris-filled misstep, was the ludicrous and insane assumption Washington & Israel made that their place man Erdogan would submit to losing 30% of Turkey's territory to "Kurdistan". (Consider!) He has so far proved un-removable through false flags, terrorism, a failed coup d'etat, economic attack and the latest Mayor-of-Istanbul Soros effort: they have to deal with him, like it or not, and on his terms. This is Erdogan [Turkey's] message to Washington while he plays both sides of the chessboard. For ex., Turkey's continued incursions into Greek seas & air space are a pro-NATO act, a NATO game to keep the possibility of igniting war warm and viable [eventually with Russia] from the Mediterranean .

    I recommend this video (subject is wider ranging than the title) as an illustration:

    The Duran Oil & Gas hubris moves Cyprus, Greece & Turkey closer to conflict

    1. thanks for the comment and I will check the video out

      I've written for many years here at the blog about the remake the region agenda....

      Your comment "For ex., Turkey's continued incursions into Greek seas & air space are a pro-NATO act, a NATO game to keep the possibility of igniting war warm and viable [eventually with Russia] from the Mediterranean.

      How is it you see these actions to be pro-NATO or a NATO game?