Currently the Jewish State is the only entity interested in a war launched against Syria – said Márton Gyöngyösi, the Deputy Leader of Jobbik’s Parliamentary Group, the Vice-chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Hungarian Parliament and Member of the Hungarian National Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU).
Q: It seems that the US will almost certainly launch a military assault against Syria. What could be the consequences of a military strike? How would it rearrange the balance of powers in the Middle East?
A: The war propaganda conducted by the West, and especially the USA, which always precedes a military strike, does not give too much hope for peace, indeed. In spite of the loud sabre-rattling however, we saw a somewhat unexpected event which gives us a glimmer of hope: several of the most loyal allies of the United States withdrew their support for Washington this time. Great Britain and Poland who had been the first to join the Iraqi and Afghan wars which were preceded by a similar kind of sickening propaganda and smear campaign as the current one, said a definite “no” this time. Considering the firm stance of Russia and China, the two large UN Security Council members, and the palpably anti-war sentiment of the majority of people in all Western countries including the United States, we should not give up the hope that the US president will eventually come to his senses. I might be too optimistic, but I think the fact that Obama was considering to put the issue up for vote in Congress on September 9, is a positive sign. The reason why it matters so much is that the US President has the mandate to decide in the question of war and peace without the approval of the legislation. I hope that Obama, whose presidential campaign focussed on finishing the failed and irresponsible wars launched by the Republicans, is transferring the responsibility to Congress in order to use them as an escape route from the grasp of the Zionist pro-Israel lobby that puts pressure on all US presidents and governs US foreign policy from the background. Currently the Jewish state is the only entity interested in a war launched against Syria. Similarly, the provocation of the previous wars was serving Zionist interests as well. Now when lobbyists are working hard day and night to sway Congress representatives, the question is whether or not common sense and the interest of the American people will overcome the Zionist interests. However, everybody feels that a war launched without a UN Security Council mandate, in other words, ignoring international law, would create a dangerous precedent and could lead to the destabilization of Syria as well as the entire Middle East. That would amount to a premonition of world war-like conflict.
Q: What kind of reactions can we expect from Moscow, Iran, Israel or Turkey in case of a potential military intervention?
A: At present, Moscow is the only player conducting a responsible and sober foreign policy in the Syrian conflict by promoting a peaceful solution in compliance with international law. On the other hand, they also expressed very clearly what they would do and where they would stand in case of an armed conflict. So the current situation is that the US would consider having to face Russia if an armed conflict broke out. As far is Iran is concerned, the reserved reaction of newly-elected President Rohani is somewhat surprising, but it is beyond doubt that Iran, aspiring to the role of a regional leading power, is fundamentally interested in and willing to make sacrifices for the survival of the Alawite-Shia Assad regime which had been a stable rock in the Sunni sea for half a century. There is no question that Israel, which governs US foreign policy from the background, would also mobilize to side with the US. It is no surprise that the Jewish state is fundamentally interested in a conflict because, ever since its establishment, it has always provoked wars against its neighbours to stabilize its own position in the region. In order to reinstate Zionist colonizing policy, the developments of the Arab Spring render military intervention necessary again, thus destabilizing Israel’s strong and stable neighbours. The real enigma is the role of Turkey. Logically, the Islamist Erdoğan government, relying on its unparalleled economic success, is aspiring to the regional leader’s role in a period when the status quo (the existing state of affairs) has somewhat been upset by the Arab Spring, and enters the decades-old Sunni-Shia duel fought by Saudi Arabia and Iran as the third contestant in order to become the dominant power in the region whose participation is essential for the resolution of the Syrian issue. Turkey is obviously not interested in the survival of the Assad regime, which enjoys the support of Shia Iran as well as Russia, Turkey’s other great historical rival. In my opinion, this aspect is dwarfed by the danger that Assad’s removal may very well destabilize Syria, which would open the way for Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the Salafi and Wahhabi, the Islamist extremist movements that openly cooperate with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations and enjoy the highly controversial support of the West as well. If you have to choose between a stable semi-dictatorship or an unstable terrorist state, no question that the former serves the interests of all closer and farther countries.
Q: How would you explain why the strategy of the US did not accomplish the expected results in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya?
A: As a matter of fact, it is not surprising at all, declining empires all follow the same course. The US is no different: it can only cover up and finance its own huge internal economic and social tensions if it acquires more and more resources by launching one war after another. Similarly to the Soviet Empire, the US is trying to expand over the world, relying on its controversy-ridden, false ideology. The thing that distinguishes the US from its predecessors and allows for its expansion is the passionate Messianism with which it enforces its power in the outside world, which it looks upon with extreme ignorance and primitivism. The US considered three aspects in terms of the wars in the Middle East: the security of Israel, the economic and the geostrategic interests of the US. From the point of view of the “customers”, these campaigns were all successful in the short run. The question is what long-term effect these wars had on the stability and prosperity of the region.
Q: Jobbik called for summoning the Foreign Committee of the Hungarian Parliament. Why was it important for you?
A: We assumed that if there is an extremely dangerous conflict like the one currently unfolding in terms of Syria, it would not be such a bad idea to discuss the issue in the Hungarian Parliament which reflects and represents the will of the Hungarian nation. There was a technical obstacle in the way of our motion, we needed the signatures of one fifth of the Committee. Since the Committee has twenty members, and only three of them are Jobbik representatives, we needed one more vote. In spite of our concerted efforts, we could not collect the fourth one. We could neither sway any Fidesz representatives, who automatically reject any Jobbik initiative, nor LMP’s pacifist representative Katalin Ertsey, who has an anti-war stance, not to mention the representatives of the Christian Democrats, who at least should feel indignant about the fact that the rebels backed by our Western allies are killing Christian priests and nuns in Syria. Unfortunately, this is the situation right now, we have such courageous and principled representatives in the Foreign Committee of the Hungarian Parliament.
Q: What do you expect from the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs?
A: The degree of the subordination of the Ministry to the Zionist-Atlantist interest is clearly shown by the fact that the Hungarian foreign policy leadership was the only one to issue its typical, subservient press releases echoing the absurd propaganda and charges of the US foreign office after the alleged chemical strike in Damascus. This foreign ministry leopard will never change its spots, it can only act as its nature dictates: to habitually kowtow to the current standpoint of the strongest power, an attitude carried over from the Soviet times. Instead of promoting the Hungarian cause, it serves foreign interests and fails to realize that it is no longer rubbing up against an impressive and noble predator but a foul-stenched hyena.
Q: What do we need to know about the Assad regime, the rebels, or as the Syrian government puts it, the terrorists? Can we say that this civil war is in fact a religious war or rather a sectarian war? Do you think the Assad regime falls within the foreseeable future? If so, what happens next? The ideas of transition to democracy have not really been successful in the Middle East so far.
A: The Assad system has been functioning for nearly half a century, and we can state as a fact that the Assads were the only ones who could stabilize Syria in terms of economy, society, culture and religion, ever since the country broke free from France. Considering how many ethnic and religious groups live in Syria, this is quite an achievement. In such a heterogeneous country, especially if it lies in the conflict-ridden Middle East, peace and security is a rare treasure. This is what the Syrian people may have realized because the majority of the society still supports Assad, although it is not advertised in the Western media. It was the ethnic and religious diversity that was abused by the West and its regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Since Assad based his power on the rule of the minority Alawite-Shia clan, the Sunni thought it was time to take over with the support of Western and Gulf countries. In that regard, the conflict has indeed expanded into a Shia-Sunni sectarian war, where the silhouettes of Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia or Turkey are discernible in the background. In addition to a religious war however, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing for regional leadership in Syria. On top of that, there is a geostrategic war going on as well. On the one side, there is the Zionist-driven US interest which focusses on the security aspects of Israel and the American encirclement of Eurasia, while on the other side there is the great economic power China, which is interested in stability, and Russia, which is trying to stop the US’ encircling operation. The survival of the Assad regime is highly important for Russia. Assad means the guarantee for Russia to maintain its large fleet stationed in Syria, which is the only such fleet in the Mediterranean. On the other hand, Russia considers the Middle East as some sort of buffer zone in the way of the Northern expansion of extremist Islamic movements. Moscow is already struggling with the rapid expansion of the Salafi movements in the Caucasus, and Russia tries to fight this war in theatres that are as far as possible from its borders. I think I can go as far as to say that all sane and peace-loving people, and especially Europe are interested in a stable Syria, which could not be ensured at all if Assad was removed by force and the Jihadists were raised to power. It would entail unpredictable consequences.
Source: jobbik.com, photo: magyarhirlap.hu, humanevents.com