Political Islam and imperialism
The doctrine of Muslim Brothers corresponds to the political Islam which defines itself Islam. According to the founder of Brotherhood, Hasan al-Banna, the movement would pursue these goals: (a) ''a reform of legislation and the union of all courts under Sharia''; (b) military recruitment to instruct voluntary service under the flag of jihad; (c) the connection of Muslim countries and preparation for the restoration of the Caliphate, applying the unity required by Islam (pag. 131- pag. 132). The Islamist movement, since the mid-1940s, began an escalation of political-religious assassinations, attracting the attention of CIA e MI6 British; Anglo-American intelligence could not miss a sectarian organization capable of transformation, within a very short time, their adherents into ruthless murderers.
A little further on, Meyssan reveals nature to us (fascist) from the Brotherhood:
“When the CIA organizes a conference at Princeton University on the ''situation of Muslims in the Soviet Union'', the opportunity presents itself to receive the delegation led by the head of the military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in the USA, Said Ramadan. In his report, the CIA agent in charge of monitoring them notes that Ramadan is not a religious extremist, but rather a fascist; a way to underline the exclusively political character of the Muslim Brotherhood. The conference ends with a reception at the White House organized by the Eisenhower presidency, il 23 September 1953: the alliance between Washington and jihadism is thus signed" (pag. 135)
The thesis (exact) of ''jihadism made in the USA'' is the interpretative line of historical research.
Exiles from pan-Arab Egypt, il Brothers they found refuge in Saudi Arabia where, swearing allegiance to the king, they split into two sects: i Brothers Saudis and the ''Sururists''. The latter sought an unprecedented fusion of ideology Wahhabi and the jihadism preached by Sayyid Qutb. In reality, Saudi Islam is that of the Brothers they have little in common; the bloodlust of Brotherhood prevents the monarchy from guaranteeing him political viability, which the Royal Family is committed to supporting, on a planetary scale, Qutb's followers on the condition that they refrain from trying to play politics in Saudi Arabia. US imperialism has benefited from the strategic alliance of the Islamism, guaranteeing him political and media coverage. A school of ''political correctness'', expertly set up by CIA, he instructed preachers on the language to adopt before the general public.
The Carter-Brzezinski strategy represents a substantial change: ''Saudi Arabia, which previously financed Islamist groups, becomes responsible for managing funds against the Soviets. The director general of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki – son of the king of the time, Faisal -, turns into a key figure at all Western leaders'' (pag. 144). Washington's anti-Soviet geopolitics, meets with the doctrine on clash of civilisations in Sayyid Qutb: il main enemy, according to political Islam, he came from Asian culture based on the division between philosophy and ethics. Something unacceptable for fanatics (anti)religious.
On the following pages, Meyssan reconstructs the relationships betweenJihadist international and the anti-Soviet radical left:
"In the 1983 President Ronald Reagan entrusts Carlo Gershman – former leader of the Social Democrats USA – with the direction of the brand new National Endowment for Democracy, an agency that depends on the ''Five Eyes'' agreement and operates under the guise of a non-governmental organization. It is the legal ''front'' of the Australian secret services, English, Canadians, Americans and New Zealanders. Gershman, who has already collaborated with his fellow Trotskyists and Muslim Brotherhood friends in Lebanon, Syria and Afghanistan, creates a vast network of associations and foundations that the CIA and MI6 use to support the Brotherhood, where possible. It goes back to the ''Kirkpatrick Doctrine'', according to which all alliances are right if they serve the interests of the United States." (page 146).
The USA, after the The sword Western neo-fascist, they constituted one The swordIslamic. The tension strategy involves three phases.

• Demoralize and exhaust the State by attacking it in the least protected points.
• When the State has withdrawn from the suburbs and countryside, conquer some areas, control them by imposing the Sharia to mark the transition to a theocratic regime. During this period a new one will be launched positional war against democratic institutions.
• Proclaim the Islamic State.

I Wahhabi they have reworked the neoconservative doctrine on clash of civilisations, leading a permanent war against Shiites and secular governments. The construction of ''Islamic infrastructures'' presupposes materials, engineers and architects, for this reason theISIS enjoys the support of Saudi Arabia, Qatar vs. Israel. The war against Libya, Syria and Iran represents a conflict between economic-social formations: the globalized world against non-neoliberal economies. A war that Gaddafi unfortunately lost, but President Bashar al-Assad is winning by cooperating on equal terms with other nations not subjugated to Bush Doctrine.
The idyll between CIA and political Islam came (momentarily) interrupted by the Shia anti-imperialist uprising of 1979. It was a national and democratic revolution organized by the Marxist Muslim Ali Shariati, not without contradictions as I explained a few days ago: ''Iranian Shiite Islam is a prisoner of an enormous contradiction: it opposes both imperialism and socialism, for this reason the Islamic clergy carried out savage anti-communist repressions. The destruction of socialist forces combined with the marginalization of anti-imperialist patriots, immediately after the war imposed against Iraq (1980-’88), made the task easier (mandated by the USA) of the Rafsanjani clan: embalm the revolutionary process, siding the Iranian Republic on the side of US imperialism in the face of the planned destruction of Yugoslavia. Iran was put on the ropes'' 1. Hence the election of the radical nationalist Ahmadinejad (2005), the ''colored revolution'' of 2009 and the reaction of Grand Ayatollah Khamenei: ''The pressures of the ''Persian'' faction of national capitalism, they obliged the “Grand Ayatollah” Khameini to support Sheikh Hassan Rohani's project: a negotiation (concluded in 2015) on the nuclear program in exchange for US recognition. Iran, in contrast to the Sunni world and the Israeli far right, would have played a role as an authentic regional power, in accordance with the ''rules'' dictated by the masters of the world'' (Ibidem). In the 2018, of popular protests (workers and peasants) they passed through the Persian nation, but this time (explains Meyssan) it is the countryside that boos the rich bourgeois of Tehran; the most populist and anti-imperialist wing of the Shia she openly entered into conflict with the very rich woman bazaar bourgeoisie, a sort of class struggle in the Islamic variant.
 
What is theopolitics?
Dal 12 al 14 October 2003 a strange meeting took place at the King David hotel in Jerusalem, titled: ''Israel is an ethical alternative to Eastern totalitarianism and Western moral relativism. Israel is 'Ground Zero' of the central battle for the survival of civilization. Israel can be saved, along with the rest of the West. It's time to join Jerusalem'' (pag. 210). What was reported above is – in a nutshell – the ideological matrix of neoconservatism. The event is financed by the Russian-Israeli mafia, while the participants all have the same belief: the Theopolitics. Thierry Meyssan adds further details:
The meeting upsets Israeli progressives, especially since some speakers allude to Baghdad, occupied six months earlier, like ancient ''Babylon''. It is evident that, for them, the theopolitics that the Congress refers to is a revival of Talmudism. This school of thought – of which Leo Strauss was an expert – interprets Judaism as an ancient prayer of the Jewish people to avenge Egyptian crimes against their ancestors, the deportation to Babylon at the hands of the Assyrians and even the destruction of European Jews by the Nazis. He believes that the "Wolfowitz doctrine" is preparing Armageddon - the final battle - which will impose chaos first in the Greater Middle East and then in Europe. A general destruction that will represent divine punishment for those who made the Jewish people suffer'' (pag. 211)
In this perspective, Israeli imperialism should be framed as the armed wing of the neoconservatives. A conception of geopolitical conflict also considered cruel by various sourcesestablishment. The man who carried forward this ''doctrine'', Elliot Abrams, promoted the idea of ​​preventively dividing the world: on the one hand a stable zone governed by the United States, on the other, a large zone without states from which the empire would draw raw materials. This is a theory proposed to the Pentagon by Admiral Arthur Cerebrowski and spread by his assistant Thomas Barnett. The USA would like to ensure that no state in the non-globalized world can set itself up as a rival to the ancient colonizers; To stabilize its dominion, Washington has cynically decided to destroy a portion of the planet. The Vassal states they would find themselves forced to beg for the help of CIA, nibbling the crumbs of its natural resources.
 
The Trump insurrection?
During the election campaign of 2016, the building contractor Donald Trump denounced the usurpation of power by a small group of which Hillary Clinton was the candidate. Scrive Meyssan: ‘’He urged them to serve the people, that is, to restore the Republic and warned against the terrible internal conflict that was simmering. At first he was seen as a lunatic, but he eliminated his men one by one 16 competitors in the Republican Party, he won the primaries and was elected'' (pag. 332). L’establishmenthe reacted:
“To maintain the reality of power and remove President Trump, the ''continuity government'' decided to apply the ''Wolfowitz doctrine'' in its own country. After experiencing the case created by the hanging of Saddam Hussein and the lynching of Muammar Gaddafi, seems to want to destroy the United States, France and Germany openly attacking President Trump and possible French presidents and German chancellors." (pag. 338)
This is a historical novelty: as James Petras pointed out, the USA has experienced its own neo-fascist coup. This time it is the ''politically correct'' left that is leading the way Deep State. Latin America tips the balance: ''However, it must be said that progress in the Greater Middle East does not prevent the former strategic leaders for world democracy from carrying out their plans in Latin America. In Elliot Abrams' circle, a Latin spring is imagined in the north-west of the South American continent and in the Caribbean. The project is started in Venezuela, accompanied by some victims during the demonstrations: a call for police and army insurrection and even the creation of a parallel court'' (pag. 346). According to the French analyst, everything is part of a ''new cold war'' which sees the current Trump administration and the Russian government allied against the Deep State (that is, the secret services, le intelligence, the CIA etc.) and transnational capitalism, hasty judgment partially retracted today:
“In this period of time, signs of abandonment by the Trump administration of its foreign and defense policy have multiplied, as well as convergence with US imperialism. Considered the governance methods of the real estate developer, the reversal could only be apparent and destined to be called into question 15 February, expiry date of the budget agreement. Be that as it may, for the moment, numerous elements lead us to believe that Trump has given up on making the promised changes" 2
''Neoconservatism is a form of Trotskyism, therefore ideologically far left, linked to the state apparatus during the Reagan administration. With each political alternation, its partisans have continuously oscillated from right to left and vice versa. They opposed Trump's election, which however they have now joined’’ (Ibidem)
The road to peace is still long, imperialism cannot be abolished by decree and social reformism is not enough to transform an Empire into a Republic.
1.
http://www.linterferenza.info/esteri/iran-1979-rivoluzione-popolare-antimperialista/
2.
https://www.voltairenet.org/article204931.html