 We have Professor Sameer Amin in the studio with us. You have seen part one, we hope. This is the second part of the interview with Sameer Amin. Now we have a broad picture of what has happened. And then, of course, some commentary that you have given us on the central dynamic in Egypt. Around that there are then several other kinds of developments and let me ask you a very different kind of question now. You were talking about the development of this reorganization of the reactionary block in Egypt itself. There has also been a reorganization of the reactionary block in very different ways as well. On the one hand, we see the emergence of the Gulf Council countries as an interventionist force in the Arab world and trying to dominate the new Arab state system through the sheer amounts of money that they have and their increasingly close alliance and virtual integration with NATO. You have, before the beginning of the Arab appraisings, an earlier transformation that has taken place in Turkey. NATO's own Islamists sort of taking over there and now as the Arab people move, Turkey trying to modulate that within the sort of Islamist direction that these people have there. And these contradictions within our larger world in northern Africa, in the larger Arab world and larger sort of region of course gives the NATO countries led by the United States but also with British having their own interests, the French having their interests, a chance to intervene in the Arab world, so far covert intervention that is going on in Syria or more indirect but no less far-reaching intervention in the Egyptian affairs themselves. So give us some sense of this reorganization of the reactionary bloc on the regional level and its interventions in Libya and in Syria in particular. Yeah, you see the U.S. establishment and behind the U.S. establishment these allies, Europeans and others, Turkey as a member of NATO, derive the lesson from their having been surprised in Tunisia and Egypt by preventing similar movements elsewhere in the Arab countries, preventing them by taking the initiative of initiating the movements. They have tested the experience in Libya. They have tested it in Libya with success in the sense that in Libya we had no, at the start we had no movement, a popular, wide movement, civil, popular wide movement against Qaddafi. We had small armed groups and one has to question immediately to raise the question where those arms were coming from. They were, we know it from the beginning and from the Gulf with the support of the Western powers and the U.S. and attacking the army, police and so on. And the same day, not even the next day, those very people who qualified themselves as liberation forces, democratic liberation forces called upon NATO, the French and then NATO to come to their rescue. And that allowed for the intervention. That intervention has succeeded in the sense that it has destroyed the regime of Qaddafi but succeeded to what is the result of this success. Is it a democratic Libya? One should laugh at that when one knows that the president of the new regime is nobody else than the very judge who had condemned to death the Bulgarian nurses. What a curious democrat he is. But it has led also to the dislocation of the country on a Somalian pattern that is local powers in the name, all of them in the names of so-called Islam, but local warlords finally with the destruction of the country. Well, one can wonder, raise the question, was not this the real target of the intervention? That is the destruction of the country. I'll come back to this main question because the same strategy, the same strategy they try to implement it immediately after on Syria that is introducing armed groups from the very beginning, from the north through Turkey, Hatay particularly, the so-called refugee camps in Hatay are not refugee camps. There are very few refugees. There are camps for training mercenaries to intervene in Syria and this is well documented by our Syrian Turkish friends. And Turkey as a NATO power is part of the conspiracy, I would say, in that case and similar with Jordan introducing from the south with the support, not only neutrality but I think active support of Israel through Deraa, the south armed groups. Now, facing that in Syria we had objectively a situation similar to the one of Egypt that is the regime which long, long time ago was, has its legitimacy for the same reasons when it was a national popular regime had lost it when in the time of Hafiz el-Assad already it moved to align itself on neoliberalism, privatization, etc. leading to the same social disaster. So there is the objective ground for a wide popular democratic social oriented appraisal but by preempting this movement by through the military intervention of armed groups the western imperialist powers have created a situation where the popular democratic movement is put, is hesitating they don't want to join the so-called resistance against Bashar al-Assad but they don't want also to support the regime of Bashar al-Assad that has allowed Bashar al-Assad to successfully put an end or limit the external intervention homes and now on the boundary of Turkey in the north but opposing state terror to the real terrorism of armed and supported by foreign powers groups is not the answer to the question the answer to the question is really a change in the system to the benefit and through negotiations with the real popular democratic movement and this is the challenge and this is the question which is raised we don't know, I don't know and I think nobody knows how things will move on whether the regime or people within the regime will understand that and move towards real reform by opening more than negotiation redistribution of power system with the popular democratic movement or they will stick to their way of meeting explosions just brutally as they have done until today if they choose, if they continue in that direction finally they will be defeated but they will be defeated to the benefit of an imperialist power now what is the real target of imperialism for Syria and for the region it is not at all bringing democracy it is destroying the societies just as they have destroyed the society of Libya I'll come to Iraq if we take the example of Iraq Iraq what do they have done they have replaced the real dictatorship of Saddam Hussein by three uglier dictatorships two in the names of religion, Shia and Sunnah one in the name of so called ethnicity, the Kurds which are uglier even than the Saddam Hussein dictatorships they have destroyed the country by systematic assassination I have no other word for that in addition to the hundreds of thousands of people which were bombed, humanitarian bombing and so on but in addition to that the systematic assassination of the cadres of the regime the scientists, the doctors, the engineers the professors of university and even the poets and so on all the real elite of the nation that is destroying a country and this is the target for Syria that is what has the so called liberation army of Syria claimed to be its program that we should eradicate the Alawi the Druze, the Christians the Shia when you add those four minorities you come to 45% of the population of Syria what does it mean? it means, that means democracy it means the ugliest possible dictatorship and the destruction of the country now, who has an interest in that? this is the common interest of the three intimate allies the US, Israel and the Gulf countries US why? because the destruction of the societies of the region is the best way to prepare the next stage which is the destruction of Iran with a view of containment and then possibly rolling back of the major emerging countries the dangerous one, China and Russia and potentially if India is naughty India but India is not naughty for the time being that is the target it implies the destruction of the societies of the Middle East including that of Iran has a major target but now this project of destruction of societies accompanied with the continuation of Lumpan development is also the target of Israel because if Syria is split into four or five insignificant confessional small states while it is made insignificant and it allows for further easy expansion of the process of colonization of Israel it is also the target of the Gulf well it is almost a farce that we see today the emir of Qatar and the king of Saudi Arabia standing with the western with Obama, with Sarkozy, with Cameroon as the leaders of the struggle for democracy one can only laugh but there hegemony in the region in the name of Islam in the name because there are different understanding possible of Islam of course in the name of Islam implies the destruction of countries like Egypt basically because if Egypt is standing on her feet then the hegemony of the Gulf is zero we can just remind what was the Gulf in the days of Nasser so they have this common and they are supported within the societies by the Muslim Brotherhood therefore I would conclude by that we should look at the Muslim Brotherhood not as an Islamic party the criterion for qualifying and judging the privatization party is not whether they are Islamic or whether they are secular but whether they are reactionary or progressive and when we look at the Muslim Brotherhood on all real issues they are against the strikes of the working class they are against the resistance of the poor peasants they are against they are for privatization they are in favor of the dismantling which means that they are fully aligned on the most reactionary forces this is a reactionary party using Islam as a flag and we should, this is the real criterion well I think we this is the global picture of what are the strategic targets of imperialists and their internal allies the reactionary forces within the societies of the Middle East thank you very much Sameer thank you for being with us this afternoon and giving us an overview of the developments across the Arab world