President Assad’s Interview with the Greek Kathimerini Newspaper


hursday, 10 May 2018

H.E. President Bashar Al-Assad said that France, Britain, and the US, along with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey are responsible for the war in Syria due to their support of  terrorism, describing the Western allegations about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Arab Army as a farce and a very primitive play whose only goal is to attack the Syrian Army after the defeat of terrorists.

In an interview given to the Greek Kathimerini newspaper, President Assad said that Syria is fighting terrorists, who are the army of the Turkish, US, and Saudi regimes, stressing that any aggressor and any army, whether Turkish, French, or whoever, they are all enemies as long as they came to Syria illegally.

Following is the full text of the interview:

Journalist: Mr. President, thank you very much for agreeing to do this interview. It’s a pleasure to be here in Damascus.

President Assad: You’re most welcome in Syria.

Question 1: Let me ask you first of all, you know, there’s been accusation by the US and the Europeans about the use of chemical weapons, and there was an attack after that. What is your response to that? Was there a chemical attack? Were you responsible for it?

President Assad: First of all, we don’t have any chemical arsenal since we gave it up in 2013, and the international agency for chemical weapons made investigations about this, and it’s clear or documented that we don’t have. Second, even if we have it, we wouldn’t use it, for many different reasons. But let’s put these two points aside, let’s presume that this army has chemical weapons and it’s in the middle of the war; where should it be used? At the end of the battle? They should use it somewhere in the middle, or where the terrorists made advancement, not where the army finished the battle and terroristsgave up and said “we are ready to leave the area” and the army is controlling fully that area. So, the Western narrative started after the victory of the Syrian Army, not before. When we finished the war, they said “they used chemical weapons.”

Second, use of mass destruction armaments in a crammed area with a population like Douma – the supposed area, it’s called Douma and they talk about 45 victims- when you use mass destruction armaments in such an area, you should have hundreds or maybe thousands of victims in one time. Third, why all the chemical weapons, the presumed or supposed chemical weapons, only kill children and women? They don’t kill militants. If you look at the videos, it’s completely fake. I mean, when you have chemical weapons, how could the doctors and nurses be safe, dealing with the chemical atmosphere without any protective clothes, without anything, just throwing water at the victims, and the victims became okay just because you washed them with water. So, it’s a farce, it’s a play, it’s a very primitive play, just to attack the Syrian army, because… Why? That’s the most important part, is that when the terrorists lost, the US, France, UK, and their other allies who want to destabilize Syria, they lost one of their main cards, and that’s why they had to attack the Syrian Army, just to raise the morale of the terrorists and to prevent the Syrian Army from liberating more areas in Syria.

Question 2: But are you saying that there was an incident of chemical attack and someone else is responsible, or that there was nothing there?

President Assad: That’s the question, because, I mean, the side who said – allegedly – that there was a chemical attack, had to prove that there was an attack. We have two scenarios: either the terrorists had chemical weapons and they used them intentionally, or maybe there was explosions or something, or there was no attack at all, because in all the investigations in Douma people say “we didn’t have any chemical attack, we didn’t see any chemical gas, or didn’t smell” and so on. So, we don’t have any indications about what happened. The Western narrative is about that, so that question should be directed to the Western officials who said there was an attack. We should ask them: where is your concrete evidence about what happened? They only talk about reports. Reports could be allegations. Videos by the White Helmets, the White Helmets are funded by the British Foreign Office, and so on.


Question 3: President Trump, in a tweet, used a very strong expression. He said “animal Assad.” You remember that? What is your response to that?

President Assad: Actually, when you are in that position, I mean president of a country, you have first of all to represent the morals of your people before representing your own morals. You are representing your country. Question: does this language represent the American culture? That is the question. This is very bad, and I don’t think so. I don’t think there’s a community in the world that has such language. Second, the good thing about Trump is that he expresses himself in a very transparent way, which is very good in that regard. Personally, I don’t care, because I deal with the situation as a politician, as a president. It doesn’t matter for me personally; what matters is whether something would affect me, would affect my country, our war, the terrorists, and the atmosphere that we are living in.

Question 4: He said that his mission was accomplished. He said “mission accomplished in Syria.” How do you feel about that?

President Assad: I think maybe the only mission accomplished was when they helped ISIS escape from Raqqa, when they helped them, and it was proven by video, and under their cover, the leaders of ISIS escaped Raqqa, going toward Deir Ezzor just to fight the Syrian Army. The other mission accomplished was when they attacked the Syrian Army at the end of 2016 in the area of Deir Ezzor when ISIS was surrounding Deir Ezzor, and the only force was the Syrian Army. I mean, the only force to defend that city from ISIS was the Syrian Army, and because of the Americans’ – and of course their allies’ – attack, Deir Ezzor was on the brink of falling in the hand of ISIS. So, this is the only mission that was accomplished. If he’s talking about destroying Syria, of course that’s another mission accomplished. While if you talk about fighting terrorism, we all know very clearly that the only mission the United States have been doing in Syria is to support the terrorists, regardless of their names, of the names of their factions.

Question 5: But, I mean, he was using such language with the North Korean leader, and now they’re going to meet. Could you potentially see yourself meeting with Trump? What would you tell him if you saw him face to face?

President Assad: The first question you should ask, whether to meet or to make contact or whatever, what can you achieve? The other question: what can we achieve with someone who says something before the campaign, and does the opposite after the campaign, who says something today, and does the opposite tomorrow, or maybe in the same day. So, it’s about consistency. Do they have the same frequency every day, or the same algorithm? So, I don’t think in the meantime we can achieve anything with such an administration. A further reason is that we don’t think the president of that regime is in control. We all believe that the deep state, the real state, is in control, or is in control of every president, and this is nothing new. It has always been in the United States, at least during the last 40 years, at least since Nixon, maybe before, but it’s becoming starker and starker, and the starkest case is Trump.

Question 6: When is your mission going to be accomplished, given the situation here in Syria now?

President Assad: I have always said, without any interference, it will take less than a year to regain stability in Syria; I don’t have any doubt about this. The other factor is how much support the terrorists receive; this is something I cannot answer, because I cannot foretell. But as long as it continues, time is not the main factor. The main factor is that someday, we’re going to end this conflict and we’re going to re-unify Syria under the control of the government. When? I cannot answer. I hope it’s going to be soon.

Question 7: Now, there was some criticism lately, because you apparently have a law that says that anybody that doesn’t claim their property within a month, they cannot come back. Is that a way to exclude some of the people who disagree with you?

President Assad: No, we cannot dispossess anyone from their property by any law, because the constitution is very clear about the ownership of any Syrian citizen. This could be about the procedure. It’s not the first time we have such a law just to re-plan the destroyed and the illegal areas, because you’re dealing with a mixture of destroyed and illegal suburbs in different parts of Syria. So, this law is not about dispossessing anyone. You cannot, I mean even if he’s a terrorist, let’s say, if you want to dispossess someone, you need a verdict by the judicial system, I mean, you cannot make it by law. So, there’s either misinterpretation of that law, or an intention, let’s say, to create a new narrative about the Syrian government in order to rekindle the fire of public opinion in the West against the Syrian government. But about the law, I mean, even if you want to make a procedure, it’s about the local administration, it’s about the elected body in different areas, to implement that law, not the government.

Question 8: Now, who are your biggest allies in this fight? Obviously, they are Russia and Iran. Are you worried that they might play too an important role in the future of the country after this war is over?

President Assad: If you talk about my allies as a president, they are the Syrian people. If you talk about Syria’s allies, of course they’re the Iranians and the Russians. They are our strongest allies, and of course China that supported us politically in the Security Council. As for them playing an important role in the future of the country, these countries respect Syria’s sovereignty and national decision making and provide support to insure them. So, it doesn’t make sense for these countries to take part in a war to help Syria defend its sovereignty, and at the same time violate or interfere with this sovereignty. Iran and Russia are the countries which respect Syria’s sovereignty the most.

Question 9: How about Turkey now? Turkey did an intrusion, an invasion of part of your country. You used to have a pretty good relationship with President Erdogan. How is that relationship now after that intrusion?

President Assad: First of all, this is an aggression, this is an occupation. Any single Turkish soldier on Syrian soil represents occupation. That doesn’t mean the Turkish people are our enemies. Only a few days ago, we had a political delegation coming from Turkey. We have to distinguish between the Turks in general and Erdogan. Erdogan is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Maybe he’s not organized, but his affiliation is toward that ideology, I call it this dark ideology. And for him, because, like the West, when the terrorists lost control of different areas, and actually they couldn’t implement the agenda of Turkey or the West or Qatar or Saudi Arabia, somebody had to interfere. This is where the West interfered through the recent attacks on Syria, and this is where Erdogan was assigned by the West, mainly the United States, to interfere, to make the situation complicated, again because without this interference, the situation would have been resolved much faster. So, it’s not about personal relations. The core issue of the Muslim Brotherhood anywhere in the world is to use Islam in order to take control of the government in your country, and to create multiple governments having this kind of relation, like a network of Muslim Brotherhoods, around the world.

Question 10: In an election campaign rally, he said that two days ago, that he’s going to do another intrusion into Syria. How are you going to respond to that if it happens?

President Assad: Actually, since the very beginning of the war, Erdogan supported the terrorists, but at that time, he could hide behind words like “protecting the Syrian people, supporting the Syrian people, supporting the refugees, we are against the killing,” and so on. He was able to appear as a humanitarian president, let’s say. Now, because of these circumstances, he has to take off the mask and show himself as the aggressor, and this is the good thing. So, there is no big difference between the Turkish head of regime Erdogan sending his troops to Syria, and supporting the terrorists; this is his proxy. So, we’ve been fighting seven years his army. The difference actually between now and then is the appearance; the core is the same. At that time, we couldn’t talk about occupation, we could talk about supporting terrorists, but this time we could talk about occupation, which is the announcement of Erdogan that he’s now violating the international law, and this could be the good part of him announcing this.

Question 11: But how can you respond to that?

President Assad: First of all, we are fighting the terrorists, and as I said, the terrorists for us are his army, they are the American army, the Saudi army. Forget about the different factions and who is going to finance those factions; at the end, they work for one agenda, and those different players obey one master: the American master. Erdogan is not implementing his own agenda; he’s only implementing the American agenda, and the same goes for the other countries in this war. So, first of all, you have to fight the terrorists. Second, when you take control of more areas, you have to fight any aggressor, any army. The Turkish, French, whoever, they are all enemies; as long as they came to Syria illegally, they are our enemies.

Question 12: Are you worried about the potential third world war starting here in Syria? I mean, you have the Israelis hitting the Iranians, you know, here in your own country. You have the Russians, you have the Americans. Are you concerned about that possibility?

President Assad: No, for one reason: because fortunately, you have a wise leadership in Russia, and they know that the agenda of the deep state in the United States is to create a conflict. Since the campaign of Trump, the main agenda was against Russia, create a conflict with Russia, humiliate Russia, undermine Russia, and so on. And we’re still in the same process under different titles or by different means. Because of the wisdom of the Russians, we can avoid this. Maybe it’s not a full-blown third world war, but it is a world war, maybe in a different way, not like the second and the first, maybe it’s not nuclear, but it’s definitely not a cold war; it’s something more than a cold war, less than a full-blown war. And I hope we don’t see any direct conflict between these super powers, because this is where things are going to be out of control for the rest of the world.

Question 13: Now, there’s a very important question about whether Syria can be a unified, fully-sovereign country again. Is that really possible after all this that has happened?

President Assad: It depends on what the criteria of being unified or not is. The main factor to have a unified country is to have unification in the minds of the people, and vice versa. When those people look at each other as foreigners, they cannot live with each other, and this is where you’re going to have division. Now, if you want to talk about facts and reality, not my opinion, I can tell you no, it’s not going to be divided, and of course we’re not going to accept that, but it’s not about my will or about my rhetoric, to say we’re going to be unified; it’s about the reality. The reality, now, if you look at Syria during the crisis, not only today, since the very beginning, you see all the different spectrum of the Syrian society living with each other, and better than before. These relationships are better than before, maybe because of the effect of the war. If you look at the areas under the control of the terrorists, this is where you can see one color of the Syrian society, which is a very, very, very narrow color. If you want to talk about division, you have to see the line, the separation line between either ethnicities or sects or religions, something you don’t see. So, in reality, there’s no division till this moment; you only have areas under the control of the terrorists. But what led to that speculation? Because the United States is doing its utmost to give that control, especially now in the eastern part of Syria, to those terrorists in order to give the impression that Syria cannot be unified again. But it’s going to be unified; I don’t have any doubt about that.

Question 14: But why would the US do this if you’re fighting the same enemy: Islamic terrorism?

President Assad: Because the US usually have an agenda and they have goals. If they cannot achieve their goals, they resort to something different, which is to create chaos. Create chaos until the whole atmosphere changes, maybe because the different parties will give up, and they will give-in to their goals, and this is where they can implement their goals again, or maybe they change their goals, but if they cannot achieve it, it’s better to weaken every party and create conflict, and this is not unique to Syria. This has been their policy for decades now in every area of this world. That’s why, if you see conflicts around the world, after the British, the Americans are responsible for every conflict between different countries everywhere on this globe.

Question 15: Do you feel you’ve made any mistakes in dealing with this crisis and the civil war, when it started, if you look back?

President Assad: If I don’t make mistakes, I’m not human; maybe on daily basis sometimes. The more you work, the more complicated the situation, the more mistakes you are likely to make. But how do you protect yourself from committing mistakes as much as possible? First of all, to consult the largest proportion of the people, not only the institutions, including the parliament, syndicates, and so on. But also the largest amount of this society, or the largest part of the society, to participate in every decision.

While if you talk about the way I behaved toward, or the way I led, let’s say, the government or the state during the war, the main pillars of the state’s policy were to fight terrorism – and I don’t think that fighting terrorism was wrong – to respond to the political initiatives from different parties externally and internally regardless of their intentions, to make a dialogue with everyone – including the militants, and finally to make reconciliation; I don’t think we can say that this was wrong. So, about the pillars of our policy, I think the reality has proven that we were right. About the details, of course, you always have mistakes.

Question 16: Now, how much is it going to cost to reconstruct this country, and who is going to pay for this?

President Assad: Hundreds of billions, the minimum is two hundred, and in some estimations it’s about four hundred billion dollars. Why it’s not precise? Because some areas are still under the control of the terrorists, so we couldn’t estimate precisely what is the number. So, this is plus or minus, let’s say.

Question 17: Now, there is a lot of speculation, people say in order for a political solution to be viable, you might have to sacrifice yourself for the good of the country, you know this, that kind of speculation. Is that something that crosses you mind?

President Assad: The main part of my future, as a politician, is two things: my will and the will of the Syrian people. Of course, the will of the Syrian people is more important than my will; my desire to be in that position or to help my country or to play a political role, because if I have that desire and will and I don’t have the public support, I can do nothing, and I will fail, and I don’t have a desire to fail. After seven years of me being in that position, if I don’t have the majority of the Syrian people’s support, how could I withstand for more than seven years now, with all this animosity by the strongest countries and by the richest countries? Who supports me? If the Syrian people are against me, how can I stay? How could I achieve anything? How could we withstand? So, when I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to stay anymore, of course I have to leave without any hesitation.

Question 18: But you know, there is a lot of blood that has, you know, taken place, and all that, so can you see yourself sitting across from the opposition and sharing, you know, power in some way?

President Assad: When you talk about blood, you have to talk about who created that blood. I was president before the war for ten years, had I been killing the Syrian people for ten years? No, definitely not. So, the conflict started because somebody, first of all part of the West, supported those terrorists, and they bear the responsibility for this war. So first of all the West, who provided military and financial support and political cover, and who stood against the Syrian people, who impoverished the Syrian people and created a better atmosphere for the terrorists to kill more Syrian people. So, part of the West – mainly France, UK, and US, and also Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Turkey are responsible for this part. It’s not enough to say there is blood; this is a very general term. Of course there is blood; it’s a war, but who’s responsible? Those who are responsible should be held accountable.

Question 19: Now, it’s been a few years since you visited Greece. Your father had a very close relation with some of the Greek political leaders. How have the relations been between Greece and Syria these days, and what kind of message would you like to send to the Greek people?

President Assad: At the moment, there are no formal relations between Syria and Greece; the embassies are closed, so there are no relations. At the same time, Greece wasn’t aggressive towards what happened in Syria. It always supported a political solution, it never supported war or attacks against Syria. You didn’t play any role to support the terrorists, but at the same time, as a member – and an important member – of the EU, you couldn’t play any role, let’s say, in refraining the other countries from supporting the terrorists, violating the international law by attacking and besieging a sovereign country without any reason, without any mandate by the Security Council. So, we appreciate that Greece wasn’t aggressive, but at the same time, I think Greece has to play that role, because it’s part of our region. It is part of the EU geographically, but it’s a bridge between our region and the rest of Europe, and it’s going to be affected, and it has been affected by the refugee situation, and the terrorism now has been affecting Europe for the last few years, and Greece is part of that continent. So, I think it’s normal for Greece to start to play its role in the EU in order to solve the problem in Syria and protect the international law.

Journalist: Thank you very much Mr. President.

President Assad: Thank you.

Dr. Mohamad Abdo Al-Ibrahim





In Gaza

One rainy day in Damascus, Syrian comedian Treka Zn / Treka and I met up to speak about Syria. The man is not only funny, but incredibly informative. Do watch.

Please support Treka by following him on FacebookTwitter, and Youtube.

Related Links:


-Syria: The hidden massacre, Sharmine Narwani, May 7, 2014,

-“Who Fired The First Shot?, Prem Shankar Jha, Feb 27, 2014,


– -Overcoming Savagery and Treachery, Maaloula’s Heroic Defenders Fight for the Future, Eva Bartlett, Oct 18, 2016, Strategic Culture Foundation. Excerpts:

““We woke up on September 7th to the voices of terrorists shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’.”

As al-Nusra and FSA terrorists spread through the streets and main square of the town, at least three of the armed men passed through an iron gate, and continued up a narrow, winding path in the old quarter, reaching the home of Antoinette and Anton.

“When they arrived here, our door was closed. They broke it open and burst into the house.”

Traditional Maaloula homes have a small curtained cave off the central sitting room, used like a pantry for storing grains and other goods. When the terrorists began shooting that morning, Anton, Antoinette, her elderly near-blind and near-deaf father, her aunt, Serkis and Mikhail hid in the cave. Had the terrorists been solely outsiders, the family might have survived the attack. The terrorists went straight for the cave.

“They told us to get out, told us they would give us safety,” Antoinette recounted. “Anton, Serkis and Mikhail went outside to the balcony to plead with them and my father, aunt and I stayed in the sitting room.”

Although they knew that only women and an elderly man remained in the room, the attackers shot inside. One of the bullets ricocheted off a wall and went through Antoinette’s chest. “When I was hit, I crawled under the chest in the corner of the living room and prayed to the Virgin Mary.”

Stepping inside her home, Antoinette showed me the white-walled, timber-ceilinged sitting room where her slight father lay sleeping under the photo of his murdered son. His sole son.

The tiny storage cave in which they had initially sheltered, a large window, and the sofas were all covered with the same pattern of cloth. With its small, curtained opening, the cave entrance would have been almost unnoticeable, had the attackers not already known where to look.

Antoinette recounted how lying bleeding inside the house, she heard her brother, brother-in-law, and nephew being murdered.

“The terrorists told Anton to say the Shahada. Anton told them ‘I was born Christian and I will die Christian.’,” Antoinette recalled. Mikhael and Sarkis were likewise ordered toconvert to Islam, and likewise refusing, were assassinated.

At some point in the invasion, the terrorists threw a grenade into the room. “There was a bright light and I felt something hit my arm,” Antoinette recounted, grasping her destroyed elbow….”


-Syria Dispatch: Most Syrians Support Assad, Reject Phony Foreign ‘Revolution’, Eva Bartlett, Mar 7, 2016,

-Why Syrians Support Bashar al Assad, Tim Anderson, Sep 30, 2014, Global Research

-Decriminalising Bashar – towards a more effective anti-war movement, Carlos Martinez, Sep 2013, Invent The Future

-Deconstructing the NATO Narrative on Syria, Eva Bartlett, Oct 10, 2015, Dissident Voice. Excerpts:

“Million Person Marches

On March 29, 2011 (less than two weeks into the fantasy “revolution”) over 6 million people across Syria took to the streets in support of President al-Assad. In June, a reported hundreds of thousands marched in Damascus in support of the president, with a 2.3 km long Syrian flag. In November, 2011 (9 months into the chaos), masses again held demonstrations supporting President al-Assad, notably in Homs (the so-called “capital of the ‘revolution’”), Dara’a (the so-called “birthplace of the ‘revolution’”), Deir ez-Zour, Raqqa, Latakia, and Damascus.

Mass demonstrations like this have occurred repeatedly since, including in March 2012, in May 2014 in the lead-up to Presidential elections, and in June 2015, to note just some of the larger rallies.

In May 2013, it was reported that even NATO recognized the Syrian president’s increased popularity. “The data, relayed to NATO over the last month, asserted that 70 percent of Syrians support” the Assad government. At present, the number is now at least 80 percent.

The most telling barometer of Assad’s support base was the Presidential elections in June 2014, which saw 74 percent (11.6 million) of 15.8 million registered Syrian voters vote, with President al-Assad winning 88 percent of the votes. The lengths Syrians outside of Syria went to in order to vote included flooding the Syrian embassy in Beirut for two full days (and walking several kilometres to get there) and flying from countries with closed Syrian embassies to Damascus airport simply to cast their votes. Within Syria, Syrians braved terrorist mortars and rockets designed to keep them from voting; 151 shells were fired on Damascus alone, killing 5 and maiming 33 Syrians.”


-Caught in a lie, US & allies bomb Syria the night before international inspectors arrive, Eva Bartlett, Apr 15, 2018,

-University Hospital, Damascus: Meeting Victims of Western-backed Mortar and Rocket Terrorism, Eva Bartlett, from Feb 2015 visit, In Gaza blog

-The Terrorism We Support in Syria: A First-hand Account of the Use of Mortars against Civilians, Eva Bartlett, Sep 11, 2014, Zero Anthropology

-Terrorist capabilities laid bare in an Eastern Ghouta chemical lab, Sharmine Narwani, Mar 16, 2018,

See also Treka’s “The Syrian Crisis Explained”


Agreement Reached to Evacuate Terrorists from Homs, Hama countryside


Militants evacuation

An agreement to evacuate terrorists from Homs and Hamad countryside was reportedly reached on Tuesday.

SANA news agency reported that there were “information that an agreement has been reached to evacuate the terrorist groups from the northern countryside of Homs and the southern countryside of Hama.”

According to the agreement, all terrorists will hand over their heavy and medium weapons to the Syrian Army within two days as of the date of agreement signature. The legal status of militants who agree with the settlement will be settled, and those who reject it will be evacuated along with their families to Jarablus and Idlib, SANA reported.

The agreement also provides the entry of the Syrian Arab army into the region, the return of all state institutions and departments to the area in addition to opening the international highway that connects Homs and Hama during three days as of the signature of the agreement, according to SANA.

Terrorist groups also pledge to hand over maps of tunnels, landmines and ammunition depots, according to the agreement.




A recosiliation deal between the Syrian government and militants operating in the Rastan pocket has been reached, according to pro-government sources.

According to the Syrian state-run media, militants and their families will be able to evaucate from the Rastan pocket in northern Homs towards the militant-held parts of Idlib or Aleppo provinces.

The militants have to hand over their heavy and medium weapons to government forces within 2 days from the start of the agreement’s implementation.

“The agreement also provides for settling the status of militants who are willing to settle their cases, , the entry of the Syrian Arab army into the region, the return of all state institutions and departments to the area in addition to opening the international highway that connects Homs and Hama during three days as of the signature of the agreement.

According to the agreement, terrorist groups pledge to hand over maps of tunnels, landmines and ammunition depots,” the SANA reports.

The strategic Homs-Hama highway will also be reopened.

The negotiations between the government and militants in the Rastan pocket were relaunched earlier this week after the Syrian military had deployed its offensive units preparing for a launch of a military operation in the area.

Rastan Pocket Militants Reach Recosiliation Deal With Government Forces

Click to see the full-size image

Related Videos

Related Articles

حزب الله «أصلي» في «بحر الروم»

أبريل 27, 2018

Image result for ‫د. وفيق إبراهيم‬‎د. وفيق إبراهيم

الإشارة الأميركية الواضحة حول ضرورة إبعاد إيران عن البحر الأبيض المتوسط، دليلٌ على استعار مرحلة الصراع على خطوط نقل الغاز من السواحل الشرقية لهذا البحر إلى العالم.

ورد هذا «التنبيه الصارم» في تصريح للرئيس الأميركي ترامب أبان محادثاته مع ضيفه الفرنسي ماكرون، في ما يمكن اعتباره إقراراً غربياً بنجاح الحلف السوري ـ الروسي ـ الإيراني وحزب الله بالربط بين بحري قزوين والمتوسط بفواصل برية عبر إيران والعراق وسورية ولبنان.

للتوضيح فإن الاسم القديم التاريخي للمتوسط هو بحر الروم بسبب هوية القوى اليونانية الإغريقية والرومانية التي كانت تسيطر عليه. بالإضافة إلى أنّ العرب كانوا يكرهون البحر ولم يكن الترك وصلوا منطقتنا آتين من هضبة منغوليا وتركمانستان. وكانت سورية منقسمة ولاءات استعمارية متعدّدة.

وللأمانة التاريخية أيضاً فإن الأمويين حرّروا «بحر الروم» في معاركهم ضد الرومان، محطمين القول المأثور الذي كان معمولاً به في ذلك الوقت: «البحر.. إياك والبحر، الداخل إليه مفقود والخارج منه مولود».. وعندما عوتبوا على سيطرتهم على جزيرة قبرص، أجابوا باستراتيجية عميقة: وكيف نتركها وصياح الديكةِ فيها يُسمع في اللاذقية؟.. مطلقين على بحر الروم اسم بحر اللاذقية الذي ظل متمسكاً بهذا اللقب طيلة مرحلة السيطرة العربية على سواحله.

هناك توضيح إضافي وهي أنّ إيران موجودة عند شواطئ المتوسط عبر تحالفاتها وهي الدولة السورية عند سواحلها، وقاعدتان روسيتان في طرطوس وحميميم، و.. حزب الله المنتشر على طول سواحل لبنان للدفاع عنها ضد الاعتداءات البحرية الإسرائيلية.. وغيرها.

المنطقة إذاً وبعد تصريح ترامب تقع في قلب صراع بحري يشكّل بدوره امتداداً أصلياً للقتال البري العنيف بين القوى الكبرى في العالم والإقليم والمشرق العربي.. لمزيد من التحديد يمكن الجزم بأن هذا الصراع يشبه مرحلة الصراعات الدولية على موارد الطاقة، التي تجسّدت بالفحم الحجري في القرن 19 والنفط في القرن العشرين وبالغاز في القرن 21.. أما القوى المنخرطة عسكرياً في هذا الصراع فهي الولايات المتحدة ومعها أوروبا وروسيا وسورية وتركيا والعراق وإيران.. وحزب الله..

وهذا ليس مبالغة.. فالحزب تنظيم شعبي أخذ على عاتقه الدفاع عن لبنان في وجه العدو الإسرائيلي في مرحلة الدولة اللبنانية الضعيفة، مضطراً إلى التمدّد الإقليمي لمجابهة الإرهاب الذي يستهدف منطقة المشرق العربي بأسرها.. وعندما تبيّن له وجود تحالفات مموّهة بين هذا الإرهاب الوهابي ودول خليجية و«إسرائيل» برعاية أميركية ـ أوروبية، وجد نفسه منخرطاً في نظام تحالفات بدأت مع امتداده الطبيعي في سورية وإيران، وصولاً إلى الروس المتحفزين بدورهم للعودة إلى العالم من بوابته الرئيسية في الشرق الأوسط عند قلبه في سورية.

والحزب بما هو تنظيم تستند أيديولوجيته إلى الربط بين النفوذ الأميركي والكيان الإسرائيلي وطاعون الفكر الوهابي المتطرف، لا يبالي بالثروات المعدنية وموارد الطاقة، إلا لكونها من الضروريات التي تسهم في ازدهار الشعوب وتطور الدول. بمعنى أنه لا يمتلك مشروعاً خاصاً لوضع يده على مصادر الطاقة، كحال معظم المنتفعين والدول التي «تُهندس» حروبها على هدي آبار النفط والغاز والاستهلاك.. حزب الله «يهندس» حروبه على قياس مصالح شعبه وتقدّمه.

هذا ما وضع حزب الله في خانة القوى الأساسية المتصارعة في ميدان المشرق العربي وبشكل أكثر أهمية من كثير من الدول التي تزوّد الأميركيين والأوروبيين بآلاف مليارات الدولارات ليقاتلوا بها حزب الله وإيران وروسيا وهي قابعة ذليلة في قصور ألف ليلة وليلة.

نكتشف أنّ حزب الله «أصلي» في الصراع الإقليمي ووجد نفسه قوة كبرى لها وزنها في الصراع بين المحاور الأساسية المتقاتلة على «موارد الغاز». أما لجهة القوى المتقاتلة فهناك تركيا الحالمة بسبب موقعها الاستراتيجي، للعب دور محطة عالمية تستقبل الغاز من قطر عبر العراق وسورية عبر حدودها ومن لبنان وفلسطين المحتلة عبر المتوسط، ومن العراق من خلال الحدود المشتركة.. وتؤمن تركيا لهذه الخطوط مهام عدة. تسييل الغاز وإعادة تصديره إلى أوروبا عبر حدودها البرية والبحر الأسود والبحر المتوسط.

وهذا شكّل جزءاً من التباين المستجدّ بين أنقرة وواشنطن والذي يعود إلى أنّ الأميركيين لا يريدون لخطوط نقل الغاز أنّ تكتمل بشكل ينافسُ مخزونها الضخم من النفط والغاز الصخريين. أيّ أنها تفضل نشوب صراعات تسويقية إنتاجية بين «دول الغاز» لتستطيع تسويق مخزوناتها الضخمة..

ألا تنير هذه الخطط الأسباب التي أملت على الأتراك استعمال الإرهاب والإخوان المسلمين لتدمير الدولة الوطنية في سورية؟

ألا تفسّر هذه المشاريع مسارعة حزب الله لإرسال مجاهديه إلى الميدان السوري للقتال إلى جانب دولته؟

بالمقابل، يضيء هذا على مدى التورط التركي، الإسرائيلي الخليجي بالرعاية الأميركية، فاضحاً الأسباب التي أملت على أربعين دولة مشاركة في تدمير سورية؟ هناك أيضاً مشروع مصري مبني على اكتشافات حديثة لآبار غاز مصرية ضخمة ولعلها الأكبر في العالم.. ما أدى إلى انبثاق طموح مصري لتحويل «أم الدنيا» إلى محطة تسييل وتخزين وتسويق لغاز الشرق الأوسط نحو أوروبا من خلال سواحل مصر مع بحري المتوسط إلى أوروبا والأحمر إلى أفريقيا، وذلك عبر التعاون الغازي الذي بدأ بين مصر و«إسرائيل» بالصناعات المشتركة والتسويق ومع الأردن كمحطة مرور لخطوط الغاز الخليجية نحو مصر.

وهذا يشرح أيضاً أسباب تصاعد التناقضات المصرية ـ التركية حول قبرص وعلى مقربة من فوهات بنادق حزب الله.

كما يعطي تفسيراً عميقاً للدوافع التركية التي ذهبت لمحاولة السيطرة على مصر من خلال الإخوان المسلمين.. وفشلت لسببين: الشعب المصري.. الذي أسقطها بتحركاته، والدور الأميركي الذي غطَّى تحركاً لبعض تيارات الجيش المصري لمجابهة الإخوان المسلمين.

هذه هي المناخات التي سعى حزب الله إلى التعامل معها، في مهمة جهادية بالنسبة إليه ووطنية بالنسبة للبنانيين.. وهي مهمة الدفاع عن الشعب في وجه الإرهاب، وتحرير الأرض والاستمرار في الدفاع عنها أمام المطامع الإسرائيلية.. والدليل موجود في ما تفعله «إسرائيل» عند حدود لبنان البرية مع فلسطين المحتلة من تعدٍ ومحاولات اقتطاع أجزاء منها، بالإضافة إلى انتهاكاتها اليومية للأجواء اللبنانية.

ولا يمكن إقصاء محاولات «إسرائيل» للسطو على الغاز اللبنانية عند حدوده البحرية. وهي مزاعم تقف واشنطن منها موقف المتبني من وراء الستار الداعي إلى التعقل.. في نزاع يعرف الأميركيون أنه مفتعل لتأخير استثمار الغاز في لبنان لغايات لها علاقة بتسويق الغاز الإسرائيلي ومشاريع الولايات المتحدة بعرقلة خطوط نقل غاز شرق المتوسط إلى أوروبا عبر بلدان متنافسة أهمها مصر وتركيا وسورية.. أما «إسرائيل» فغير مقبولة بهذا الصدد.

حزب الله إذاً هو في قلب معركة الغاز في «بحر اللاذقية».. وكما أصاب بارجة إسرائيلية كانت تزهو بحجمها قبالة سواحل لبنان في 2006 وأغرقها، يؤدي اليوم دوراً تاريخياً يبدأ من تأكيد إلغاء الصفة «الرومية» على البحر المتوسط.. وهذا يعني الحدّ من الهيمنة الأميركية البحرية في المنطقة التي بدأت تشعُر بوجود منافسين لها على طول الساحل الشرقي للمنطقة في سورية ولبنان وبدعم روسي وإيراني.

ولروسيا مصلحة كبرى في هذا الصراع.. فهل يمكن نسيان أنها الدولة الأولى في إنتاج الغاز في العالم؟ وأنّ المشاريع الأميركية في الشرق الأوسط ترتكز على أساس محاصرة الإنتاج الروسي وعدم السماح بتسويقه من أجل جعل أوروبا تعتمد على النفط والغاز الصخريين الأميركيين؟

..إنها حروب الطاقة وحزب الله جزء منها من زاوية الدفاع عن ثروات السوريين واللبنانيين، متحالفاً مع روسيا وإيران لإنقاذ المنطقة من المشروع الغربي المتدثّر بعباءة محمد بن سلمان وأقرانه الخليجيين الذين ينثرون المال للمحافظة على عروشهم معتقلين شعوبهم في إطار القرون الوسطى وعصور الظلام.

For those who are not convinced: Trump: …“Mission Complete” لمَن لم يقتنع: ترامب انتهت المهمة

For those who are not convinced: Trump: …“Mission Complete”

أبريل 13, 2018

Written by Nasser Kandil,

There are many analyses about the dangerous strategy after the announcement of the US President Donald Trump of the withdrawal from Syria, most of which are related to a theory based on the American intentions to abolish the nuclear understanding with Iran, a military strike against it and linking the withdrawal from Syria with making the US troops in Iraq and Syria out of Iran and its allies’ targeting. Some people say that this linking stems from Russia’s choice between being away from Iran and gaining Syria or being under the threat of turning Syria into a swamp for exhausting Russia, while others consider that announcement valueless and mere an electoral attempt before voters that have not achieved the promises of interest in the internal affairs as promised by Trump’s electoral campaigns, therefore the talk about withdrawal was to appease them with the promise to return to the American interior.

Trump’s decision to freeze the funds allocated to the Syrian file which its value is two hundred million dollars and the wish of the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman from the US President to reconsider the decision of the close withdrawal from Syria, mean that the announcement has been taken seriously, otherwise its non-seriousness makes it a stupid psychological warfare waged by Trump against his allies. While those who advocate the interpretation of linking the US decision with escalating options ignore that the revenge reactions in any confrontation with Iran are the American interests and troops in the Gulf, while those who advocate the analysis based on threatening Russia with exhausting it in Syria through the withdrawal, ignore that the past four years were the title of this war, from the birth of ISIS to the resolving of Ghouta, where the Russian response to the American option was in the field and then it reached to the threat of responding to the war of missile with one alike, but what are the tools of attrition if they are not ISIS, Al Nusra, the Army of Islam, and Corps of Rahamn? And where are they now?

The American decision is serious; it is the announcement of the end of the mission in Syria. The mission which its duration was determined, it is more important than fighting ISIS or the validity of the settlement in Syria, it is the fate of the domination on Ghouta by Washington’ allies ran by Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, and Israel. Ghouta is that area which was difficult to be liberated by Syrian army during the past years and which includes half a million citizens and fifty thousand militants and which is equipped with a network tunnels against the threat of ground and air bombardment that most of its victims were from the civilians. Thus it is easy to turn it into pressing diplomatic and media campaigns, and maybe supported by a fabricated chemical strike to pave the way for military strikes that stop any military campaign. The bet was on the steadfastness of Ghouta for months against any military campaign, as the steadfastness of Jobbar alone for years.  Keeping Ghouta under the protection means the continuity of the hope of invading Damascus one day and disrupting the movement in it every day, and the continuity of the hope of diving Syria by linking Ghouta with Tanf base leaving the uninhabited badia between them, and dividing it into two parts, northern that includes Homs, the coast, Hama, and Aleppo, and southern one includes Damascus, Daraa, Quneira, and Sweida. Across the Badia the besieged Ghouta besieges Damascus with Ghouta, eastern Qalamoun, Tanf, and Daraa, and with the western Qalamoun, Quneitra, and Daraa. But after resolving of Ghouta, the last castle fell along with the last hope.

The Americans read the meaning of the operation which targeted them in eastern Syria and led to the killing of two soldiers by an explosive device. They know that after Ghouta the restoration of the rest of the Syrian geography will be according to a Syrian calendar. Even if this operation was executed by a party that is not related to the Syrian state project, its similar will be present within a resistance that was established in the eastern of Syria, which Washington experienced its similarities in Lebanon and Iraq, so it does not need to wait the humiliated withdrawal to know how to behave, since the mission was accomplished and the project fell.

Is not surprising that Bin Salman talked in one statement about the wish of postponing the decision of the US withdrawal and the recognition of the staying of the Syrian President? The scene has become clear; it is the withdrawal because the mission of overthrowing the Syrian President failed.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

لمَن لم يقتنع: ترامب انتهت المهمة 

أبريل 3, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– تتحدّث تحليلات كثيرة عن استراتيجية خطيرة تقف وراء إعلان الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب قرب الانسحاب من سورية، ويصل أغلبها لنظرية تقوم على نيات أميركية بإلغاء التفاهم النووي مع إيران وربّما توجيه ضربة عسكرية لها، وربط الانسحاب من سورية بجعل القوات الأميركية في العراق وسورية خارج توقّعات الاستهداف من قبل إيران وحلفائها باعتبارها خاصرة رخوة. والبعض يقول إن الربط يأتي من موقع تخيير روسيا بين صفقة تبتعد بموجبها روسيا عن إيران وتنال نصيبها بربح سورية، وإلا فالانسحاب الأميركي هو تهديد بتحويل سورية لمستنقع استنزاف لروسيا. فيما بعض ثالث يعتبر كل الكلام عن الانسحاب بلا قيمة ومجرد نزوة انتخابية أمام ناخبين لم تتحقق لهم وعود الاهتمام بالشؤون الداخلية كما تضمنت الحملات الانتخابية لترامب، فجاء الحديث عن الانسحاب لإرضائهم بوعد العودة نحو الداخل الأميركي.

– بعد قرار ترامب تجميد الأموال المخصصة للملف السوري وقيمتها مئتا مليون دولار وحديث ولي العهد السعودي محمد بن سلمان عن تمنيه على الرئيس الأميركي إعادة النظر بقرار الانسحاب القريب من سورية، سقط منطق التهوين من قيمة وجدّية الكلام الرئاسي الأميركي، وإلا فإن عدم جدّيته تجعله حرباً نفسية غبية يشنّها ترامب على حلفائه، أما التفسير الذي يربط القرار الأميركي بخيارات تصعيدية فيتجاهل دعاته من زاوية قراءتهم للقرار تحريراً للقدرة الأميركية من خطر العمليات الانتقامية، أن أصعب نقاط الضعف الأميركية في أي مواجهة مع إيران هي المصالح والقوات الأميركية في الخليج، أما أصحاب التحليل القائم على تحذير روسيا عبر الانسحاب من مغبة إغراقها في مستنقع استنزاف في سورية، فيتجاهلون أن أربع سنوات مضت كانت عنوان هذه الحرب، من ولادة داعش إلى حسم الغوطة، وأن الرد الروسي على الخيار الأميركي كان في الميدان ووصل حدّ التهديد بالردّ على حرب صواريخ بحرب مثلها، وما هي أدوات الاستنزاف ما لم تكن داعش والنصرة وجيش الإسلام وفيلق الرحمن، وأين هي الآن وماذا حلّ بها؟

– القرار الأميركي جدّي، وهو إعلان نهاية المهمة في سورية. المهمة التي كان يقرر مدة استمرارها ما هو أهم من كذبة قتال داعش، وأهم من التحقق من طبيعة التسوية في سورية. وهو بالتحديد مصير السيطرة على الغوطة بواسطة حلفاء لواشنطن تديرهم السعودية والإمارات وقطر وتركيا و«إسرائيل». والغوطة هنا هي الجزيرة الأميركية الواقعة على كتف دمشق، والمستعصية على الجيش السوري خلال سنوات، والمحتوية لنصف مليون مواطن وخمسين ألف مسلح، والمزوّدة بشبكة أنفاق تحصنها ضد خطر القصف البري والجوي، وتجعل أغلب ضحاياه من المدنيين. وهو ما يسهل تحويله لحملات دبلوماسية وإعلامية ضاغطة، وربما تزخيمه بضربة كيميائية مفبركة لتوجيه ضربات عسكرية توقف أي حملة عسكرية. والرهان كان على صمود الغوطة بوجه أي حملة عسكرية لشهور بدليل صمود حي جوبر وحده لسنوات، وبقاء الغوطة محمية يعني بقاء الأمل بغزو دمشق ذات يوم وشلّ الحركة فيها كل يوم، وبقاء الأمل بتقسيم سورية عبر ربط الغوطة بقاعدة التنف وبينهما بادية لا سكان ولا مدن ولا قرى فيها، فتنشطر سورية إلى شطرين شمالي يضمّ حمص والساحل وحماة وحلب، وجنوبي يضم دمشق ودرعا والقنيطرة والسويداء، وعبر البادية تحاصر الغوطة المحاصرة دمشق بمربع الغوطة القلمون الشرقي التنف درعا، ومثلث الغوطة القلمون الغربي القنيطرة درعا، ومع حسم الغوطة رغم كل ما بذل لحمايتها، تسقط آخر القلاع ومعها آخر الآمال.

– يقرأ الأميركيون معنى العملية التي استهدفتهم شرق سورية ومقتل إثنين من جنودهم بعبوة ناسفة، ويعلمون أنه بعد الغوطة سيصير استرداد باقي الجغرافيا السورية حاضراً بقوة على جدول أعمال الدولة السورية ومؤيديها، وأنه حتى لو كانت هذه العملية من فعل جهة لا تتصل بمشروع الدولة السورية، فإن مثلها آتٍ ضمن مقاومة أعلن عن تأسيسها في شرق سورية، ولواشنطن خبرة مع مثيلاتها في لبنان والعراق، ولا تحتاج انتظار الانسحاب الذليل لتعرف كيف تتصرّف، وقد انتهت المهمة وسقط المشروع.

– أليس لافتاً أن يتحدث إبن سلمان في تصريح واحد عن تمني تأجيل قرار الانسحاب الأميركي، والتسليم ببقاء الرئيس السوري، ليتوضح المشهد، أنه انسحاب لأن المشروع قد فشل، والمشروع هو إسقاط الرئيس السوري؟

Related Videos

Related Articles


1986 CIA Document Analyzes Possibilities Of ‘Regime Change’ in Syria

1986 CIA Document Analyzes Possibilities Of 'Regime Change' in Syria

EDITOR’S CHOICE | 03.04.2018

1986 CIA Document Analyzes Possibilities Of ‘Regime Change’ in Syria


While the connections between the plans to destroy Syria and the Obama administration are generally known, what is even less well-known is the fact that there existed a plan to destroy Syria as far back as not only the Bush administration but also the Reagan Administration in 1983.

Documents contained in the U.S. National Archives and drawn up by the CIA reveal a plan to destroy the Syrian government going back decades. One such document entitled, “Bringing Real Muscle To Bear In Syria,” written by CIA officer Graham Fuller, is particularly illuminating. In this document, Fuller wrote,

Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf — through closure of Iraq’s pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the [Iran-Iraq] war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey.

Even as far back as 1983, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s father, Hafez Assad, was viewed as a gadfly to the plans of Western imperialists seeking to weaken both the Iraqis and the Iranians and extend hegemony over the Middle East and Persia. The document shows that Assad and hence Syria represented a resistance to Western imperialism, a threat to Israel, and that Assad himself was well aware of the game the United States, Israel, and other members of the Western imperialist coalition were trying to play against him.

I encourage the reader to access my article, “1983 CIA Document Reveals Plan To Destroy Syria, Foreshadows Current Crisis,” to read more about this document.

The question of the Assad thorn in the side of the West continued on for the United States as was evidenced by yet another CIA document from 1986 entitled “Syria: Scenarios of Dramatic Political Change.” Although not an open advocation of destabilization and/or war, the paper does examine the possibilities of destabilization and “regime change” in Syria, most notably in the scenario of mass unrest, Muslim Brotherhood manipulation and violence, defections, and a coup.

After giving a summation of “The Present Scene” and “Major Players” that include Hafez Assad’s inner circle, the military, Sunnis, and Muslim Brotherhood, the paper goes into a description of possible ways Assad’s government could be brought down and replaced with one more friendly to Western interests. The ways in which this takedown could be accomplished ranged from a military coup, a military defeat, and/or mass public unrest and destabilization. It should also be noted that the report attempts to paint Sunnis and the Muslim Brotherhood as one in the same. However, the MB does not and never has represented the majority of Sunnis in Syria. Thus, when the CIA document mentions “Sunnis” it is referring to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood factions of society.

In a subsection entitled, “Communal Violence Escalates Into Civil War,” the document reads,

Sunni dissidence has been minimal since Assad crushed the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1980s, but deep-seated tensions remain – keeping alive the potential for minor incidents to grow into major flareups of communal violence. For example, disgruntlement over price hikes, altercations between Sunni citizens and police forces, or anger at privileges accorded to Alawis at the expense of Sunnis could foster small-scale protests. Excessive government force in quelling such disturbances might be seen by Sunnis as evidence of a government vendetta against all Sunnis, precipitating even larger protests by other Sunni groups.

Sunni merchants and artisans probably would launch protests similar to those staged in previous years, for example by closing down businesses and the bazaars in Hamah or Aleppo and possibly Damascus. Sunni students would stage campus demonstrations, and Sunni professional associations would organize stoppages. Mistaking the new protests as a resurgence of the Muslim Brotherhood, the government would step up its use of force and launch violent attacks on a broad spectrum of Sunni community leaders as well as on those engaged in the protests. Regime efforts to restore order would founder if government violence against protesters inspired broad-based communal violence between Alawis and Sunnis.

A general campaign of Alawi violence against Sunnis might push even moderate Sunnis to join the opposition. Remnants of the Muslim Brotherhood – some returning from exile in Iraq – could provide a core of leadership for the movement. Although the regime has the resources to crush such a venture, we believe brutal attacks on Sunni civilians might prompt large numbers of Sunni officers and conscripts to desert or to stage mutinies in support of dissidents, and Iraq might supply them with sufficient weapons to launch a civil war.

Indicators Of A Developing Scenario

  • Strikes and demonstrations demanding government action to end discrimination against Sunnis become frequent.
  • Security personnel force businesses to reopen and confiscate the inventories of many.
  • The government conducts the indiscriminate roundups of Sunni leaders.
  • Syrian leaders accuse Iraq and the Muslim Brotherhood of fomenting unrest.
  • Violent indicators including bombings of Sunni social gatherings take place; Sunnis retaliate with similar violence against Alawis.
  • Government attacks on suspected Sunnis dissidents increase; sometimes razing whole blocks in Sunni residential areas
  • Sunni troops refuse to fire on demonstrators; some units mutiny and join growing Sunni opposition movements.

Thus, while observing potential flareups for social violence, one major aspect of the destabilization of 2011, the CIA viewed the Sunni population, more specifically the Muslim Brotherhood, as the one that would be the most volatile element of society and also that it might be funded from the outside. The CIA predicted “defections” and a “civil war” drawn along religious lines. This “potential” situation was attempted by the CIA in 2011 but was forced to rely on outside Sunni fighters since the fiercely secular Syrian people were not able to be coaxed into a religious civil war as easily as the CIA imagined.

The CIA document also addressed the “Soviet Angle,” opining about ways in which the strong ties between the Russia/Soviet Union and Syria could be broken and the situations which might bring that separation about. The document comes to the conclusion that a military defeat, most likely against Israel, would prove Soviet weapons and military training inferior, forcing Syria to rely more heavily on the West for training and equipment and thus become more pliable to the Western agenda.

In the section entitled, “Implications For The United States,” the document states that the most ideal situation for the US would be to see the Assad government overthrown and replaced by a “Sunni regime controlled by business-oriented moderates.” This essentially refers to a Muslim Brotherhood coup against the Syrian government which would of course follow with a regime that is much more favorable and cooperative with the Western agenda than that of Assad’s Syria. The document also hints at the desire to see the new “Sunni business-oriented moderate” government’s interest in the “private sector,” which historically has come to mean major Western corporations that take over public services and natural resources and turn them into commodities.

While this document did not provide a strategy by which to achieve the desired outcomes it lists (at least not in the sanitized declassified version), it still follows the same train of thought as the CIA document released three years prior in that it hopes for the collapse of deposition of the Assad government and the replacement of that government with one that is more friendly to Western aims. The US government went ahead with the implementation of this plan in 2011 that has resulted in over 400,000 deaths in Syria over the course of seven years of warfare.


On April 2, two buses arrived the Duma area of Eastern Ghouta in order to evacuate some Jaish al-Islam members and their families from the area to the Turkish-occupied town of Jarabulus in northern Syria, according to the Syrian state-run news agency SANA.

According to media reports, a total of 50 buses will be used to evacuate Jaish al-Islam members and their families from the area. However, no details were provided on the departue of militants and where it will be made.

On April 1, SANA reported that Jaish al-Islam had accepted an evacuation deal in Eastern Ghouta. However, later on the same day, Political leader of Jaysh al-Islam Mohamad Alloush denied that the deal had been reached. MORE DETAILS

Military Situation In Eastern Ghouta On April 2, 2018 (Map)

Click to see the full-size map

Related Videos

Related News

%d bloggers like this: