The end of the lie of the Syrian opposition نهاية كذبة المعارضة السورية

The end of the lie of the Syrian opposition

Written by Nasser Kandil,

فبراير 7, 2017

It is enough to compare the words of the UN Envoy Steffan De Mistura before the Security Council last night with his previous positions toward the war in Syria and what was entitled the Syrian opposition and the formulas of the political solution to announce the end of the lie. De Mistura who always refused any interference in forming the negotiating opposition delegation to Geneva leaving the task to Istanbul Council, and the coalition of Doha and later to Riyadh Conference according to the changes in the structure which is formed by the operators of the decision of the war on Syria said either the opposition will succeed in forming a delegation that represents all the formations, or I will myself form the unified delegation for representation, then he said that Iran is a partner in the political process and a guarantor of its success and the cease-fire, while Russia is a key player in political solution-making and terminating the fighting. But regarding the transitional body which was foreshadowed by Geneva I and was adopted by De Mistura against any speech about a unified national government, De Mistura said that the subject of the political solution is government, constitution, and elections.

De Mistura has not changed, but the circumstances, the countries, and the war changed. The formations of the armed opposition which were hiding under the name of the Free Army and have disguised the presence of Al Nusra front among them to enlarge their size and the area of their geographic dominance and to employ Al Nusra to impose political speech that meets the goals of the disintegration of Syria, weakening it and overthrowing its president and its army according to what was decided under the American, Turkish Saudi and Israeli consensus, were defeated in the most important battle which its operators were ready for it, it was the crucial battle of Aleppo which what came after it was not as what preceded it. Neither America not Turkey are partners in the bet of the war after it, neither Saudi Arabia nor Israel have an alternative for the US political and military cover and for the Turkish neighborhood and depth. The factions which were driven to Astana are the scandal of the hypocrite secular speech of the Supreme Commission for negotiation in which numbers of the speakers with ties and fabricated civil language were gathered. In Astana there were Muslim Brotherhood Wahhabi factions having the same breads like their leaders and their rhetoric, in addition to their concern about the relationship with Al Nusra. Now after Astana where there is no presence for the Free Army in any Syrian geography , and after the war in the northern of Syria has resolved the matter between Ahrar Al Sham and Al Nusra front, and where the factions are distributed between them, and where in the southern of Syria and its center there are settlements and reconciliations and the decay of the remnants of the Free Army, so where is the opposition , it is just a fantasy as was described one day by the Former US President Barack Obama.

The Syrian President and the Syrian army are from the axioms of the image of the new map of the Middle East in the war on terrorism and what is after it. The US Russian understanding which is expressed by raids on ISIS and Al Nusra in partnership is based on the return to the countries which the basis of their stability is the powerful armies in security, politics, and strategy especially the central countries as Egypt and Syria, where the democratic game is confined with their internal affairs in order to ensure the higher degree of the social peace among the ethnic, sectarian, class, social, and cultural components without exposing the unity of the countries to instability. The six years-war which was waged to change Syria, to destroy it and to dismantle it and perhaps to divide it ended and was replaced by a war of terminating the terrorism which brought by the first war as a partner and an ally, but has become a burden and a threat. The task of cease-fire and the political solution in Syria is the stage of the transition between the two wars not between two regimes or two presidents. The nature of the task has become known by De Mistura.

 Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

نهاية كذبة المعارضة السورية

فبراير 1, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– يكفي كلام المبعوث الأممي ستيفان دي ميستورا أمام مجلس الأمن ليل أمس، مقارنة بمواقفه السابقة من الحرب في سورية وعليها، وممّا سُمّي بالمعارضة السورية وصيغ الحل السياسي، لإعلان نهاية الكذبة. فقد قال دي ميتسورا الذي رفض دائماً أي تدخل في تشكيل وفد المعارضة التفاوضي إلى جنيف تاركاً المهمة لمجلس اسطنبول وائتلاف الدوحة ولاحقاً مؤتمر الرياض، طبقاً لتحوّلات الجسم الذي يشكله مشغلو قرار الحرب على سورية، ليقول إما تنجح المعارضة بتشكيل وفد يمثل كلّ الأطياف أو سأقوم أنا بتشكيل الوفد الموحّد، ثم يقول إنّ إيران شريك في العملية السياسية وضامن نجاحها وتثبيت وقف النار، وإنّ روسيا لاعب رئيس في صناعة الحلّ السياسي وإنهاء القتال، وعن الهيئة الانتقالية التي بشر بها بيان جنيف واحد وطالما نادى بها دي ميستورا بوجه أي كلام عن حكومة وحدة وطنية، يقول دي ميستورا الأمر في الحلّ السياسي عنوانه حكومة ودستور وانتخابات.

– ليس دي ميستورا الذي تغيّر بل الظروف والدول والحرب، فتشكيلات المعارضة المسلحة التي كانت تختبئ تحت اسم الجيش الحر وتموّه وجود جبهة النصرة ضمنها لتضخيم حجمها، ومساحة سيطرتها الجغرافية، وتوظيف النصرة لفرض خطاب سياسي يلبّي أهداف تفكيك سورية وإضعافها وإسقاط رئيسها وجيشها، وفقاً لما كان مرسوماً بالتوافق الأميركي التركي السعودي «الإسرائيلي»، هُزمت في أم المعارك التي استعدّ لها كل مشغّليها وكانت موقعة حلب الفصل، الذي بعده ليس كما قبله، فلا أميركا ولا تركيا شريكان في رهان الحرب بعدها، ولا السعودية و«إسرائيل» تملكان بديلاً للتغطية السياسية والعسكرية الأميركية، وللجوار والعمق التركيين، والفصائل المسحوبة من شعر رأسها إلى أستانة فضيحة الخطاب العلماني المنافق للهيئة العليا للتفاوض التي جمع فيها عدد من المتحدثين بربطات عنق ولغة مدنية ملفّقة، ففي أستانة فصائل وهابية إخوانية بلحى قادتهم وخطابهم وقلقهم على العلاقة مع النصرة، وها هم بعد أستانة حيث لا بقعة من جغرافية سورية يوجد فيها شيء اسمه الجيش الحرّ، وحرب الشمال السوري حسمت الأمر بين أحرار الشام وجبهة النصرة وقسمت الفصائل بينهما ولا ثالث. وفي جنوب سورية ووسطها تسويات ومصالحات، واضمحلال لبقايا الجيش الحر. فأين هي المعارضة، غير الفانتازيا التي استعملها لوصفها بها ذات يوم صدق نادر تحدّث خلاله الرئيس الأميركي السابق باراك اوباما.

– الرئيس السوري والجيش السوري من مسلّمات صورة الخريطة الجديدة للشرق الأوسط في الحرب على الإرهاب وما بعدها، والتفاهم الروسي الأميركي الذي يترجم في غارات ستهداف داعش والنصرة بالتشارك، يقوم على العودة إلى دول قاعدة استقرارها الجيوش القوية في الأمن والسياسة والاستراتيجيا، خصوصاً في الدولتين المركزيتين مصر وسورية، وتنحصر اللعبة الديمقراطية فيها بالشؤون الداخلية، لتوفير أعلى قدر من السلم الاجتماعي بين المكوّنات الإتنية والعرقية والطبقية والاجتماعية والثقافية من دون تعريض وحدة الدول للاهتزاز، وحرب السنوات الست التي خيضت لتغيير سورية، وتدميرها وتفكيكها وربما تقسيمها، انتهت وحلّت مكانها حرب تصفية الإرهاب الذي جاءت به الحرب الأولى شريكاً وحليفاً وصار عبئاً وخطراً، ومهمة وقف النار والحل السياسي في سورية ليست إلا مرحلة الانتقال بين الحربين وليس بين نظامين، أو رئيسين، ودي ميستورا بات يعلم طبيعة المهمة.

(Visited 1٬454 times, 1٬454 visits today)
  • نهاية كذبة المعارضة السورية

    فبراير 1, 2017

    ناصر قنديل

    – يكفي كلام المبعوث الأممي ستيفان دي ميستورا أمام مجلس الأمن ليل أمس، مقارنة بمواقفه السابقة من الحرب في سورية وعليها، وممّا سُمّي بالمعارضة السورية وصيغ الحل السياسي، لإعلان نهاية الكذبة. فقد قال دي ميتسورا الذي رفض دائماً أي تدخل في تشكيل وفد المعارضة التفاوضي إلى جنيف تاركاً المهمة لمجلس اسطنبول وائتلاف الدوحة ولاحقاً مؤتمر الرياض، طبقاً لتحوّلات الجسم الذي يشكله مشغلو قرار الحرب على سورية، ليقول إما تنجح المعارضة بتشكيل وفد يمثل كلّ الأطياف أو سأقوم أنا بتشكيل الوفد الموحّد، ثم يقول إنّ إيران شريك في العملية السياسية وضامن نجاحها وتثبيت وقف النار، وإنّ روسيا لاعب رئيس في صناعة الحلّ السياسي وإنهاء القتال، وعن الهيئة الانتقالية التي بشر بها بيان جنيف واحد وطالما نادى بها دي ميستورا بوجه أي كلام عن حكومة وحدة وطنية، يقول دي ميستورا الأمر في الحلّ السياسي عنوانه حكومة ودستور وانتخابات.

    – ليس دي ميستورا الذي تغيّر بل الظروف والدول والحرب، فتشكيلات المعارضة المسلحة التي كانت تختبئ تحت اسم الجيش الحر وتموّه وجود جبهة النصرة ضمنها لتضخيم حجمها، ومساحة سيطرتها الجغرافية، وتوظيف النصرة لفرض خطاب سياسي يلبّي أهداف تفكيك سورية وإضعافها وإسقاط رئيسها وجيشها، وفقاً لما كان مرسوماً بالتوافق الأميركي التركي السعودي «الإسرائيلي»، هُزمت في أم المعارك التي استعدّ لها كل مشغّليها وكانت موقعة حلب الفصل، الذي بعده ليس كما قبله، فلا أميركا ولا تركيا شريكان في رهان الحرب بعدها، ولا السعودية و«إسرائيل» تملكان بديلاً للتغطية السياسية والعسكرية الأميركية، وللجوار والعمق التركيين، والفصائل المسحوبة من شعر رأسها إلى أستانة فضيحة الخطاب العلماني المنافق للهيئة العليا للتفاوض التي جمع فيها عدد من المتحدثين بربطات عنق ولغة مدنية ملفّقة، ففي أستانة فصائل وهابية إخوانية بلحى قادتهم وخطابهم وقلقهم على العلاقة مع النصرة، وها هم بعد أستانة حيث لا بقعة من جغرافية سورية يوجد فيها شيء اسمه الجيش الحرّ، وحرب الشمال السوري حسمت الأمر بين أحرار الشام وجبهة النصرة وقسمت الفصائل بينهما ولا ثالث. وفي جنوب سورية ووسطها تسويات ومصالحات، واضمحلال لبقايا الجيش الحر. فأين هي المعارضة، غير الفانتازيا التي استعملها لوصفها بها ذات يوم صدق نادر تحدّث خلاله الرئيس الأميركي السابق باراك اوباما.

    – الرئيس السوري والجيش السوري من مسلّمات صورة الخريطة الجديدة للشرق الأوسط في الحرب على الإرهاب وما بعدها، والتفاهم الروسي الأميركي الذي يترجم في غارات ستهداف داعش والنصرة بالتشارك، يقوم على العودة إلى دول قاعدة استقرارها الجيوش القوية في الأمن والسياسة والاستراتيجيا، خصوصاً في الدولتين المركزيتين مصر وسورية، وتنحصر اللعبة الديمقراطية فيها بالشؤون الداخلية، لتوفير أعلى قدر من السلم الاجتماعي بين المكوّنات الإتنية والعرقية والطبقية والاجتماعية والثقافية من دون تعريض وحدة الدول للاهتزاز، وحرب السنوات الست التي خيضت لتغيير سورية، وتدميرها وتفكيكها وربما تقسيمها، انتهت وحلّت مكانها حرب تصفية الإرهاب الذي جاءت به الحرب الأولى شريكاً وحليفاً وصار عبئاً وخطراً، ومهمة وقف النار والحل السياسي في سورية ليست إلا مرحلة الانتقال بين الحربين وليس بين نظامين، أو رئيسين، ودي ميستورا بات يعلم طبيعة المهمة.

    (Visited 1٬454 times, 1٬454 visits today)
     
     
    Related Videos
     
     










    Related Articles

ثلاثة مسارات أميركية متزامنة

ناصر قنديل

– معانٍ هامة حملتها العودة الأميركية إلى المحادثات المشتركة مع روسيا حول سورية، وتزخيمها من خلال الدعوة المشتركة لاجتماع لوزان، الذي ابتكر إطاراً موازياً لمسار فيينا، لكن لعدد أضيق من المشاركين، أي أنه ليس موعداً روتينياً يستدعي الحضور بل إطار جديد مبتكر لتفعيل التفاهم، وجد هو الآخر ترجمته في اجتماع الخبراء القائم منذ أيام في جنيف، والذي يشارك فيه مع الروس والأميركيين ضباط سعوديون وقطريون وأتراك هو مشغِّلو الجماعات المسلحة المعنية بالفصل عن جبهة النصرة في التفاهم الروسي الأميركي الذي سبق نعيه من كل من وزارة الخارجية ووزارة الدفاع في واشنطن، وسط بيانات عن البيت الأبيض تتحدّث عن بدائل غير دبلوماسية وتلمّح بالخيار العسكري.

– أهم هذه المعاني هي أن الإدارة الأميركية المنتهية الولاية لا تتصرف على قاعدة ترك الملفات العالقة، خصوصاً مستقبل الحرب في سورية كواحد من الملفات المؤجلة للإدارة المقبلة، وإلا فلا مبرر لاستئناف المساعي والمحادثات وابتكار مبادرات واجتماع خبراء، بل البقاء في المنطقة الرمادية، كما كان الحال قبل العودة للمحادثات وتزخيمها بمبادرة المبعوث الأممي ستيفان دي ميستورا حول خروج جبهة النصرة من حلب، التي كتب نصها المعاون السياسي للأمين العام للأمم المتحدة الدبلوماسي الأميركي المخضرم جيفري فيلتمان. كما يتقدم هذه المعاني سقوط الخيار العسكري كواحد من البدائل، بل كسلاح حرب إعلامية للتهويل أو لرفع السقوف التفاوضية، ليصير التسليم بالقلق من حسم عسكري ينفذه الجيش السوري بدعم من الحلفاء وتوفر موسكو له الغطاء الناري، هو المحرك الرئيسي للمواقف الأميركية على قاعدة قبول التسليم بحقيقتين ثابتتين لا يمكن توقع التقدم السياسي بدونهما، الأولى أن النصرة باتت هدفاً مشروعاً للحرب ولم يعد ممكناً الرهان على تعويمها، والثانية أن الدولة السورية كمرجعية مؤسسية باتت عنوان مستقبل سورية السياسي والعسكري ومن ضمن مؤسساتها وتحت سقف دستورها يمكن فقط للمساعي السياسية والعسكرية أن تبصر النور وتحقق التقدم.

– الحركة الأميركية المحكومة بهذا العامل الضاغط في حال سورية تتكرّر في حال اليمن، حيث لا أمل بإنعاش عناصر القدرة السعودية في الحرب، ولا أفق لتغيير موازين هذه الحرب، التي تحوّلت عبئاً بلا أمل يُرتجى، وسط ضيق مالي وعسكري تعانيه السعودية، واضطراب في قواتها المسلحة وثباتها عبر الحدود مع اليمن، وتورطها بجرائم حرب لم يعد ممكناً توفير الغطاء لها. فتعود الحركة الأميركية من بوابة التفاهمات ومحورها مبادرة وزير الخارجية الأميركية جون كيري التي تتضمّن تسليماً بقيام حكومة موحدة كمدخل لتطبيق بنود القرارات الأممية، بعيداً عن لغة العنتريات السعودية السابقة عن تسليم المدن والسلاح، «وبعدها نتحدّث في السياسة». وهذا معنى الدفع باتجاه إحياء الهدنة في اليمن بالتزامن مع السعي لتكريس الهدنة في شرق حلب وتمديد مهلتها، من ضمن التسليم الأميركي المزدوج بالوقائع والحقائق الجديدة في اليمن وسورية.

– يتزامن هذا التسليم الأميركي مع مسعى فرض الوقائع المرتبطة بالمصالح الأميركية، عبر رسائل عسكرية مشفرة تراهن أميركا وتأمل أن تتمكّن عبرها من بدء مفاوضات موازية مع كل من الدولة السورية والقيادة اليمنية الوطنية، فهي تعلم أن المسار السياسي الذي ينتهي بالاحتكام لصناديق الاقتراع لن يمنح جماعاتها في سورية واليمن، إلا حضوراً رمزياً، وبالتالي فالتعاطي سيجري مستقبلاً مع حكم نواته مناصرو الرئيس السوري في سورية وثنائي أنصار الله والمؤتمر الشعبي في اليمن، من هنا تجد واشنطن سيناريو التزامن بين التسليم بالسير في تكريس معادلة تعاكس مصالح جماعتها، والاعتراف بها، مع السعي لفتح قنوات تفاوض مع هذه القيادات في سورية واليمن بالرسائل العسكرية المشفرة التي تلقاها السوريون بين سطور الغارة الأميركية على دير الزور، وتلقاها اليمنيون مع الصواريخ التي تساقطت على سواحلهم بذريعة الرد على استهداف غامض لم يثبت لمدمّرات أميركية قرب باب المندب وفي البحر الأحمر، والواضح أن واشنطن تسعى للحصول على امتيازات أمنية في سواحل اليمن وشرق سورية ترفضها قيادات البلدين، ما يجعل مسارات التهدئة غير مستقرة وعرضة للجذب والشد بتقطع.

– يتلاقى هذان المساران المتعرجان مع تقدم روزنامة الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية والحاجة لقيام الإدارة الحالية بما يلزم لتزخيم فرص المرشحة الرئاسية للحزب الديمقراطي، رغم حظوظها العالية بالفوز، لذلك يسرع الأميركي بمعركة الموصل، ويسعى لجعلها الحدث الأبرز في الشرق الأوسط للأيام الفاصلة عن موعد الانتخابات، ما يستدعي إطفاء النار الملتهبة في حريقَي سورية واليمن، وإطفاء الأضواء عنهما بتبريد الجبهات ومنح جرعات إضافية لخيارات التهدئة.

إدراك تداخل وتشابك هذه المسارات الثلاثة يمنح القيادتين السورية واليمنية ومعهما القيادة العراقية الفرص لفرض شروط وتنازلات على واشنطن، التي فرغت يدها من الخيار العسكري، ولو من باب التهويل، وسقط من حسابها الرهان على توظيف مزدوج للحروب، ولا تملك أوراق قوة لفرض الامتيازات التي تطلبها، مقابل الاستعداد للرضا بضمان المصالح، الذي تعرضه سورية واليمن دون التهاون في الشؤون السيادية، فيظهر التهديد السوري لتركيا كعلامة على ذكاء التوقيت في إدارة روزنامة الحرب ومقتضياتها، وواضح أن الأتراك الملتحفين بالأميركيين، يلعبون في مناطق الفراغ، غرب الفرات وشرق دجلة، وفي الوقت الفراغ ما قبل الحسم السري والعراقي استطراداً.

 

Related Videos

Related Articles

 

The War on Syria: What You’re Not Being Told Is Wrong-How Americans are being lied to

The Syrian War What You’re Not Being Told

How Americans are being lied to

Why Everything You Hear About Aleppo Is Wrong

The mainstream media portrays the fight for Aleppo as one between Syrian President Assad and the people, painting Assad as someone killing his citizens for the fun of it. In other words, as they did with Iraq and Libya, etc. the mainstream media again happily takes up the role of mouthpiece of the US government. The reality is quite different, in fact. Today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report speaks with independent journalist Vanessa Beeley, who has recently returned from an investigative trip to Syria including in Aleppo. What’s really going on there? Tune in!

 

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

Related Video

Henry Kissinger: Balkanized and Broken-Up Syria “Best Possible Outcome”

Former secretary of state eyes breaking up of current-day Syria into “more or less autonomous regions”

Global Research, September 13, 2016
kissinger

Note: We bring to the attention of our readers this article originally published in June 2013

In a very recent presentation at the Ford School, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger commented on the current Syrian situation, expressing his preference for a broken-up and balkanized Syria to emerge out of the current Assad-controlled unity (from 19 minutes and 30 seconds onward):

*

*

“There are three possible outcomes. An Assad victory. A Sunni victory. Or an outcome in which the various nationalities agree to co-exist together but in more or less autonomous regions, so that they can’t oppress each other. That’s the outcome I would prefer to see. But that’s not the popular view.”

After being introduced by the chair as “the honorable Dr. Kissinger”, the 90-year old power-broker began an interesting history lesson. Kissinger detailed how the current state of Syria was designed by European powers, as is the case with the neighboring state of Iraq:

“First of all, Syria is not a historic state. It was created in its present shape in 1920, and it was given that shape in order to facilitate the control of the country by France, which happened to be after UN mandate. The neighboring country Iraq was also given an odd shape, that was to facilitate control by England. And the shape of both of the countries was designed to make it hard for either of them to dominate the region.”

kiss6As a result of Syria’s a-historical origins, Kissinger explained, the current Syria was conceived as a more or less artificial national unity consisting of different tribes and ethnic groups. As the recent “revolution” is further spiraling into chaos, Kissinger comments on the nature of the current situation:

“In the American press it’s described as a conflict between democracy and a dictator- and the dictator is killing his own people, and we’ve got to punish him. But that’s not what’s going on. It may have been started by a few democrats. But on the whole it’s an ethnic and sectarian conflict.”

“It is now a civil war between sectarian groups”, Kissinger went on to state. “And I have to say we have misunderstood it from the beginning. If you read our media they say: we’ve got to get rid of Assad. And if we get rid of Assad, then we form a coalition government. Inconceivable. I’m all in favour of getting rid of Assad, but the dispute between us and the Russians on that issue, was that the Russians say: you start with getting rid of not just Assad, that’s not the issue, but you break up the state administration and you’ll wind up like in Iraq- that there is nothing to hold it together. And then you’ll have an even worse civil war. This is how that mess has taken the present form.”

Kissinger has commented previously on the desirability of breaking up dissenting nations into smaller fragments, after which the emerging chaos may facilitate their introduction into a global order. This, in essence, is the rule of divide and conquer. These recent comments by Kissinger are in step with previous statements in which he promulgates the idea that social upheaval and mass civil unrest are to be used as a means of merging nations (including, by the way, the United States) into an “international system”.

“The United States has to be part of an international system that we create domestically”, Kissinger told The Harvard Crimson in 2012. When asked what the most important problems are facing American society today, Kissinger then answered:

“Internationally, the problem is that there are upheavals going on in every part of the world, but these upheavals don’t follow the same basic causes, and so the United States has to be part of an international system that we create domestically.”

The concept of seizing crises and upheavals, the causes of which may differ from nation to nation, in order to bring about an international order- is neatly following the elite’s golden rule, namely that a global order is best brought about by chaos. Furthermore, Kissinger provides us with a glimpse of the underlying intent he and his fellow-bilderbergers have in mind, stating in so many words that civil unrest- be it economically, politically or socially motivated- must be seized upon in order to merge nations into the desired “international system” .

In a December 2008 Prisonplanet.com article it was reported that Kissinger, in an interview with Bilderberg-darling Charlie Rose, “cited the chaos being wrought across the globe by the financial crisis and the spread of terrorism as an opportunity to bolster a new global order.”, Steve Watson wrote.

“I think that when the new administration assesses the position in which it finds itself it will see a huge crisis and terrible problems, but I can see that it could see a glimmer in which it could construct an international system out of it”, Kissinger told Rose some years ago.

***

This talk of crises and upheavals as just another country-specific means to a centralized global end could specifically point to an underlying transnational plan- a sinister concept that follows the course of classic Hegelian dialectic, namely the problem (whether real or feigned) provokes the reaction which in turn allows the elite to provide the solution on a silver platter. It occurred to me that Kissinger’s words are ominously reminiscent of those written down by University of Chicago’s Alexander Wendt, who in 2003 in his treatise titled Why a World State is Inevitable: teleology and the logic of anarchy stated:

“Nationalist struggles for recognition are by no means over, and more new states- “more anarchy”- may yet be created. But while further fragmentation is in one sense a step back, it is also a precondition for moving forward, since it is only when difference is recognized that a larger identity can be stable. (…) Far from suppressing nationalism, a world state will only be possible if it embraces it.”

These words may shed some light on the words uttered by Kissinger and his fellow supranationalists, in essence revealing they are very much aware of the fact that the mere proposition of a world state will not make it so- may even backfire on them when proposed too directly- and that the same goal may be better achieved via the fragmentation and balcanization of nation-states, whether in the East or West, in order to then merge those fragments into a global construct, usually described as the new world order.

Why Syria & Assad are crucial to Middle East war (2 Videos)


More By Nasser Kandil


How to handle biased media with Truth – Bashar Al-Assad interview highlights

US-NATO-Turkey Invasion of Northern Syria: CIA “Failed” Turkey Coup Lays Groundwork for Broader Middle East War?

Global Research, August 29, 2016
northsyria20160828 turkey

In mid-July, President Erdogan pointed his finger at the CIA, accusing US intelligence of having supported a failed coup directed against his government. Turkish officials pointed to a deterioration of US-Turkey relations following Washington’s refusal to extradite Fethullah Gülen, the alleged architect of the failed coup.

Erdogan’s Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag was categorical:

“If the US does not deliver (Gulen), they will sacrifice relations with Turkey for the sake of a terrorist” 

Public opinion was led to believe that relations with the US had not only deteriorated, but that Erdogan had vowed to restore “an axis of friendship” with Moscow, including “cooperation in the defence sector”. This was a hoax.

Turkey’s Invasion of Syria

The implementation of the Turkish invasion required routine consultations with the US and NATO, coordination of military logistics, intelligence, communications systems, coordination of ground and air operations, etc. To be effectively carried, these military endeavors required a cohesive and “friendly” US-Turkey relationship.

We are not dealing with a piecemeal military initiative. Turkey’s Operation Euphrates Shield could not have taken place without the active support of the Pentagon, which ultimately calls the shots in the war on Syria.

The likely scenario is that from mid July to mid-August US, NATO and Turkish officials were actively involved in planning the next stage of the war on Syria: an (illegal) invasion led by Turkish ground-forces, backed by the US and NATO.

Map of the Turkish-led offensive in the northern Aleppo Governorate, showing the ongoing developments in west of Euphrates River. Source Wikipedia

The Failed Coup Sets the Stage for a Ground Invasion

1. Massive purges within the armed forces and government were implemented in the immediate wake of the July coup. They had been planned well in advance.  ”Arrested immediately were 2,839 army personnel with 2,745 Judges and Prosecutors ordered detained… In under a week 60,000 people had been fired or detained and 2,300 institutions closed” … “   (See Felicity Arbuthnot, Global Research, August 2, 2016)

2.The coup was intended to fail. Erdogan had advanced knowledge of the coup and so did Washington. There was no conspiracy directed by the CIA against Erdogan. Quite the opposite, the failed coup was in all likelihood engineered by the CIA in liaison with Erdogan. It was intended to consolidate and reinforce the Erdogan regime as well as rally the Turkish people behind their president and his military agenda “in the name of democracy”.

3. The purges within the Armed Forces were intended to get rid of members of the military hierarchy who were opposed to an invasion of Syria. Did the CIA assist Erdogan in establishing the lists of military officers, judges and senior government officials to be arrested or fired? The Turkish media was also targeted, many of which were closed down.

4. Erdogan used the July 15 coup to accuse Washington of supporting the Gulen movement while seeking a fake rapprochement with Moscow. He flew to St Petersburg on August 9, for a behind closed doors meeting with President Putin. In all likelihood, the scenario of a rift between Ankara and Washington coupled with the “my friend Putin” narrative had been approved by the Obama administration. It was part of a carefully designed intelligence ploy coupled with media disinformation. President Erdogan, vowed according to Western media reports: “to restore an ‘axis of friendship’ between Ankara and Moscow amid a growing rift between Turkey and the West.”

5. While “mending the fence” with Russia, Turkey’s military and intelligence apparatus was involved in planning the invasion of Northern Syria in liaison with Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels. The underlying objective is to ultimately confront and weaken Syria’s military allies: Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

In St Petersburg in the immediate wake of the July 15 failed coup, Erdogan thanked his “dear friend” Vladimir Putin.

“The fact Mr Putin called me the next day after the coup attempt was a very strong psychological factor,” he said at a joint press conference.  “The axis of friendship between Moscow and Ankara will be restored,” he said. Telegraph, August 7, 2016

Did Putin know that the failed coup, covertly supported by the CIA, was meant to fail? One suspects that Russian intelligence was aware of the ploy and was also informed regarding Turkey’s invasion plans:

“Your visit today, despite a very difficult situation regarding domestic politics, indicates that we all want to restart dialogue and restore relations between Russia and Turkey,” Mr Putin said as the pair met in the city’s Constantine Palace.

… Mr Putin on Tuesday said Russia would “step by step” lift sanctions, … Mr Erdogan in turn promised to back major Russian energy projects in Turkey, including the construction of the country’s first nuclear power station and a gas pipeline to Europe.

He also said the two countries would step up “cooperation in the defence sector,” but did not elaborate.

The Putin-Erdogan Saint Petersburg meeting was interpreted by the media as a rapprochement with Moscow in response to the alleged involvement of the CIA in the failed coup.

According to the Washington Post, an improvised about-turn in US-NATO-Turkey relations had occurred despite Erdogan’s “friendly” encounter with Putin:

NATO went out of its way Wednesday to insist that Turkey — whose president this week visited Moscow and promised a new level of cooperation with the man he repeatedly called his “dear friend,” Russian President Vladi­mir Putin — remains a “valued ally” whose alliance membership “is not in question.”

In a statement posted on its website, NATO said it was responding to “speculative press reports regarding NATO’s stance regarding the failed coup in Turkey and Turkey’s NATO membership.”

A nonsensical report. In actuality, the Pentagon, NATO, the Turkish High Command and Israel are in permanent liaison. Israel is a de facto member of NATO, it has a comprehensive bilateral military and intelligence relationship with Turkey.

With the invasion of  the border area of Northern Syria and the influx of Turkish tanks and armoured vehicles,  the Turkey-Russia relationship is in crisis. And that is the ultimate objective of US foreign policy.

Russian forces are acting on behalf of their Syrian ally.

How will the Kremlin and Russia’s High Command respond to what constitutes a US-Turkey-NATO ground invasion of Syria?

How will they confront Turkish and allied forces? One assumes that Russia will avoid direct military confrontation.

After the US, Turkey is NATO’s heavy weight.

Sofar the Turkish op is limited to a small border territory. Nonetheless it constitutes and important landmark in the evolution of the Syria war: invasion of a sovereign country in derogation of international law. Washington’s endgame remains “regime change” in Damascus.

Is the military initiative a preamble for a larger military undertaking on the part of Turkey supported by US-NATO? In many regards, Turkey is acting as a US proxy:

Turkey’s incursion was backed by US air-cover, drones, and embedded special forces per the WSJ. These were there largely to prevent Russia and Syria from even thinking about taking action against the invading forces.

Turkey is moving into Syria not just with its own military, but with thousands of “rebel opposition groups” including US-backed FSA brigades allied with AlQaeda/Nusra/Sham and the child head-chopping al-Zinki who are reported to form the vanguard. Syrian territory is outright being turned over to them by the Turkish military, simply exchanging control from one group of terrorist jihadis (ISIS) to others who are more media acceptable and more direct proxies of the Erdogan regime, the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

That said, ISIS has not resisted the Turkish advance at all – simply “melting away” (or exchanging one set of uniforms for another?). (Moon  of Alabama

Do the SAA Syrian forces have the military capabilities of confronting Turkish ground forces without Russian and Iranian support? How will Tehran react to  the influx of Turkish forces? Will it come to the rescue of its Syrian ally?

An “incident” could be used as a pretext to justify a broader NATO-led war. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty (NATO’s founding document) states under the doctrine of “collective security” that an attack against one member state of the Atlantic Alliance (e.g. Turkey) is an attack against all members states of the Atlantic Alliance.

Dangerous crossroads. With the incursion of Turkish ground forces, military confrontation with Syria’s allies, namely Iran and Russia, is a distinct possibility which could lead to a  process of escalation beyond Syria’s borders.

The Erdogan-Jo Biden Meeting 

From Washington’s perspective, this ground invasion sets the stage for a possible annexation of part of Northern Syria by Turkey. It also opens the door for the deployment of US-NATO ground force operations directed against central and southern Syria.

Erdogan met up with Vice President Biden on August 23, following the influx of Turkish tanks into Northern Syria. The invasion is carefully coordinated with the US which provided extensive air force protection. There is no rift between Ankara and Washington, quite the opposite:

It [is] difficult to believe that Turkey truly suspected the US of an attempted decapitation of the nation’s senior leadership in a violent, abortive coup just last month, only to be conducting joint operations with the US inside Syria with US military forces still based within Turkish territory.

What is much more likely is that the coup was staged to feign a US-Turkish fallout, draw in Russia and allow Turkey to make sweeping purges of any elements within the Turkish armed forces that might oppose a cross-border foray into Syria, a foray that is now unfolding.  (See The New Atlas, Global Research, August 24, 2016)

Media reports convey the illusion that the Biden-Erdogan meetings were called to discuss the extradition of the alleged architect of the failed coup Gulen. This was a smokescreen. Jo Biden who had also met Erdogan back in January, gave the green-light on behalf of Washington for a joint US-Turkey-NATO military incursion into Syria.

The Kurdish Question

The invasion is not directed against Daesh (ISIS) which is protected by Ankara, it is geared towards fighting SAA forces as well as Kurdish YPG forces, which are “officially” supported by the US. The US supported ISIS-Daesh and Al Qaeda affiliated rebels are working hand in give with the Turkish invaders.

The invasion is also part of a longstanding project by Turkey of creating a “safe-haven” within Northern Syria (see map above) which can be used to extend US-NATO-Turkey military operations Southwards into Syria’s heartland.

Washington has warned its Kurdish allies not to confront Turkish forces:

Biden said the Kurds, who Turkey claims intend to establish a separate state along a border corridor in conjunction with Turkey’s own Kurdish population, “cannot, will not, and under no circumstances will get American support if they do not keep” what he said was a commitment to return to the east.

Washington will no doubt eventually clash with Ankara with regard to Turkey’s project of territorial expansion in Northern Syria. Washington’s longstanding objective is to create a Kurdish State in Northern Syria, within the framework of a territorial breakup of both Syria and Iraq. (see US National War Academy map below). In a bitter irony, this “New Middle East” project also consists in annexing part of Turkey to the proposed Kurdish State. In other words, Turkey’s  New Ottoman objective of territorial expansion  encroaches upon Washington’s design to fragment Iraq, Syria, Iran  as well as Turkey. In other words, America’s ultimate imperial design is to weaken Turkey as a regional power.

The Pentagon has defined a military roadmap: “The road to Tehran goes through Damascus.” The invasion of Northern Syria creates conditions for a broader war.

Moreover, on the US agenda is a longstanding objective, namely  to wage war on Iran. In this regard, US military strategy largely consists in creating conditions  for America’s staunchest allies (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel) to confront Iran, and act indirectly on behalf of US interests. i.e. “do the job for us”.

MAP OF THE NEW MIDDLE EAST



Note:
 The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.

The failed coup was indeed supported by the CIA, but the failure was coordinated with President Erdogan. It was an intelligence op which was meant to fail and mislead public opinion.

Hizbullah & «Israel»: 10 Years On

Darko Lazar 

An elderly woman stood in defiance of the years that had weathered her increasingly frail body, her face red with rage amidst the rising smoke and the remains of her devastated house. She screamed at the top of her lungs, her voice uncompromisingly steadfast in delivering the incisive statement.


“Sayyed Hassan made the whole nation proud. My house is gone… my house in the village is also gone. It is [all] a sacrifice for the sake of the resistance.”


Kemle Samhat has passed on since her words in the wake of “Israel’s” 34-day aggression on Lebanon in 2006, but they live on nonetheless, resonating with relevance 10 years later. What’s more, they have in many ways come to define the narrative that has shaped the conflict and its aftermath.


The brutal “Israeli” offensive devastated Lebanon’s population and infrastructure, and yet the suffering imparted must be understood in the context of the relationship between sacrifice and victory.


A decade later, we commemorate a triumph of a war that, in fact, never ended. Its flames rage on in Syria, fanned by the victory that Hizbullah inflicted upon its Zionist foe, and that irrevocably altered “Israeli” strategy and geopolitical regional realities.


The Hizbullah-“Israel” Transformation


Away from all the mythology and talk of divine intervention, Israel’s inability to achieve any of its stated military objectives during its attack on Lebanon in the summer of 2006 put a serious dent in the Anglo-American-“Israeli” “military roadmap” for the region, which came to be known as the “New Middle East”.


The new regional geopolitical realities that emerged – thanks in no small part to Hizbullah’s victory in 2006, as well as the resistance movement’s present-day role in Syria – forced both Washington and Tel Aviv to give up their quest for regional dominance and settle for mere influence.


“The rules of the game have changed and the “Israelis” no longer have the upper hand,” said Omar Nashabe, a Beirut-based journalist, who writes for the Al-Akhbar newspaper.

The “Israeli” public agrees.


Many taxpayers in “Israel” have become a lot more critical of the performance of their armed forces, seemingly having a tough time understanding why a military with an annual budget of around $8 billion lost a war against a far smaller and less technologically advanced opponent like Hizbullah.


Nashabe believes that, “the “Israelis” are now on the defensive following a string of defeats.”


A new five-year plan designed to ‘reform’ the “Israeli” military suggests that Nashabe is right on the money.


The architect of this plan, Gadi Eisenkot – chief of staff of the “Israeli” military since February 2015 – is promising to cut 5,000 men from a 45,000-strong officer corps, as well as remove tens of thousands of soldiers from the military’s reserve units.


Eisenkot is allocating millions of dollars to “Israel’s” cyber warfare and intelligence units. But what is perhaps most interesting is the decision to refocus the “Israeli” army’s training on countering guerilla-style opponents. Tel Aviv is updating the structure of its ground forces, which includes the revision of operational plans for ‘defending’ “Israel’s” borders. Only elite commando units are being primed for offensive action.


The planned reforms due to go into effect by 2017 appear to be a direct response to statements made by Hizbullah’s Secretary General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.


Earlier this year, Sayyed Nasrallah pledged to up the ante in any future war with the “Israelis”, warning that Hizbullah would invade the northern “Israeli” region of Galilee. In the event of any new “Israeli” attack, Hizbullah has also threatened to retaliate by striking “Israeli” nuclear sites and firing rockets at chemical storage tanks in Haifa, which houses much of “Israel’s” heavy industry.


The “Israelis” have good reason to worry.


In 2006, Hizbullah launched an estimated 4,200 missiles and rockets at targets in “Israel.” Today, the resistance group has reportedly amassed between 100,000 and 150,000 projectiles that are even more advanced.


“In 2006, Hizbullah fought a guerrilla war. Today, Hizbullah is like a conventional army,” says retired Lebanese army general, Elias Hanna.


In fact, since 2006, Hizbullah has morphed into a regional superpower, fighting foreign-backed militant groups on multiple fronts. Its commanders have emerged from battlefields in Syria and Iraq with invaluable combat experience, effectively transforming Lebanon into a death trap for any potential “Israeli” military incursion.


For the “Israeli” armed forces – which often put the Zionist PR machine to great use, portraying Hizbullah as being bogged down in the “Syria quagmire” – Hizbullah’s regional successes couldn’t come at a worse time.


Today the whole of “Israel” is living on former ‘glory’ – for lack of a better term for decades of despicable war crimes. “Israel” has never been more polarized both politically and socially. Its economy is in disarray, it faces growing international isolation and the Netanyahu government is resorting to increasingly authoritarian means to stifle political opponents.

In his quest for power, Netanyahu is now playing on – if not fueling – domestic divisions between the Mizrahim/Zionist radical, far-right and the more ‘secular’ left leaning liberals.

The polarization has also infected the “Israeli” military.


In May of this year, Eisenkot’s deputy, Major General Yari Golan slammed the far-right comparing contemporary “Israel” to Nazi Germany. He claimed to recognize some similarities between what is happening in “Israel” today and “the revolting processes that occurred in Europe in general, and particularly in Germany… 70, 80, 90 years ago.”


The ten-year commemoration of “Israel’s” attack on Lebanon paved the way for fresh speculation over the possibility of ‘2006 war 2.0′. But if the transformations of both Hizbullah and “Israel” over the course of the past decade are anything to go by, there will never be ‘another 2006 war’.


A military confrontation between these foes is always possible – and ongoing along Syria’s frontlines – but the current conditions in the region, Hizbullah’s exponential growth and “Israel’s” internal problems will continue to serve as deterrents for an all-out war for the foreseeable future.


Source: Al-Ahed News

20-08-2016 | 09:28

 

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: