The U.S. Role in the Destruction of Syria

The U.S. Role in the Destruction of Syria
By David Ray Griffin

Information Clearing House” – In Syria, the goal of creating chaos has succeeded in spades. Mnar Muhawesh wrote: [F]oreign powers have sunk the nation into a nightmare combination of civil war, foreign invasion and terrorism. Syrians are in the impossible position of having to choose between living in a warzone, being targeted by groups like ISIS and the Syrian government’s brutal crack- down, or faring dangerous waters with minimal safety equipment only to be denied food, water and safety by European governments if they reach shore.

Of course, many Syrians were unable, or chose not to try, to reach Europe. Continuing her discussion of the refugee crisis created by the destabilization of Syria, Muhawesh added:

Other Syrians seeing the chaos at home have turned to neighboring Arab Muslim countries. Jordan alone has absorbed over half a million Syrian refugees; Lebanon has accepted nearly 1.5 million; and Iraq and Egypt have taken in several hundred thousand. . . . Turkey has [by 2015] taken in nearly 2 million refugees.55

By the end of 2015, the conflict in Syria had “displaced 12 million people, creating the largest wave of refugees to hit Europe since World War II.”56

Planning to Destabilize Syria

Some neocons had come into office with preformed ideas about destabilizing Syria. As mentioned earlier, Richard Perle and other neocons had prepared a 1996 paper for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, en- titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” It suggested that Israel seek peace with some neighbors while beginning to topple the regimes of its enemies, especially Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Although regime change in Iraq would be the first goal, it would be achieved primarily for the sake of “weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria,” ultimately overthrowing Bashar al-Assad. In other words, the road to Damascus would run through Baghdad.57

When Bush and Cheney took control of the White House, a new largely neocon document, “Navigating through Turbulence: America and the Middle East in a New Century,” had the same message: “ e two main targets” of the new administration, the document said, “should be Syria and Iraq.”58 In 2001, a week after the 9/11 attacks, 40 members of the Project for the New American Century, led by Bill Kristol, wrote a letter to President Bush saying:

We believe the administration should demand that Syria and Iran immediately cease all military, financial and political support for Hizbollah [sic] and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the Administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.59

A few months later, Assistant Secretary of State John Bolton accused Syria of developing chemical and biological weapons and warned Damascus that it might be included in the “axis of evil.” Shortly thereafter, the State Department declared Syria to be a sponsor of terrorism, after which Congress made most US dealings with Syria illegal.60

The Bush-Cheney Hostility to Syria

The Bush-Cheney administration was hostile to Syria partly because Israel was hostile to Syria, and especially to its president, Bashar al-Assad. Syria had opposed Israel and especially Zionism; Syria had been aligned with Iran, which Israel considers its major threat.
More generally, Assad is an Alawite, which is a branch of Shiite Islam, and Assad has been viewed as, said Parry, the centerpiece of the “Shiite crescent” stretching from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon. Since Israeli leaders (and thus the American neocons) see Iran as Israel’s greatest enemy, the goal of collapsing the “Shiite crescent” has concentrated on bringing down Assad.61

More particularly, Israel has been hostile to Syria because it had sup- ported Lebanon’s paramilitary fighting force, Hezbollah, which defeated Israel militarily in 2006; and although Israel in the 1967 war took Syria’s Golan Heights—which now provides 15 percent of Israel’s water—Syria wants it back. More generally, Syria, with the assistance of Hezbollah, had prevented Israel from realizing its goal of taking control of land that, it claims, belongs to it by divine right.

There have been, in addition, several other reasons for the US hostility to Syria, Assad in particular. An overarching one is that Syria has remained independent of the US-dominated global order. For example, Syria has its own state-owned bank and has no IMF loans through which it could be ordered around. And Syria has refused to be included within the American empire. The document “Navigating through Turbulence” complained that “[m]aintaining a strong alliance with Israel” had not prevented “every state on Israel’s border, except Syria, from accepting America as their principal source of military aid and matériel.”62

As to why Syria did not want to be absorbed into the American empire: American politicians and media do not remind the world that four years before the CIA overthrew Iran’s elected government in 1953, it had over- thrown Syria’s government for the same reason—the price of oil.63

For a variety of reasons, “ousting the Assad dynasty,” said Parry, had been “a top neocon/Israeli goal since the 1990s,” so the Bush-Cheney administration was from the beginning intent on destabilizing Syria. In 2002, Under-Secretary of State John Bolton named Syria as one of the “rogue states” that “can expect to become our targets.”64

Knowing how he was regarded, Assad made many attempts to develop better relations. In 2004, Assad started secret peace talks in Turkey with Israel, offering what Israel’s leading newspaper called “a far reaching and equitable peace treaty that would provide for Israel’s security.”65

Although the talks were supported by a large number of senior Israelis, “the Bush administration nixed them”— not surprisingly, because Cheney was “an implacable opponent of engagement with Syria.”66 In 2007, the Bush-Cheney administration, discussing “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” distinguished between “reformers” and “extremists,” placing Syria, along with Iran and Hezbollah, in the latter category. According to Seymour Hersh’s 2007 article “The Redirection,” the US participated in clandestine operations aimed at Syria as well as Iran.67

Information about what went on behind the scenes in the Bush-Cheney administration has been provided by WikiLeaks, which had obtained the cables of William Roebuck, the political counselor for the US Embassy in Damascus. These cables are discussed by Robert Naiman in a chapter of Julian Assange’s The WikiLeaks Files, entitled “WikiLeaks Reveals How the US Aggressively Pursued Regime Change in Syria, Igniting a Bloodbath.” Roebuck’s cables show, according to Naiman, that regime change had been a long-standing goal of US policy; [and] that the US promoted sectarianism in support of its regime-change policy, thus helping lay the foundation for the sectarian civil war and massive bloodshed that we see in Syria today.68

Some commentators today suggest that the US hostility to Assad began with his brutal response to the Arab Spring protests in 2011. However, “as far back as 2006— five years before ‘Arab Spring’ protests in Syria,” reported Naiman, the cables show that “destabilizing the Syrian government was a central motivation of US policy,” and Roebuck’s cables suggested strategies for doing this. Accordingly, said Naiman:
We are told in the West that the current efforts to topple the Syrian government by force were a reaction to the Syrian government’s repression of dissent in 2011, but now we know that “regime change” was the policy of the US and its allies ve years earlier.

According to these cables, Naiman summarized, the top US diplomat in Syria believed that the goal of US policy in Syria should be to destabilize the Syrian government by any means available; that the US should work to increase Sunni-Shia sectarianism in Syria. . . ; the US should try to strain relations between the Syrian government and other Arab governments, and then blame Syria for the strain; that the US should seek to stoke Syrian government fears of coup plots in order to provoke the Syrian government to overreact. . . ; the US should work to undermine Syrian economic reforms and discourage foreign investment; that the US should seek to foster the belief that the Syrian government was not legitimate; that violent protests in Syria were praiseworthy.69

The 2011 Protests and the Obama Administration

The Obama administration publicly gave the same reason for hostility to Assad, namely, his excessive reaction to the 2011 uprising against him— a reaction that led to major protests, which soon turned into a civil war between Assad and rebel forces.
The Need for a Balanced View: However, that was a very limited understanding of the events: The conflict resulted from a complex interplay of factors, some of which were Assad’s fault, some of which were not. One of the factors that was not his fault was the beginning in 2006 of a drought in Syria, which some climate scientists said to be the worst in 900 years; other scientists even call it the worst since agricultural civilization began many thousands of years ago.70 Describing the context for the war, William Polk wrote:

In some areas, all agriculture ceased. In others crop failures reached 75%. And generally as much as 85% of livestock died of thirst or hunger. Hundreds of thousands of Syria’s farmers gave up, abandoned their farms and ed to the cities and towns in search of almost non-existent jobs and severely short food supplies. Outside observers including UN experts estimated that between 2 and 3 million of Syria’s 10 million rural inhabit- ants were reduced to “extreme poverty.”

Also, added Polk, “hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and Iraqis had in previous years taken refuge there, so that the new Syrian refugees had to compete with them for jobs, water, and food.”71

By 2008, the representative of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization had described the situation as “a perfect storm,” which threatened Syria with “social destruction.”72

However, Assad made the effects of the drought worse by poor governance. Central to this was what Francesco Femia and Caitlin Werrell called criminal mismanagement of Syria’s natural resources, which contributed to water shortages for farmers. Favoring the big farmers over the poor farming communities, Assad’s regime subsidized wheat and cotton, which are water-intensive, and it also allowed unsustainable farming and irrigation techniques. It even allowed the big farmers to take all the water they wanted from the aquifer (although this was illegal), while the government’s wasteful use of water also meant that rural people needed to drill for water, thereby emptying the aquifers. Moreover, Assad gave no aid to the increas- ingly poor farmers, and even raised their expenses: While subsidizing the wheat and cotton farmers, Assad damaged ordinary farmers by cutting subsidies for diesel and fertilizers.73

Because of the severe drought and Assad’s mismanagement, almost a million people, having lost their livelihoods by 2009, were forced to move to the slums, and many more were to follow. By 2011, about a million people had insufficient food. There is little room for doubt, therefore, that the beginnings of the Syrian opposition movement were originally rooted in Assad’s own destructive policies (in conjunction with the drought).74

An important factor in this insufficient food supply was another feature of criminal mismanagement: “Lured by the high price of wheat on the world market, it sold its reserves.” Accordingly, Polk said:

[T]ens of thousands of frightened, angry, hungry and impoverished former farmers constituted a ‘tinder’ that was ready to catch fire. The spark was struck on March 15, 2011, when a relatively small group gathered in the town of Dara’a to protest against government failure to help them.75

The protest in Dara’a began after a group of children had “painted some anti-government graffiti on a school wall” and then were arrested and tortured by city police. Some protesters were shot. This excessive response by the government led to protests in the city. Assad made several attempts to calm the situation: He fired government and security officials for their roles in the overreaction; he assured the residents that the shooters would be prosecuted; and he announced several national reforms. But his response did not satisfy the protestors and they continued destroying property and attacking police and soldiers. Dara’a was declared a “liberated zone.” And the protests spread to other towns.76 But why did the protests turn violent?

The Turn of Violence: The standard portrayal of the protest movement, summarized independent researcher Jonathan Marshall, was that “the protest movement in Syria was overwhelmingly peaceful until September 2011.”77 The Syria government rejected this view from the beginning, but its claim was long dismissed. But Marshall has provided evidence that the government’s view was essentially correct on this point. In an essay entitled “Hidden Origins of Syria’s Civil War,” Marshall said, “opposition to the government had turned violent almost from the start.” For example, unknown gunmen in Dara’a reportedly killed 19 Syrians; in addition “nine Syrian soldiers on their way to quell demonstrations in Banyas were ambushed and gunned down on the highway outside of town.”78

Professor Joshua Landis, the head of Center for the Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, reported that video footage of the fighting showed that the government account was correct: “the soldiers stationed in the town were overrun by armed and organized opposition.”79

The protests in other towns also involved armed men. In one city, about 140 members of the police and security forces were massacred. But media largely ignored this side of the story. After studying the protests and the press’s coverage of them, Landis concluded: “Western press and analysts did not want to recognize that armed elements were becoming active. They preferred to tell a simple story of good people fighting bad people.”80

It is important to recognize that this method of setting up a leader to be overthrown was an oft-repeated modus operandi by the US govern- ment. Besides being used in Libya as well as Syria, it was previously used in the 1990s, recalled William Engdahl, when the Bill Clinton administration wanted to split up Yugoslavia into its six republics. Making a deal with Bosnia to start a war with Serbia, the Washington propaganda machine began demonizing the Serbs as Nazis, and made up fake stories claiming that they not only bombed civilians and hospitals but also raped thousands of Muslim women.81

In any case, at some point the Syrian government cracked down ruth- lessly on the protestors, and several hundred protestors were reportedly killed. But even here it appears that the press, as well as giving a one-sided account, exaggerated. The private intelligence firm Stratfor, sometimes called the “Private CIA,” warned their clients not to be misled by opposition propaganda. “Although it is certain that protesters and civilians are being killed,” said Stratfor, “there is little evidence of massive brutality compared to . . . other state crackdowns in the region.”82
Some human rights organizations also, pointed out Jonathan Marshall, acknowledged that armed opposition forces had begun committing crimes against civilians.

For example:
Human Rights Watch sent an “open letter” to leaders of the Syrian opposition, decrying “crimes and other abuses committed by armed opposition elements,” including the kidnapping and detention of government supporters, the use of torture and the execution of security force members and civilians, and sectarian attacks against Shias and Alawites.83

Not incidentally, this same pattern—armed elements joining a largely peaceful protest and shooting police as well as civilians—would occur with the protest leading to the coup d’etat in Ukraine as discussed in Chapter 9. In fact, said Engdahl,
Washington’s Arab Spring protests often used secret CIA and mercenary snipers to enflame and anger the population against their government by creating innocent martyrs and blaming the killings on the regime.84

Accordingly, the beginning of the opposition was due not only to the drought, Assad’s mismanagement of the country’s natural resources, his foolish and immoral responses to the drought, and his neo-liberal economic policies. The 2011 violence did begin with the Assad regime’s brutal response to the protests, but this response was stimulated by armed elements. Accordingly, whereas Western propaganda has portrayed Assad as almost uniquely evil, said Marshall, “the deadly provocations against Syrian government forces put an entirely different cast on the origins of the conflict.”85

In sum, the Obama administration’s interpretation of the origins of the anti-Assad movement was one-sided to the point of being false.
US Contributions to the anti-Assad War: An adequate understanding of the war in Syria requires an expanded discussion of the role played by the United States. Some of this role was played by the Bush-Cheney administration.

In 2008, that administration withdrew its ambassador from Damascus as part of an effort to weaken and isolate Assad.86 It also played a role in the Assad regime’s failure to prevent the drought from resulting in so much social destruction. In November 2008, the representative of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in Syria appealed to USAID for assistance, noting that Syria’s minister of agriculture said that the economic and social fallout from the drought was “beyond our capacity as a country to deal with.” However, the Bush-Cheney USAID director said (in a cable that was later published by WikiLeaks), “we question whether limited USG resources should be directed toward this appeal at this time.”87

More generally, as pointed out above, the Bush-Cheney administration had begun talking about how to destabilize Syria, such as undermining its attempts at economic reform, toward the goal of bringing about regime change.

But the actual beginning of the war in Syria occurred during the Obama administration. His administration made part of its contribution to the war by its false interpretation of the origins of the anti-Assad movement—by saying that that the civil war arose out of a spontaneous and peaceful uprising against Assad. But like Marshall, Muhawesh said that it was not entirely spontaneous: Wikileaks cables “reveal CIA involvement on the grounds in Syria to instigate these very demonstrations as early as March 2011.”88 That is, of course, what should be expected, given Naiman’s report of the Wikileaks cables during the Bush-Cheney administration about ways to destabilize Syria.
Robert Parry also agreed with Marshall’s account of the instigation of violence: “Since the start of the Syrian conflict in 2011,” wrote Parry,
the powerful role of Al Qaeda and its spinoff, the Islamic State, has been a hidden or downplayed element of the narrative that has been sold to the American people. at storyline holds that the war began when “peaceful” protesters were brutally repressed by Syria’s police and military, but that version deletes the fact that extremists, some linked to Al Qaeda, began killing police and soldiers almost from the outset.89

The Number of Protesters

Another issue raised by Muhawesh relates to the reports by major media outlets, such as the BBC and the Associated Press, that “the demonstrations that supposedly swept Syria were comprised of only hundreds of people.” Writing in 2015, she asked:
How did demonstrations held by “hundreds” of protesters demanding economic change in Syria four years ago devolve into a deadly sectarian civil war, fanning the flames of extremism haunting the world today and creating the world’s second largest refugee crisis?

She replied:
Just a few months into the demonstrations which now consisted of hundreds of armed protesters with CIA ties, demonstrations grew larger, armed non-Syrian rebel groups swarmed into Syria, and a severe government crackdown swept through the country to deter this foreign meddling. It became evident that the United States, United Kingdom, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey would be jumping on the opportunity to organize, arm and finance rebels to form the Free Syrian Army as outlined in the State Department plans to destabilize Syria.90
In other words, without the intervention of the United States and other countries, the protestations could have never turned into a civil war.
Regarding the Free Syrian Army, the BBC said that by 2013 there were “believed to be as many as 1,000 armed opposition groups in Syria, commanding an estimated 100,000 fighters.”91 The most powerful of these groups were ISIS and al-Qaeda’s al-Nusra Front (which had joined ISIS only briefly). Can anyone say that Assad did not have the right to defend his democratically-elected government against these outside forces?92

As for the United States in particular, its CIA started sending large shipments of weapons by 2012. “The CIA,” reported Seymour Hersh, “was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria.”93 In fact, Chris Stevens, who had become the American ambassador in Libya, was killed in Benghazi after he had come there to negotiate a transfer of several hundred tons of Gaddafi’s weapons to Syria. In what Hersh called a “rat line,” these weapons were sent from Libya to Syria via southern Turkey, in an operation headed by General David Petraeus, the then-director of the CIA, under the supervision of Secretary Clinton. Indeed, the “consulate” where Stevens was killed was really only a mission, which existed merely “to provide cover for the moving of arms,” according to a former intelligence officer.94

In 2013, during a Congressional investigation of the Benghazi attack, Clinton swore under oath that she knew nothing about the weapons shipments to Syrian rebels prior to the attack. But in 2015, Judicial Watch obtained previously classified documents from the State Department and DOD that provided the first official confirmation that the US government knew about the shipments of arms from Benghazi to Syria.95

In 2016, moreover, Julian Assange reported that Clinton’s claim was disproven by 1,700 hacked emails about Libya in Wikileaks’ Hillary Clinton collection. These emails included, said Assange, proof that Clinton pushed for weapons to be sent to “jihadists within Syria, including ISIS.”96 This would seem to mean that she had lied under oath.

In any case, the CIA, beginning in 2012, spent $1 billion a year and trained some 10,000 “moderate” rebel forces.97 This was done in spite of the fact that then-DIA director Michael Flynn, reported Hersh, “had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in control of the opposition.” His reports, Flynn told Hersh, “got enormous pushback” from the Obama administration. “I felt,” said Flynn, “that they did not want to hear the truth.” The Joint Chiefs of Staff likewise believed, reported one of their advisors, “that Assad should not be replaced by fundamentalists.”98

Indeed, the idea that the United States and its allies were funding only moderate rebels—ones who were fighting both against Assad and the al- Qaeda jihadists—was increasingly regarded as a myth. Many observers provided evidence that there were now no moderate rebels in Syria.99
In fact, Vice President Biden admitted this. Saying that America had been trying to identify a moderate middle for a long time, he added:
[T]he idea of identifying a moderate middle has been a chase America has been engaged in for a long time. The fact of the matter is . . . there was no moderate middle, because the moderate middle are made up of shopkeepers, not soldiers.100

Admitting that the jihadists had been armed by America’s allies, Biden went on to say that America’s “allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria.” Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, he explained, had “poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad.” The result, Biden added, was that “the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.” Biden thereby contradicted the Obama administration’s public posture, according to which, in Secretary Kerry’s words, armed “legitimate opposition groups” exist separately from Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front.101 (Gareth Porter called this “Obama’s ‘Moderate’ Syrian Deception.”102)

The administration’s claim, that the Free Syrian Army (FSA) consisted of non-terrorist rebels, was contradicted by many facts. A 2016 story reported that al-Nusra (which had changed its name to Jabhat Fatah al-Sham [Conquest of Syria Front], claiming that it was breaking ties with the al- Qaeda network103) reportedly took orders from Israel. Alastair Crooke, who had been a senior figure in British intelligence, said that “the FSA is little more than a cover for the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra.”104

In any case, besides starting to fund so-called moderate anti-Assad rebels covertly, Obama declared that Assad needed to step down. After it was learned in 2012 that Assad had chemical weapons, Obama announced that using them would be a “red line,” to which America would respond militarily. Then in 2013, there was a chemical attack, using deadly sarin gas, which reportedly killed seven hundred civilians. Arguing that Assad was responsible, neocons and other hawks pressured Obama to carry through with his “red line” declaration, and he planned a major attack on Assad’s military.

At the last minute, however, Obama cancelled the attack order. There were evidently two reasons for this cancelation. On the one hand, President Vladimir Putin convinced Assad to destroy his chemical weapons, thereby giving Obama a face-saving out.105 On the other hand, Obama became convinced, according to Seymour Hersh, that there was insufficient evidence to claim that Assad had been responsible for the sarin gas. There seem to have been three reasons for Obama’s reevaluation of the evidence:

James Clapper, he director of national intelligence, told Obama that the intelligence community lacked “slam dunk” evidence of Assad’s responsibility.

A “vector” analysis, which supposedly showed that the rockets  carrying the sarin gas could have come only from Damascus, broke down, showing that they could have come from rebel territory. Relevant to this possibility is the fact that, Hersh reported, “the US and its allies knew from highly classified CIA and allied intelligence reporting throughout the spring and summer of 2013, that the jihadist opposition to Assad (primarily al-Nusra) had the ability to manufacture a crude form of sarin.”106

A British laboratory showed that, it Hersh’s words, “the gas used  didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal.” The sarin gas, Hersh concluded, was a false-flag attack launched by Turkey “to instigate an event that would force the US to cross the red line.”107

It is good that Obama resisted the temptation to support an attack on Syria as a “humanitarian intervention.” But his decision not to start a war against Syria led to great pressure on him to reverse it. In 2015, for example, 51 members of the State Department—which Hillary Clinton had headed for four years, during which she gave important posts to neocons108— issued a “dissent,” saying against Obama’s policy that the US should bomb Syria until it agrees to our wishes. The dissent’s argument was based on an extremely superficial understanding of the reasons for the Syrian war. “The government’s barrel bombing of civilians,” the dissent said (according to a summary by the New York Times), “is the ‘root cause of the instability that continues to grip Syria and the broader region.’”109 
 This interpretation was rejected by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, who said:

It’s true that the initial phase of the Syrian Spring seems to have been largely spontaneous. Facts show, however, that outside interveners—primarily the United States, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia—cooperated in lighting the match that brought the inferno of civil war. Covert funding and provision of weapons and other material support to opposition groups for strikes against the Syrian Government 
 provoked a military reaction by Assad—which created a pretext for our enlarged support to the rebel groups.110

Besides evidently not understanding what had been going on in Syria in 2011, the State Department “dissenters” ignored the fact that they had suggested a policy that would be completely illegal under international law.111 Moreover, they also seemed to be unaware of how terribly unwise their proposed policy would have been.

In an article asking the question “Risking Nuclear War for Al Qaeda?” Parry pointed out that for Obama to have followed the urging of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Hillary Clinton to permit a full-out attack on Syria would have been insane. If these powers attacked Syria while Russia’s troops were there, Russia—having insufficient ground forces and conventional weapons to protect them—might have been tempted to resort to tactical nuclear weapons, and this response could easily have led to a nuclear showdown. The insanity is that “the United States [is] being urged to take on that existential risk for all humankind on behalf of preserving Al Qaeda’s hopes for raising its black flag over Damascus.”112 (An extensive discussion of the threat of nuclear war is reserved for Chapter 9.)

The Main Reason for Attacking Assad

If the US desire for regime change in Syria was not based on Assad’s crack-down on rebels, we must deal with the question about the real reason (aside from the desire of neocons in general and Hillary Clinton in particular to help Israel—see the section on Israel below). Mnar Muhawesh said that what has been driving the chaos is “control over gas, oil and resources.”113 Wesley Clark—in his report on the Bush administration’s plan to take out seven regimes, including Syria’s—indicated that this strategy was fundamentally about the region’s oil and gas.114

Chris Floyd likewise wrote:

Vast interests in oil and natural gas—both existing and potential—are in play. . . . Competing pipelines—one favoring the West, undercutting Russia, the other bolstering Moscow and Tehran—are in the mix.115
Dmitry Minin, an independent analyst, wrote:

A battle is raging over whether pipelines will go toward Europe from east to west, from Iran and Iraq to the Mediterranean coast of Syria, or take a more northbound route from Qatar and Saudi Arabia via Syria and Turkey.116

Minin based his ideas primarily upon “renowned researcher on energy issues F. William Engdahl.” Engdahl is, in fact, the researcher who—along with Pepe Escobar, the author of Empire of Chaos117—has over the years written the most about gas pipelines in relation to Syria.
F. William Engdahl on the Syrian Pipeline War

“In a fundamental sense the entirety of the five-year-long war over Syria,” Engdahl wrote in 2016, “has been about control of hydrocarbon resources— oil and natural gas—and of potential hydrocarbon pipelines to the promising markets of the European Union.”118 Political assessments, he had said in 2012, had not fully appreciated “the dramatically rising importance of the control of natural gas to the future.” This importance had been greatly enhanced in the European Union by its mandate to reduce CO2 emissions significantly by 2020, and natural gas has been considered far less polluting than coal (even if that is questionable119). The importance of this situation to the Middle East was enhanced still further by the discovery of huge natural-gas sources in Syria as well as Israel and Qatar.120

The movement toward the Syrian war as a pipeline war began in 2009, Engdahl said, after “it became clear to some geopolitical Washington strategists that Qatar could play a strategic role in pushing Russia out of the EU natural gas game and put a US-controlled supplier, Qatar, in the dominant role.” Accordingly, the Emir of Qatar, which owns the world’s largest gas field, went to Damascus in 2009 to propose to Bashar al Assad the construction of a natural gas pipeline that would begin in Qatar, cross Saudi Arabia and Syria, then end up in Turkey, where the gas would be sold to EU markets.

However, Assad declined the offer, saying that he wanted “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.” Engdahl continued: “This was the beginning of the NATO decision to militarily destroy the Assad regime.” That this decision was made in 2009—rather than after Assad’s 2011 response to the protesters—was made clear by Ronald Dumas, a former French Foreign Minister, who in 2009 “revealed that British military were preparing for invasion of Assad’s Syria.” Also, the previously mentioned intelligence firm, Stratfor, reported that by 2011, “US and UK special forces’ training of Syrian opposition forces was well underway.” 121

In any case, Syria chose a competing project, an Iran-Iraq-Syria pipe- line. Iran would get its natural gas from its part of the Pars field (Qatar gets its gas from its portion of the same field) then cross Iraq and end up in Syria. “ The deal was formally announced in July 2011,” pointed out Pepe Escobar, “when the Syrian tragedy was already in motion.”122

Then in July 2012, the three countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding to construct a pipeline from Iran through Iraq to Syria. This route, sometimes called the Shi’ite Pipeline, would leave Turkey and Qatar out in the cold, so they began doing everything they could to thwart the construction of that pipeline, including arming the anti-Assad rebels. The signing of this Memorandum was also, Engdahl added, “the precise point when the US gave the green light to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to back regime change in Damascus—mad pipeline geopolitics.”123

Victory would open the door for the Qatar-Saudi Arabia-Turkey gas pipeline to Europe, with its huge natural gas import market. Besides bringing riches to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, the war would intend, said Dmitry Minin, to accomplish three goals: “to break Russia’s gas monopoly in Europe; to free Turkey from its dependence on Iranian gas; and to give Israel the chance to export its gas to Europe by land at less cost.”124

The first of these goals

was most important to Washington. Whereas Russia had been filling 40 percent of the EU’s natural gas demand, Washington wanted it and her allies to control much of the gas to meet this demand. Here we find “the true agenda behind Washington’s five-year-long war for regime change in Damascus,” said Engdahl, “a war with terrorist groups such as ISIS or Al Nusra Front-Al Qaeda in Syria financed largely by money from Qatar.”125

In sum, from the perspective of Engdahl and the other researchers discussed in this section, the Syrian War has been primarily about energy and money (not good and bad people). Indeed, Escobar’s 2015 essay on the war in Syria as a pipeline war began by stating, “Syria is an energy war.”126

The Extreme Moral Charges against Assad
Contributed to Chaos

The claim that Assad was unbearably evil, like the claims about Saddam and Gaddafi, was used to get politicians and others in America and Europe to support the US drive, begun by the Bush-Cheney administration, to bring about regime change in Syria.
But even if he were as evil as he was portrayed by US officials, this would not have justified the attempt to depose him. Colin Powell, referring to his “old Pottery Barn rule,” cautioned:

I think you have to be extremely careful. We thought we knew what would happen in Libya. We thought we knew what would happen in Egypt. We thought we knew what would happen in Iraq, and we guessed wrong. In each one of these countries the thing we have to consider is that there is some structure . . . that’s holding the society together. And as we learned, especially in Libya, when you remove the top and the whole thing falls apart. . . you get chaos.127

This chaos has resulted in a tragedy for the Syrian people. In July 2016, international lawyer Franklin Lamb wrote:

The conflict here has, according to some NGO estimates, now claimed the lives of nearly half a million Syrians, out of a pre-war population of 22 million. More than 11 percent of the Syrian population is estimated to have been killed or injured. More than five million have fled the country while approximately 8 million are internally displaced. The UN estimates that nearly 12 million people are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance, more than six million being children ranging from infants to age 12.128

The Syrian chaos resulted primarily from the Bush-Cheney administration and its neocon attitudes, which continued significantly in the Obama administration. Robert Parry observed:

In Neocon Land, it goes without saying that once the United States judges some world leader guilty for having violated international law or human rights or whatever, it is fine for the US government to “take out” that leader. . . . In this view, the “exceptional” United States has the right to invade any country of its choosing and violently remove leaders not to its liking.129

Unless this neocon way of thinking can be overcome, there will be little hope that the United States will quit causing chaos in the Greater Middle East. When this book was first planned, it appeared that the Queen of Chaos herself would be the next US president. She made it clear, said Parry, that she was “eager to use military force to achieve ‘regime change’ in countries that get in the way of US desires.”130 Indeed, argued Andre Damon, “There is little doubt that talks were underway between the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration, and planning was well advanced, for a massive US military escalation in Syria to be launched after the expected election victory of the Democratic candidate.131

Evidently realizing that the United States under Obama and Clinton was going to continue its assault on Syria, rather than helping to achieve a tolerable resolution to the Syrian situation, Russia, Iran, and Turkey set up talks without inviting the United States.132 Excluding the United States, at least under the neocon-inspired Democrats, seemed necessary to begin bringing the ruination of Syria to an end.

Moreover, the ruination resulting from the neocon ideology of the Bush-Cheney administration, continued by Obama and Secretaries Clinton and Kerry, has not been limited to the Greater Middle East. As a 2016 Newsweek article said, “The Tide of Syrian Refugees Is Unraveling Europe”133—a problem to be explored after a discussion of ISIS and Russia. . . .

Russia, Syria, and ISIS

Near the end of 2015, Russia’s airforce intervened in Syria to protect Assad—at Assad’s invitation. This invitation made Russia’s intervention legal, according to international law, whereas any US intervention in Syria would be illegal. (Secretary Kerry has even admitted this in private.147)

Russia’s intervention allowed Assad to take the offensive against ISIS and the other jihadists. The success of this intervention led the Obama administration to drop its public insistence that Assad had to go, but it continued to try to protect al-Nusra and other jihadists.148

Russia tried to work out a plan in which it and the United States would join forces against ISIS and other jihadists, but it soon concluded that the US was not going to cooperate but instead wanted to use ISIS against Assad’s government. So Russia, along with Syria and Hezbollah, launched “a three-prong attack intended to dispose of the US-backed jihadists.”149

The effort to clean the jihadists out of Syria focused first on Aleppo—in particular, East Aleppo, which had been under the control of al-Nusra since 2012. Not appreciating the successful beginning of this effort, the United States used this as an opportunity to claim that Russia and Syria, having deliberately targeted children and hospitals, were guilty of war crimes. The US corporate press, being almost unanimous in repeating these charges, evidently convinced most Americans that these claims were true.

The White Helmets

However, Finian Cunningham pointed out that these press claims should not be accepted at face value, because claims of Russian and Syrian “war crimes” made by Western reporters were based on “rebel sources,” not on interviews with ordinary citizens in Aleppo. Also, much of the “information” that got reported came from the so-called “volunteer aid” group known as the White Helmets, which made many false claims about itself.

For one thing, it called itself the Syria Civil Defense, but it is not Syrian. Rather, it was created by the U.K. and the USA; it was established in Turkey; and its “volunteers” were mainly trained in Turkey and Jordan. In addition, whereas the real Syria Civil Defense has existed since 1953, the White Helmets was formed in 2013 by James Le Mesurier, a former British intelligence officer who was involved in NATO’s interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo. He then “moved into the lucrative private mercenary industry,” where he became “a mercenary with the Olive Group, a private contracting organization that is now merged with Blackwater-Academi.”150

The real Syria Civil Defense, which was founded in 1953, is the only one. “The White Helmets,” said the International Civil Defense Organization, “are not even civil defense concretely. We are working . . . only with official governments… , not the White Helmets.”151

The real Syria Civil Defense no longer operated in East Aleppo. Journalist Vanessa Beeley, who probably wrote the most about the White Helmets, said that in an interview with the real Syrian Civil Defense, inside West Aleppo, she was told that, in 2012, when various militant factions infiltrated East Aleppo, they drove out the real Syria Civil Defense crew—they massacred many, they kidnapped others, they stole equipment, including all of the ambulances and three to five re engines.152

Another false claim by White Helmets was that it was composed of “volunteers” and that it is “fiercely independent and accepts no money from governments.” In truth, it received funding from various governments, especially the U.K. ($65 million) and the US ($23 million), which had collaborated with Le Mesurier in creating the White Helmets. In particular, calling themselves “impartial,” the White Helmets claimed, “We’re not being paid by anybody to pursue a particular line.”153 However, Abdulrahman Al Mawwas, the chief liaison officer of the White Helmets, confirmed that the group was sponsored by the Western governments.154

In any case, this organization did have a very particular, twofold purpose: First, to demonize Assad as a butcher, who killed his own people indiscriminately, so as to argue the need for a no-fly zone (which was, of course, how the attacks on Iraq and Libya began). In campaigning for a no-fly zone, the White Helmets were working together with the public relations organization Avaaz, which had delivered a petition with 1,203,000 signatures to the UN for the Libya no-fly zone. In 2015, Avaaz began trying for a million signatures for a “Safe Zone” petition for Syria.155

Second, although the White Helmets served as a terrorist support group, “in the sense of bringing equipment, arms, even funding, into Syria,” said Beeley, their “primary function is propaganda,” as investigative journal Rick Sterling explained.156

Whereas the US press willingly accepts such propaganda, which supports our government’s negative description of Assad and hence Putin, independent journalists who have spent time in Syria, where they have talked to ordinary Syrians, have presented views of Assad that disagree radically with the claims of White Helmets and the US press. See, for example, interviews of journalist Eva Bartlett, who said, “The Media Is Lying to You!” and Vanessa Beeley, who said, “Everything the US Media Says about Aleppo Is Wrong.”157

Similarly, the highly respected journalist Stephen Kinzer wrote a Boston Globe article entitled “The Media Are Misleading the Public on Syria.” Although the truth about Aleppo was being reported by “brave correspondents in the war zone,” Kinzer said, their reports do “not fit with Washington’s narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening.”158

David Ray Griffin is a retired American professor of philosophy of religion and theology, and a political writer.

ENDNOTES

55  Mnar Muhawesh, “Refugee Crisis & Syria War Fueled by Competing Gas Pipelines,” MintPress News, 9 September 2015.
56  Lydia Depillis et al., “A Visual Guide to 75 Years of Major Refugee Crises around the World,” Washington Post, 21 December 2015.
57  Tyler Durden, “A Short History: The Neocon ‘Clean Break’ Grand Design & the ‘Regime Change’ Disasters It Has Fostered,” Zero Hedge, 1 July 2015.
58  “Navigating through Turbulence: America and the Middle East in a New Century,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2001.
59  William Kristol, “Lead the World to Victory,” Project for the New American Century, 20 September 2001.
60  Charles Glass, “Is Syria Next?” London Review of Books, 3 July 2003.
61  Robert Parry, “Risking Nuclear War for Al Qaeda?” Consortium News, 
18 February 2016.
62  Adrian Salbuchi, “Why the US, UK, EU & Israel Hate Syria,” RT, 10 September, 2013; William Blum, “Why Does the Government of the United States Hate Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad,” Information Clearing House, 4 November 2015.
63  Andrew Cockburn, “The United States Teams Up With Al Qaeda . . . Again,” Harper’s, 18 December 2015.
64  Jonathan Marshall, “The US Hand in the Syrian Mess,” Consortium News, 20 July 2015.
65  Robert Parry, “Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party,” Consortium News, 11 June 2016.
66  Marshall, “The US Hand in the Syrian Mess.”
67  Seymour M. Hersh, “The Redirection,” New Yorker, 5 March 2007.
68  Robert Naiman, “WikiLeaks Reveals How the US Aggressively Pursued Regime Change in Syria, Igniting a Bloodbath,” The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to US Empire (Verso, 2015), Chapter 10.
69  Ibid.
70  Andrew Freedman, “The Worst Drought in 900 Years Helped Spark Syria’s Civil War,” Mashable, 2 March 2016; Elaisha Stokes, “The Drought that 
Preceded Syria’s Civil War Was Likely the Worst in 900 Years,” Vice News, 3 March 2016; Francesco Femia and Caitlin Werrell, “Syria: Climate Change, Drought and Social Unrest,” Think Progress, 3 March 2012.
71 James Fallows, “Your Labor Day Syria Reader, Part 2: William Polk,” Atlantic, 2 September 2013.
72 Femia and Werrell, “Syria.”
Ibid.; Jan Selby and Mike Hulme, “Is Climate Change Really to Blame for Syria’s Civil War?” Guardian, 29 November 2015.
73 Femia and Werrell, “Syria.”
74 Fallows, “Your Labor Day Syria Reader, Part 2: William Polk.”
76 Jonathan Marshall, “Hidden Origins of Syria’s Civil War,” Consortium News, 20 July 2015.
77 Ibid.
78 Ibid.
79 Joshua Landis, “The Armed Gangs Controversy,” Syria Comment, 3 August 2011.
80 Ibid.
81 F. William Engdahl, The Lost Hegemon: Whom the Gods Would Destroy (mine.Books, 2016).
82 Marshall, “Hidden Origins of Syria’s Civil War.”
83 Ibid.
84 Engdahl, The Lost Hegemon, 261.
85 Marshall, “Hidden Origins of Syria’s Civil War.”
86 Jim Lobe, “US Brief Talks with Syria Spur Speculation,” Inter Press Service, 30 September 2008.
87 Fallows, “Your Labor Day Syria Reader, Part 2: William Polk.
88 Muhawesh, “Refugee Crisis & Syria War Fueled by Competing Gas Pipelines.”
89 Robert Parry, “The NYT’s Neocon ‘Downward Spiral,’” Consortium News, 6 October 2016.
90 Muhawesh, “Refugee Crisis & Syria War Fueled by Competing Gas Pipelines.”
91 “Guide to the Syrian Rebels,” BBC News, 13 December 2013.
92 In June of [2014], wrote Steve MacMillan, “Assad won Syria’s Presidential election with 88.7 percent of the vote. . . . A group
of international observers emphasized that the election was a valid and democratic expression of the views of the Syrian people.” Steve MacMillan, “Bashar al-Assad: The Democratically Elected President of Syria,” Near Eastern Outlook, 20 December 2015.
93  Seymour M. Hersh, “The Red Line and the Rat Line,” London Review of Books, April 2014; see also Frederick Reese, “Seymour Hersh: Benghazi Attack a Consequence of Weapons ‘Rat-Line’ to Syria,” Mint Press News, 21 April 2014.
94  Ibid.; Aaron Klein, “CIA Ops Finally Revealed: What the US Ambassador in Benghazi was Really Doing,” Global Research, 23 October 2015; Gareth Porter, “Why the US Owns the Rise of Islamic State and the Syria Disaster,” TruthDig, 8 October 2015.
95  “Defense, State Department Documents Reveal Obama Administration Knew that al Qaeda Terrorists Had Planned Benghazi Attack 10 Days in Advance,” Judicial Watch, 18 May 2015.
96  Alex Christoforou, “Julian Assange Says ‘1,700 Emails in Hillary Clinton’s Collection’ Proves She Sold Weapons to ISIS in Syria,” The Duran/Democracy Now; James Barrett, “WikiLeaks: Hacked Emails Prove Hillary Armed Jihadists In Syria—Including ISIS,” Daily Wire, 1 August 2016.
97  Eric Schmitt, “C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition,” New York Times, 21 June 2012; C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt,” Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid from C.I.A.,” International New York Times, 24 March 2013; Trevor Timm, “The 
US Decision to Send Weapons to Syria Repeats a Historical Mistake,” Guardian, 19 September 2015; Adam Johnson, “Down the Memory Hole: NYT Erases CIA’s Efforts to Overthrow Syria’s Government,” Common Dreams, 21 September 2015.
98  “Military to Military—Seymour M. Hersh on US Intelligence Sharing in the Syrian War,” London Review of Books, January 2016.
99  Ben Reynolds, “There Are No Moderate Syrian Rebels,” Counterpunch, 3 October 2014; Stephen Lendman, “No Moderate Syrian Rebels Exist,” Global Research, 6 November 2015.
100  Quoted in Jonathan Marshall, “The US Hand in the Syrian Mess.”
101  Ibid.; Parry, “Risking Nuclear War for Al Qaeda?”
102  Gareth Porter, “Obama’s ‘Moderate’ Syrian Deception,” Consortium News, 16 February 2016.
103  “Nusra Front’s Rebranding: Story of Rats Trying to Pass for Flurry White Rabbits” Sputnik International, 6 August 2016.
104  “Syrian Militants in Tumult after Israel Moves to Restructure Fatah Al-Sham Command in Quneitra,” FARS News Agency, 28 September 2016; Alastair Crooke, “How the US Armed-Up Syrian Jihadists,” Consortium News, September 29, 2016.
105  Mark Landler and Jonathan Weisman, “Obama Delays Syria Strike to Focus on a Russian Plan,” New York Times, 10 September 2013; Juan Cole, “How Putin Saved Obama, Congress and the European Union 
from Further Embarrassing Themselves on Syria,” Informed Comment, 10 September 2013.
106 Mark Karlin, “Seymour Hersh on White House Lies about bin Laden’s Death, Pakistan and the Syrian Civil War,” Truthout, 14 August 2016.
107 Robert Parry, “Will We Miss President Obama?” Consortium News, 19 March 2016; Parry, “ e Collapsing Syria-Sarin Case,” Consortium News, 7 April 2014; Seymour M. Hersh, “ e Red Line and the Rat Line,” London Review of Books, April 2014.
108 Robert Parry, “Neocons Have Weathered the Storm,” Consortium News, 15 March 2014.
109 Mark Landler, “51 US Diplomats Urge Strikes Against Assad in Syria,” New York Times, 16 June 2015.
110 Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, “Intel Vets Call ‘Dissent Memo’ on Syria ‘Reckless,’” Consortium News, 25 June 2016.
111 Center for Citizen Initiatives, “Seeking a Debate on ‘Regime Change’ Wars,” Consortium News, 20 June 2016; Marjorie Cohn, “US Bombing Syrian Troops Would Be Illegal,” Consortium News, 22 June 2016.
112 Parry, “Risking Nuclear War for Al Qaeda?”
113 Muhawesh, “Refugee Crisis & Syria War Fueled by Competing Gas Pipelines.”
114 James Huang, “Who Exclusive: Gen. Wesley Clark on Oil, War and Activism,” Who. What. Why., 24 September 2012.
115 Chris Floyd, “Seeing Ghosts: History’s Nightmares Return in Syria,” Empire Burlesque, 12 January 2016.
116 Dmitry Minin, “The Geopolitics of Gas and the Syrian Crisis,” Strategic Cultural Foundation, 31 May 2013.
117 Pepe Escobar, Empire of Chaos (Nimble Pluribus, 2014).
118 F. William Engdahl, “The Syrian Pipeline War: How Russia Trumped USA Energy War in the Mideast,” Russia Insider, 21 September 2016.
119 See David Ray Griffin, Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis? (Clarity Press, 2015), 369-72.
120 F. William Engdahl, “Syria, Turkey, Israel and the Greater Middle East Energy War,” Global Research, October 11, 2012
121 F. William Engdahl, “Silence of the Lambs-Refugees, EU and Syrian Energy Wars,” NEO, 10 November 2016.
122 Pepe Escobar, “Syria: Ultimate Pipelineistan War,” Strategic Culture, 7 December 2015.
123 Engdahl, “The Syrian Pipeline War.”
124 Minin, “The Geopolitics of Gas and the Syrian Crisis.
125 Engdahl, “The Syrian Pipeline War.”.
126  Escobar, “Syria: Ultimate Pipelineistan War.”
127  Kathy Gilsinan, “The Pottery Barn Rule: Syria Edition,” Atlantic, 30 September 2015.
128  Franklin Lamb, “Don’t Cry for Us Syria. . . . The Truth Is We Shall Never Leave You!” Counterpunch, 29 July 2016.
129  Parry, “Delusional US ‘Group Think’ on Syria, Ukraine.”
130  Parry, “Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party.”
131  Andre Damon, “The Media Disinformation Campaign on Russian Hacking and the US Debacle in Syria,” Global Research, 9 January 2017.
132  Ben Hubbard and David E. Sanger, “Russia, Iran and Turkey Meet for Syria Talks, Excluding US,” New York Times, 20 December 2016.
133  Judy Dempsey, “The Tide of Syrian Refugees Is Unraveling Europe,” Newsweek, 25 February 2016.
134  Karen Yourish et al., “Where ISIS Has Directed and Inspired Attacks around the World,” International New York Times, 22 March 2016; “List of Terrorist Incidents Linked to ISIL,” Wikipedia.
135  Terrence McCoy, “How the Islamic State Evolved in an American Prison,” Washington Post, 4 November 2014.
136  Bobby Ghosh, “ISIS: A Short History,” Atlantic, 14 August 2014; “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,” Wikipedia.
137  Bill Palmer, “Why President Obama’s Correct Usage of ‘ISIL’ vs ‘ISIS’ Drives Ignorant People Crazy,” Daily News Bin, 20 December 2015; Kathya, “Why Obama Says ‘ISIL’ instead of ‘ISIS’ — Conspiracy Theory v. Logic,” Liberal America, 11 December 2015.
138  Stephen Zunes, “The US and the Rise of ISIS,” National Catholic Reporter, 10 December 2015.
139  Lauren Boyer, “Former US Military Official Says George W. Bush Created ISIS,” US News, 1 December 2015.
140  Andrew Bacevich, “ e George W. Bush Refugees,” Politico, 18 September 2015.
141  Andrew Kirell, “4 Most Noteworthy Moments from Obama’s Interview with Vice News,” 16 March 2015.
142  Savage, Power Wars, 684-86.
143  Pamela Engel, “ e Air War against ISIS Is Costing the US about $11 
Million a Day,” Business Insider, 19 January 2016.
144  David Swanson, “ e US Wants the Islamic State Group to Win in 
Syria,” TeleSUR, 29 March 2016.
145  Chris Floyd, “Seeing Ghosts: History’s Nightmares Return in Syria,” Empire Burlesque, 12 January 2016.
146 Eric Margolis, “US Fight against ‘Covert Western Asset’ ISIS Is a ‘Big Charade,’” Ron Paul Institute, 2 October 2015; “‘US Has Always Been Main Sponsor of Islamic State’—Former CIA Contractor to RT,” RT, 29 September 2016.
147 Anne Barnard, “Audio Reveals What John Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors,” New York Times, 30 September 2016.
148 Simon Tidsdall, “US Changes Its Tune on Syrian Regime Change as ISIS Threat Takes Top Priority,” Guardian, 25 January 2015.
149 Mike Whitney, “Putin Ups the Ante: Cease re Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo,” Smirking Chimp, 27 September 2016.
150 Vanessa Beeley, ‘’White Helmets Campaign for War Not Peace—RLA & Nobel Peace Prize Nomination should be Retracted,” 2 October 2016; Beeley, “ e REAL Syria Civil Defence Exposes Fake ‘White Helmets’ as Terrorist-Linked Imposters,” 21st Century Wire, 23 September 2016; Max Blumenthal, “How the ‘White Helmets’ Became Global Heroes While Pushing for US Military Intervention in Syria,” Alternet, 4 October, 2016; Tim Anderson, The Dirty War On Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance (Global Research Publishers, 2016), 75.
151 “Syria’s White Helmets Are Multi-million Funded, ‘Can’t Be Independent,’” RT, 7 October 2016.
152 “Syrian White Helmets a ‘Terrorist Support Group & Western Propaganda Tool,’” RT, 25 October 2016.
153 Beeley, ‘’White Helmets Campaign for War Not Peace.”
154 “‘We Don’t Hide It’: White Helmets Openly Admit Being Funded by Western Govts,” RT, 19 October 2016.
155 Max Blumenthal, “Inside the Shadowy PR Firm That’s Lobbying for Regime Change in Syria,” Alternet, 3 October 2016.
156 “Syrian White Helmets a ‘Terrorist Support Group’”; Sterling, “Seven Steps of Highly Effective Manipulators.”
157 See “Journalist Eva Bartlett, ‘I’m Back from Syria. The Media Is Lying to You!’” The Event Chronicle, 13 February 2016; “Liberty Report Talks to Vanessa Beeley: ‘Everything the US Media Says about Aleppo Is Wrong,’” Liberty Report, 29 September 2016. She should not be described as an “Assad supporter,” Beeley said, because she has various criticisms of him. She simply disagrees with the view that Syria should be destroyed in order to save it.
158 Stephen Kinzer, “The Media Are Misleading the Public on Syria,” Boston Globe, 18 February 2016.
159 David W. Lesche and James Gelvin, “Assad Has Won in Syria. But Syria Hardly Exists,” New York Times, 11 January 2017.
160  “Audio Evidence: John Kerry Privately Confirms Supporting and Arming Daesh,” Voltaire Network, 13 January 2017; referring to “Absolutely Stunning—Leaked Audio of Secretary Kerry Reveals President Obama Intentionally Allowed Rise of ISIS,” The Last Refuge (The Conservative Tree House), 1 January 2017.

Advertisements

4 KILLED, HUNDREDS INJURED IN NEW WAVE OF PROTESTS IN GAZA STRIP (VIDEO)

For the fourth Friday in a row, thousands of Palestinians protested near the separation fence between Israel and the Gaza Strip to demand the recognition of their “right of return,” the Lebanese al-Mayadeen TV reported.

Palestinian activists said that this week’s protests had been launched under the name “Friday of the Martyrs and Prisoners.”

Ismail Haniyeh, a political leader of the Palestinian Hamas Movement, participated in the protests near the separation fence for the first time. Hamas’ leader encouraged the protestors to continue their struggle and said that these protests will remove “the border.”

“They [Israeli Army soldiers] are too weak to deter our men, our youth and our women, and these threats are increasing our strength, power, intensity and mass on these borders,” Haniyeh told the crowd of protestors, according to the Palestinian news agency Sama.

The Israeli Army responded to the Palestinian protests with force as it had already done over the last three weeks. According to the al-Mayadeen, four protestors were killed by Israeli Army snipers and more than 500 others were injured with the tear gas and rubber bullets that had been fired by the Israeli Army.

Earlier, the Israeli Army dropped thousands of leaflet over the Gaza Strip warning civilians from participating in the protests and accusing the Hamas Movement of carrying out hostile acts during the protests.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health revealed that the Israeli Army had killed 34 Palestinian protesters and had injured 4,279 others since the outbreak of the protests on March 30. Local sources believe that the Palestinian protests will intensify over the course of the upcoming weeks until it reaches its peak on March 15, the independence day of Israel, that’s known in the Arab World as the “Nakba Day.”

 

Friday of Detainees & Martyrs: Palestinians Hold New Mass Protest, ’Israel’ Warns

Local Editor

20-04-2018 | 14:51
Palestinians in Gaza are holding another mass demonstration against “Israeli” occupation forces for the fourth week in a row dubbed this time “Friday of the Detainees and Martyrs” as part of the Great March of Return.
 
Palestine

Many protesters have since Thursday been staying in camps and sit-in tents near the fence separating the besieged Gaza Strip from the “Israeli”-occupied territories.
Tens of thousands of Gazans attend the mass rally.

Meanwhile, the Zionist forces dropped leaflets in the Gaza Strip on Friday, warning Palestinians not to approach the fence, where the regime has deployed Special Forces, sharpshooters and armored vehicles.

Organizers have, however, said they have this week moved the tents 50 meters closer towards the fence “as a message of persistence from our people to the world that we are moving forwards towards our rightful goals.”

Earlier in the day, a Palestinian was wounded when the occupation forces opened fire on a refugee camp in east of Khan Yunis.

The Great March of Return began on March 30 and will last for six weeks. The Zionist entity has responded to the peaceful demonstrations with an iron fist, martyring more than 30 unarmed Palestinians over the past three weeks.

The Tel Aviv regime has come under criticism in the international community by allowing its snipers to open fire on the unarmed protester that come close to the fence.
Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

Zionist Occupation Forces Kill Palestinian, Injure Number of Others during Return Protests in Gaza

April 20, 2018

Great March of Return

Palestinian protesters during “The Great March of Retrun” at Gaza border with the occupied territories on Friday, March 30, 2018.

One Palestinian embraced martyrdom and a number of others were injured during the Return Protests in Gaza which witnessed on Friday clashes with the Zionist occupation troops in the border areas.

Thousands of Palestinians on Friday moved to the border areas in Gaza in order to hold the Return protests; consequently, clashes erupted with the Zionist occupation forces which took strict measures in face of the Palestinian move.

Source: Al-Manar Website

Related Articles

Syrian War Report – April 20, 2018: Operations In Southern Damascus, Eastern Qalamoun

 

On April 19, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies supported by warplanes of the Syrian Air Force launched a military operation against ISIS in the Yarmouk refugee camp and the al-Hajar al-Aswad district in southern Damascus. The SAA also involved artillery guns and rocket launchers to support the attack.

The development came after negotiations on a possible withdrawal of ISIS members from the area to the eastern Homs desert had collapsed. However, according to local sources, the ISIS members in Yarmouk still have chances to accept a withdrawal agreement.

On the same day, militants in the main Eastern Qalamoun pocket surrendered to the SAA and accepted an agreement under which they will be able to withdraw to the militant held parts of Aleppo and Idlib provinces or to settle their legal status. Militants already began handing over their heavy weapons, including a few battle tanks. The evacuation process is set to be started on April 20.

With the liberation of Eastern Qalamoun and southern Damascus, the SAA will be able to free a large force for further operations against militants across the country. One of the key problem areas is southern Syria where, according to Russian military and diplomatic sources, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) and its allies are preparing to launch a large advance in order to capture the city of Daraa.

According to the Russian Defense Ministry’s TV channel Zvezda, militants are actively receiving support via corridors established in the militant-held areas on the Syrian-Israeli and Syrian-Jordanian borders. The estimated strength of the militants’ force is 12,000 members with hundreds units of military equipment, tens artillery pieces and rocket launchers.

Meanwhile, US State Department accused Damascus and Moscow of preventing the OPCW mission from investigating the site of the alleged chemical attack in Douma.

In turn, Russian Foreign Ministry said that Syrian troops have found “containers with chlorine” from Germany and “smoke grenades” produced in the UK city of Salisbury in the liberated areas of Eastern Ghouta. The region where the alleged chemical attack took place in the town of Douma on April 7.

Syria has handed over to Russia two cruise missiles unexploded after the recent US-led strike on the country, the Russian state-run news agency TASS reported citing a source in the Syrian Defense Ministry. According to the report, the missiles were sent to Russia in good condition by plane on April 18.

The Russian Defense Ministry has not commented on this report yet.

On April 14, the US, the UK and France carried out a massive missile strike on Syrian targets. According to the Pentagon, all 105 launched missiles hit their targets. In turn, the Russian Defense Ministry says that 71 missile had been intercepted.

Related News

لماذا تريد أميركا الحرب؟

أبريل 20, 2018

كتب الدكتور جاك باولز لـ Global Reasearch

ملاحظة: كُتب هذا المقال في 30 نيسان عام 2003 في أعقاب انطلاق الحرب على العراق من قبل المؤرّخ والعالم السياسي جاك باولز. ترتبط هذه المقالة الى حدّ كبير برئاسة جورج دبليو بوش. والسؤال الذي يطرح نفسه في الوقت المناسب: لماذا تسعى إدارة ترامب الى الحرب بما في ذلك الحرب على كوريا الجنوبية، إيران، روسيا والصين؟

كوريا، فييتنام، كمبوديا، العراق، ليبيا، سورية، اليمن… لمَ لا تزال الولايات المتحدة تفتعل الحروب منذ أكثر من نصف قرن…؟ ولمَ يصرّ الأميركيون على دعم أجندة الولايات المتحدة العسكرية؟

إنّ الحرب هي خسارة كبيرة على مستوى الأرواح والموارد، ولهذا السبب يعارض معظم الناس من حيث المبدأ قيام الحروب. ويبدو أنّ الرئيس الأميركي من الناحية الأخرى يعشق الحروب. لكن لماذا؟ سعى العديد من المعلقين لإحالة هذه المسألة الى العوامل النفسية. ورأى البعض أنّ جورج دبليو بوش يعتبر أنّ من واجبه إنهاء المهمة، بسبب بعض الغموض وقلة الوضوح، الذي مورس من قبل والده إبان حرب الخليج ويعتقد آخرون أنّ بوش الإبن توقع حرباً قصيرة من شأنها ان تضمن له ولاية ثانية في البيت الأبيض.

أعتقد أنه علينا البحث في مكان آخر عن تفسير لموقف الرئيس الأميركي. ففي الحقيقة، انّ حرص بوش على الحرب لا علاقة له مطلقاً بوضعه النفسي، بل الكثير من العلاقة مع النظام الاقتصادي الأميركي. وهذا النظام، الذي هو العلامة التجارية الأميركية للرأسمالية يعمل أولاً وقبل كلّ شيء على جعل الأميركيين الأغنياء، أيّ «سلالة المال» لبوش الأكثر ثراءً. ومع ذلك، فبدون حروب ساخنة أو باردة، لم يعُد هذا النظام قادراً على تحقيق النتيجة المتوقعة في شكل أرباح أعلى تعتبرها الولايات المتحدة من حقوقها المشروعة.

تكمن القوة الكبيرة للرأسمالية في ضعفها الكبير، وتحديداً في إنتاجيتها العالية الفعالية. وفي التطوّر التاريخي للنظام الاقتصادي الدولي الذي نسمّيه الرأسمالية، أدّى عدد من العوامل الى زيادات هائلة في الإنتاجية، على سبيل المثال، تصنيع العمليات الإنتاجية التي بدأت في وقت مبكر من القرن الثامن عشر في إنكلترا. وفي بدايات القرن العشرين، قدّم الصناعيون الأميركيون مساهمة حاسمة في تحويل العمل من يدوي الى آليّ باستخدام كافة الوسائل والتقنيات الجديدة مثل خط التجميع. وكان هذا الأخير بمثابة ابتكار قدّمه هنري فورد، وبالتالي أصبحت هذه التقنيات تُعرف مجتمعة باسم «الفوردية». وقد ارتفعت إنتاجية الشركات الأميركية الكبرى بشكل مذهل.

وعلى سبيل المثال، وإبان العشرينات من القرن الماضي، كانت سيارات لا تعدّ ولا تحصى تخرج يومياً من مصانع السيارات في ميشيغان. لكن من هي الجهة التي يُفترض أن تشتري جميع هذه السيارات؟ فغالبية السكان الأميركيين لم يكونوا يمتلكون ما يكفي من المال لمثل هذه المقتنيات الباهظة الثمن. كما غمرت الأسواق الأميركية أنواعاً أخرى من المنتجات، وكانت النتيجة ظهور تنافر عميق ما بين العرض الاقتصادي المتزايد والطلب المتعثر. وهكذا نشأت الأزمة الاقتصادية المعروفة عموماً باسم الكساد العظيم، والتي كانت في الأساس أزمة فائض في الإنتاج. كانت المستودعات تتدفق بسلع غير مباعة، وصرفت المصانع موظفيها وانفجرت البطالة، وتقلصت مع ذلك القدرة الشرائية للشعب الأميركي أكثر فأكثر، مما فاقم من حدّة الأزمة.

لا يمكن أن نتجاهل أنّ الكساد الكبير في أميركا لم ينتهِ إلا مع الحرب العالمية الثانية وبسببها. حتى أولئك المعجبون بأداء الرئيس روزفلت يعترفون بأنّ سياساته الخاصة بالصفقة الجديدة التي حظيت بتغطية إعلامية كبيرة لم تسفر عن أيّ إزعاج يُذكر . ارتفع منسوب الطلب الاقتصادي بشكل مذهل عندما بدأت الحرب في أوروبا، وحتى حين لم تكن الولايات المتحدة نفسها مشاركةً في الحرب أيّ قبل العام 1942، ما سمح للتصنيع الأميركي بالازدهار وإنتاج كميات غير محدودة من معدّات الحرب. وبين عامي 1940 و 1945، أنفقت الولايات المتحدة ما لا يقلّ عن 185 مليار دولار على مثل هذه المعدّات، وبالتالي، فإنّ نصيب الإنفاق العسكري من الناتج القومي الإجمالي ارتفع بين عامي 1939 و 1945 من نسبة ضئيلة 1.5 إلى ما نسبته حوالى 40 . أضف الى ذلك، أنّ الصناعة الأميركية تمكّنت من تزويد البريطانيين وحتى السوفيات بكميات هائلة من المعدّات. وفي الوقت عينه، كانت ألمانيا تنتج للشركات الأميركية مثل فورد وجنرال موتورز و ITT، كميات كبيرة من الدبابات والطائرات وغيرها من المواد القتالية النازية، وحتى بعد بيرل هاربور، لكن لهذه المسألة قصة مختلفة . لكن الكلمة المفتاحية لحلّ مشكلة الكساد الاقتصادي عدم التوازن بين العرض والطلب تكمن في الاستعداد لضخّ الطلب الاقتصادي عن طريق تنفيذ أوامر ضخمة ذات طبيعة عسكرية.

بالنسبة الى الأميركيين العاديين، فإنّ إنفاق واشنطن العسكري لم يؤدِّ الى عمل فعليّ كامل فحسب، بل ايضاً إلى ارتفاع في نسبة الأجور أكثر من أيّ وقت مضى فخلال الحرب العالمية الثانية انتهى انتشار البؤس الذي ساد خلال فترة الكساد الكبير، وحققت غالبية الشعب الأميركي درجة غير مسبوقة من الازدهار. ومع ذلك، فإنّ أكبر المستفيدين الى حدّ بعيد من الازدهار الاقتصادي في زمن الحرب هم رجال الأعمال والشركات في البلد ممن حققوا أرباحاً استثنائية. وبين عامي 1942 و 1945، كتب المؤرّخ ستيوارت دي براندز، أنّ الأرباح الصافية لأكبر ألفي شركة في أميركا وصلت نسبتها الأعلى الى 40 وذلك مقارنةً بالأعوام بين 1936 و 1939. ومثل هذه «الطفرة في الربح» كانت ممكنة، لأنّ الدولة أمرت بصرف مليارات الدولارات على المعدّات العسكرية، وفشلت في فرض ضوابط على الأسعار، وضرائب على الأرباح. استفاد من هذا السخاء عالم الأعمال الأميركي بشكل عام، وعلى وجه الخصوص، تلك النخبة المحدودة نسبياً من «الشركات الكبرى» أو «الشركات الأميركية». وخلال الحرب، فإنّ أقلّ من 60 شركة حصلت على ما مجموعه 75 من مجموع الشركات المربحة. وكشفت حينها الشركات الكبرى مثل فورد، IBM، وغيرها، – أنها «خنازير الحرب»، ويكتب براندز حول هذا القدر الهائل من الإنفاق العسكري للدولة. فشركة IBM على سبيل المثال، تمكنت من رفع نسبة مبيعاتها السنوية بين عامي 1940 و 1945 من 46 الى 140 مليون دولار، والفضل في ذلك يعود إلى الحرب و»خيراتها». استغلّت الشركات الأميركية الكبرى خبراتها «الفوردية» حتى الثمالة بهدف تعزيز الإنتاج، غير أنّ ذلك لم يكن كافياً أيضاً لتلبية احتياجات الدولة الأميركية في زمن الحرب. هناك حاجة ماسة إلى الكثير من المعدّات، ومن أجل إنتاجها، احتاجت أميركا الى مصانع جديدة وإلى تكنولوجيا أكثر كفاءة. وقد خُتمت هذه الأصول الجديدة على أرض الواقع، ولهذا السبب ارتفعت القيمة الإجمالية لجميع مرافق الإنتاج في البلاد بين عامي 1939 و 1945 من 40 الى 66 مليار دولار.

ومع ذلك، لم يكن القطاع الخاص هو الذي قام بجميع هذه الاستثمارات الجديدة فعلى حساب تجاربه غير المرغوبة مع الإفراط في الإنتاج خلال الثلاثينات، وجد رجال الأعمال في أميركا هذه المهمة محفوفة بالمخاطر. لذا، قامت الدولة بهذه المهمة من خلال استثمار 17 مليار دولار في أكثر من 2000 مشروع متعلق بالدفاع، في مقابل رسوم رمزية، سمحت للشركات المملوكة للقطاع الخاص باستئجار هذه المصانع الجديدة من أجل الإنتاج… وكسب المال عن طريق بيع الإنتاج الى الدولة. علاوةً على ذلك، عندما انتهت الحرب وقرّرت واشنطن التخلي عن الاستثمارات، اشترتها الشركات الكبرى في البلاد بنصف القيمة، وأحياناً كثيرة بثلث سعرها الحقيقي.

كيف موّلت أميركا الحرب، وكيف دفعت واشنطن الفواتير الباهظة التي قدّمتها GM، ITTوغيرها من الشركات الأخرى للمعدّات الحربية؟ والجواب: جزئياً عن طريق فرض ضرائب حوالى 45 – لكن بقروض أكبر بكثير حوالى 55 . وبالاستناد إلى هذه المعطيات، فقد ازداد الدين العام بشكل كبير، أيّ من 3 مليار دولار عام 1939 إلى ما لا يقلّ عن 45 مليار دولار عام 1945.

ومن الناحية النظرية، كان يُفترض تخفيض هذا الدين، أو محو ذلك كله، بفرض ضرائب على الضرائب الضخمة، وذلك خلال الحرب الضخمة التي كانت تشنّها الجيوش الأميركية، غير أنّ الحقيقة تختلف كثيراً. وكما سبق وأشرنا، فشلت الدولة الأميركية في فرض ضريبة أرباح للشركات الأميركية المفاجئة، وسمحت للدين العام بالتضخم، ودفعت جميع فواتيرها، والفوائد على القروض بإيراداتها العامة، أيّ عن طريق الدخل الناتج عن الضرائب المباشرة وغير المباشرة. وعلى وجه الخصوص، بسبب قانون الإيرادات المتراجع الذي صدر في تشرين الأول عام 1942، ليُصار إلى دفع هذه الضرائب بشكل متزايد من قبل العمال وغيرهم من الأميركيين ذوي الدخل المنخفض، وليس من قبل الأثرياء والشركات التي كان أصحابها هم المساهمين الرئيسيين و/ أو كبار المديرين. ويلاحظ المؤرخ الأميركي شون دينيس كاشمان: «عبء تمويل الحرب»، كان يتآلف بقوة ويرتفع على أكتاف الأفراد الأكثر فقراً في المجتمع».

ومع ذلك، فإنّ الرأي العام الأميركي، المنشغل بدقّ طبول الحرب، والذي أعمت عيونه بعض التوظيفات ذات الأجور المرتفعة، فشل في قراءة كلّ هذا. ومن الناحية الأخرى، فإنّ الأميركيين المؤثرين في الرأي العام، هم على دراية تامة بالطريقة الرائعة التي ولّدت بها الحرب لهم ولشركاتهم طائل الأموال. وبالمناسبة، فقد موّل الحرب أيضاً عدد من رجال الأعمال، أصحاب البنوك، وشركات التأمين والمستثمرين الكبار الآخرين الذين اقترضت منهم واشنطن الأموال اللازمة لتمويل الحرب. وهكذا استفادت الشركات الأميركية من الحرب بحصولها على حصة الأسد من المصالح المتولّدة من شراء سندات الحرب الشهيرة. ومن الناحية النظرية على الأقلّ فإنّ الأغنياء والأقوياء في أميركا هم الأبطال الكبار لما يُطلق عليه اسم المشروعات الحرّة، وهم يعارضون أيّ شكل من أشكال تدخل الدولة في الاقتصاد. غير أنهم لم يبدوا خلال الحرب أيّ اعتراضات على الطريقة التي تدير بها الدولة الأميركية تمويل الاقتصاد، لأنه، وبدون هذا الانتهاك الضخم على نطاق واسع لقواعد الشركات الحرّة، لم يكن من الممكن لثروتهم الجماعية أن تنتشر كما حصل خلال السنوات الماضية.

خلال الحرب العالمية الثانية، تعلّم أصحاب الثروات وكبار مديري الشركات الكبرى درساً مهماً للغاية: خلال الحرب، هناك أموال يمكن جنيها، الكثير من الأموال. وبعبارة أخرى، يمكن إبطال المهمة الشاقة المتمثلة في تعظيم الأرباح وهو النشاط الرئيسي في الاقتصاد الأميركي الرأسمالي بطريقة أكثر كفاءة من تلك المتبعة خلال الحرب، بدلاً من تحقيق السلام ومع ذلك، فإنّ التعاون الخيريّ من الدولة مطلوب. ومنذ الحرب العالمية الثانية، فإنّ الأغنياء والأقوياء في أميركا استمرّوا واعين جداً لهذه المسألة. كذلك الأمر، بالنسبة لرجلهم السابق في البيت الأبيض، جورج دبليو بوش، وهو سليل «إمبراطورية المال» الذي هبط على البيت الأبيض بواسطة المظلّة، بهدف خدمة وتعزيز مصالح عائلته الثرية وأصدقائه وزملائه في الشركات الأميركية، أصحاب مصالح المال والامتيازات والسلطة.

في ربيع العام 1945، كان من الواضح أنّ الحرب حققت أرباحاً مبهرة وأنها ستنتهي قريباً. فماذا سيحدث حينها؟ ومن بين الاقتصاديين، يوجد العديد من «الكاساندريين» الذين قدّموا سيناريوات بدت مزعجة للغاية للقادة السياسيين والصناعيين الأميركيين. وخلال الحرب، اقتصرت المشتريات على المعدّات العسكرية، وليس شيء آخر، قد أعادت ارتفاع الطلب الاقتصادي، وبالتالي لم يكن ممكناً قط تحقيق التوظيف الكامل لكنها أيضاً أرباحاً غير مسبوقة. ومع عودة السلام، فإنّ شبح التنافر بين العرض والطلب يهدّد بالعودة الى أميركا مرة أخرى، حيث أنّ الأزمة الناجمة قد تكون أكثر حدّة من الأزمة الاقتصادية العظمى إبان «الثلاثينات القذرة»، لأنه وخلال سنوات الحرب زادت قدرة الأمة بشكل كبير كما رأينا. سيتعيّن تسريح العمال على وجه التحديد في الوقت الذي يعود فيه ملايين المحاربين القدامى إلى ديارهم بحثاً عن عمل مدني، وستؤدّي البطالة وتراجع القوة الشرائية الى تفاقم العجز في الطلب. أما من منظور الأغنياء والأقوياء في أميركا، فإنّ شبح البطالة القادم لا يشكل أيّ مشكلة على الإطلاق وما يهمّ هو أنّ العصر الذهبي للأرباح الهائلة سيصل إلى نهايته. من الضروري منع حدوث مثل هذه الكارثة، لكن كيف؟

كانت نفقات الدولة العسكرية تشكل مصدر الأرباح العالية، ومن أجل الإبقاء على تدفق الأرباح، وبسخاء، إلا أنّ هناك حاجة ملحة لأعداء جدد وتهديدات حرب جديدة بعد هزيمة ألمانيا واليابان. وكم كان من حسن حظ الاتحاد السوفياتي، أن يتواجد في تلك المرحلة، في بلد كان شريكاً مهماً في الحرب، لسحب زناد النار بوجه الحلفاء في ستالينغراد وغيرها من المدن، إنما ايضاً شريكاً سمحت له أفكاره الشيوعية وممارساته لتتحوّل بسهولة الى بعبع جديد يقف في وجه الولايات المتحدة الأميركية. ويعترف معظم الموثقين الأميركيين أنّ الاتحاد السوفياتي عام 1945، وهو البلد الذي عانى الكثير خلال الحرب العالمية الثانية، لم يشكل على الإطلاق أيّ تهديد اقتصاي أو عسكري للولايات المتحدة الأميركية ذات النفوذ في هذا المجال. ويعترف هؤلاء ايضاً أنّ موسكو أظهرت حرصاً شديداً على التعاون بشكل وثيق مع واشنطن في فترة ما بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية.

ترجمة ليلى زيدان عبد الخالق

Each “click” brings us one step closer to the “bang!”

The Saker

April 20, 2018

[This column was written for the Unz Review]

Trump pulled the trigger, but instead of a “bang!” what the world heard was a demure “click”. Considering that we are talking about playing a most dangerous game of potentially nuclear Russian AngloZionist roulette, the “click” is very good news indeed. But, to use the words of Nikki Haley, the US “gun” is still “locked and loaded”.

There are a number of versions out there about what really happened, but I think that the most likely explanation for that “click” is a combination of two events:

  1. The US did go out of its way to avoid even giving the appearance of attacking the Russian or Iranian forces in Syria. With these kinds of rules of engagement, the target list and flight trajectory of the US missiles was easy to predict for the Syrian air defenses.
  2. The Syrian air defenses, now integrated with the Russian C4ISR networks and probably upgraded, performed way better than most people had expected.

I honestly don’t know who in the US should get the credit for doing the right thing, but that person(s) deserves our collective gratitude. Rumors say that Mattis was the man, others point to Dunford and some even to Trump himself (I doubt that). Again, I don’t know who did it, but this action deserves a standing ovation. The fact that this (predictably) dismal performance was then covered up with silly statements about a “perfect strike” and “all missiles hit their target” is standard operating procedure, a basic exercise in face-saving and an attempt to appease the always bloodthirsty Neocons. The most important lesson from this latest development is that there are still some people in key positions in the US who did what had to be done to avoid a catastrophic escalation in Syria. The question now is how long can these “sane forces” (for lack of a better identifier) continue to resist the “crazies”?

Needless to say, the Israel Lobby and the Neocons are absolutely furious. And just to add insult to injury, the Russians are now saying that they will provide the Syrians with S-300 batteries (which would be able to track and engage Israeli aircraft practically from their take-off). I would argue that the Israelis did that one to themselves with their own missile strikes at the worst possible time, but the fact this is self-inflicted does not make it less painful for the Israelis.

But the biggest problem is that this outcome, while very positive by itself, really solves nothing. The key unresolved issues are

  1. Does anybody, especially the UNSC or/and Russia get to “veto” the AngloZionist Hegemony’s actions anywhere on the planet? The official US position is a categorical “no!”. The outcome in Syria, however, does strongly suggest a “yes”.
  2. Is the US willing to come to terms with the fact that the Hegemony has failed to overthrow the Syrian government and that the Syrians have won the war? The official US position on this has flip-flopped a number of times, but I would argue that the “no” camp is much stronger than the “yes” camp. The current US posture in Syria strongly suggests that the USA is not quite ready yet to “declare victory and leave”.
  3. Have the Skripal and Douma false flag chemical (pseudo-) attacks been sufficient to re-subordinate the post-Brexit EU to the Anglosphere and have the AngloZionists been successful in forging a united front for a “Crusade against Russia”? The majority of EU governments have been willing to endorse any nonsense or violation of international law under the pretext of “solidarity”, but there are still quite a few cracks in this apparent unity.

At this moment the situation is extremely fluid and there are too many potential variables which can determine the next developments in order to make a prediction better than a wild guess. The only thing which is certain that this confrontation between the AngloZionist Hegemony and Russia is far from over, both in Syria and elsewhere (the Ukraine).

Fundamentally, our entire planet has to make a choice between two mutually exclusive world orders.

AngloZionist Hegemony Multipolar world
Civilizational model Single “western” Diverse
Economic model Capitalism Diverse
Political model Plutocracy Diverse
International Relations Regulated by the Hegemon Regulated by International Law
National sovereignty Fictional Real
Social and Cultural model Postmodernist secularism Traditional and local

Right now the “collective West” is engaged in a truly titanic effort to preserve the Hegemony, but the writing is very much on the wall, hence the kind of silly histrionics we now see from the likes of Trump, May and Macron. In this context, the war in Syria is primarily a war over the right of the USA to do whatever the hell it wants irrespective of international law, facts, logic or even common sense. Nikki Haley’s message to the world has been beautifully simple, consistent and blunt: “we are the Hegemon, we are above everything and everybody, above you and above any of your laws or principles. We are even above facts or logic. Bow down and worship us or else!“.

The problem for the AngloZionists is that while most western leaders have agreed to these terms (this is what “solidarity” means nowadays), the rest of the planet is quietly but actively seeking ways to explore other options and even some relatively weak and/or small countries (Bolivia for example) are still willing to openly reject this AngloZionist diktat. As for Russia and China, they are already de-facto creating a new, alternative, multi-polar world order where the Anglosphere will be limited to be only “one amongst many” and not the kind of planetary master-race its leaders fancy themselves to be.

It is interesting that the main tactic chosen by the “collective West” to respond to these challenges has been to basically go into deep denial and worry about perceptions much more than about facts on the ground. Hence the “perfect strike”. Carl Rove put it best when he said

 “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do”.

In the 1990s there used to be a popular, but unattributed, quote which said “you have not won until CNN says that you won”. Today, we are witnessing something similar, just reversed: you have not lost until CNN says that you lost. I felt an eerie sense of déjà vu when Trump tweeted “mission accomplished” repeating the exact same words Dubya spoke on his aircraft carrier just before all hell truly broke loose in Iraq (I can imagine how the folks at CENTCOM, who are reportedly really upset, must have cringed when they heard this!). I hope that Marx was right when he said that “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce”. The long-suffering Middle-East has surely gone through enough tragedies, but I am afraid that what we have just witnessed with the latest US strike in Syria was the farce, and that a very real tragedy still might be in the making.

The Neocons can roughly be separated into two types: first, those stupid enough to believe that the latest strikes were, indeed, a magnificent success, and those who are just smart enough to realize that it was a pathetic flop. The first type will be emboldened by the sense of total impunity (and the US did, in fact, get away with this grievous violation of all the norms of civilized behavior and international law) while the second type will continue to demand a much stronger attack. Combine the two and you have a perfect recipe for a very dangerous situation.

And now here is the really bad news: the US ground forces (Army) are pretty much useless, while the US Navy and Air Force are in big, big trouble: the USN surface fleet is now quasi obsolete due to the Russian Kinzhal missile, while the USAF doesn’t seem to be able to operate in an environment with modern Russian surface to air missiles. None of them appear to be able to get anything done other than wasting an immense amount of money and killing a lot of people, mostly civilians. Just like their Israeli and Saudi allies, the US armed forces are just not capable of taking on any meaningful enemy capable of defending itself. There is only one segment of the US armed forces which is still fully capable of accomplishing its mission: the US nuclear triad. Hence all the attempts by US force planners and strategists to find a doctrine not only for the use of nuclear forces as a deterrent, but to re-conceptualize them as a war-fighting capability (missile defense, micro-nukes, etc.). Think of it this way: the only credible (real world) means of aggression left to the Empire are nuclear weapons. Many (most?) people don’t realize that (yet), but with each failed conventional attack this reality will become harder and harder to hide.

Will the people who this time around succeeded in foiling the Neocon plans for a real, hard, strike on Syria, and possibly even on the Russian task force in Syria, succeed the next time? I don’t know. But I can’t ignore the fact that each “click” brings us one step closer to the “bang”. And that suggests to me that the only real solution to this extremely dangerous situation is to find a way to remove the finger pressing on the trigger or, better, take away the gun from the nutcase threatening us all with it.

The Saker

Giant Steps with Sarah Chaplin & Gilad Atzmon: Israel, Syria and the J-word

April 19, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Had a great time talking with Sarah Chaplin on  Monday (16th April 2018). We covered a lot of topics such as  ID politics, Tyranny of Correctness, the New Left dystopia, Israel, the Lobby, the Attack on Syria, the court case against me and more.

Sarah Chaplin: My guest on Monday is simultaneously one of the greatest living saxophonists and one of the most controversial and vocal figures involved in debates about anti-semitism and Zionism in the world today: Gilad Atzmon.

Gilad has not only taken absolutely gigantic steps in his own life, (which brought him from serving in the IDF and confronting the horrors of how Israel was treating Palestinians, deciding to take up the tenor sax and come to live in the UK, and that’s just for starters), he is also one of Richie Allen’s favourite guests, a very compelling political analyst and philosopher, a brilliant writer, a stand up comedian, a member of legendary British band the Blockheads, and someone who is so familiar with John Coltrane that he could probably if I asked him play Giant Steps inside out, back to front, upside down, and give us a complete low down on why the tune is regarded as quite so innovative.

If you don’t believe me, here are some quotes:

“Atzmon’s fluid lyricism is in full flow on songbook classics and worldly originals. But as sweet romance morphs to modernist uncertainty, the bittersweet balance and rich emotional palette equally impress.” Financial Times

“A formidable improvisational array…a jazz giant steadily drawing himself up to his full height…” The Guardian.

“The best musician living in the world today” Robert Wyatt

Gilad Atzmon is being threatened with court proceedings by the British Zio-Establishment at the moment, and given what’s going on with Syria, Russia, Israeli and UK politics, I can think of no better moment to chew things over with this incredible and fearless jazzman next week! You never know, I might even persuade him to play his sax live on the show.

If they want to burn it, you want to read it!

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto,

Amazon.co.uk , Amazon.com and  here (gilad.co.uk).

هل تصبح سورية فيتنام العرب…؟

أبريل 20, 2018

محمد صادق الحسيني

ما أشبه اليوم بالبارحة.

وذلك لأنّ الرئيس الأميركي ترامب لم يأتِ بجديد عندما أعلن عن نيته سحب قوات بلاده المحتلة من شمال شرق سورية، وذلك لأنّ هناك من سبقه من الرؤساء الأميركيين الى مثل هذه الخطوة قبل حوالي أربعين عاماً آملاً منه في النجاة من الهزيمة. تلك الهزيمة المدوية والهروب المذلّ للقوات الأميركية من فيتنام سنة 1975 كان قد سبقها إعلان رئاسي مشابه لإعلان ترامب.

ففي الخامس والعشرين من شهر تموز سنة 1969 أعلن الرئيس الأميركي آنذاك، ريتشارد نيكسون، في خطاب له في جزيرة غوام في المحيط الهادئ، ما أطلق عليه في حينه: عقيدة نيكسون Nixon Doktrin.

وقد كان جوهر تلك العقيدة يقول بضرورة أن يتولى حلفاء الولايات المتحدة في فيتنام، أي حكومة فيتنام العميلة، أمور الدفاع عن أنفسهم بأيديهم، خاصة من الناحية المادية أو المالية.

وكان الهدف من نشر هذه العقيدة، التي صاغها مستشار الرئيس نيكسون لشؤون الأمن القومي هنري كيسينغر، يشمل العديد من الأهداف أهمها التالية:

أولاً: نقل مسؤوليات العمليات القتالية شيئاً فشيئاً الى جيش حكومة فيتنام الجنوبية العميلة والذي كان يبلغ تعداده مليون جندي.

ثانياً: تهيئة الظروف لانسحاب تدريجي للقوات الأميركية، والتي بلغ تعدادها آنذاك أربعمئة وستة وستين ألفاً ومئتي جندي، من فيتنام.

ثالثاً: تفادي هزيمة مذلة للجيش الأميركي في تلك الحرب والتي كانت قد كلفت الولايات المتحدة ما يزيد على مئة مليار دولار.

ولكن مستشاري نيكسون وبدلاً من التوجه الى المفاوضات المباشرة والعمل على إنهاء الحرب بأقصى سرعة كانوا يقدمون له الاستشارات بضرورة زيادة الضغط العسكري على فيتنام الشمالية من أجل تحسين شروط المفاوضات المستقبلية.

ذلك الضغط العسكري الذي تمثل في إلقاء ما يزيد على خمسة عشر مليون طن من المواد المتفجرة على فيتنام وإبادة ما يزيد على ثلاثة ملايين مواطن مدني فيتنامي.

أي أن الإدارة الأميركية وجنودها وجنرالاتها قد ارتكبوا سلسلة من جرائم الحرب المروّعة بحق الشعب الفيتنامي ولكنها لم تنقذ الولايات المتحدة من تجرّع كأس الهزيمة حتى النهاية.

علماً أن إدارة الرئيس نيكسون قد بدأت بفتنمة الحرب هناك وذلك من خلال زيادة تسليح جيش الحكومة الفيتنامية العميلة في جنوب فيتنام وتحويل الحرب شيئاً فشيئاً الى شكل من أشكال الحرب الأهلية أو الفوضى الشاملة التي تضمن استمرار عدم الاستقرار في جنوب شرق آسيا بشكل عام وليس فقط في فيتنام وذلك في إطار استراتيجية الولايات المتحدة في مواجهة كلٍّ من روسيا والصين حليفتي فيتنام الشمالية.

وهذه بالضبط هي العقيدة التي حاولت الإدارات الأميركية، منذ عهد جورج بوش الأب وحتى الآن، تطبيقها في العالم العربي، منذ حرب الخليج الاولى سنة 1991، مروراً باحتلال العراق سنة 2003، وصولاً الى حرب تموز ضد المقاومة الإسلامية في لبنان وسلسلة الحروب الإسرائيلية ضد المقاومة الفلسطينية في قطاع غزة، وانتهاءً بمسلسل التدمير الذي أطلق عليه الربيع العربي في العديد من البلدان العربية.

وهنا لا بد من الإشارة الى ان ما يطبق حالياً من السياسات الأميركية المدمّرة في العالم العربي، وما تشهده المرحلة الحاليّة من تحالف معلن، بين الرجعية العربية وقوى الاستعمار والصهيونية، لهو امتداد لما كان يُسمّى بعقيدة نيكسون في أوائل ستينيات القرن الماضي وأواخر سبعينياته، حيث قرّرت إدارة نيكسون آنذاك توسيع النطاق الجغرافي لتطبيق تلك العقيدة بحيث يشمل منطقة الخليج بأكملها، عرباً وفرساً، حيث قررت تلك الإدارة البدء بتسليح حلفائها آل سعود وشاه إيران، الى جانب «إسرائيل» طبعاً، على نطاق واسع بحجة حماية الأمن والاستقرار في المنطقة.

الامر الذي فتح الابواب على مصاريعها لمرحلة بدء التدخل العسكري الأميركي المباشر في المنطقة بهدف ضرب التيار الوطني المقاوم آنذاك، والذي كان يتمثل في محور جمال عبد الناصر والثورة الفلسطينية وسورية في المشرق والجزائر في المغرب العربي.

وقد ازدادت أهمية هذه الاستراتيجية الأميركية بعد الثورة الإسلامية في إيران عام 1979، حيث تمّ التأكيد عليها من خلال إعلان ما أطلق عليه آنذاك عقيدة كارتر Carter Doctrine والتي أعلنها في خطابه للأمة بتاريخ 23/1/1980 والتي أُعلن فيها صراحة أن الولايات المتحدة الأميركية سوف تستخدم القوة العسكرية «لحماية» مصالحها في الخليج، إذا دعت الضرورة الى ذلك.

ولَم يطُل انتظار التدخّل العسكري الأميركي في منطقة الخليج، وذلك من خلال إشعال الحرب بين العراق وإيران عام 1980 مما أتاح المجال للولايات المتحدة بتوسيع تدخّلها العسكري في شؤون المنطقة العربية بشكل عام ومنطقة الخليج، نظراً لأهميتها الاقتصادية والجيوسياسية، بشكل خاص، مما دفع المنطقة إلى الدخول في سلسلة من الحروب والنزاعات العسكرية المدمرة، والتي تواصلت عبر إشعال حرب الخليج الثانية سنة 1991 ثم حرب احتلال العراق سنة 2003، وحتى مرحلة إنشاء التنظيمات التكفيرية بمختلف مسمّياتها.

وبالنظر إلى كل ما تقدّم فإن السياسات الأميركية المطبّقة حالياً في المنطقة العربية ليست سوى امتداد أو استنساخ لسياسات العدوان الأميركية المشار إليها إعلاه. كما أن خطط ترامب للانسحاب من سورية وتسليم مسؤوليات «الدفاع» عن المنطقة، أي عن سورية في هذه الحالة، إلى قوى محلية واقتراحه الجديد، الذي أعلن عنه قبل أيّام، بتشكيل قوة «عربية»، بقيادة السعودية للتدخل في سورية والسيطرة على شمالها الشرقي، بحجة منع إيران من السيطرة عليها وتعزيز نفوذها القوي في سورية.

كما أن هذه الخطوة، إلى جانب طلب البنتاغون رصد مبلغ خمسمئة وخمسين مليون دولار لتجنيد وتسليح ما مجموعه خمسة وستون ألف مقاتل لنشرهم في شمال شرق سورية، لهي خطوة أساسية على طريق تحويل الحرب على أداتهم داعش إلى حرب عربية عربية تمتد الى سنوات طويلة خدمة لمشاريع تفتيت الدول العربية وتدمير قدراتها وخاصة الدولة السورية، التي تمثل مع حليفها الإيراني والمقاومة اللبنانية عنوان مشروع التحرّر من الاحتلال الأجنبي، بما في ذلك الصهيوني، والخطر الأوحد على وجود الكيان الصهيوني الذي أنشئ أصلاً لإدارة الهيمنة الاستعمارية على المنطقة العربية.

ولكن هذا المخطط الأميركي يعاني من مشكلة أساسية، ألا وهي عدم توفر القوى العسكرية لديه القادرة على تنفيذ مخططه في الميدان والسيطرة على الارض. فلا غلام آل سعود، عادل الجبير، ولا محمد بن سلمان ومحمد بن زايد قادرون على حشد مليون جندي، كما كان الحال في جنوب فيتنام، ولا الولايات المتحدة قادرة على زجّ نصف مليون جندي في الميدان السوري كي تتمكن من تغيير موازين القوى الميدانية وحسم الوضع لصالح مشروعها، بينما قوات حلف المقاومة تتمتع بكافة المزايا الضرورية للاستمرار في هجومها الاستراتيجي الذي لن يتوقف الا بتحرير القدس.

وعليه فلا سبيل الا الانسحاب السريع والهادئ للقوات الأميركية، ليس فقط من سورية بل ومن العراق ومن قواعدها في الخليج، لأن أسلوب التصعيد وإشعال الحروب، الذي تتبعه حالياً في الشرق الأوسط تماماً كما فعلت في جنوب شرق آسيا في سبعينيات القرن الماضي عندما احتلت لاوس وكمبوديا بهدف قطع خطوط إمداد الثوار الفيتناميين، لن يؤدي إلا الى رفع قيمة فاتورة الهزيمة التي ستلحق بالولايات المتحدة كنتيجة لحرب شعبية واسعة النطاق سينخرط فيها مئات آلاف المتطوّعين العرب والمسلمين، والذين لن تنقصهم لا الإمدادات ولا طرق إيصالها إلى ميادين القتال.

بعدنا طيّبين، قولوا الله…

Related Articles

%d bloggers like this: