Last month, US secretary of State John Kerry called for Syria to be partitioned saying it was “Plan B” if negotiations fail.  But in reality this was always plan A. Plans to balkanize Syria, Iraq and other Middle Eastern states were laid out by former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a 2006 trip to Tel Aviv. It was part of the so called “Project For a New Middle East”. This was a carbon copy of the Odid Yinon plan drawn up by Israel in 1982. The plan outlined the way in which Middle Eastern countries could be balkanized along sectarian lines. This would result in the creation of several weak landlocked micro-states that would be in perpetual war with each other and never united enough to resist Israeli expansionism.

“Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan… ” Oded Yinon, “A strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”,

The leaked emails of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reveal advocates of the Oded Yinon plan were behind the US push for regime change in Syria. An Israeli intelligence adviser writes in an email to Hillary,

“The fall of the House of Assad could well ignite a sectarian war between the Shiites and the majority Sunnis of the region drawing in Iran, which, in the view of Israeli commanders would not be a bad thing for Israel and its Western allies,”.

Kerry’s plan B comment came right before UN’s special envoy de Mistura said federalism would be discussed at the Geneva talks due to a push from major powers. Both side’s of the Geneva talks, the Syrian Government and the Syrian National Coalition flat out rejected Federalism. Highlighting the fact that the idea did not come from the Syrian’s themselves. The Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Al Jaafari, said that the Idea of federalization would not be up for discussion. “Take the idea of separating Syrian land out of your mind,” he would say.

But some may not completely understand the full implications of federalism and how it is intrinsically tied to balkanization. Some cite the fact that Russia and the United States are successful federations as evidence that federation is nothing to fear. However the point that makes these federalism statements so dangerous is that in accordance with the Yinon plan the borders of a federalized Syria would be drawn along sectarian lines not on whether any particular state can sustain its population.  This means that a small amount of people will get all the resources, and the rest of Syria’s population will be left to starve. Furthermore, Russia and the US are by land mass some of the largest nations in the world, so federalism may make sense for them. In contrast Syria is a very small state with limited resources. Unlike the US and Russia, Syria is located in the Middle East which means water is limited. In spite of the fact Syria is in the so-called fertile crescent, Syria has suffered massive droughts since Turkey Dammed the rivers flowing into Syria and Iraq. Syria’s water resources must be rationed amongst its 23 million people. In the Middle East, wars are also fought over water.The areas that the Yinon plan intends to carve out of Syria, are the coastal areas of Latakia and the region of Al Hasake. These are areas where a substantial amount of Syria’s water, agriculture and oil are located.  The intention is to leave the majority of the Syrian population in a landlocked starving rump state, and create a situation where perpetual war between divided Syrians is inevitable. Ironically promoters of the Yinon plan try and paint federalism as a road to peace. However, Iraq which was pushed into federalism in 2005 by the US occupation is far from peaceful now.

Quite simply, divide and conquer is the plan. This was even explicitly suggested in the headline of Foreign Policy magazine,  “Divide and conquer Iraq and Syria” with the subheading “Why the West Should Plan for a Partition”. The CEO of Foreign Policy magazine David Rothkopf is a member of to the Council of Foreign Relations, a think tank Hillary Clinton has admitted she bases her policies on.  Another article by Foreign Policy written by an ex-NATO commander James Stavridis, claims “It’s time to talk about partition Syria”.

The US hoped to achieve this by empowering the muslim brotherhood and other extremist groups, and introducing Al Qaeda and ISIS into Syria. The Syrian army was supposed to collapse with soldiers returning to their respective demographic enclaves. Evidence of this could be seen in the headlines of NATO’s media arm in 2012, which spread false rumours that Assad had run to Latakia, abandoning his post in Damascus. The extremists were then supposed to attack Alawite, Christian and Druze villages. The US hoped that enough Alawites, Christians and Druze would be slaughtered that Syria’s minorities would become receptive to the idea of partitioning.

Then NATO planned on shifting narratives from, ‘evil dictator must be stopped” to “ we must protect the minorities”. Turning on the very terrorists they created and backing secessionist movements.  There is evidence that this narrative shift had already started to happen by 2014 when it was used to convince the US public to accept US intervention in Syria against ISIS. The US designation of Jabhat Al Nusra as a terrorist organisation in December of 2012 was in preparation for this narrative shift. But this was premature as none of these plans seemed to unfold according to schedule. Assad did not leave Damascus, the Syrian army held together, and Syrian society held onto its national identity.

It could be said that the Yinon plan had some success with the Kurdish PYD declaration of federalization. However, the Kurdish faction of the Syrian national coalition condemned PYD’s declaration.  Regardless, the declaration has no legal legitimacy. The region of Al Hasakah where a substantial portion of Syria’s oil and agriculture lies, has a population of only 1.5 million people, 6% of Syria’s total population. Of that, 1.5 million, only 40% are Kurdish, many of which do not carry Syrian passports.  PYD’s demand that the oil and water resources of 23 million people be given to a tiny part of its population is unlikely to garner much support amongst the bulk of Syria’s population.

Former US National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger understood that the key to dismembering a nation was attacking its national identity.  This  entails attacking the history from which this identity is based upon. In an event at Michigan University Kissinger stated that he would like to see Syria balkanized, asserting that Syria is not a historic state and is nothing but an invention of the Sykes-picot agreement in the 1920’s. Interestingly, Kissinger is using the same narrative as ISIS,  who also claim that Syria is a colonial construct. In fact, ISIS has been a key tool for Kissinger and the promoters of the project of a New Middle East, as ISIS has waged a campaign of destruction against both Syrian and Iraqi historical sites.

In spite of efforts to convince the world of the contrary, the region that now encompasses modern day Syria has been called Syria since 605 BC . Sykes-Picot didn’t draw the borders of Syria too large, but instead, too small. Historical Syria also included Lebanon and Iskandaron. Syria and Lebanon were moving towards reunification until 2005, an attempt at correcting what was a sectarian partition caused by the French mandate. Syria has a long history of opposing attempts of divide and conquer, initially the French mandate aimed to divide Syria into 6 separate states based on sectarian lines, but such plans were foiled by Syrian patriots. The architects of the Yinon plan need only have read Syria’s long history of resistance against colonial divisions to know their plans in Syria were doomed to failure.

Maram Susli also known as “Syrian Girl,” is an activist-journalist and social commentator covering Syria and the wider topic of geopolitics. especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook.”

]]> https://journal-neo.org/2016/03/29/kerry-s-plan-at-balkanising-syria/feed/ 0 https://journal-neo.org/2016/03/19/was-putin-s-withdrawal-from-syria-a-true-surprise/ https://journal-neo.org/2016/03/19/was-putin-s-withdrawal-from-syria-a-true-surprise/#comments Sat, 19 Mar 2016 09:00:20 +0000 http://journal-neo.org/?p=47423

Putin’s announcement that Russian forces will be withdrawn from Syria has caused both shock and confusion amongst pundits and journalists across NATO’s media. Indeed the full reason behind Russia’s withdrawal may only be known by few individuals. However even those of us who are not ‘in the known’ should not be completely surprised by the announcement.

The Russian government had already outlined the time frame of the operation in Syria when it began in last October. A Member of the Russian parliament, Alexei Pushkov, stated that the projected time-frame for the operations would be 3-4 months.  The announcement to pull out was right on schedule, just slightly over the initial 4 months stated. Russians are wary of being bogged down in long and expensive wars, especially after the one that the Soviet Union waged in Afghanistan. Since the US is backing Al-Qaeda in Syria just as it did in Afghanistan, Russia was careful not to repeat the same scenario twice. Therefore there was a very strict timeline with very specific objectives.

Those stated objectives were not as ambitious as those of America’s never-ending War on Terror, and according to Putin, those objectives have now been achieved. Russia’s contribution has already changed the situation on the ground. ISIS is no longer advancing, in fact it’s in retreat. The border town of Azaz which used to be the main supply route from Turkey to Syria for Al-Qaeda and ISIS has now been cut off.  This is something the Syrian airforce couldn’t achieve on its own and the main reason why Syria asked Russia for assistance. When Syrian jets attempted to target the supply route, lying near the Turkish border, Turkey’s air defenses would harass Syrian jets. In one case a Syrian aircraft was shot down. The idea was that Russian warplanes would take on the role instead, as Erdogan was unlikely to risk shooting down a Russian plane. Unfortunately he proved eager to take such a risk. Nevertheless, Erdogan could only get away with it once. It did not prevent Russia from conducting their airstrikes and blocking the supply route to Azaz that was feeding ISIS and Al-Qaeda. With the supply route to the radical militants blocked, the full return of Aleppo to the control of the Syrian military was only a matter of time.

Russia’s enemies may be lulled into a false sense of high morale over Putin’s withdrawal announcement, but it will not take long until they realize that Russia is not going to withdraw her forces completely. The Russian air force is still currently conducting air strikes against ISIS in Palmyra to support the Syrian military offensive. Russian warplanes are going to continue flying sorties and bombing ISIS. Russia is also preserving its presence at the coastal bases that they have occupied for 30 years. So far Russia has only pulled out some warplanes and ground forces. The advanced AA defense systems, the S-300s and S-400s, will remain in Syria along with modern T-90 main battle tanks. The fact that those systems remain in place mean that Russia has left the door open for its return. 

The withdrawal announcement occurred on the eve of Peace talks in Geneva. Putin stated one of the objectives behind the Russian push was the strive for “the peace process to begin”. In other words, Russia sought ways to get an upper hand in the negotiations. The prospect of Russia coming back at any given moment could force those nations that sponsored terrorists throughout the war to finally back down. In the meantime, Syrians are fighting for utter and complete victory.

Maram Susli also known as “Syrian Girl,” is an activist-journalist and social commentator covering Syria and the wider topic of geopolitics. especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook.”

Many of the reports claim the discussions are the results of the thaw in relations between Turkey and Israel. The rift was supposedly caused by Israel’s attack on the MV MarMara, the aid ship attempting to break Israel’s siege on Gaza in 2010, and the execution of 8 Turkish citizens on board the ship. But even during this period of “tense” relations, discussions about the gas pipeline were still being held between Turkey and Israel. Trade between the two states went up by 25%.

The tense relations were a facade, a face saving measure that allowed Turkish President Erdogan to portray an image of a patriotic defender of Turkish citizens, and a champion of Islam and the Palestinian cause. During the initial uproar of the flotilla incident, Erdogan promised the next flotilla would be escorted by the Turkish navy. Instead Erdogan blocked the Mavi MarMara from heading to Gaza. Far from defending the Palestinian cause, Turkey continued to produce Israel’s Military combat boots which are used in the occupation of the West bank. Relations with Turkey improved even though Israel’s treatment of Palestinians did not improve. This reveals the extent of which Turkey’s foreign policy is drenched in hypocrisy.

For both Israel and Turkey, business comes first. Israel is also juggling a foreign policy inconsistent with its portrayed image of being at the forefront of the war on terrorism. The fact that Turkey is one of Al-Qaeda’s and ISIS’s main benefactors , has not been an issue for Israel. Even when ISIS beheaded Israeli journalist Steven Sotloff while Turkey was allowing ISIS to use its border as a smuggling route, Israeli-Turkish relations were not harmed.

Israel and Turkey have a shared agenda in Syria, which has stood in the many business plans between the respective states. Long Gas pipelines can only be built economically in shallow waters hugging coastlines, or future repairs would be difficult. The planned Turkey-Israel pipeline could potentially have to go through Syria’s exclusive economic zone which extends 370 km off the Syrian coastline. Israel illegally occupies Syrian land and has been in a state of cold war with Syria for decades. Both Israel and Turkey would economically benefit from the dismantlement of the Syrian State through the support of terrorist groups operating in the country. Several American think tanks have been promoting the balkanization of Syria and separating its coastal region from the rest of the country. Armed Forces Journal published plans to balkanise Syria in 2006, preliminary talks on the gas pipeline between Turkey-Israel were also held that year. Such a breakdown of the Syrian state would clear the path for Israel and Turkey to build a pipeline across Syria’s coastal region, and ISIS is the tool by which this can be achieved.

In recent years, Syria has also stood in the way of Turkey’s goal of becoming a pipeline hub. While Turkey doesn’t have much oil and gas resources of its own, it can still profit from the resources of surrounding nations by forcing all gas pipelines through its borders and then onto Europe. But in 2009, Syrian president Assad refused to sign the proposed agreement that would allow a pipeline through Syria connecting Qatari gas to Turkey and onto European markets. Assad said this was to protect the interests of his Russian allies who are the main suppliers of gas to Europe. Russia was negotiating its own gas pipeline deal with Turkey which was shelved after Turkey shot down a Russian jet. The new Leviathan pipeline deal with Israel would resurrect Turkey’s hope of becoming a pipeline hub again. But once again Syria stands in the way, which is why Turkey has chosen a policy of sending ISIS terrorists across the border to destabilise Syria. This policy has already allowed Turkey to supply Syrian oil to Europe, via ISIS oil trucks.

Israel itself has been supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS inside Syria, providing a safe zone and medical treatment in the Israeli occupied Syrian Golan heights. This has gone hand in hand with the discovery of oil in the Golan Heights. The Golan is internationally recognised as Syrian land that was occupied by Israel in 1967. The selling of Syrian oil by Israel would constitute a war crime under the fourth geneva convention. In spite of this, Israel granted a ‘drilling licence’ to a company whose shareholders include Dick Cheney, Rupert Murdoch and Jacob Rothschild in 2013. Israel has been attempting to circumvent international law and annex the Golan Heights for decades. But the Syrian Druze population who inhabit the Golan remain steadfastly loyal to Syria and supportive of the Syrian government and military. Israel is backing Al Qaeda and ISIS in the hope that destabilising the Golan Heights will legitimise Israel’s annexation claims. Israeli President Netanyahu asked Obama to support Israel’s bid to annex to Golan, under the guise of protecting the Syrian Druze population from the very terrorists Israel is supporting. Israel would only be able to sell illegally obtained Syrian oil to Europe through their Turkish route. Talks between Turkey and Israel as far back as 2006 included not only gas, but oil pipelines as well.

Turkey and Israel have allied themselves with terrorist groups, ISIS and Al Qeada, to dismantle the Syrian state and allow for the theft of Syrian energy resources. Israel’s facade of being opposed to terrorism and Turkey’s attempt to portray an image of being champion of Palestinian rights takes second place to that objective. The death of hundreds of thousands of people, the destruction of an entire nation, and the spread of terror throughout the world, are all sacrifices Israel and Turkey are willing to make if it means future oil and gas revenue.

Maram Susli also known as “Syrian Girl,” is an activist-journalist and social commentator covering Syria and the wider topic of geopolitics. especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook.”

The Shoot down of the Su-24 was not about an airspace violation. Discussion about how many seconds the Russian Jet was inside Turkish Airspace, or how many warnings the Turkish military gave the Jet are largely irrelevant. In 2012, Turkish president Erdogan himself

Russian Retaliation

To emphasise the importance of meeting a test of resolve, the wider implication of a “do nothing” response must be understood. While it’s tempting to dismiss the attack on an Su-24 (and later, a Mi-24 helicopter) as an isolated incident that is not worth escalating over, such an attack is usually only the first of a series of attacks. A decision not to strike back implies weakness and lack of resolve, which invites further attacks in future.

So far Russia has kept its retaliation in the economic and political spheres, placing Turkey under comprehensive sanctions. The political retaliation was also swift and strong. The Russian Embassy in Turkey was shut down signaled the end of relations between the two countries. The words coming out of the Russian government were equally strong, pointing Turkish President Erdogan out as a supporter of terrorism and a financier of ISIS.

But economic and political warfare could be a lead up to future military action. The installment of the Russian S-400 Anti-Air missiles in Syria, has effectively created a no-fly zone over Turkey. Turkey has grounded its air force for fear of retaliatory strikes from the the S-400. Russia has also begun striking at insurgent supply lines directly on the Turkey-Syria border crossing. Russia’s decision to speak openly about Turkey’s support of terrorist groups in Syria, could be establish a grounds for future to attacks against Terrorist targets within Turkish Territory.

With such grave possibilities, why would Turkey carry out such an attack? Turkey may have been gambled that Russia would not retaliate militarily, assuming that threatening to close the Bosphorus strait, and having NATO backing would be enough of a deterrent. But Can NATO backing be relied upon?

NATO May Not Back Turkey in a War With Russia.

Over a month before the attack, NATO’s Secretary General Jen Stoltenberg made strong statements promising that NATO would defend Turkey against any threats. These statements were made after Russia passed through Turkish Airspace on its way to bomb targets in Syria. However, In  the wake of the Shoot down of the Jet Stoltenberg statements were far weaker and non-committal. When asked directly if NATO would step in to defend Turkey if Russia retaliates, Stoltenberg side stepped the question, and spoke about the need for dialogue and de-escalation.

Q (Kurdish media): Mr Stoltenberg, how could be the situation and your position if tension between Russia and Turkey raised? You said that you are continue looking at developments. How could be your position if tensions continue to rise between Russia and Turkey? Thank you.

Secretary General:  I’ve think I’ve expressed very clearly that we are calling for calm and de-escalation. This is a serious situation. This is a situation which calls on that we all are prudent and that we all contribute to de-escalating the situation.

And that’s also the reason why I welcome further contacts between Moscow and Ankara.

Even though NATO’s collective defence treaty says that member states must defend  against threats, it is not assured that NATO would step in to protect Turkey militarily in a war with Russia. When Syria shot down a Turkish Jet in 2012, NATO did not agree to back Turkey in a war with Syria. A war with Russia, a nuclear power, would be far more destructive than a war with Syria. Despite Turkey’s appeal, both the US and Germany pulled their of Patriot missiles out of Turkey even after Russia had crossed into Turkish airspace on its way to the Syrian theatre. The US is happy to use Turkish proxies to do the dirty work, but would rather continue to avoid a direct conflict with Russia. NATO member states also have very conflicting position on where they stand with relation to Russia, with some having far more to lose than Turkey if Russian ties are not maintained. As a result there is potential that NATO might break the code of its alliance.

That is not to say that Turkey isn’t a significant country in the NATO Alliance. Turkey was, formerly the heart of the Ottoman empire which still holds a very strategic position as the gateway between near East, Europe, the Caucasus and the Balkans.  It has been the tip of NATO’s sword since the inception of the alliance. If NATO wavers in its support of Turkey it might end in the breakup of NATO. The intention of the Su-24 may have been to test Russia strength, but it may end up testing NATO, and revealing it is weakness.

In the wake of Turkey’s shoot down of the Russian Su-24, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called the attack a

Two Russian aircrafts were attacked that day, but the second was a far less publicised incident. A Russian helicopter was destroyed by the CIA backed FSA using US provided Anti-Tank TOW missiles. The helicopter was on a rescue mission to find the missing Su-24 pilots and the attack resulted in the death of a Russian Marine. Since the US backs the FSA and provided the TOW missiles which were used in the attack, they are at least indirectly responsible, if not outrightly complicit in it. But instead of apologizing to Russia, US state department spokesman Mark Toner defended the actions of the FSA. He also defended the actions of the Turkmen insurgents who shot at the parachuting Russian pilots, a war crime under the first geneva convention. Such an antagonistic position reveals that the US was not displeased by the attacks on Russia.

In the months leading up to the attack, there were several indicators the US knew it would take place. On September 3rd, the families of US staff members were urged to evacuated out of Incirlik air base in Turkey and were given until October 1st to do so.  On November 3rd, the US deployed F-15 fighter Jets to Turkey which are specifically designed for air-to-air combat. Since ISIS has no planes, the target could only have been Russian aircrafts. Most significantly, on October 21st, the US and Russia signed a deconfliction protocol, in order to ‘avoid clashes in Syria’s skies’. This entailed giving the US information about where and when Russia will conduct sorties. Russian president Putin suggested this information was passed on to Turkey by the US and used to shoot down the Sukhoi-24.

During the months leading up to the attack, US War hawks were increasingly calling for a direct confrontation with Russia, an act that could lead to a third world War. Several US Presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton, were effectively calling for a shoot down of a Russian Jet. Some of the more direct comments included,

Chris Christie: “My first phone call would be to Vladimir, and I’d say to him, listen, we’re enforcing this no-fly zone,” adding that he would shoot down Russian warplanes that violate the no-fly zone.

Jeb Bush: “We need to have no fly zones. The argument is, well we’ll get into the conflict with Russia, maybe Russia shouldn’t want to be in conflict with us. I mean, this is a place where American leadership is desperately needed.”

The spokesman for the Zionist Israeli lobbying group AIPAC, Senator John Mccain, suggested arming Al Qaeda Linked Rebels with Anti-Aircraft weapons to shoot down a Russian Jet. An idea which he himself admits was “what we did in Afghanistan many years ago”.  The policy which resulted in the birth of Al Qaeda and the rise of the Taliban. Indeed Qatar had been making an effort towards this end. Documents leaked by Russian hackers ‘Cyber Berkut”, revealed that Qatar was negotiating with Ukraine to purchase Anti-Air weapons to help ISIS shoot down a Russian Jet over Syria. It is likely Ukraine refused to sell these weapons, since arming assets which are difficult control could backfire. After all, US Jets are also using those skies. Flooding the region with hand held Anti-Air weapons could pose a threat them in future. Turkey is a far more reliable and controllable proxy which is capable of shooting down Russian Jets.

Perhaps one of the most significant War hawk statements comes from the Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. In an Op-ed for the Financial times Brzezinski suggested that Obama should retaliate if Russia continues to attack U.S. assets in Syria, i.e the Al Qaeda linked rebels. Brzezinski, has experience using Al Qaeda as an asset, having been one of the masterminds behind its creation in Afghanistan. He maintains a great deal of influence and respect in US politics.

It is likely Brzezinski’s dangerous advice to attack Russia was taken on board by US decision makers. But instead of risking a direct conflict with two nuclear powers, Turkey was used as a proxy. Turkey has its own agenda in attacking Russian jets outside of the US’s interests. Turkish president Erdogan has already committed himself to an anti-Assad position far beyond the point of no return. This was over a gas pipeline deal with Qatar that is now looking more like a pipe dream. Russia has been actively fighting not only ISIS, but Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are crucial for Turkey’s plans to overthrow the Syrian government. The Su-24 was bombing the Al Qaeda-linked Turkmen insurgents, before it was shot down.

On October 8, NATO made a statement that it would defend Turkey against Russia, after a Russian jet briefly passed through turkish airspace on its way to bomb targets in Syria. Such statements may have encouraged Erdogan to take the exceptional risk of shooting down a Russian Jet under the assumption that Turkey would be protected by NATO.  On November 12th, EU countries committed to pay Turkey 3 billion dollars.  Interestingly this is the same amount Turkey is estimated to lose, as a result of Russian sanctions put in place in the wake of the attack. This could have been Part of NATO’s assurance to Erdogan that he would lose nothing by going ahead with the attack.

Erdogan has become increasingly frustrated, even after four years of war, the Syrian state shows no sign of collapse. It might not have been too difficult for the US to convince the desperate Turkish leader that attacking a super power was in his best interest.

Even though the US has been bombing ISIS for over a year, ISIS has only grown more powerful and gained more ground in Syria. A few months ago ISIS took over the ancient city of Palmyra, a UNESCO world heritage-listed site.

In spite of the fact that the US government acknowledged ISIS cannot be defeated without ground troops, they have refused to work with the Syrian military. The Syrian military is the only UN-recognized legitimate force on the ground and the only force capable and willing to fight ISIS. Conversely, Russia is coordinating with the Syrian military on the ground assisting Syrian troops against terrorism.

The disparity between the US’s proclaimed goal of fighting terrorism and their lack of achievement towards this goal, shows a lack of honesty on the part of the US when it comes to its real agenda in Syria. The US is capable of more owing to the fact its military is the most powerful and technologically advanced force in the world. It is therefore logical to conclude that they are willfully throwing the fight against terrorism in Syria. The reasons for this should be further examined.

ISIS Serves US Geopolitical Interests, Threatens Russia’s

It has become increasingly clear that the US’s main objectives in Syria is not their expressed goal of ‘fighting ISIS’. Their goal are regime change, isolating Russian influence, balkanization of Syria Iraq, and the creation of failed states. US presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself recently stated that ‘removing Assad is the top priority”. The presence of ISIS and other terrorists groups serves these interests.

The US sees the Syrian state as one of the last spheres of Russian influence beyond the borders of the former Soviet Union  and a threat to the US’s Israeli ally in the region. The US has a history of using terrorism to topple governments friendly to Russia. Al Qaeda itself was borne of the US objective to topple the Soviet friendly government of Afghanistan. The dismemberment of Russian-friendly Serbia and the creation of Kosovo was done via the same means.

More recently ISIS was a direct result of the US’s war on Iraq and it was only established in Libya and Syria due to overt US-backed regime change efforts in those countries. Although Libya and Iraq did not have relations with Russia as strong as Syria’s, Russia was still their main weapons supplier. Therefore it is unsurprising that in the days after Russia entered the war in Syria, Saudi clerics and the Muslim Brotherhood – both US state assets – declared ‘jihad’ on Russia.

The former Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) Chief Michael Flynn said in an interview that he believed the US had made a willful decision to allow ISIS to grow in Syria. A 2012 declassified DIA report, predicted that if the US and its allies continued to destabilize Syria by arming extremist insurgents “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria… and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

The CIA had trained thousand of ‘rebels’, whom they admit were trained not to fight ISIS, but to fight the Assad government and Syrian military. The Washington Post reports:

“…the CIA has since 2013 trained some 10,000 rebels to fight Assad’s forces. Those groups have made significant progress against strongholds of the Alawites, Assad’s sect.” This shows that the US’s Agenda in Syria is regime change and it demonstrates their readiness to spawn terrorists groups to that end.

The US bombing of ISIS has been mostly nominal, an exercise in perception management. Although the US military makes regular claims to have bombed specific targets, rarely is video evidence of the bombings published. On the other hand the Russian military regularly releases video of most of its strikes on Russia Today. There is no reason to accept US military statements at face value.

Facts indicate that the US refuses to bomb ISIS even when it has the opportunity. Leaked documents show that the US had forbidden its fighter pilots from targeting a long list of ISIS training camps, camps which turn out thousands of fighters a month. Award winning journalist, Robert Fisk, told the Australian program Lateline that the US could have bombed a convoy of ISIS militants who were taking over Palmyra, but instead allowed them to take over a Syrian military post and the ancient City which they have now begun to destroy. Likewise the US has largely avoided bombing ISIS and Al Qaeda targets in the Syrian district of North Hama, in an attempt to prevent Syrian troops from gaining ground. Russia is now striking these targets long before the benefactors of US-granted impunity. In the times the US has dropped bombs on ISIS run territory, they have used it as an opportunity to destroy Syria’s oil infrastructure.

The US Has ‘Forgotten’ its War with al Qaeda, Now Protects It

Perhaps the most ironic development of Russia’s involvement in Syria’s fight against terror, is the anger expressed by the US government and its media at Russia’s bombing of Al Qaeda (Jabhat Al Nusra) targets.

Former US National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man largely responsible for the creation of Al Qaeda, expressed through twitter his frustration at the fact Russia was targeting Al Qaeda as well as ISIS.

Pro-NATO media have all but forgotten the US’s war with Al Qaeda and in the last year avoided any mention of Al Qaeda’s existence in Syria, preferring to concentrate on ISIS instead. As of 2015, Google news engine reveals 219 million hits for ISIS and only 3 million hits for Al Qaeda. In keeping with this trend, Pro-NATO media has avoided bringing to light the fact Russia is bombing Al Qaeda. Exposing this fact would highlight the US’s inaction against Al Qaeda, while it has been fighting alongside the rebels.

In a CNN article accusing Russia of not targeting ISIS but rather the “Syrian rebels”, two maps displayed from the Institute for the Study of War show a very telling story. The first shows the areas in which Jabhat al Nusra controls or jointly controls parts of Syria, with its allies – the so called moderate rebels receiving US-backing. But on the next map which shows the location of Russian strikes, Jabhat al Nusra territory can scarcely be seen and the jointly controlled areas have been removed completely.

Though it can be said that the Nusra run areas are obstructed by highly concentrated Russian strikes, which showing Russia’s commitment to wiping out of the terrorist group. The fact that the second map does not even show the jointly held Al Qaeda areas and does not make Al Qaeda’s presence clear, reveals an attempt to downplay Russia’s fight against Al Qaeda. The reason for this is to conceal US’s comparative inaction against Al Qaeda, which makes up the bulk of the CIA backed insurgency. It also fits with NATO’s narrative that Russia is only targeting the so called ‘moderate rebels’. The US is angry Russia is bombing its Al Qaeda assets and hence are painting Russia as bombing ‘the good guys’ in order to pressure them to stop.

While the world watches ISIS terrorists destroy the relics of the very birth place of civilization, we must reflect upon the reason why this is happening and how we have reached this point. These crimes against history are portrayed in the mainstream media as nothing more than the result of mindless destruction by ISIS barbarians. However it is in fact part of a US Government plan to balkanise the Syrian and Iraqi nation-states, and by attacking the heart of their nationalist identity, their history.

Systematic destruction of both Islamic and Non-Islamic sites.

New York Times:Fighters allied with the Free Syrian Army units battling the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad have told him that they are developing an association of diggers dedicated to finding antiquities in order to fund the revolution. “The rebels need weapons, and antiquities are an easy way to buy them,” says Abu Khaled, who goes by his nickname in order to protect his identity.

“Huge amounts of documents representing historical importance that cannot be assigned a monetary value were taken by the US.”

“The Iraqi government was trying to get them back but the American Administration wanted to strike a deal and return only half of the documents,” he explained.

Hazm Brigade Provided Plausible Deniability

The latest defection and disbanding was not the first time that the US backed Hazm brigade had handed over US provided weapons to Al Qaeda, the last incident occurring in December of 2014. It was previously asserted that the US administration advertised the ‘moderate’ Hazm brigade in order to maintain plausible deniability whilst knowing the heavy weapons they provide, such as anti-tank missiles, would eventually end up in the hands of Al Qaeda.

Indeed, former-US ambassador Robert Ford recently admitted through his twitter account to Syrian journalist Edward Dark, that the US knew the Syrian rebels they were backing were allied to Al Qaeda. With the announcement that Hazm brigade had disbanded, the State Department has lost their cover to aid al Qaeda whilst maintaining plausible deniability.

Rebranding Al Qaeda

NATO media has acknowledged that JAN is the most powerful group fighting the Syrian state besides ISIS. JAN also have widespread support amongst all other insurgents groups in Syria. Given the level at which the US has committed itself to an anti-ISIS narrative, they have little left to paint as a moderate force but JAN. Though, the US has launched strikes against JAN in one instance, earning the ire of all Syrian insurgent groups who protested “We are all JAN”. Suggestions to train a new insurgent group from scratch have been called unrealistic. Hence NATO media has been running a PR campaign for JAN’s new found moderation.

The New York Times suggested that JAN may ‘cut ties with Al Qaeda in the hope of receiving more military aid”. Reuters reported that if the group were to lose its Al Qaeda ties that Gulf states could provide more support openly.

“Sources in the group have said it was considering severing its ties to al Qaeda, a move that could result in more support from Gulf Arab states hostile to both Assad and Islamic State.”

The word of “more” tentatively suggests the New York Times and Reuters acknowledge that Gulf states have already provided some support to Al Qaeda in the past.

BBC analysis written by Dr. David Roberts, suggested that Qatar funding and arming JAN (Al Nusra Front) may be a good thing. In an article titled “Is Qatar bringing the Nusra Front in from the cold?” he writes,

“Secondly, the Nusra Front has pledged to concentrate its efforts on removing the Bashar al-Assad government, as opposed to attacking the “far enemy” (ie Western states). On this point, the Nusra Front is aligned tightly with Qatar, which also is implacably against the government and fundamentally believes that the situation in Syria will only improve if he is removed.…This is why Qatar is hoping to bring the Nusra Front in from the cold. If the state can get the group to eschew its al-Qaeda affiliation and adhere to a broadly moderate Islamist platform, Qatar can officially commence, with Western blessing, the supply of one of the most effective fighting forces in Syria.”

The IBtimes downplayed JAN’s ties to Al Qaeda, stating:

“Though JAN is al Qaeda’s only branch in Syria, the group often downplays its role in al Qaeda Central’s long-term plan to establish an Islamic “emirate” in favour of marketing itself as a Syria-centric opposition group focused on the revolution and overthrowing Assad.”

Finally, In an article headlined “Accepting Al Qaeda,” the Council of Foreign Affairs (CFR) advised that the US must keep ‘Al Qaeda afloat to contain ISIS’’. Unlike other articles, the CFR doesn’t bother to suggest that JAN drop their Al Qaeda affiliations, instead suggesting the US should accept them in spite of their Al Qaeda affiliations. This would be the second time the CFR would recommend the US make friends with Al Qaeda. They had previously labeled the Ahrar Al Sham insurgent group “Al Qaeda worth befriending”. The CFR is considered to be US’s “most influential foreign-policy think tank”. In 2009, Hillary Clinton welcomed the fact that the CFR had set up an outpost down the street from the State Department, saying “I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing.”

A Difficult Task

US supplied TOW anti-tank missiles have ended up in the hands of Jabhat Al Nusra, Syria’s branch of Al Qaeda. The US 

A story that should have been headline news of Obama’s arming of Al Qaeda across all US media, largely went unnoticed. The only evidence of the story in the mainstream media can be found in the International Business times and the Washington Post. However both articles try to cast doubt on the claims that Al Nusra has TOW missiles, choosing to quote the Syrian Opposition Council spokesman Oubai Shahbandar who downplayed the incident, calling it an “Al Nusra psyop”. The New York Times did not headline the story and instead buried the information in an article headlined “2 Military bases in Syria Fall to Rebels”. However, The New York Times claimed the TOW missiles may have plaid a central role in Jabhat AL Nusra’s takeover of the bases.

Contrary to Shahbandar’s and the mainstream media’s insinuation that the evidence is an ‘Al Nusra pysop’, it is known that the US armed and trained Harakat Hazm group had signed a ceasefire agreement with Jabhat AL Nusra in November in the same region of Idlib Province. At that time Al Nusra had claimed TOW and Grad missiles were now in their hands.

It is questionable whether or not Al Nusra had ‘seized’ the arms as the New York Times suggests, or if it had simply been given the arms by Harakat al Hazm. Rather than fighting Al Nusra, Harakat Hazm has had no problem uniting with them. Currently Harakat al Hazm are united with Jabhat al Nusra, in Handarat Aleppo, and are jointly fighting the Syrian Army. The militant employing the TOW missile in the video, shows clear proficiency in its use, indicating that he has directly or indirectly benefited from US training.

In spite of this revelation, there is evidence to suggest the US is still arming the FSA with TOW missiles. Videos continue to emerge of Harakat al Hazm employing Tow Missiles. The US government has not made a statement on whether or not they have stopped providing the rebels with TOW missiles and munitions.

FSA and Al Qaeda collaboration

The alliance between FSA faction Harakat Hazm and Al Nusra in Aleppo, is not a new or isolated occurrence. US vetted rebels have in fact have been allied with Al Qaeda for much of the Syrian War, with localised clashes over control being rare. The leader of the “Syrian Revolutionary Front,

Maram Susli also known as “Syrian Girl,” is an activist-journalist and social commentator covering Syria and the wider topic of geopolitics. especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.