Focusing on who used chemical weapons is a moot point in the larger issue of the Syrian conflict. It doesn’t matter whether ISIS “rebels” deployed them or whether Bashir Assad accidentally set them off against the “rebels”. When contemplating President Trump’s response to stop using them. The victims are Syrians. The regional alliance members don’t care who used them. The message is to stop the illegal intervening and attempts to overthrow an elected government.
We could make a solid argument that neither interested party: Bashir Assad or “the rebels” (al-Qaeda, ISIS, al-Nusra et al) had motive and opportunity to use them. We’ve written for several years about the manipulative intentions of both sides, all sides, in the Syrian conflict. We’ve also written about how Obama’s policies toward Syria armed and equipped all elements; gaining nothing except a horrific death toll and chaotic civil war as an outcome.
We’ve provided lengthy and cited research on arms into Syria from Obama, Clinton and Kerry. The Benghazi Brief outlined Man-Pads and chemical weapons delivered to Syria as an outcome of the collapse within Libya, which created the Jihadist weapons cache yard-sale. We’ve also documented weapons deliveries directly from the State Department using actual recorded audio admissions of Secretary Kerry to his Syrian benefactors.
Additionally, no-one questions whether Iraq’s Saddam Hussein delivered stock piles of his own chemical weapons to Syria, because it was well documented. Bashir Assad has previously used chemical weapons, and like Assad, Hussein used Chemical Weapons to kill 300,000 Kurds in Northern Iraq. None of this is in doubt.
To argue if Assad used them again last week is really an irrelevant issue when you stop and think about Bashir Assad’s political position in 2017.
2012 “NO ISLAM WITHOUT JIHAD” – members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba’a, or “strangers”, after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden’s time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.
They try to hide their presence. “Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags,” said Abu Khuder. “They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?” But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.
Which brings us to one of the issues everyone in media overlook: Assad’s 2017 motive NOT TO remove ISIS with any excessive urgency.
Currently there are two sides in the six year Syrian civil war: Assad and “the rebels”.
If you take out ISIS (‘the rebels’), you are left with Assad – a terrorist state. If you take out Assad you are left with ISIS – a terrorist state. The regional goal is to eliminate extremism. Both sides of the current Syrian coin are extremist.
If the bank told you they were repossessing your home just as soon as you finished the kitchen remodel, how quickly would you work in remodeling the kitchen.
Similarly, by actions and deeds the international community, and the regional community, have essentially told Assad he must step down from power as soon as he eliminates ISIS. Do you see any grand motivation for Assad to remove ISIS in that equation? This is the basis for the quagmire. Syria is FUBAR.
Syria is FUBAR and ordinary Syrians are being destroyed between the pendulum. Syria is FUBAR and despite the Russian and Iranian propaganda to the contrary, Bashir Assad is a terrorist and a dictator. Bashir Assad is to 2017 Syria what 1980’s Kaddaffi was to Libya.
Take ISIS, al-Nusra and al-Qaeda out of the equation, which is almost impossible because those affiliates are people -tens of thousands of people- and you still have terrorist Bashir Assad and terrorist group Hezbollah and the terrorist network of the Muslim Brotherhood. Syria is FUBAR because it is full of violent extremists.
Don’t kid yourself into believing that Bashir Assad is some grand magnanimous figure just because he is currently killing Sunni extremists (ISIS). Take away the “extremists” from the equation and Assad kills Sunni moderates. Either way you look at Syria one extremist element ends up killing ordinary Syrians. Syria is FUBAR.
Why haven’t you heard of a central political figure in opposition to Assad?
Because he kills them all, and their families, and the friends of the families; and the villages of the friends and families of anyone who would threaten his regime. Assad protects Assad, and sometimes as an extension of his own self-preservation he protects others; but Assad is always protecting Assad first and foremost.
Kaddaffi, Hosni Mubarak, Abdullah Salah, and Ben Ali. “The Arab Spring Dictators”
The Zoo’s Big Cat cages have been opened for more than seven years.
There’s no going back to the time of Zookeepers Hussein (Iraq), Bin Ali (Tunisia), Mubarak (Egypt), Kaddaffi (Libya) and Abdullah Salah (Yemen), being able to contain the rabid cats.
The congealed blood cannot be put back into the tube.
Similarly, it doesn’t matter who used the chemical weapons in Syria or where they came from, it’s all extremism. Can you fathom a scenario where Assad could ever be able to lead a united Syrian people?
Regardless of the Syrian outcome, regardless of Assad’s victory over “the rebels”, the congealed Syrian blood will not go back into the tube. He’s done; Assad has lost the majority of his own people.
The entire region understands this; Assad has no allies in proximity. Assad is the only Zookeeper remaining amid a land that has moved away from Zoo-keeping. It’s only Assad, Russia and Iran who are trying to deny the reality of the inevitable.
Assad is now the problem for the neighborhood.
This reality is why the 2017 exhausted Arab Coalition, and more importantly their majority populations, have called for changes in the views of western political leaders away from historic categories of factional segments (and elements of tribalism), and pleaded within Western voices to focus on “all extremism”.
“Extremism” in all it’s forms is now the focus of the region. Assad is viewed as part of the extremism. This is why it really doesn’t matter whether or not Assad carried out the chemical weapons attacks, or if the attack was a ‘false flag’ by “the rebels” to get rid of Assad.
President Trump launched a missile strike to send a message to all Syrians that use of chemical weapons will not be permitted. In the aftermath, Assad promised to fight ISIS harder.
Yeah, sure. And he’s motivated to do that because?….
Assad is an eight-track terrorist trying to convince the international community he’s a CD, without understanding the entire world, except his Syria, is digital.
No-one in the media has been assembling all of the dots of the direct talks that have been taking place between President Trump and the Regional Partners.
♦ Immediately following his inauguration, President Trump spoke to Saudi Arabia’s King Salman and gained his ideological and financial support for building a safe zone for Syrian’s as they rebuild.
♦ A week later, President Trump spoke at length to Egypt’s Fattah al-Sisi about their efforts.
Overall, the situation in Syria is one where our approach today and our policy today is, first, to defeat ISIS. By defeating ISIS we remove one of the disruptive elements in Syria that exists today.
That begins to clarify for us opposition forces and regime forces. In working with the coalition — as you know, there is a large coalition of international players and allies who are involved in the future resolution in Syria.
So it’s to defeat ISIS; it’s to begin to stabilize areas of Syria, stabilize areas in the south of Syria, stabilize areas around Raqqa through ceasefire agreements between the Syrian regime forces and opposition forces. Stabilize those areas; begin to restore some normalcy to them. Restore them to local governance — and there are local leaders who are ready to return, some who have left as refugees — they’re ready to return to govern these areas.
Use local forces that will be part of the liberation effort to develop the local security forces — law enforcement, police force. And then use other forces to create outer perimeters of security so that areas like Raqqa, areas in the south can begin to provide a secure environment so refugees can begin to go home and begin the rebuilding process.
In the midst of that, through the Geneva Process, we will start a political process to resolve Syria’s future in terms of its governance structure, and that ultimately, in our view, will lead to a resolution of Bashar al-Assad’s departure.
“GREATER ISRAEL”: THE ZIONIST PLAN FOR THE MIDDLE EAST WHEN YOU READ THIS – EVERYTHING THAT IS GOING ON IN THE MIDDLE-EAST COMES INTO CONTEXT THE INFAMOUS “ODED YINON PLAN”. INTRODUCTION BY MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY
THIS ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED ON GLOBAL RESEARCH APRIL 29, 2013. – REPOSTED ON SMOLOKO FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES
GLOBAL RESEARCH EDITOR’S NOTE
The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government, the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment.
According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria, not to mention the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project. “GREATER ISRAEL” CONSISTS IN AN AREA EXTENDING FROM THE NILE VALLEY TO THE EUPHRATES.
THE ZIONIST PROJECT SUPPORTS THE JEWISH SETTLEMENT MOVEMENT. MORE BROADLY IT INVOLVES A POLICY OF EXCLUDING PALESTINIANS FROM PALESTINE LEADING TO THE EVENTUAL ANNEXATION OF BOTH THE WEST BANK AND GAZA TO THE STATE OF ISRAEL AMERICAN SOLDIERS WILL CONTINUE TO BE USED AS CANNON-FODDER FOR THE GREATER-ISRAEL PROJECT AS LONG AS ZIONIST TRAITORS OCCUPY THE WHITEHOUSE
GREATER ISRAEL WOULD CREATE A NUMBER OF PROXY STATES. IT WOULD INCLUDE PARTS OF LEBANON, JORDAN, SYRIA, THE SINAI, AS WELL AS PARTS OF IRAQ AND SAUDI ARABIA. (SEE MAP).
According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article, The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East: “[THE YINON PLAN] IS AN ISRAELI STRATEGIC PLAN TO ENSURE ISRAELI REGIONAL SUPERIORITY. IT INSISTS AND STIPULATES THAT ISRAEL MUST RECONFIGURE ITS GEO-POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE BALKANIZATION OF THE SURROUNDING ARAB STATES INTO SMALLER AND WEAKER STATES.
Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.
The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.
GREATER ISRAEL” REQUIRES THE BREAKING UP OF THE EXISTING ARAB STATES INTO SMALL STATES.
“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) becomean imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation… This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” (Yinon Plan, see below)
VIEWED IN THIS CONTEXT, THE WAR ON SYRIA IS PART OF THE PROCESS OF ISRAELI TERRITORIAL EXPANSION. ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE WORKING HAND IN GLOVE WITH THE US, TURKEY AND NATO IS DIRECTLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE AL QAEDA TERRORIST MERCENARIES INSIDE SYRIA.
The Zionist Project also requires the destabilization of Egypt, the creation of factional divisions within Egypt as instrumented by the “Arab Spring” leading to the formation of a sectarian based State dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, April 29, 2013
THE ZIONIST PLAN FOR THE MIDDLE EAST
Translated and edited by
The Israel of Theodore Herzl (1904) and of Rabbi Fischmann (1947)
In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”
Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
FROM ODED YINON’S “A STRATEGY FOR ISRAEL IN THE NINETEEN EIGHTIES”
PUBLISHED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF ARAB-AMERICAN UNIVERSITY GRADUATES, INC. BELMONT, MASSACHUSETTS, 1982 SPECIAL DOCUMENT NO. 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8) TABLE OF CONTENTS PUBLISHER’S NOTE 1
The Association of Arab-American University Graduates finds it compelling to inaugurate its new publication series, Special Documents, with Oded Yinon’s article which appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization. Oded Yinon is an Israeli journalist and was formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel. To our knowledge, this document is the most explicit, detailed and unambiguous statement to date of the Zionist strategy in the Middle East. Furthermore, it stands as an accurate representation of the “vision” for the entire Middle East of the presently ruling Zionist regime of Begin, Sharon and Eitan. Its importance, hence, lies not in its historical value but in the nightmare which it presents. 2
The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation. 3
This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme. This theme has been documented on a very modest scale in the AAUG publication, Israel’s Sacred Terrorism (1980), by Livia Rokach. Based on the memoirs of Moshe Sharett, former Prime Minister of Israel, Rokach’s study documents, in convincing detail, the Zionist plan as it applies to Lebanon and as it was prepared in the mid-fifties. 4
The first massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978 bore this plan out to the minutest detail. The second and more barbaric and encompassing Israeli invasion of Lebanon on June 6, 1982, aims to effect certain parts of this plan which hopes to see not only Lebanon, but Syria and Jordan as well, in fragments. This ought to make mockery of Israeli public claims regarding their desire for a strong and independent Lebanese central government. More accurately, they want a Lebanese central government that sanctions their regional imperialist designs by signing a peace treaty with them. They also seek acquiescence in their designs by the Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian and other Arab governments as well as by the Palestinian people. What they want and what they are planning for is not an Arab world, but a world of Arab fragments that is ready to succumb to Israeli hegemony. Hence, Oded Yinon in his essay, “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980′s,” talks about “far-reaching opportunities for the first time since 1967″ that are created by the “very stormy situation [that] surrounds Israel.” 5
The Zionist policy of displacing the Palestinians from Palestine is very much an active policy, but is pursued more forcefully in times of conflict, such as in the 1947-1948 war and in the 1967 war. An appendix entitled ”Israel Talks of a New Exodus” is included in this publication to demonstrate past Zionist dispersals of Palestinians from their homeland and to show, besides the main Zionist document we present, other Zionist planning for the de-Palestinization of Palestine. 6
It is clear from the Kivunim document, published in February, 1982, that the “far-reaching opportunities” of which Zionist strategists have been thinking are the same “opportunities” of which they are trying to convince the world and which they claim were generated by their June, 1982 invasion. It is also clear that the Palestinians were never the sole target of Zionist plans, but the priority target since their viable and independent presence as a people negates the essence of the Zionist state. Every Arab state, however, especially those with cohesive and clear nationalist directions, is a real target sooner or later. 7
Contrasted with the detailed and unambiguous Zionist strategy elucidated in this document, Arab and Palestinian strategy, unfortunately, suffers from ambiguity and incoherence. There is no indication that Arab strategists have internalized the Zionist plan in its full ramifications. Instead, they react with incredulity and shock whenever a new stage of it unfolds. This is apparent in Arab reaction, albeit muted, to the Israeli siege of Beirut. The sad fact is that as long as the Zionist strategy for the Middle East is not taken seriously Arab reaction to any future siege of other Arab capitals will be the same.
July 23, 1982 FOREWARD BY ISRAEL SHAHAK
THE FOLLOWING ESSAY REPRESENTS, IN MY OPINION, THE ACCURATE AND DETAILED PLAN OF THE PRESENT ZIONIST REGIME (OF SHARON AND EITAN) FOR THE MIDDLE EAST WHICH IS BASED ON THE DIVISION OF THE WHOLE AREA INTO SMALL STATES, AND THE DISSOLUTION OF ALL THE EXISTING ARAB STATES. I WILL COMMENT ON THE MILITARY ASPECT OF THIS PLAN IN A CONCLUDING NOTE. HERE I WANT TO DRAW THE ATTENTION OF THE READERS TO SEVERAL IMPORTANT POINTS:
1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent ofHa’aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the “best” that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: “The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi’ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part” (Ha’aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.
2. The strong connection with Neo-Conservative thought in the USA is very prominent, especially in the author’s notes. But, while lip service is paid to the idea of the “defense of the West” from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power. In other words, the aim of Sharon is to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.
3. It is obvious that much of the relevant data, both in the notes and in the text, is garbled or omitted,such as the financial help of the U.S. to Israel. Much of it is pure fantasy. But, the plan is not to beregarded as not influential, or as not capable of realization for a short time. The plan follows faithfullythe geopolitical ideas current in Germany of 1890-1933, which were swallowed whole by Hitler and the Nazi movement, and determined their aims for East Europe. Those aims, especially the division of the existing states, were carried out in 1939-1941, and only an alliance on the global scale prevented their consolidation for a period of time.
The notes by the author follow the text. To avoid confusion, I did not add any notes of my own, but have put the substance of them into this foreward and the conclusion at the end. I have, however, emphasized some portions of the text.