How the US Sponsored the Rise of ISIS and Aided the Fall of Mosul and Ramadi

The US-led coalition now attempting to appear as though they are fighting ISIS knowingly aided the rise of the Islamic State for the purposes of isolating Assad and combating expanding Iranian influence.

At least as far back as August of 2012 the very same anti-IS coalition knew full well that the precursors to ISIS, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and Islamic State in Iraq (ISI), dominated the Syrian opposition along with other al-Qaeda affiliated groups.  They knew that AQI was declining during 2009-10, yet was resurrected due to the insurgency in Syria.  In spite of this, the US and her allies continued to provide aid, funding, weaponry, and training to these same extremist groups and their closest associates, specifically seeing their rise (and the horrendous crimes against humanity they committed) as a strategic asset for their geopolitical goals.

The rise of the Islamic State not only was predicted, it was the expressed aim of the powers sponsoring the Syrian opposition.  Despite the fact that the rise of an Islamic State was predicted to have dire consequences for Iraq, including the fall of Mosul and Ramadi, support from the US-coalition to the Syrian opposition continued to manifest, leading to the conclusion that this was either the expressed intent, or an accepted byproduct of these policy decisions.

A 7-page Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document dated to August of 2012, recently released under a Freedom Of Information Act request, specifically states that the Syrian opposition was by that time “taking a clear sectarian direction,” and that “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.”

AQI, the precursor group which later formed into the Islamic State, “supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning.”  After suffering “a regression… during the years of 2009 and 2010" just prior to the outbreak of the conflict, it was the resumption of hostilities which revitalized them as "religious and tribal powers in the regions began to sympathize with the sectarian uprising."

Despite these facts, it is “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey [who] support the opposition,” while “Russia, China, and Iran support the regime."  It was predicted that “ISI (Islamic State in Iraq) could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organization in Iraq and Syria” if the situation continued to unravel, and that “there is a possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria” if support to the opposition continued.  This is exactly what transpired in the years after 2012 with the declaration of the Islamic State.  Yet not only was this predicted, it was also “exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion.”(emphasis added)  This unwanted "Shia expansion" is explained as extending into Iraq.  The "supporting powers" who "want" these developments are “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.”

The report goes on to state that “the future assumptions of the crisis” are that “the regime will survive,” and that the current events are developing “into a proxy war” between Iran, Russia, and China, and the West, Gulf, and Turkey.  Further, the report accurately predicts the fall of Mosul and Ramadi 2 years before their occurrence, stating that “the deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation."  This deterioration "creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters.”  This could as well “create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”

This document was classified as “secret” and distributed to the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, the DIA, FBI, CIA, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, Central Command, and other agencies.  It is an Intelligence Information Report, not a “finally evaluated intelligence” assessment, yet its information was vetted before distribution.

Therefore, the US-led coalition that is now “fighting” ISIS continually supported an opposition it knew to be dominated by sectarian extremists, lying to the public while describing them as “moderate.”  The US predictably knew that this support would result in the establishment of an “Islamic State” yet continued to aid in such an establishment in order to weaken Assad and combat expanding Iranian influence.

It is a tenant of law that the “doer of an act must be taken to have intended its natural and foreseeable consequences.”(1)  Therefore, given that the rise of ISIS was a “natural and foreseeable consequence” of continually aiding a sectarian opposition, the US and her allies must be taken to have intended these outcomes, irrespective even of the documents own admission of intent.  Furthermore, the document specifically demarcates Iraq as a center for Iranian "Shia"expansion, while accurately predicting the fall of both Mosul and Ramadi to Sunni extremists, a fall which assures against this unwanted Iranian expansion, leading to the conclusion that the recent ISIS gains in both cities was not something that the US opposed, but something it desired.  Given that the fall of Mosul and Ramadi too were “natural and foreseeable consequences,” and as well the severely questionable ways in which each city fell, along with the fact that US policy in the region continued despite the fact that these outcomes were predicted, the US and her allies must therefore be taken to have intended these outcomes, whether directly or indirectly.

The fall of Mosul in June of 2014, it must be remembered, was "pretty remarkable," as described by Noam Chomsky.

"In fact, western military analysts were astonished," Chomsky continues. "Remember what happened.  Iraq has an army, and the Iraqi army knows how to fight.  During the Iran-Iraq war that army fought hard and viciously, and in fact ultimately won the war, with US support.  There was an Iraqi army of 350,000 men, armed to the teeth with all kinds of advanced weapons.  They had been trained by the United States for over a decade.  They were faced by a couple of thousand lightly armed jihadi’s.  First thing that happened was all the generals ran away. Then all the troops ran away, leaving their weapons behind them.  And then the jihadi forces just marched into Mosul and then into large parts of Iraq.  It was a pretty amazing phenomenon, it tells you a lot if you think about it.”

During this amazing phenomenon “the Iraqi security forces disintegrated and fled, the rout led by their commanding officers.”  According to one Iraqi soldier “on the morning of June 10 his commanding officer told the men to stop shooting, hand over their rifles to the insurgents, take off their uniforms, and get out of the city.”(2)

Mosul was simply given away to by a battle-hardened army of 350,000 men to a lightly armed brigade of roughly 1,300 Islamists (3), the commanding military officers specifically ordering their subordinates to leave their weapons for the jihadists and to flee.

Some pretty straightforward questions come to mind here.

Had this “remarkable” fall been desired by the US-coalition in order to “isolate” the “strategic depth of Shia expansion” in Iraq?  Or rather, “had the senior Iraqi commanders been instructed by their Western military advisers to hand over the city to the ISIS terrorists? Were they co-opted?” as Professor Michel Chossudovsky rightly had asked when this occurred? 

The more recent fall of Ramadi was equally as dubious.

The US-led coalition, which had promised to defend Iraq against the Islamic State, basically allowed Ramadi to fall, conducting only 7 airstrikes during the duration of the battle, which is such a low number as to be completely irrelevant to the outcome.  The remarkably weak excuse given for this was that a great sandstorm had prevented them from conducting regular attacks.  This despite the fact that the next day ISIS was seen holding victory parades among perfectly clear skies, the militants assembling in massive columns down wide open streets:

(MailOnline, May 19, 2015)

With no “sandstorm” present airstrikes could have easily wiped out entire factions of the extremists in a situation like this, yet no attempt had been made.  Why?  Had this too been desired by the US-coalition in order to “isolate” the “strategic depth of Shia expansion” in Iraq?

Further adding fuel to this fire is the accusation of Wahda Al-Jumaili, advisor to Iraq’s parliamentary speaker, who commented on the city's fall the very next day stating: “Whether this was the result of treason, neglect, or conspiracy, or a regional or international plot… Even the international coalition has played a bad role.  People saw the international coalition dropping weapons for ISIS.  They dropped heavy weaponry to the forces of terrorism in Ramadi.  This is an act of treason by the international coalition forces.”

This, however, was not the first time an Iraqi politician has accused the US-coalition of dropping weapons and aid to ISIS, albeit perhaps the first time the accusation came a day after the group overtook a major city.  This is a phenomenon that has been going on for some time now, in one incident two British planes were even shot down by the Iraqis under charges that they were dropping weapons to ISIS.  Photographic evidence was taken of the downed planes.  Iraqi parliamentarian Jome Divan stated that “The international coalition is only an excuse for protecting the ISIL and helping the terrorist group with equipment and weapons.  The coalition has not targeted ISIL's main positions in Iraq.”  This being only two of a plethora of Iraqi politicians who have consistently been making these claims.

In any event the spillover into Iraq and the fall of Mosul and Ramadi were no doubt predictable consequences of the Wests' Syria policy, and in some instances it appears as though the US specifically aided in their fall. Therefore, at the very least this spread of ISIS into Iraq was an accepted consequence of the US strategy in Syria, and at worst it represents an intended partition of Iraq by terrorist groups acting as proxies.

Given this, and the fact that the US-coalition continuously aided the Syrian opposition knowing full well that this would then lead to the declaration of an “Islamic State”, the consequences of which were the predictable fall of Mosul and Ramadi, coupled with the remarkable manner in which both fell, it would be wise to consider the claims of the numerous Iraqi politicians very seriously, and as well to sincerely question whether or not the fall of these two cities really does have a more believable, albeit much more sinister, explanation behind them.

Notes:

1.)   International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996), “Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry,” Chapter III, “Humanitarian Law,” section 10, “Specific rules of the humanitarian laws,” (a) “The prohibition against causing unnecessary suffering” (emphasis in original).

2.)   Cockburn, Patrick. "The Rise of ISIS." The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution. Brooklyn, NY: Verso, 2015. 15. Print.

3.)   Ibid, 11.

Additional Sources:

Ahmed, Nafeez. "Iraq Blowback: Isis Rise Manufactured by Insatiable Oil Addiction." The Guardian. 16 June 2014. Web. Accessed 23 May 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/16/blowback-isis-iraq-manufactured-oil-addiction.

The Fall of Palmyra: The Result of US-Coalition Ramping up Aid to Extremists

News reports have begun to come in about the fall of Palmyra to ISIS in Syria, and while most Western media has rightly been concerned with the city’s ancient ruins, few mentions have been given to the welfare of the people living in the region, or the fact that “The Syrian army launched a massive operation to evacuate as many civilians as possible of the city’s 100,000 inhabitants before its epic defeat.” (Debkafile, May 20, 2015) 

Perhaps it is not expedient to the Western narrative to report the fact that the Syrian army is heavily invested in the protection of its people.

However, these outlets do note that “The capture of Palmyra is the first time the al Qaeda offshoot has taken control of a city directly from the Syrian army and allied forces, which have already lost ground in the northwest and south to other insurgent groups in recent weeks.” (Reuters, May 20, 2015) (emphasis added)

The title “insurgent groups” is a euphemism for al-Qaeda, as “the Syrian military opposition is dominated by ISIS and by Jabhat al-Nusra, the official al-Qaeda representative, in addition to other jihadi groups,”(1) and their gains are not some recent aberration but instead are the direct result of the US-led coalition ramping up aid to their proxy forces in the region.

In the Israeli intelligence source Debkafile’s recent weekly newsletter they specifically point out that “Bashar Assad’s fortunes have been waning in recent weeks. His army’s morale is in the pits. Some units are keeping to the sidelines of battles. Iran no longer rushes forward with fresh military supplies. Hizballah, the strongest force still fighting for Assad, is taking heavy losses at the hands of Al Qaeda’s Syrian arm, the Nusra Front. All this is the outcome of the first heavy weapons to reach the hands of the Syrian opposition in years of civil war from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey – blessed by Washington after long hesitation.” (DEBKA Weekly Vol. 14, Issue 663, May 15, 2015) (emphasis added)

Thus the “insurgent” al-Qaeda groups that have recently been making gains against the Syrian army are doing so because of the heavy weaponry they have recently received from their backers in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Turkey… all blessed by the oversight and direction of Washington.

Further revealing Washington’s hand in leading al-Qaeda from behind is a recent report by analyst Charles Lister of the Brookings Institute Doha Center, in which it was admitted that the operation rooms headed by the US in Turkey and Jordan specifically encouraged forces of the Syrian opposition to work closely with al-Qaeda in order to achieve these recent gains, a cooperation that has been known to knowledgeable analysts for years, yet which is now fully admitted in the open: 

“The involvement of FSA groups, in fact, reveals how the factions’ backers have changed their tune regarding coordination with Islamists. Several commanders involved in leading recent Idlib operations confirmed to this author that the U.S.-led operations room in southern Turkey, which coordinates the provision of lethal and non-lethal support to vetted opposition groups, was instrumental in facilitating their involvement in the operation from early April onwards. That operations room — along with another in Jordan, which covers Syria’s south — also appears to have dramatically increased its level of assistance and provision of intelligence to vetted groups in recent weeks. 

“Whereas these multinational operations rooms have previously demanded that recipients of military assistance cease direct coordination with groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, recent dynamics in Idlib appear to have demonstrated something different. Not only were weapons shipments increased to the so-called “vetted groups,” but the operations room specifically encouraged a closer cooperation with Islamists commanding frontline operations.” (Foreign Policy, “Why Assad is Losing”, May 5, 2015) (emphasis added)

Although the author acts as if this cooperation of US-backed rebels and Islamist extremist is a “change of tune”, in reality it is actually “business as usual,” at least by US-backed rebel commanders own admissions.  A video, which has been authenticated by the leading Syria expert in the US, Joshua Landis of the University of Oklahoma, documents a meeting between US Ambassador to Syria Robert Stephen Ford (for more information on Robert Ford consult this article) and Free Syrian Army Colonel Abdel Jabbar al-Okaidi.  The same video shows Col. Okaidi celebrating a recent victory with ISIS Emir Abu Jandal.  The Free Syrian Army is the largest recipient of US aid and commonly referred to in Western media as the “moderate” opposition.  The video goes on to show footage of Col. Okaidi speaking in various interviews about FSA’s connection with ISIS and al-Qaeda, himself even stating that al-Nusra do not “exhibit any abnormal behavior, which is different from that of the FSA.”  He also states that “My relationship with the brothers in ISIL is good… I communicate almost daily with brothers in ISIL… the relationship is good, even brotherly.”  The video shows the same ISIS Emir Abu Jandal a few minutes after his celebration with Col. Okaidi stating that “The Islamic State is here to stay!” another ISIS fighter is then seen saying “I swear to Allah, O Alawites, we came to slaughter you.  Await what you deserve!”

This unfortunately is the true and shameful history of US support to the “moderate” Syrian opposition.

The recent gains of ISIS in Palmyra are not separate from these events however.  It must be remembered that the Islamists who are now receiving their first shipments of heavy weaponry from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Turkey are not limited to al-Qaeda and the Nusra Front, but include ISIS as well.  The Western support for ISIS goes further than US-backed groups openly collaborating with ISIS.  In Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey’s own words, it is these same Arab allies, “our Arab allies,” who “fund ISIS.”

A recent report by the New York Times would further detail how our “Arab allies” are stepped up support for these extremist elements: 

“King Salman, 79, has shifted toward an activist foreign policy, going to war in Yemen and increasing support for rebels in Syria as he positions his country as the defender of the region’s Sunnis. In some cases, he has sanctioned allying with Islamists to serve the kingdom’s agenda… And his support for Islamists could end up empowering extremists, just as Saudi support for the Afghan jihad decades ago helped create Al Qaeda… In another shift, King Salman appears to have discarded his predecessor’s rejection of political Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood as a fundamental threat to the regional order…  In March, he received Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in Riyadh. The two agreed to work together to support the rebels seeking to topple President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, according to Yasin Aktay, the foreign relations chief for Turkey’s governing party.

“Although Mr. Aktay said that only moderate groups received support, many of Syria’s most effective fighters are staunch Islamists who often fight alongside the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, raising the possibility that aid might also empower extremists. 

“King Salman has a history of working with Islamists. Decades ago, he was a royal point man and fund-raiser for jihadists going to Afghanistan, Bosnia and elsewhere.” (NYT, “King Salman Upends Status Quo in Region and the Royal Family”, May 10, 2015)

Therefore, despite the Times whitewash of attempting to separate “support for Islamists” from support for extremists, stating that support for Islamists only could “end up empowering extremists” rather than the obvious fact that these are one in the same, what the Times is saying, without actually saying, is that “our Arab ally” King Salman, who has a “history of working with Islamists” and who “funds ISIS”, has recently increased “support for rebels in Syria”, has increased support for ISIS, sanctioned “allying with Islamists to serve the kingdom’s agenda”, and has “discarded” a “rejection of political Islamists”, therefore fully embracing them.

Therefore the recent gains made by the extremist opposition in Syria is the direct “outcome of the first heavy weapons to reach the hands of the Syrian opposition… from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey.”  These states are “our Arab allies who fund ISIS,” Saudi Arabia itself specifically “increasing support for rebels” and “sanctioning allying with Islamists.”  All of these developments of course being “blessed by Washington.”

The Obama administration recently approves the shipment of heavy weaponry to the Syrian opposition after long hesitation, the US-led operation rooms in Turkey and Jordan openly encourage working with al-Qaeda to defeat Assad’s army, and the new Saudi King Salman, whose country is the main funder of ISIS, openly has ramped up support to Islamists in Syria, all the while al-Qaeda makes recent gains in the northwest and south, while ISIS makes its gains in the eastern region of Palmyra.

All just one big coincidence?  I think not…

Notes:

1.)    Cockburn, Patrick. "The Rise of ISIS." The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution. Brooklyn, NY: Verso, 2015. 3. Print.

The West Doesn't Want to End the Syrian Crisis

Western Leaders Feign Sympathy for a Crisis They Instigated & Intensified:

Obama in 2014 stated “we must… [pursue] the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all,” Senator McCain as well recently said “But what haunts me even more than the horror unfolding before our eyes in Syria is the thought that we will continue to do nothing meaningful about it.”  However it is helpful to ask, are our leaders at all serious in their remarks?

Ever since at least as far back as 2005 the US has been financing and training anti-government oppositions in Syria with a view toward regime-change.  When members of these US-funded groups complain about their connections to America, concerned over serving foreign interests rather than the national cause, evidence from Egypt shows that they are quickly ousted from membership. (1) 

The ostensible justification for this funding is ‘democracy promotion,’ however we should remember what International Relations scholar John J. Mearsheimer said about Washington’s democracy promotion activities abroad, referring to the crisis in Ukraine he stated “and when you talk about promoting democracy, what you’re really talking about is putting in power leaders who are pro-Western and anti-Russian… promoting democracy, which was all about putting in power pro-Western leaders.”

However, Syria was in the crosshairs of the empire long before 2005.  In a speech given in 2007, General Wesley Clark recounts a conversation he had with then Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in 1991 regarding Operation Desert Storm.  He quotes Wolfowitz as saying “one thing that we learned is that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won’t stop us, and we got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes, Syria, Iran, Iraq, before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.”

In the same speech Clark recounts another conversation he had 6 weeks after 9/11 with an officer of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in which the officer quotes a classified memo received from the Secretary of Defense’s office which stated that it was US policy to attack and destroy the governments of 7 different countries in the next 5 years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran.

Long before any outrage was spurned at Assad’s crackdown of protesters, and long before any pretexts or justifications were concocted, it was already decided that the US would attack and topple the Syrian government, going at least as far back as 1991.  The intention of regime change came first, propaganda and pretexts came later.

Further adding to this evidence is the testimony of former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas, who stated on television that roughly 2 years before hostilities began in Syria British officials admitted to him that they were ‘preparing something’ in the country.  “England was preparing the invasion of the rebels in Syria,” he said, stating that the officials had asked him to participate, to which he refused. “This is to say that this operation comes from far away.  It was prepared, conceived, and organized… in the simple purpose of removing the Syrian government, because, in the region, it is important to know that this Syrian regime has anti-Israel remarks…  I’m judging the confidence of the Israeli Prime Minister who had told me a while ago: “We will try to get along with the neighboring states, and those who don’t get along, we will take them down.”  It is a policy.  It is a conception of history.”

Eventually this policy, this conception of history, coupled with the financing of regime-change opposition groups, deteriorating social conditions, and the legitimate need for reforms, culminated in very minor, small-scale and sporadic anti-government demonstrations in Syria in early 2011.  The real unrest began in mid-March when clashes between protesters and police occurred in the southern city of Daraa.  From that point the conflict began to escalate.  Media reports in the West became flooded with news of Assad’s violent crackdown of protesters, and the Syrian government is in no way justified for violent suppression of peaceful demonstrations and brutal military crackdowns, however little attention was paid to the fact that at this time the protesters had as well been armed, and had been attacking the security forces, or the fact that significant pro-government demonstrations also occurred.

In Daraa the unrest began when demonstrators destroyed governmental buildings which prompted a response from the government. (2)  It should be noted however that those protesting in Daraa were largely motivated by genuine desires for change and to oppose abuses of power, much like our own Occupy and Black Lives Matter movements in the West, and the courage shown by these individuals to demonstrate in a state where doing so meant harsh and brutal repressions deserves to be honored and commended.  However the possibility of foreign involvement threatened to exploit the unrest and usurp the population’s hardships for non-domestic interests, to use the Syrians blood, sweat, and tears to achieve their own self-interested geopolitical goals.  Thus while facing government repression another more daunting challenge faced the local demonstrators as well…

Amidst reports of violent crackdowns, Israeli National News on March 21^st would report that “Seven police and at least four demonstrators in Syria have been killed in continuing violent clashes that erupted in the southern town of Daraa last Thursday.” The report indicates that although the government’s response had been brutal, the opposition was not altogether peaceful, but instead were armed and firing at police.  There were more police killed than protesters in this incident.  (emphasis mine)

On March 29^th Reuters would report that tens of thousands of Syrians gathered for a pro-government rally, signifying that many in the country continued to support the government, corroborating later polls organized by Qatar which found that the majority of Syrians (55%) wanted Assad to stay in power.

Tens of thousands of Syrians gather for a pro-government rally at the central bank square in Damascus March 29, 2011.  CREDIT: REUTERS/WAEL HMEDAN

By August 1^st, Israel’s Debkafile intelligence news source, awarded Forbe’s “Best of the Web” award, would report that “[Syrian forces] are now running into heavy resistance: Awaiting them are anti-tank traps and fortified barriers manned by protesters armed with heavy machine guns… Syrian troops encountered armed resistance… there is no shortage of arms.” (emphasis mine)

These were no typical protests, armed with anti-tank machinery and heavy machine guns.  How did they accomplish this without significant foreign assistance?

Debkafile would report on August 15^th “NATO headquarters in Brussels and the Turkish high command are meanwhile drawing up plans for their first military step in Syria, which is to arm the rebels with weapons for combating the tanks and helicopters spearheading the Assad regime’s crackdown on dissent. Instead of repeating the Libyan model of air strikes, NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers for beating back the government armored forces… the arms would be trucked into Syria under Turkish military guard and transferred to rebel leaders at pre-arranged rendezvous…

Given Debka’s previous report, these heavy machine guns and anti-tank equipment seem to already have entered Syria.  This report would go on to state “Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria.” (emphasis mine)

This have since been verified.

It has been an open secret that there has been a steady supply line of arms and fighters from Turkey into Syria, Vice President Joe Biden even admitting as much, and recently Turkish Intelligence Agency (MIT) veteran Önder Sığırcıkoğlu has stated that all weapons supplies and militant incursions into Syria from Turkey were organized by MIT.  Estimates as well attest to the fact that not only thousands, but tens of thousands of foreign fighters hailing from over 80 different countries have made their way into Syria to fight for the opposition.  Reports surfacing later would as well detail the kinds of ‘Muslim volunteers’ that were being recruited and supported, Christian rights groups would document attacks on Christians amidst the chants “Alawites to the grave and Christians to Beirut!”, the New York Times would report that the flow of arms was going “largely to hard-line Islamists,” and other reports detailed how the rebels recruited and trained by the US were largely going on to join extremist elements like ISIS.

This all tells us that from the beginning of clashes in March the protesters were armed, and that by August they bore the resemblance of a full-on insurgency incorporated with extremist elements, yet how could this be possible without foreign sponsorship?

The reports also demonstrate that at least by August the West was drawing plans for an insurgency, however further evidence attests to the fact that this foreign intervention actually began much sooner.

In a series of reports in November and December, former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, described as credible by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General, would break the story that US and NATO, accompanied by hundreds of soldiers, were operating a secret training camp in Turkey to “organize and expand the dissident base in Syria,” since April-May of 2011, where operations were conducted to smuggle US weapons into Syria, conduct psychological and information warfare, and to help funnel intelligence and military operators across the border.  Sibel quotes high-level, insider governmental sources from both the US and Turkey, as well as journalists and eye-witnesses on the ground, who had first contacted main-stream news outlets who had refused to cover the story, one BBC reporter even being detained and barred from reporting on the matter.  It would be picked up by Turkish and Iranian media. (3)

These accounts, verified by high-level sources and foreign media outlets, further corroborate Debkafile’s reports of NATO arming and facilitating fighters to the opposition, though revealing that this had already begun long before Debka learned of it, and helps to explain the violent nature of the conflicts beginnings, a time when Western media was only reporting on the violence of government crackdowns, refusing to cover this story, and refusing to cover the violence of the protesters, all of this further suggesting that the violent nature of the opposition was largely a product of foreign involvement and that the Western press would not cover this fact.

A month before these revelations in September, WikiLeaks cables of Stratfor communications would attest to the violent nature of the protests “The opposition remains largely nonviolent,” and would go on to verify that the protests movements were incapable of large armed resistance, the kind that Debkafile had reported was already present, without substantial foreign involvement “the opposition is very unlikely to overwhelm and topple the regime without substantial foreign military and financial backing… Without foreign backing, the opposition movement is unlikely to acquire enough money or gain enough traction to acquire large quantities of weaponry, let alone achieve regime change. The movement is simply too small and too ill equipped.” (emphasis mine)

Sibel’s revelations of foreign aid beginning in April, corroborated by reports of armed protesters beginning at the end of March, Stratfor’s assessment that that a viable armed resistance was only possible through substantial foreign backing, and Debkafile’s reports of a heavily armed opposition by August, further verify the foreign hand in instigating and facilitating the beginning of the crisis; without substantial foreign backing the relatively small-scale protests would never have been able to spawn into the armed resistance that they did; the ‘civil war’ was a product of foreign intervention.

Further corroborating these assertions is a PressTV article quoted by Sibel in her reports, which cites Syrian state media detailing confessions made by captured rebels about receiving foreign aid “Confessions by a number of Syrian rebels about foreign-sponsored plans to carry out armed operations and killing ordinary people as well as security forces prove that recent developments in the country are part of an attempt to incite a revolt in the strategic country neighboring the Israeli regime, aiming to overthrow the current government and replace it with a US-backed regime... Damascus blames the violence on foreign-sponsored terrorist groups, with the Syrian state TV broadcasting reports showing seized weapons caches and confessions by terrorists describing how they obtained arms from foreign sources.”

A month after these reports in December another WikiLeaks cable would prove this foreign involvement. 

The cable accounts a December 2011 meeting at the Pentagon between Stratfor personnel and United States Air Force (USAF) officers at the Lieutenant Colonel level, who would detail how Special Operations Forces, presumably from the US, UK, France, Jordan, and Turkey, were “already on the ground focused on recce [reconnaissance] missions and training opposition forces.”  The USAF officials would state that “there isn't much of a Free Syrian Army to train right now,” further validating the claim that the armed resistance was not domestic but instead was a product of foreign intervention. 

The officials would detail the nature of their mission “the idea 'hypothetically' is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within,” no mention of freedom or democracy mind you, the goal was regime-change, the same goal behind the financing of opposition since 2005, and they were willing to use violence to do it. (emphasis mine)

That same month Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, would corroborate this information citing CIA sources “NATO is already clandestinely engaged in the Syrian conflict, with Turkey taking the lead as U.S. proxy… The intervention would be based on humanitarian principles, to defend the civilian population based on the “responsibility to protect” doctrine that was invoked to justify Libya…

“Unmarked NATO warplanes are arriving at Turkish military bases close to Iskenderum [sic] on the Syrian border, delivering weapons from the late Muammar Gaddafi’s arsenals as well as volunteers from the Libyan Transitional National Council... French and British special forces trainers are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA and U.S. Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause…

“CIA analysts are skeptical regarding the march to war. The frequently cited United Nations report that more than 3,500 civilians have been killed by Assad’s soldiers is based largely on rebel sources and is uncorroborated. The [Central Intelligence] Agency has refused to sign off on the claims. Likewise, accounts of mass defections from the Syrian Army and pitched battles between deserters and loyal soldiers appear to be a fabrication, with few defections being confirmed independently. Syrian government claims that it is being assaulted by rebels who are armed, trained, and financed by foreign governments are more true than false.” (emphasis mine)

Another enlightening revelation is gleaned from the previous WikiLeaks cable, especially in light of the pretexts used to justify the US bombing campaigns.  The Lt. Col. USAF officials were acutely aware that bombing was only possible if there was enough media attention on a massacre committed by Assad (read- the false claims that, now debunked, Assad had used chemical weapons in 2013) “They dont [sic] believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi. They think the US would have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn't reach that very public stage.”  Thus we see that there was an intention to bomb long before any ‘red-lines’ were crossed, long before any ISIL was present, and they needed perceived massacres by Assad to do it.  One need only look at Western media headlines to see this playing out in the supreme, laser-like focus that is given to Assad’s bombings, with nowhere near comparable attention given to massacres committed by US-backed rebels, even though death-toll figures indicate that the rebels are responsible for the majority of the deaths overall, and not Assad’s forces. (emphasis mine)

This intention of utilizing mass killings to justify military intervention is well known.  In 1997 Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, and current un-official aid and mentor to President Obama, wrote that “[America] may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat…  It [a consensus on foreign policy issues during WWII] was rooted, however, not only in deeply shared democratic values, which the public sensed were being threatened, but also in a cultural and ethnic affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianism.” (4) (emphasis mine)

Surely the consensus fashioned from perceived victims of Assad’s government is not the product of a shared affinity with other Europeans, however we can see how the same kind of consensus against hostile totalitarianism has been formed in the case of the Syrian crisis, and further how a US bombing campaign, and overt US military involvement more generally, necessitated this kind of perception amongst the public, something that is well known to high-level policy planners.

Without the hyper-focus on Assad’s crimes, and the complete media black-out of the nature of the armed insurgency, their presence as well as their aggressive actions, a foreign policy consensus for overt foreign involvement in the Syrian crisis would not have been possible.

Following these developments reports started to openly admit the foreign nature of the conflict, however while still portraying it as a domestic ‘civil war’ and not a proxy insurgency.  Yet we can see that this representation is not at all the reality, and that this conflict was instigated and started by the very same Western leaders who claim to want to see it end, erroneously blaming Assad for starting a conflict that their actions actually facilitated.  Remember that a violent and armed opposition was not possible without foreign intervention, that there was not ‘much of a Free Syrian Army’ present until NATO arrived, that Syria was in the crosshairs of the empire long before any ‘red-lines’ were crossed, and that as soon as Western involvement began throwing money, guns, and foreign fighters into the mix, the clashes between an armed opposition and the Syrian security forces began, and all blame was placed upon Assad because an affinity for ‘victims of hostile totalitarianism’ was needed to ‘fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues,’ and justify Western involvement in the eyes of the public.

How are we then to believe that our leaders are honestly seeking an end to the hostilities, when those very same leaders are the ones who began them?  When they as well continually insist on escalating the violence and bloodshed by pouring more money and weaponry into the country? 

The truth is they have never wanted to see it end, lest Assad was ousted and they themselves gained power over Syrian policy-making.  The recent calls by John Kerry for a negotiated settlement, if serious, represent a concession from the West that they have failed in their military goals, and are resorting to a political solution as a final resort.  Their real intent from the very beginning was always to foment unrest with a view toward regime-change, and then to highlight Assad’s inevitable crackdowns while supporting an armed insurgency against him, obfuscating the fact that there was an armed insurgency of their own making directed against government forces, and to use the violence of the government as justification for further attacks, thus making their attacks appear defensive rather than an offensive, which of course they were not.

Therefore, what occurred in Daraa was not simply an authoritarian regime violently cracking down on peaceful protesters but instead was a situation whereby the violent clashes involved significant foreign involvement.  The protest movement was hijacked by foreign powers who would seek to exploit the unrest for their own ends, and therefore the ‘revolution’ was actually anything but, and was instead the result of a proxy insurrection and attack upon the Syrian state by foreign powers which displaced the sincere protest base and eliminated any prospects for actual reforms, reforms which could have been possible had the Syrian people been left free from foreign intervention to determine their own affairs.  This is corroborated by the Syrian opposition activist Dr. Haytham Manna who was involved in the uprising since its inception “The first negative result of the use of arms was to undermine the broad popular support necessary to transform the uprising into a democratic revolution… the pumping of arms to Syria, supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the phenomenon of the Free Syrian Army, and the entry of more than 200 jihadi foreigners into Syria in the past six months have all led to a decline in the mobilisation of large segments of the population… and in the activists' peaceful civil movement. The political discourse has become sectarian; there has been a Salafisation of religiously conservative sectors.”

The media would then walk in lock-step with the narrative that suited the US establishment’s interests, even going so far as to detain journalists and block reporting when credible insider information came to light, thus obscuring the true nature of the situation in the eyes of the Western public, which made it possible to fashion a consensus for this specific foreign policy issue.

Surely the small scale and sporadic protests that began before March in 2011 were met with violent repression from the Syrian state, and none of these findings absolve the Assad government from blame for this, however it is also true that these opposition movements were financed, trained, and advised by the US through ‘democracy promotion’ endeavors, that evidence shows that when members of these groups complain about their connections to Washington they are subsequently ousted from membership.  The goal of financing these groups is regime-change, intended in Syria for 2 decades, and from the very beginning the US was arming and training the opposition to attack the state.  Money, weaponry, and foreign fighters flowed in and were facilitated by the US special forces from the onset with a view towards targeted assassinations and eliciting a collapse from within.  The government needed justification for this which was accomplished by the media’s refusal to report on information that ran counter to the official narrative. 

Open-source information detailed in this report demonstrates that what is commonly referred to as the Syrian “civil war” is more accurately described as a proxy insurgency that exploited the social unrest in the country to go about achieving a long-standing policy goal of regime-change in Damascus.  This further belies the stated claims of Western officials that they are at all serious about ending a crisis which they themselves instigated and escalated, and suggests that the only way the crisis will end is if the West achieves its stated goal of regime-change or if they are forced to accept a political settlement in the face of a military defeat or stalemate.

Recent developments suggest that they have failed in their attempts to oust Assad; the pro-government forces are too well equipped and the government maintains too large of a domestic support base.  Impediments to the West accepting the inevitable political solution consist of the intent to further inflame the conflict as a means to keep Syria weak and unstable, using that as leverage to force concessions from Damascus and weaken the resistance bloc of Syria, Iran, and Russia, the fears from US allies that the jihadi’s they have been backing for years would turn against their own regimes in light of a cessation of hostilities in Syria, and the US and its allies insistence on molding Syrian policy-making to conform to their own interests, shown in their persistence that Assad must step down.  Until these impediments are overcome, or until domestic populations force their leaders to stop committing these crimes, atrocities, and aggressions, the best we can hope for is to watch Syria’s secular society deteriorate until it falls victim to the fate of countless other recipients of Western ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy.’

The hope is that domestic populations overcome the propaganda narrative propagated by the main-stream media and the ideological supporters of state-terror and expose the Syrian crisis for what it really is, and demand to hold those guilty accountable for their crimes.

The Syrian population is strong and resilient in the face of imperial aggression, we in the West who are privileged enough to not be suffering a similar fate thus have a great responsibility to use all of our resources and democratic freedoms to reverse the tide of the unjust policies committed in our names by our governments, which constitute nothing less than crimes against humanity.  This is by no means impossible, and we in the West have the unique ability to oppose state policy with a great degree of freedom.  We should use this opportunity to combat imperialism, to give the Syrians back the sovereignty they deserve, and to restore back to America the values and ideals that are actually worthy of the people who inhabit it, those that we were taught our country represented in school, yet that since we have learned were mere ideological cover for something much worse. 

But we can change that.

We should be as strong as the Syrians who face with courage untold terror committed against them on a daily basis by our governments, and never let ourselves forget that “It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

And perhaps most absent from analysis on Syria are the voices of the Syrian people themselves, their thoughts, desires, feelings, and pronouncements.  Their experiences, the ones aggressor nations claim to represent, unfortunately fall upon deaf ears in the West.

To counter this, here I have quoted a lost voice from Lattakia, Afrona, a Syrian born architect, as she recounts her experience under the ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ that Washington had brought to her country, and the foreign involvement they had attempted to hide from the prying eyes of their domestic civilian populations:

“It was 2011 , the year of the color revolution , arab spring , the real color was black , and the real season was without features ,Obama and the global society never feel shy to announce it as it is a freedom revolution! 

 syrian people was worried of what was going on  in Egypt at that time , total mess , also was sad for Libya and the war crime against people there by the NATO.  

we recognized there is something planned for us , it is our turn ,as in domino game  

Here it is they started in my city, savage groups was rushing in streets with shameful slogan repeating it non stop (christian should displace to Beruit ,alawit will be in cemetery ) , they trained them to look like civil war , And the mainstream media started to talk about peaceful protests in Syria  

one of their first victims was a person in his way to his work , those gangs caught him , gathered as wolves around him and slaughtered him , his guilt was his religion , they want it to be real civil war , they want people to take revenge and kill each other by the name of religion  

at that time our government issued , that it is allowed to everyone to join demonstration , and it is not allowed to any police man to bother them , the result was those gangs killed young police man they shot him ,, they were armed gangs  

we realized more and more that we are under dirty war , not revolution at all , Then that scene we used to see in Afghanistan and those countries under terror  groups as Al-Qaeda which is  ,CIA” made , that scene of suicide bombers , car bombs , took place in Syria , not important for the world if the victims were kids students and innocent civilians , the western media turned blind eyes , and instead of reporting the truth , they were spreading lies  

later  the horrible crimes  started  by cannibals’ Free Syrian Army , Al-Nusra front , start to beheaded , eat livers , rape women , burn people alive …that was by FSA under the slogan Allaho Akbar, not by what they call now ISIS or Daesh , countries which r under FSA control suddenly ended up to ISIS ,  USA now invades  my country to fight ISIS ! , but they still arming financing and funding FSA  . 

who is ISIS , who is FSA who is Moderate rebels ? they are their doll here to invade Syria , clever plan , don’t forget The Creative Chaos of Condoleezza Rice  , and her preaching of new middle east ! ,  please keep Syria safe ,”

Given the fact that polls consistently show that the majority of Syrians support the government, this is not an isolated viewpoint.

For more on Afrona’s story, watch interviews here and here.  For further accounts of voices from Syria that the main-stream-media won’t report upon, follow Eva Bartlett at www.ingaza.wordpress.com, who regularly travels to Syria to account the voices of the voiceless.

“Please, keep Syria safe…"

Notes:

1.)    Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, “U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show”, April 17, 2011. “The London-based satellite channel, Barada TV, began broadcasting in April 2009 but has ramped up operations to cover the mass protests in Syria as part of a long-standing campaign to overthrow the country’s autocratic leader, Bashar al-Assad… Classified U.S. diplomatic cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6 million to the group since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities inside Syria… The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005.”; AFP, “US trains activists to evade security forces”, April 8, 2011. “The US government, Posner said, has budgeted $50 million in the last two years… And it has organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world.”; Ron Nixon, New York Times, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings”, April 14, 2011. “American government-financed organizations were promoting democracy in authoritarian Arab states…  But as American officials and others look back at the uprisings of the Arab Spring, they are seeing that the United States’ democracy-building campaigns played a bigger role in fomenting protests than was previously known, with key leaders of the movements having been trained by the Americans in campaigning, organizing through new media tools and monitoring elections… Affiliating themselves with the American organizations may have tainted leaders within their own groups… some members of the group had accused… leaders of “treason”… the group ousted the members who were complaining…”

2.)   Joseph Holliday, Institute for the Study of War, “The Struggle for Syria in 2011”, December 2011.

3.)   Sibel Edmonds, BoilingFrogsPost, “BFP Exclusive: Syria- Secret US-NATO Training & Support Camp to Oust Current Syrian President”, November 21, 2011.  Sibel breaks the story on the secret US-NATO base in Turkey, and further explains its operations, to organize and expand the dissident base, smuggle in weapons, psychological operations and information warfare, and to funnel intelligence and military operators across the border;  Sibel Edmonds, BoilingFrogsPost, “US Media: Distorters of Reality & Gravediggers of Truth”, December 3, 2011.  Sibel follows up to her first story, citing insiders in Turkey and government insiders in the US.  She notes how Iranian media has picked up her story, but not the Western press.  She asks one of her inside sources why they hadn’t taken their information to the main-stream-media outlets first, to which they replied that they had tried but the Western press wouldn’t touch the story without State Department approval;  Sibel Edmonds, BoilingFrogsPost, “War on Syria Cover-Up Update: Who is Breaking the Blackout?”, December 9, 2011. Sibel recounts how Turkish and Iranian media have picked up her story, noting that US media did not have the guts to run the story even though it was backed by credible military sources in the US and abroad.  She states that she has further been contacted by additional credible sources, including a high-level military official in Syria;  Sibel Edmonds, BoilingFrogsPost, “BFP Exclusive- Developing Story: Hundreds of US-NATO Soldiers Arrive & Begin Operations on the Jordan-Syria Border”, December 11, 2011.  Sibel details how estimates of hundreds of foreign military personnel were seen amassing near the Jordan-Syrian border, that US forces had left Iraq and were re-routed to Jordan at a NATO Command Center there, and that according to Jordanian reports Western officials had requested the Jordanian King to establish a spy station near the border for the purpose of contacting Syrian officers to convince them to instigate a military coup;  James Corbett, CorbettReport, “BREAKING: US Troops Deploying on Jordan-Syria Border”, December 11, 2011. James Corbett reports on the developments from the BoilingFrogsPost story, conducting an interview with former Syrian journalist Nizar Nayouf, previously imprisoned for 10 years for speaking out against the Syrian government, who accounts how hundreds of foreign soldiers were seen moving back and forth near the Jordanian-Syrian border; Sibel Edmonds, BoilingFrogsPost, “Syria Coverage Update: BBC Reporter was detained & Prevented from Covering US-NATO- Syrian Operations in Turkey!”, December 15, 2011. Sibel details how a BBC reporter who went to Turkey to follow up on her story was placed under surveillance, prevented from following the story, stopped from interviewing key personnel, and how BBC subsequently excused the scandal.

4.)   Zbigniew Brzezinski, “Conclusion,” The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It’s Geostrategic Imperatives (New York, 1997), pg. 211.

            Additional sources:

• Raven Clabough, The New American, “Possible U.S. Involvement in Covert Warfare in Syria”, March 7, 2012.
• Michel Chossudovsky, Centre for Research on Globalization, “SYRIA: Who is Behind The Protest Movement?  Fabricating a Pretext for a US-NATO “Humanitarian Intervention””, May 3, 2011.
• Tony Cartalucci, Land Destroyer, “Syrian Conflict Escalates”; “It’s Official: “Arab Spring” Subversion is US Funded”; and “Syria: Intervention Inevitable”.
•  Zafar Bangash, Crescent International, “ISIS takfirist: McCain-Obama’s offspring”, March 2015.

Iraq Sidelines US in Tikrit Offensive Amidst Accusations US is Arming ISIL

Iraqi Success in Tikrit, Leaves Washington on the Sidelines

A mostly successful offensive has been waged to drive out ISIL from the Iraqi city of Tikrit, spearheaded by the Iraqi army and Iranian backed militias, representing a bright spot in the campaign to eradicate the ISIL insurgency from Iraq. 

“Iraqi forces raised the national flag over a number of landmarks in Tikrit, working with Iran-backed Shiite militias to chip away at Islamic State’s once firm grip on the strategically important Sunni city” (WSJ, 3/12/15)

According to US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, there were present in the offensive “approximately 1,000 Sunni tribal fighters, 3,000 Iraqi Security Force members and 20,000 Shiite militiamen-whom he described as “Iranian-trained and somewhat Iranian-equipped.””

Gen. Dempsey went on to state that “he was certain the Iraqi security forces and allied militias would be able to retake Tikrit,” however there is something that the General, and the United States in general, is worried about, “[Dempsey] added that the U.S. was concerned about how Iran and the Shiite militias would use their influence in the aftermath.”

The truth is that Gen. Dempsey and the US are actually concerned over the fact that Baghdad had not asked US support for the offensive, instead relying on their own forces and help from neighboring Iran. 

“The United States says Baghdad did not seek aerial backup from the coalition in the Tikrit campaign. Instead, support on the ground has come from neighboring Iran, Washington's long-time rival in the region. Tehran has sent an elite Revolutionary Guard commander to oversee part of the battle.” (Reuters, 3/11/15)

The growing influence of Iran and the increased cooperation between Iran and Iraq worries the United States, as well as does the joint Sunni-Shiite cooperation in a country whose sectarian divides are a result of the US-led invasion and subsequent policies; further Sunni-Shia and Iranian-Iraqi cooperation are anathema to the US which seeks to limit Iranian influence in the region while increasing its own.  If continued successes are made by the Iraqi army and Iranian-backed militias without the aid of the US aerial bombings the US could see itself fully pushed out from the subsequent offensive to retake Mosul, likely to occur after Tikrit and surrounding cities are fully cleared of ISIL forces.

This rejection of US inclusion by Iraq represents the growing mistrust that senior Iraqi officials have towards the US-led efforts against the ISIL militants, concerns they have been voicing for quite some time now.

Iraqi Authorities Claim US is Arming ISIL

In October of 2014, a video was uploaded to YouTube which showed an airdrop of US weapons in the hands of ISIL militants.  The Pentagon would claim that “one of those bundles drifted off course,” saying that the weapons ending up in ISIL hands was a blunder. 

In November of 2014, the head of Iraq’s security and defense committee claimed that “Some countries are delivering weapons to ISIS by using airplanes in Tel Afar airport, near Mosul,” without naming which countries. 

Later that month, Asia News Agency and Fars News Agency reported that Iraqi intelligence was claiming the US was supplying ISIL forces “The Iraqi intelligence sources reiterated that the US military planes have airdropped several aid cargoes for ISIL terrorists to help them resist the siege laid by the Iraqi army, security and popular forces,” the report quoted an Iraqi security source who stated that “What is important is that the US sends these weapons to only those that cooperate with the Pentagon and this indicates that the US plays a role in arming the ISIL.”

In January of this year Iraqi MP Majid al-Ghraoui said “The information that has reached us in the security and defense committee indicates that an American aircraft dropped a load of weapons and equipment to the ISIS group militants at the area of al-Dour in the province of Salahuddin.”  The MP also noted that this was not an isolated occurrence, “This incident is continuously happening and has also occurred in some other regions.”  Providing a reasoning behind this US assistance to ISIL Ghraoui added, “The U.S. is trying to obtain more benefits and privileges from the government to set military bases in Iraq.”

Commenting on this incident, Professor Tim Anderson of the University of Sydney noted “Photos were published of ISIS retrieving the weapons. The US admitted the seizure but said this was a ‘mistake’.”

In February of this year Iraqi MP Hakem al-Zameli said that Iraq’s army had shot down two British planes that were carrying weapons for ISIL, “The Iraqi Parliament's National Security and Defense Committee has access to the photos of both planes that are British and have crashed while they were carrying weapons for the ISIL… There are proofs and evidence for the US-led coalition's military aid to ISIL terrorists through air(dropped cargoes)… The US drops weapons for the ISIL on the excuse of not knowing about the whereabouts of the ISIL positions and it is trying to distort the reality with its allegations,” al-Zameli said.

Another member of the Iraqi parliament Jome Divan stated that “The international coalition is only an excuse for protecting the ISIL and helping the terrorist group with equipment and weapons,” adding that “The coalition has not targeted ISIL's main positions in Iraq.”

MP Majid al-Gharawi said that the coalition led by the US is “not serious in fighting against the ISIL organization, because they have the technological power to determine the presence of ISIL gunmen and destroy them in one month."  Iraqi lawmaker Nahlah al-Hababi also stated “The international coalition is not serious about air strikes on ISIL terrorists and is even seeking to take out the popular (voluntary) forces from the battlefield against the Takfiris so that the problem with ISIL remains unsolved in the near future.  The ISIL terrorists are still receiving aids from unidentified fighter jets in Iraq and Syria.”

Also in February, an Iraqi militia called Al-Hashad Al-Shabi shot down a US Army helicopter they claimed was carrying weapons for ISIL in parts of Al-Anbar province.  Photos were again published of the downed aircraft.

In March, Iraqi news agencies published reports which stated that the Iraqi army had arrested four ISIL military advisors, three of them having American and Israeli passports, the fourth being from a Persian Gulf Arab state.

Iran-Iraq Relations at a High Point

Given this, it is not hard to see why Iraq had not asked for US assistance in their push into Tikrit, and instead have employed the help of Iran.  This skepticism towards US sincerity in fighting ISIL and subsequent closer coordination with Iran is what Gen. Dempsey was concerned about when he said the US was worried over “how Iran and the Shiite militias would use their influence in the aftermath.”

As Professor Tim Anderson has pointed out “The head of the US military, General Martin Dempsey, has been sitting in Baghdad twiddling his thumbs. If this [Tikrit] operation is successful, Iraq with Iranian support can do the same for Mosul. Dempsey and John Kerry are trying to put a brave face on not being needed, but the Saudis and Washington pundits are having anxiety attacks. Expect a lot more finger wagging about Baghdad ‘inflaming sectarian tensions’, and accusations of Iranian hegemony. All rubbish. Remember this comes from the main instigators of sectarian bloodbaths and the worst of all hegemons. For the peoples of the Middle East a more independent Iraq and good neighbourly relations between Iran, Iraq and Syria is a light in the darkness.”

Elucidating further on these developments, the Professor adds in a recent article that “Closer cooperation between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon’s Hezbollah is anathema to Israel, the Saudis and Washington, yet it is happening. This is not a sectarian divide but rather based on some clear mutual interests, not least putting an end to sectarian (takfiri) terrorism.

“It was only logical that, in the Iraqi military’s recent offensive on ISIS-held Tikrit, the Iranian military emerged as Iraq’s main partner. Washington has been sidelined, causing consternation in the US media. General Qasem Suleimani, head of Iran’s Quds Force is a leading player in the Tikrit operation.  A decade after Washington’s ‘creative destruction’ plans, designed to reduce Iranian influence in Iraq, an article in Foreign Policy magazine complains that Iran’s influence is ‘at its highest point in almost four centuries’.”

If the Americans had wanted to increase their influence in the region, perhaps they should have thought about employing mutually beneficial policies towards Iraq rather than inciting sectarian hatred, and as well should have listened to their own citizens who have been speaking out against the long-standing US policy of arming Sunni-jihadi-extremists as a geopolitical weapon against their enemies.

[UPDATE 3/13/15]

Updates on the recent offensive described above, which according to reports has continued successfully with the Iraqi-led coalition liberating several other key areas since the publication of this report, suggest that forecasts for victory in the effort to push ISIL out of Tikrit entirely remain very positive.  However, on par with Iraqi parliamentarian skepticism regarding US sincerity in fighting ISIL in the region, also described above, a new development has come that adds more fuel to that fire.

Iraqi MP Hanan al-Fatlawi has claimed that an airstrike conducted by the US-led coalition has indiscriminately killed Iraqi soldiers.  Iraqi News has quoted Fatlawi as stating that as many as 50 Iraqi soldiers were killed in the US-led strike in Anbar province, while Alalam has quoted Fatlawi as stating that 26 soldiers were killed, and Haidar al-Fuadi as saying that 50 soldiers have been killed.  The US coalition spokesman has denied these reports, saying that none of their strikes has resulted in friendly casualties.

The airstrike occurred near Anbar's provincial capital city Ramadi, which is a ways away from the Tikrit offensive where the Iraqi army is making significant gains.  However, as Iraqi forces, absent the participation of US airstrikes, continue to succeed in their offensive in Tikrit, one wonders if this US-led airstrike in Anbar was either deliberate or a mistaken act of 'collateral damage'.

MP al-Fatlawi is quoted as saying that "This was not the first time, other bombings by the coalitions have occurred in many areas and targeted the Army and the Volunteer Fighters elements." (emphasis mine)  Fatlawi has demanding the government and Parliament “take a stand on the bombing,” urging them to “make up for the dead and wounded’s families,” and has called for a full investigation into the incident.

Fatlawi is thus directly implicating the US-coalition in targeting the Iraqi army, just as the Iraqi's, with the help of Iranian-backed forces, are making significant progress against ISIL in areas like Tikrit.  Given the evidence and widespread accusations by senior Iraqi officials that US-coalition airplanes have been directly aiding the ISIL militants for some time now, also described in the above report, it would be wise to not outright dismiss MP Fatlawi's accusations, and instead  to take his claims very seriously.

The "Threat" of Iran? Or the Threat of Deterrence to Washington?

There is much discussion in Western political discourse of the “threat” of Iran, spoken of as though it is a self-evident truth, an assumption that underlies the entire spectrum of debate.  To question such an obvious truism is something that disciplined intellectuals understand is not proper of them to do.  Most likely the thought doesn't even cross their minds, thanks to dignified university education and the values instilled from it; there are some things not suitable for a respectable intellectual to discuss, after all.

Senator John McCain recently stated that Iran will pose “a direct threat to the existence of the state of Israel” if it is allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, warning further that “The Iranians are on the march.”  House Speaker John Boehner recently said that “There needs to be a more serious conversation in America about... the threat posted by Iran,” further stating that Iran poses a “grave threat” to our “security and way of life.”  Israel’s US ambassador Ron Dermer stated that the proposed nuclear agreement with Iran “could endanger the very existence of the State of Israel,” going on to say that Iran is “the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world.”  Former US Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters went so far as to say that “Iran is building a new Persian Empire.”  Furthermore, in order to slow down Iran’s progress towards a bomb, Netanyahu has threatened to launch an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.  Threats which are credible, according to officials from the Obama administration.  Obama, over the years, has also used such threats by telling other world leaders that toughening sanctions on Iran is the only way to forestall an Israeli attack.  Obama himself has argued that a nuclear Iran poses a “profound” national security threat to the US.

Given this ubiquitous rhetoric, there is an obvious question that arises, one which is seldom asked: what exactly is this “threat” that a nuclear Iran poses?  What exactly is such a grave and existential threat that Western leaders would risk escalation and military confrontation by threatening the Iranian republic with an attack?  Fortunately, we have an authoritative answer to this.

Each year the Department of Defense produces an unclassified, congressionally mandated report detailing the Pentagon’s assessment of the military power of Iran, which it is required to submit to lawmakers.  An effort of intelligence evaluation which utilizes thousands of dollars to get accomplished ($22,000 in 2012.)  It is reported on sparingly in the media.

The 2014 report opens by stating that “Iran has not substantially changed its national security and military strategies over the past year,” virtually the same opening line as previous reports, except for the addition: “however, Tehran has adjusted some of its tactics to achieve its enduring objectives.  President Hasan Ruhani’s international message of moderation and pragmatism is intended to support these objectives.”

It goes on to state that “Iran’s military doctrine is defensive.  It is designed to deter an attack, survive an initial strike, retaliate against an aggressor, and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities while avoiding any concessions that challenge its core interests.”  Thus, Iranian military strategy is to attack only in the event that it is aggressed upon, and still then only long enough to force a diplomatic solution; its doctrine is defensive.

In the context of its ballistic missile development, the report states “Since the Iran-Iraq War, Tehran has placed significant emphasis on developing and fielding ballistic missiles to counter perceived threats from Israel and coalition forces in the Middle East and to project its power in the region.”  Iran is developing weapons stockpiles specifically to counter the threats from Israel and the West, of which I have documented above.  This falls in line with the defensive assessment of Tehran’s military; its buildup is a defensive response, not an offensive one.

In terms of its nuclear capabilities, the Pentagon admits that “Iran continues to develop technological capabilities that could be applicable to nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, which could be adapted to deliver nuclear weapons,” although at present no nuclear weapons exist.  (emphasis added)

Therefore, the “threat” of Iran, of which we are constantly told to fear, the “grave threat” to our “security and way of life”, this “new Persian Empire” that “could endanger the very existence of Israel” that Obama warns is a “profound” national security threat to the US, is simply the threat that scares Western policymakers the most: the threat of deterrence and defense.

Worrying still is the fact that those who are most adamant about warning us of this “threat” know perfectly well that their words are not true.  John McCain, who is quoted above as saying that a nuclear Iran will pose “a direct threat to the existence of Israel” previously employed a national security aide named Anthony Cordesman.  In 2013 Cordesman published a research paper for the Center for Strategic and International Studies of which he concluded that it is Iran, and not Israel, that faces a direct existential threat, “Israel now poses a more serious existential threat to Iran than Iran can pose to Israel in the near term… It seems likely that Israel can deliver an ‘existential’ nuclear strike on Iran, and will have far more capability to damage Iran than Iran is likely to have against Israel for the next decade.”  And as the DoD report states, if and when Iran does acquire nuclear weapons capabilities, they will be deterrents used to defend against an attack.

Further confirmation of this is available from the February 2014 Annual Threat Assessment given before the Senate Armed Services Committee by the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn.  Detailing Iran’s threat assessment, Flynn notes “Iran has threatened to temporarily impede international ship traffic transiting through the Strait of Hormuz if it is attacked or in response to further sanctions on its oil exports.  Additionally, Iran has threatened to launch missiles against U.S. targets and our regional allies in response to an attack.  Tehran could also employ its terrorist surrogates.  However, it is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict or launch a preemptive attack.”  (emphasis added)

Therefore, the threat of Iran is one of deterrence, of defending itself in the event of an attack, and there exists no evidence that it seeks to provoke or attack its adversaries. 

Given this, it is hard not to wonder why there is so much paranoia, fear, and thus belligerent and punitive rhetoric employed against Iran.  If the threat is deterrence, then why all the hostility?

The characterization of Iran as a rogue, aggressive, and hostile state has become a sort of dogma in Western discourse, sharing similar characteristics with a fundamentalist religious belief.  A main reason for this is simply the intention of the United States to punish Iran; after all it does not follow orders.  However, as is seen with the example of Cuba, in order to be hostile and punitive towards a recalcitrant state there is a necessity to portray that state as the unreasonable aggressor or a despotic terrorist, thereby making your actions against it appear to be defensive and reactionary, rather than offensive and aggressive; people are much more likely to approve of defensive actions rather than offensive ones. 

In Cuba, the impetus for the aggression against it stemmed from the fall of the US-supported dictator Batista to Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, who subsequently expelled US corporations and nationalized the land and resources they had been exploiting.  They didn’t like that much, and the US reacted in kind by immediately launching military attacks and decades of terrorism against Cuba, along with historic amounts of assassination and regime-change attempts.  The reasons were explained by the State Departments Policy Planning Council, which warned that “the primary danger we face in Castro is... in the impact the very existence of his regime has upon the leftist movement in many Latin American countries… The simple fact is that Castro represents a successful defiance of the U.S., a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half,” referring to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, in which the US declared its intention of dominating the hemisphere.

The Iran case is similar.  After the 1953 CIA-run coup that overthrew the parliamentary government and installed the brutal regime of the Shah, a day hasn't gone by that the US hasn't been torturing Iran.  After the Shah’s overthrow in 1979, the US immediately turned to supporting Saddam Hussein’s vicious invasion.  The punitive measures exist to this day, including crippling economic sanctions, threats of attack, and attacks against allies such as Syria.  The reasons for this, as well, are similar: Iran too represents a successful defiance of US power, and refuses to obey orders emanating from Washington.  If your goal is world hegemony, and you feel you have the right to use force freely wherever you want, then you simply cannot tolerate such a deterrent.

There is another element to this as well, and that is of a truism that should be evident to knowledgeable analysts of statecraft.  US leaders take for granted the indelible presumption that we, as a nation, are good, and therefore by extension it follows that whatever we do, is also good.  In contrast, of course the actions of our enemies are bad.  So when we invade Afghanistan, we are liberating Afghanistan.  When Russia invades Afghanistan, they are conquering Afghanistan.  Similarly when we invade Vietnam or Iraq, we are not conquering, we are bringing freedom and democracy.  Applying the logic to Iran, given that Iran represents an opposition to US policy and hegemony, which is of course benevolent, they must then be evil.  So when we install a brutal dictator in their country, that is good, and when they expel that dictator and pursue an independent policy of self-determination, that of course is very bad.  When we threaten to attack Iran, it is out of a munificent desire to stop a grave threat to the world, and so on.  This is the essence of the fanatical religion that exists in the West.

Another reason for portraying Iran as a hostile threat is that it provides a useful scapegoat for the problems in the region, and provides an excuse for Western offensive actions.  It is well known to policy planners that intervention and aggression are not goals shared by the populous, and therefore a threat or enemy is needed to justify such actions.  Former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter and current Obama advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski expressed this notion in 1997 when he wrote that “Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy.  But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being.”⁽¹⁾  And thus you have the Iranian “threat.” 

This is of course not to say that the Iranian government is righteous or beyond reproach, far from it, there is much authoritarianism and internal repression to admonish, however that is a threat to their domestic population, not the US and the West.

Coming back now to the actual “threat”, the one of nuclear deterrence capabilities, there are ways to prevent against this.  One way would be to institute a nuclear weapons free zone in the region.  That would effectively eliminate any problems or threats, and further foster peace and stability in the Middle East.  That proposal is strongly supported by Egypt and the Arab states, and has overwhelming support in general worldwide, except that the United States and Israel won’t allow it.  They insist on a precondition: that Israel be exempt.  Obviously, because of this the proposal won’t get anywhere.  And this very perfectly exemplifies the true picture of the situation: that because of the United States and Israel’s aggression, hostility, and unilateral insistence on not only maintaining their weapons capabilities, but assiduously enhancing them forward, Iran is working towards preventive capabilities to defend itself and deter a potential attack. 

Ironically, it is then Israel’s insistence on maintaining its power and ability to existentially threaten Iran that is in turn pushing Iran towards pursuing nuclear capabilities and further military power.

These conclusions were as well echoed by a prominent Israeli historian and professor, Martin van Creveld, who stated succinctly back in 2004 that given the unilateral aggression shown by the West, Iran is forced into a position of deterrence “The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy.”     

Sources:

1.)    Zbigniew Brzezinski, “The Eurasian Chessboard,” The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It’s Geostrategic Imperatives (New York, 1997), pg. 35-36.