US policy think-tank
Brookings Institution confirms that contrary to propaganda, US-Saudi
“moderates” and Turkey-Qatar “Islamists” have been coordinating all
along.
The war in Syria continues to
drag on, with a recent and renewed vigor demonstrated behind an
opposition long portrayed as fractured and reflecting a myriad of
competing foreign interests. Chief among these competing interests, the
public has been told, were the US and Saudis on one side, backing
so-called “moderate rebels,” and Turkey and Qatar on the other openly
backing Al Qaeda and its various franchises including the Islamic State
(ISIS).
However, for those following the conflict closely, it was clear from
the beginning and by the West’s own admissions that success hinged on
covertly providing arms, cash, equipment, and both political and
military support to Al Qaeda and other sectarian extremists, not opposed
by Saudi Arabia, but rather by using Saudi Arabia as the primary medium
through which Western material support could be laundered.
And this fact is now confirmed in a recent article published on the Brookings Institution’s website titled, “Why Assad is losing.”
It states unequivocally that (emphasis added):
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.
Overall, Brookings is pleased to report that with the infiltration
and overrunning of much of Idlib in northern Syria, it appears their
long-stated goal of creating a seat of power for their proxies within Syria’s borders and
perhaps even extending NATO aircover over it, may finally be at hand.
Brookings still attempts to perpetuate an adversarial narrative between
the West and Al Qaeda, despite admitting that it was only with Western
backing that recent offensives spearheaded by Al Qaeda itself were
successful.
In reality, as far back as 2007, it was the admitted policy of the then Bush-led White House to begin arming and funding sectarian extremists,
including Al Qaeda, through the use of intermediaries including Saudi
Arabia. Veteran journalist and two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Seymour
Hersh in his report “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?“would lay bare this conspiracy which has since then unfolded verbatim as described in 2007.
The above mentioned Brookings article also alludes to a grander
geopolitical landscape taking shape beyond the Syrian conflict. It
states in regards to the US now openly backing what is for all intents
and purposes an Al Qaeda-led offensive that:
The most likely explanation for such a move is pressure from the newly emboldened regional alliance comprising Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. The United States also is looking for ways to prove its continued alignment with its traditional Sunni Gulf allies, amid the broader context of its rapprochement with Iran.
The continuation, even expansion of the US-backed conflict in Syria
is the most telling evidence of all regarding the disingenuous nature of
America’s rapprochement with Iran. The entire goal of destabilizing and
potentially overthrowing the government in Syria is to weaken Iran
ahead of a similar campaign of encirclement, destabilization, and
destruction within Iran itself.
The fact that events in Syria are being accelerated, with Brookings
itself admitting that “international and ideological differences,” have
been “pushed to the side,” illustrates a palpable desperation among the
West to finish the conflict in Syria in hopes of moving forward toward
Iran before regional dynamics and Iran’s own defensive posture renders
moot the West’s entire regional agenda, jeopardizing its long-standing
hegemony across North Africa and the Middle East.
Similarly rushed operations appear to be underway in Yemen. With
Western-backed conflicts embroiling virtually every nation surrounding
Iran, the idea that the US seeks anything but Iran’s eventual
destruction, let alone “rapprochement” must surely have no one fooled in
Tehran.
While Brookings enthusiastically reports on the continued destruction
in Syria it itself played a part in engineering and promoting, it still
admits that overthrowing Syria’s legitimate government is not
inevitable. While it attempts to portray Syria’s allies as withdrawing
support for Damascus, the reality is that if and when Syria falls,
Syria’s allies are indisputably next in line.
Iran will face an entire nation handed over to Al Qaeda and other
heavily armed and well-backed sectarian extremists dreaming of a
cataclysmic confrontation with Tehran, fueled by a global network of
US-Saudi backed madrases turning out legions of ideologically poisoned
zealots. And beyond Iran, Russia faces the prospect of its Caucasus
region being turned into a corridor of terror aimed straight at the
heart of Russia itself.
The conflict in Syria is but a single battle among a much larger war — a
global war constituting what is basically a third World War, fought not
upon vast but clearly defined fronts, but rather through the use of
fourth generation warfare, proxies, mercenaries, economics, and
information. For those that fail to see how Syria is linked to the
survival of many nations beyond its borders and the very concept of a
multi-polar world built upon the concept of national sovereignty, they
invite not just Damascus’ defeat, but that of the world as we know it.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario