The Stranded ISIS Bus Convoy That No One Knows What To Do With

In a bizarre twist to an already unusual story, a convoy of 17 buses carrying Islamic State terrorists and their families has remained stranded since Thursday in the Syrian desert as the US, Russians, and Syrians discuss their fate: attack the convoy or allow it to pass? Regardless of what happens, emerging photos and video depicting ISIS" retreat from Lebanon as well as their current helpless plight stuck in the middle of Syria constitutes perhaps the most significant blow to ISIS propaganda to date.

Earlier this week we reported on the unusual deal which allowed a large convoy of Islamic State fighters and their families to exit their contested stronghold along the Syrian-Lebanese border under the watch of the Lebanese and Syrian armies and Hezbollah after being defeated. As first announced by Hezbollah"s Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah in a speech Monday night, the deal involved the transportation of 26 wounded and 308 ISIS fighters, along with 331 civilian family members via buses and ambulances to Syria"s eastern province. The controversial deal was struck in return for the bodies of 9 Lebanese soldiers, kidnapped by ISIS in 2014.

Stranded ISIS convoy: there are over 600 in the group, which includes civilian family members. Photo source: Stripes, via Arabic media.

ISIS convoy in Syria. Photo source: Louai Beshara/Agence France-Presse

That convoy was allowed to enter Syria but was attacked by the US-led anti-ISIL Coalition on Wednesday as it crossed open desert on its way to the Islamic State stronghold of Deir Ezzor. Per coalition statement, the convoy wasn"t attacked directly - just outlying ISIS vehicles which were attempting to join and bolster the transport. Part of the highway in front of the convoy, including a key bridge, was further targeted in order to stop its movement.

Pretty sure ISIS won"t make a video about this adventure https://t.co/l2tsTKk3QE

— aris roussinos (@arisroussinos) September 1, 2017

According to the latest update (released Friday afternoon) from the US coalition (@CJTFOIR), the buses remain stranded. Apparently, deliveries of food and water have been made:

After turning around and heading back west from the Abul Kamal area, the convoy of 17 buses containing hundreds of armed ISIS fighters and their families remains in the Syrian Desert between Humayma and As Sukhnah.

...In accordance with the law of armed conflict, the Coalition has struck ISIS fighters and vehicles, including a tank, armed technical vehicles, and transport vehicles seeking to facilitate the movement of ISIS fighters to the border area of our Iraqi partners. Food and water have been provided to the convoy.

The ISIS convoy had reportedly been on an indirect and lengthy route through Syria, likely in order to avoid air strike, before being halted. On Friday the Syrian and Lebanese governments extracted another concession as part of negotiations over the fate of the convoy: ISIS handed over the body of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard officer to Hezbollah.

Meanwhile Hezbollah"s Nasrallah revealed that he personally negotiated the deal with Syrian President Assad, who displayed initial reluctance. As Fox News reports:

"I went to President Assad...I went to Damascus," he said, adding that he sought to convince Assad to let the convoy pass through government territory.

"He [Assad] told me, this is embarrassing for us, but no problem," Nasrallah told supporters gathered in eastern Lebanon for a "victory rally" to celebrate the expulsion of ISIS from the border area.

"The Syrian government has put up with the embarrassment for the sake of Lebanon," he said.

The ceasefire agreement immediately sparked controversy in the region, especially in Iraq, whose leaders see the deal as intentionally allowing more terrorists to settle at its own border. The US coalition was also quick to accuse the deal"s brokers as being soft on terrorism and said, "relocating terrorists from one place to another is not a lasting solution.”

But as we pointed out, the US and its allies have routinely allowed for ISIS retreats and transfers much larger in scale which appear purposefully designed to put pressure on the Syrian government. One of the more shocking admissions of such a strategy came in 2016, when then Secretary of State John Kerry was caught on audio telling a Syrian opposition gathering, which met on the sidelines of a U.N. General Assembly meeting, that Obama hoped to use ISIS as leverage against Assad. According to Kerry on the leaked audio (25:50):

"And we know that this was growing, we were watching, we saw that DAESH was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened"... "(We) thought, however, we could probably manage that Assad might then negotiate. But instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him."

One knowledgeable reporter on the ground has observed that the ordeal has been a huge blow to ISIS propaganda. Robert Fisk reports, "some ISIS leaders in Syria did not want members of the group who had surrendered territory to be welcomed back into the so-called caliphate, and the militants should have fought to the death instead." Other observers of Islamic State social media accounts have noted that ISIS members have reacted in disbelief, claiming the entire brokered deal and ISIS retreat to be a fiction of Hezbollah media.

At the moment, terrorists and their families remain sitting on chartered buses in Syrian no-man"s land awaiting the decision of regional and foreign militaries controlling land and air over Syria. Will the convoy be destroyed or allowed to pass? Will the US coalition strike and kill over 300 civilian ISIS family members in the process? Simple imprisonment could prove difficult as the ISIS militants were allowed to carry small arms as part of the deal and will surely go down fighting at this point. Or there"s the remote chance that the Syrians and Hezbollah actually desire for the US to attack the convoy: the Syrian and Lebanese governments could maintain they upheld their end of the bargain (this becomes important for potential future battlefield deals brokered with other groups), while the US would claim the moral high ground of fighting terror. 

Whatever scenario unfolds, this currently developing story is arguably one of the strangest to come out of recent events in the war.

Nikki Haley: Warmonger Extraordinaire!

Authored by Antonius Aquinas,

It must now be a prerequisite of those who become an American ambassador to the UN to possess certain characteristics and traits, the most important of which are rabid warmonger, child killer, and outright liar.

Remember it was Madeleine Albright when asked about the US blockading Iraq which prevented medicine and medical equipment from entering the country that resulted in the estimated death of a half a million children who coldly responded: “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”  Then there is Colin “Weapons of Mass Destruction” Powell who told a bald-face lie about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities which paved the way for the US destruction of the country.

In her brief tenure as UN ambassador, Nikki Haley is fulfilling these requirements quite nicely.  Her latest crazed outburst came on the heels of the bizarre White House press release about another supposed Syrian government gas attack which warned President Assad that he would “pay a heavy price” if carried out.

While the State and Defense Departments were apparently caught off guard by the White House action, Ambassador Haley was not (probably given advanced notice) and issued an even more provocative tweet:

Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing his own people.

Not only has Haley appointed herself judge, jury and executioner of the Assad regime, but her wild accusation includes reprisals to the neocons’ ultimate targets of Russia and Iran.  Her ridiculous statement has now given Syria’s enemies the green light to conduct another gas attack which will be blamed on Assad and his allies, Russia and Iran.  Nice work, Nikki!

From a diplomatic perspective, the entire affair was bungled and amateurish, confirming once again that the Trump Administration is out of its league in conducting foreign policy.

That Haley was even chosen to become part of the Trump Administration has been odd from the beginning, but as things have unfolded quite telling.  Haley was a vociferous critic of the future president.  She, and the likes of another war-monger and Russophobe, Lindsey Graham, were consistently attacking candidate Trump for being “soft” on Russia and his immigration stance especially his wildly popular border wall proposal.  To Haley and Graham, Donald Trump was out of step with the Republican Party’s values such as diversity as represented by Haley who, herself, is of Indian heritage.

Yet, despite all of the vitriol heaped at candidate Trump, the newly elected president, in a surprising and ominous move, decided to make the South Carolina governor, UN ambassador.  This, and a number of other selections to foreign policy posts, signaled that President Trump would abandon his promises and vote-garnering campaign talk of peaceful coexistence with Russia, a reduction of US presence in the Middle East, and in other hot spots across the globe.

While Haley has been an ardent warmonger from the start, President Trump did not have to select her for the post.  There were other more competent and surely less belligerent candidates available.  More than likely, the choice was probably a nod to his “advisor” daughter Ivanka, to curry favor among feminists.

While President Trump’s pick of Haley was an implicit betrayal of a large segment of his base, his foreign policy actions since becoming chief executive have been an explicit rejection of putting America first which he spoke of at his inaugural.  From escalating tensions with puny North Korea, dropping the mother-of-all-bombs on Afghanistan for no apparent reason, to making multi-billion dollar armament deals with the despots of Saudi Arabia among other troubling endeavors, Trump’s foreign policy is little different than his infamous predecessors.

While it looks like President Trump may have won the war, at least temporary, over the press and the anti-Trump Congressional forces about the fake Russian election involvement, he and his bellicose UN ambassador are now using the same underhanded methods to instigate a conflict to depose President Assad.  While the alternative media rightly showed how the mainstream press and politicos made up and manipulated stories to undermine President Trump, it should now be intellectually honest and call out the president and his UN ambassador for what they are doing in Syria.  In doing so, it may prevent the outbreak of WWIII.

Tillerson: Russia Should Decide Assad's Fate

And so, three months after the US State Department famously flip-flopped, when first at the end of March Rex Tillerson said at a news conference that “the longer term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people" adding that "our priority is no longer to sit and focus on getting Assad out" only to follow one week later with Tillerson"s warning to Russia that "coalition steps are underway to remove Assad" which in turn segued into the first US attack on Syrian soil with the launch of no less than 59 cruise missiles, the US has done it again and according to Foreign Policy, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has once again told the U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres that the fate of Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad now lies in the hands of Russia, and that the Trump administration’s priority is limited to defeating the Islamic State.

The striking reversal was announced during a private State Department meeting last week, according to three diplomatic sources cited by FP.

And, as FP adds, "the remarks offer the latest stop on a bumpy U.S. policy ride that has left international observers with a case of diplomatic whiplash as they try to figure out whether the Trump administration will insist that Assad step down from power. Nearly three months ago, Tillerson had insisted that Assad would have to leave office because of his alleged use of chemical weapons."

The news, which will again be met with an angry response by neocons like John McCain - as happened in March - signaled the Trump administration’s increasing willingness to let Russia take the driver’s seat in Syria. Tillerson also signaled that U.S. military action against Assad’s forces in recent months is intended to achieve only limited tactical goals–deterring future chemical weapons attacks and protecting U.S. backed-forces fighting the Islamic State in Syria–not weakening the Assad government or strengthening the opposition’s negotiating leverage.

And a startling admission by the website owned by the Slate Group:

Tillerson’s position reflects a recognition that Syria’s government, backed by Russia and Iran, is emerging as the likely political victor in the country’s six year long civil war. It also marks a further retreat from the 2012 U.N.-brokered Geneva Communique — signed by Russia, the United States, and other key powers — which called for the establishment of a transitional government with members of the regime and the opposition. The Geneva pact, according to the Obama administration and other Western allies, was to result in Assad’s departure from power. 

When asked for a comment, a State Department official insisted that the U.S. remains “committed to the Geneva process” and supports a “credible political process that can resolve the question of Syria’s future. Ultimately, this process, in our view, will lead to a resolution of Assad’s status.” He added that "The Syrian people should determine their country’s political future through a political process."

Some more details:

The decision to cede ground to Russia on the question of Assad’s future comes on the eve of President Donald Trump’s first face-to-face meeting next week with President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany.  It also comes at a time when the Trump administration is seeking to repair relations with the Kremlin despite a series of scandals that have plagued the White House since Trump’s election.

Tillerson said earlier this month that Trump tasked him with repairing the broken U.S.-Russia relationship. The secretary of state has also cautioned Congress that new sanctions against Russia for its alleged role in interfering in the U.S. election could undercut efforts to cooperate with Moscow on Syria.

And this is the part the neocons will hate the most:

Tillerson made clear to Guterres that the U.S. was once again shifting gears. “What happens to Assad is Russia’s issue, not the U.S. government’s,” one source said Tillerson told the U.N. chief in last week’s meeting. Tillerson’s message, the official added, was that “the U.S. government will respond to the terrorist threat,” but that it is largely agnostic about “whether Assad goes or stays.”

Tillerson’s retreat suggests the State Department is willing to skirt the ethical morass of what to do about the Assad regime as it navigates the dense thicket of conflicting alliances fighting in Syria.

“The reason the United States is involved in Syria is to take out ISIS,” State Department Spokeswoman Heather Nauert told reporters Wednesday. “That’s why we care and that’s why we are there.” Fred Hof, former State Department special advisor for transition in Syria, called the Trump administration’s stance on Russia in Syria “confusing.”

He pinned the blame on Trump’s lack of a coherent, overarching national security strategy. “There’s no hymnal that’s supposed to guide how everybody sings,” he said. “The fact that there are multiple voices and stances coming out on this doesn’t surprise me.”

On ceding Assad’s fate to Russia: “It is one thing to walk away from the problem and say let the Russians take care of it,” he said. “It’s another thing to assume you can actually get somewhere policy-wise by relying on the Russians to deliver good results.”

FP observes the anger already building following the latest pivot, mostly among legacy staffers from the Obama administration:

Former senior U.S. officials are vexed by how the Trump administration is ceding political ground on Syria to the Kremlin for almost nothing in return. “The things we’re hearing coming out of the administration have mainly to do with what the U.S. might offer Russia, and not the other way around,” said Evelyn Farkas, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia.

Moscow stands to benefit the most from a slew of contradictory Syria messages coming out of Washington, according to Farkas. Without a clear agenda going into the meeting next week with Putin at the G20, she said, “there’s a danger the president will get outfoxed.”

The latest pivot by the Trump administration back to its stance to before the US president launched missiles at a Syrian airfield for allegedly using chemical weapons on rebels means that it is only a matter of time before yet another staged "chemical attack" is widely publicized by the press, greenlighting yet another escalation of hostilities against the Assad regime, and so on, because to those in the deep state hell bent on preserving the new cold war between the US and Russia, there is no such thing as a discredited narrative.

Why The EU's Policy Towards The Syrian Conflict Is A Disaster?

Via GEFIRA.org,

The European Union has to understand finally that idealism is simply magnifying human suffering and endangering the security of all parties. There is the realist alternative, which focuses on one’s own interest instead of morality. However, such foreign policy has a highly ethical purpose, i.e. peace and stability. The EU member states have made many mistakes during Syria’s civil war, which decreased their prestige, influence and security. Through the realist lens it’s important to make a serious assessment, which side in the conflict should be supported, and to remember that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

The realists don’t refrain from bold proposals and suggestions when it comes to foreign policy. In 2012 Kenneth Waltz argued that Iran should have access to nuclear weapons. Three years later Stephen Walt pointed that in case of ISIS’s victory in Syria, the international community should learn how to live with it’s potential new member.Right now there are voices among realists, according to which the attempts to overthrow the al-Assad government were a mistake. Those examples result from a distinctive view of morality’s place in international relations.

According to realists, no country can be certain about other states’ intentions. That’s why security may be guaranteed by maximization of one’s power, so potential enemies are effectively deterred. States’ leaders should focus mainly on national interests. Realists assume that morality results in unnecessary suffering and endangers state’s importance in international relations. This is the reason why such analysts criticize humanitarian intervention, which jeopardizes the most important element of the state’s power, i.e. its citizens, and may cause a long-term involvement in affairs of a country that has no direct strategic meaning. Realists opposed the intervention in Libya in 2011, which was considered needless and conducted in an inept way. They were also against the intervention in Vietnam, which they viewed as doomed to fail, and the war in Iraq in 2003, which was perceived as destabilizing the whole region (and it turned out it was a correct assessment!).

Realism focuses on cold-hearted calculation. However, such foreign policy isn’t immoral. The competition for power and the balance that is its effect are the means to a highly ethical end, i.e. peace. It’s this mechanism that made the bipolar system so stable, made the sense of security for both parties and prevented the world from another global war.

Having in mind the mentioned issues, the question arises how the EU member states should act towards the Syrian crisis. It’s argued they ought to abandon their current foreign policy based on human rights ideology and altruism, and focus on their own security and ability to influence the future of the region. What’s the most important, in the case of Syria the radical solutions are the only and the best ones.

The prominent international relations scholar and the creator of modern realist school of thought – Hans Morgenthau – has written a few decades ago why the invasion in the Bay of Pigs had to fail. In the decision-making process both interest and the rule of non-intervention based on moral assumptions were taken into account. This resulted in a limited scope of intervention as the US feared the loss of prestige. The defeat was an effect of a policy that manoeuvred between security and ideas. In the end the goal wasn’t accomplished and the American prestige suffered. The Syrian case is somehow similar and that’s why the EU’s actions are bound to be inefficient.

Leaders of the EU member states assume that al-Assad isn’t and can’t be a partner in negotiations as he should be held responsible for his crimes and his regime should be overthrown.At the same time the West’s intervention, conducted mainly by the U.S., France and Great Britain, is still limited in its scope. Attacks on al-Assad’s forces aren’t handicapping his capabilities and simply protract the stalemate. The rebels are armed by the West, but not in the way that they can gain a strategic advantage.  As a result the conflict is prolonged, the Syrian people’s suffering is increasing and the refugee and migration crisis is escalating. Except that no-one should be surprised that the Syrian president decided to fight until the end as the West stated blatantly he has to go.

What would a realist suggest? There are two radical options. One is the military intervention, which will change the balance of power in the war theatre and will result in overthrowing the government. However, such a scenario would result in a deep crisis between the West and Russia. What’s more, the West would have to count on Moscow’s withdrawal. At the same time the transformation would have to be conducted and if it was to succeed, there would be a necessity to create a new stable administration, i.e. a new satellite regime managed by the West. This, however, would require a long-term involvement in the reconstruction of the Syrian state. It is both risky and expensive.

The second possibility is to assume that al-Assad will win the war. It means that Europe may support him or at least withdraw from operations in Syria, so that other powers may have an influence on the country’s future. The first option is unthinkable for the West because of prestige and ideological factors. The other seems reasonable, though it won’t ensure stability as fast as Europe would expect.

EU member states have to acknowledge the fact that at the moment it doesn’t matter who will rule in Syria. For the EU the consolidation of power is important as it may contain the migration crisis. The opponents of al-Assad will surely point to the fact that his survival will relate to further incidents of political purges. But do we really believe that the internally divided opposition, which consists of democratic forces, government runaways and jihadist militias, won’t fight for the domination after al-Assad’s fall and won’t be responsible for other atrocities? We’ve been there before. In Libya, the West supported the rebel groups that had been fighting between each other for six years already since al-Kaddafi was murdered.

Policy-makers who base their diplomacy on moral issues, may argue that al-Assad’s staying in power is simply unethical. Yet, the bringing down the authoritarian governments in Baghdad and Tripoli resulted in a political vacuum, the destabilization of the region and suffering of the whole societies. At the same time the interventions weren’t conducted where it would be quite cheap and could actually protect human rights, for instance in Rwanda. Especially when you consider the fact that the West, and France in the first place, probably knew about the planned carnage and there are even reports it supported Hutu organisations.

For many the most important problem is the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian president. However, as Stephen Walt argued excellently, such crime attracts more attention. Those heinous acts result in our moral considerations about intervening. However, such dilemmas don’t occur in politicians’ minds when the bombing of civilians takes place.

Except for the aforementioned matters, we have to remember that pre-war Syria was in the Russian sphere of influence. Bashar al-Assad was perceived by the West as an enemy not because he violated human rights, but because he was Moscow’s and Tehran’s ally and because of his anti-Israel attitude, which was against the U.S.-Israel alliance. However, when the favourable circumstances emerged, France during the presidency of right-wing Sarkozy tried to end with al-Assad’s isolation and the French president stated that the Syrian leader was irreplaceable in the process of conflict-resolution in the Middle East. The U.S. under the democratic rule also considered the Syrian government as a potential partner in the period before the Arab spring. For example, the then senator and later secretary of state John Kerry stressed that America and Syria have common interests and al-Assad’s government is an essential player in the Middle East. When the revolution started, the West was thinking possibly that the chance to get rid of the inconvenient actor is at hand. Yet, the intervention on the side of the opposition is nothing more than meddling in another dominant power’s sphere of influence. What’s more, such involvement isn’t motivated by any crucial interest. A realist remembers that balance of power, which is related to assuring stability in one’s own sphere, allows to keep the international order and peace. The West shouldn’t hinder Russia’s operations aiming at restoring status quo ante and ensuring security.

The EU member states, which support the rebels, seem to not understand not only Russia’s role in the conflict but also Turkish interests. Ankara was repeatedly accused of backing up ISIS. If it was true, it would be possibly nothing more that cold-hearted calculation, i.e. the desire to create a dependent state or at least a state that would be a partner. The Turkish administration quickly realised that the balance of capabilities in Syria suggests that al-Assad is the strongest party. That’s why it wasn’t problematic for Turks to talk about Syria’s future with President Putin. Especially considering the fact that Syrian government’s preservation would be useful in maintaining Turkish territorial integrity and the smashing Kurdish rebellion.

How did the Western Europe act in the meantime? In 2016 the deal related to migration control was signed and it was expected that Turkey would provide shelter for Syrian refugees. At the same time France is reconfirming support for Kurdish demands as it has during last couple of years, which is a direct blow against Turkish interests. Germany is doing just the same as it decided to cooperate with PYD and YPG. When the West is aiding opposition forces, it’s protracting war at the Turkish gates and it’s threatening Ankara’s sense of security. Did we really anticipate that under such conditions Erdo?an will keep his promises? A realist wouldn’t be surprised by such a policy of the Turkish government, which is focused mainly (as every other administration!) on security and survival.

EU member states intervene hesitantly and follow the human rights ideology. It results in resigning from the place at the negotiating table, which is an act against Turkey’s and Russia’s interests of, the countries that seem to be ready to work together on the shape of post-war Syria. Therefore, EU is losing prestige, signalling to other powers that it is weak and is unable to protect its interests. Hans Morgenthau noticed correctly that states may gain if they end wars that are doomed to fail.

In one of his books John J. Mearsheimer pointed out that the democratic states use the liberal lie, i.e. they refer to the Western values, to intervene in other countries when the need to secure interests appears. It seems that in the case of Syria, the EU isn’t pursuing its interests and is driven by moral principles. As a result, it is suffering from loss of prestige and is endangering its own security. The Finnish president stated in 2016 properly that EU has a dilemma: should it protect its people and values or should it meet its international obligations. A realist has no second thoughts that every state should focus on guaranteeing its own survival and should concentrate on keeping citizens safe.

The presented reasoning doesn’t imply that the al-Assad government should be treated as a partner after the war ends. Yet, for Europe it is important to attain one goal after another. Firstly, we need to end the civil war and migration crisis, no matter what the cost. After that we may try to influence the government in Damascus, so that there is a power transition or power transition.

The al-Assad’s survival is crucial for the region as Syria was an important element of the balance of power and at the same time it helped to keep the peace. Europe is proceeding with a disastrous policy, which protracts the conflict. Thucydides wrote in “The History of the Peloponnesian War” that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Europe should show its full power by conducting government change or negotiating with other powers if the first proposal is impossible. The policy of indecisiveness is nothing more than a sign of EU’s weakness and a suggestion to other players that they can test its patience constantly. The West should face the fact that, as John J. Mearsheimer stated, its social engineering aiming at overthrowing the governments failed and it would be better for everyone if it simply withdrew.

President Trump And Turkish President Erdogan Deliver Joint Statement: Live Feed

With relations between Turkey and the US suffering sharp recent deterioration, especially following tensions over the treatment of Kurdish militia in Syria, the strategy to eliminate ISIS, what role Syria"s president Assad  would have in the future of the middle east, and especially after Erdogan effectively declared himself quasi-dictator, many were looking forward with interest to today"s joint statement between the two presidents to see what if any compromise could emerge on the future of Syria, and specifically how fraying diplomatic ties between the two nations could be redeemed.

After Trump welcomed Erdogan to the White House he told reporters the two would have "long and hard discussions" that would make their bilateral relationship better.

"It"s a great honor to have President Erdogan from Turkey here," Trump said before the start of their meetings. "We"re going to have long and hard discussions. I know that they will be very successful. We"ve had a great relationship and we will make it even better. So we"re going to have a very, very strong and solid discussion."

Tucker Carlson Tackles the Dangerous Case of the Democratic War Party, Itching For a Fight With Russia

During last night"s Tucker Carlson show, he attempted to find out why the democratic party, the same people who prided themselves on being anti-war during the Bush administration, were so god damned eager to wage war with just about anyone they could find willing to participate.
 
Inside of their party is one sole source of reason, Tulsi Gabbard, Iraqi war veteran, and Congresswoman from Hawaii who sits on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees. In response to Trump"s actions in Syria, Gabbard issued the following statement.
 

“It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia—which could lead to nuclear war.
 
“This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning. If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder.”

Rep. Gabbard: “Yes, I’m skeptical” of claim Assad regime is behind chemical weapons attack https://t.co/fETssThsLF https://t.co/fpYdUNR2t4

— CNN (@CNN) April 7, 2017

The subsequent result of her seemingly rational position was leaders on the left calling for her to step down.

This is a disgrace. Gabbard should not be in Congress. https://t.co/yDTh43GZam

— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) April 9, 2017

Carlson tackled the subject in an eloquent 1-minute monolog.
 

 
One of his guests last night was a Democratic strategist, Al Mattour, war hawk -- a man interested in overseeing the deaths of thousands.
 
In a nutshell, Al believes we should wage war with anyone who attempts to "disrupt our elections." Tucker asked Mattour, plainly, "how does having a confrontation with Russia makes our country more safer and prosperous?"
 
Mattour replied "it makes us safer in our democratic processes to make sure their integrity is preserved."
 
When Tucker juxtaposed China"s actions towards the United States against Russia, asking "why aren"t you pushing for confrontation with China? They"re doing everything Russia is doing, and more," Mattour agreed that we should be confronting them in a similar bellicose fashion.
 

 
Lastly, Stephen Cohen, Professor of Russian studies at Princeton and NYU, an actual expert on China, weighed in, saying "Russia thinks we"re crazy, completely crazy."
 
He even took some time to express his "disgust" with Al Mattour, saying "your previous guest, I don"t mean to be rude to him. First of all, he doesn"t know what he"s talking about. And, secondly, he excludes the reality that Russia has a politics. And the politics in Russia today as we talk is [...] the concern that America is preparing war against Russia. If not on Syria, then on the other two cold war fronts [...] where NATO is building up in an unprecedented way. This is not good because they have nuclear weapons and because accidents happen."
 
He then theorized what the conversation between Putin and Tillerson was like, pointing to the two having a history of trust together from the time Tillerson led Exxon Mobile.

"Rex, says Putin, what in the world is going on in Washington?"

 
Professor Cohen, ominously, summed it up, "I"m not young. I"ve been doing this 40 years, sometimes as a Professor, sometimes inside. I have never been as worried as I am today about the possibility of war with Russia."
 

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

Ron Paul: "Zero Chance" Assad Behind Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria; Likely A False Flag

According to former Congressman Ron Paul, the chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun that killed 30 children and has led to calls for the Trump administration to intervene in Syria could have been a false flag attack.

As Paul Joseph Watson details, pointing out that the prospect of peace in Syria was moving closer before the attack, with ISIS and Al-Qaeda on the run, Paul said the attack made no sense.

“It looks like maybe somebody didn’t like that so there had to be an episode,” said Paul, asking, “who benefits?”

“It doesn’t make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gases – I think there’s zero chance he would have done this deliberately,” said Paul.

he former Congressman went on to explain how the incident was clearly being exploited by neo-cons and the deep state to enlist support for war.

“It’s the neo-conservatives who are benefiting tremendously from this because it’s derailed the progress that has already been made moving toward a more peaceful settlement in Syria,” said Paul.

Many have questioned why Assad would be so strategically stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack and incite the wrath of the world given that he is closer than ever to winning the war against ISIS and jihadist rebels.

Just five days before the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, “The longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people,” implying a definite shift in U.S. foreign policy away from regime change in Syria.

Why would Assad put such assurances in jeopardy by launching a horrific chemical attack, allowing establishment news outlets like CNN to once against use children as props to push for yet another massive war in the Middle East?

New Declassified CIA Memo Presents Blueprint for Syrian Regime Collapse

Submitted by Brad Hoff via The Libertarian Institute,

A newly declassified CIA document explored multiple scenarios of Syrian regime collapse at a time when Hafez al-Assad’s government was embroiled in a covert “dirty war” with Israel and the West, and in the midst of a diplomatic crisis which marked an unprecedented level of isolation for Syria.

The 24-page formerly classified memo entitled Syria: Scenarios of Dramatic Political Change was produced in July 1986, and had high level distribution within the Reagan administration and to agency directors, including presidential advisers, the National Security Council, and the US ambassador to Syria. The memo appears in the CIA’s latest CREST release (CIA Records Search Tool) of over 900,000 recently declassified documents.

A “severely restricted” report

The memo’s cover letter, drafted by the CIA’s Director of Global Issues (the report itself was prepared by the division’s Foreign Subversion and Instability Center), introduces the purpose of presenting “a number of possible scenarios that could lead to the ouster of President Assad or other dramatic change in Syria.”

It further curiously warns that, “Because the analysis out of context is susceptible to misunderstanding, external distribution has been severely restricted.” The report’s narrowed distribution list (sent to specific named national security heads, not entire agencies) indicates that it was considered at the highest levels of the Reagan administration.

The coming sectarian war for Syria

The intelligence report’s contents contain some striking passages which seem remarkably consistent with events as they unfolded decades later at the start of the Syrian war in 2011:

Although we judge that fear of reprisals and organizational problems make a second Sunni challenge unlikely, an excessive government reaction to minor outbreaks of Sunni dissidence might trigger large-scale unrest. In most instances the regime would have the resources to crush a Sunni opposition movement, but we believe widespread violence among the populace could stimulate large numbers of Sunni officers and conscripts to desert or munity, setting the stage for civil war. [pg.2]

The “second Sunni challenge” is a reference to the Syrian government’s prior long running war against a Muslim Brotherhood insurgency which culminated in the 1982 Hama Massacre. While downplaying the nationalist and pluralistic composition of the ruling Ba’ath party, the report envisions a renewal and exploitation of sectarian fault lines pitting Syria’s Sunni population against its Alawite leadership:

Sunnis make up 60 percent of the Syrian officer corps but are concentrated in junior officer ranks; enlisted men are predominantly Sunni conscripts. We believe that a renewal of communal violence between Alawis and Sunnis could inspire Sunnis in the military to turn against the regime. [pg.12]

Regime change and the Muslim Brotherhood

The possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood spearheading another future armed insurgency leading to regime change is given extensive focus. While the document’s tone suggests this as a long term future scenario (especially considering the Brotherhood suffered overwhelming defeat and went completely underground in Syria by the mid-1980’s), it is considered one of the top three “most likely” drivers of regime change (the other scenarios include “Succession Power Struggle” and “Military Reverses Spark a Coup”).

The potential for revival of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “militant faction” is introduced in the following:

Although the Muslim Brotherhood’s suppression drastically reduced armed dissidence, we judge a significant potential still exists for another Sunni opposition movement. In part the Brotherhood’s role was to exploit and orchestrate opposition activity by other organized groups… These groups still exist, and under proper leadership they could coalesce into a large movement… …young professionals who formed the base of support for the militant faction of the Muslim Brotherhood; and remnants of the Brotherhood itself who could become leaders in a new Sunni opposition movement… [pp.13-14]

The Brotherhood’s role is seen as escalating the potential for initially small Sunni protest movements to morph into violent sectarian civil war:

Sunni dissidence has been minimal since Assad crushed the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1980s, but deep-seated tensions remain–keeping alive the potential for minor incidents to grow into major flareups of communal violence… Excessive government force in quelling such disturbances might be seen by Sunnis as evidence of a government vendetta against all Sunnis, precipitating even larger protests by other Sunni groups…

Mistaking the new protests as a resurgence of the Muslim Brotherhood, the government would step up its use of force and launch violent attacks on a broad spectrum of Sunni community leaders as well as on those engaged in protests. Regime efforts to restore order would founder if government violence against protestors inspired broad-based communal violence between Alawis and Sunnis. [pp.19-20]

The CIA report describes the final phase of an evolving sectarian war which witnesses the influx of fighters and weapons from neighboring countries. Consistent with a 1983 secret report that called for a US covert operation to utilize then US-allied Iraq as a base of attack on Syria, the 1986 analysis says, “Iraq might supply them with sufficient weapons to launch a civil war”:

A general campaign of Alawi violence against Sunnis might push even moderate Sunnis to join the opposition. Remnants of the Muslim Brotherhood–some returning from exile in Iraq–could provide a core of leadership for the movement. Although the regime has the resources to crush such a venture, we believe brutal attacks on Sunni civilians might prompt large numbers of Sunni officers and conscripts to desert or stage mutinies in support of dissidents, and Iraq might supply them with sufficient weapons to launch a civil war. [pp.20-21]

A Sunni regime serving Western economic interests

While the document is primarily a theoretical exploration projecting scenarios of Syrian regime weakening and collapse (its purpose is analysis and not necessarily policy), the authors admit of its “purposefully provocative” nature (see PREFACE) and closes with a list desired outcomes. One provocative outcome describes a pliant “Sunni regime” serving US economic interests:

In our view, US interests would be best served by a Sunni regime controlled by business-oriented moderates. Business moderates would see a strong need for Western aid and investment to build Syria’s private economy, thus opening the way for stronger ties to Western governments. [pg. 24]

Ironically, the Syrian government would accuse the United States and its allies of covert subversion within Syria after a string of domestic bombings created diplomatic tensions during the mid-1980’s.

Dirty tricks and diplomacy in the 1980’s

According to Patrick Seale’s landmark book, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East, 1986 was a year that marked Syria’s greatest isolation among world powers as multiple diplomatic crises and terror events put Syria more and more out in the cold.

The year included “the Hindawi affair”—a Syrian intelligence sponsored attempt to hijack and bomb an El Al flight to Tel Aviv—and may or may not have involved Nezar Hindawi working as a double agent on behalf of Israel. The foiled plot brought down international condemnation on Syria and lives on as one of the more famous and bizarre terror conspiracies in history. Not only were Syria and Israel once again generally on the brink of war in 1986, but a string of “dirty tricks” tactics were being utilized by Syria and its regional enemies to shape diplomatic outcomes primarily in Lebanon and Jordan.

In March and April of 1986 (months prior to the distribution of the CIA memo), a string of still largely unexplained car bombs rocked Damascus and at least 5 towns throughout Syria, leaving over 200 civilians dead in the most significant wave of attacks since the earlier ’79-’82 war with the Muslim Brotherhood (also see BBC News recount the attacks).

Patrick Seale’s book speculates of the bombings that, “It may not have been unconnected that in late 1985 the NSC’s Colonel Oliver North and Amiram Nir, Peres’s counter-terrorism expert, set up a dirty tricks outfit to strike back at the alleged sponsors of Middle East terrorism.”

Consistency with future WikiLeaks files

The casual reader of Syria: Scenarios of Dramatic Political Change will immediately recognize a strategic thinking on Syria that looks much the same as what is revealed in national security memos produced decades later in the run up to the current war in Syria.

When US cables or intelligence papers talk regime change in Syria they usually strategize in terms of exploiting sectarian fault lines. In a sense, this is the US national security bureaucracy’s fall-back approach to Syria.

One well-known example is contained in a December 2006 State Dept. cable sent from the US embassy in Syria (subsequently released by WikiLeaks). The cable’s stated purpose is to explore Syrian regime vulnerabilities and weaknesses to exploit (in similar fashion to the 1986 CIA memo):

PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE: There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis. Though often exaggerated, such fears reflect an element of the Sunni community in Syria that is increasingly upset by and focused on the spread of Iranian influence in their country through activities ranging from mosque construction to business.

Another section of the 2006 cable explains precisely the same scenario laid out in the 1986 memo in describing the increased “possibility of a self-defeating over-reaction” on the part of the regime.:

ENCOURAGE RUMORS AND SIGNALS OF EXTERNAL PLOTTING: The regime is intensely sensitive to rumors about coup-plotting and restlessness in the security services and military. Regional allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia should be encouraged to meet with figures like [former Vice President Abdul Halim] Khaddam and [younger brother of Hafez] Rif’at Asad as a way of sending such signals, with appropriate leaking of the meetings afterwards. This again touches on this insular regime’s paranoia and increases the possibility of a self-defeating over-reaction.

And ironically, Rif’at Asad and Khaddam are both mentioned extensively in the 1986 memo as key players during a speculative future “Succession Power Struggle.” [p.15]

An Islamic State in Damascus?

While the 1986 CIA report makes a case in its concluding paragraph for “a Sunni regime controlled by business-oriented moderates” in Syria, the authors acknowledge that the collapse of the Ba’ath state could actually usher in the worst of all possible outcomes for Washington and the region: “religious zealots” might seek to establish “an Islamic Republic”. The words take on a new and special importance now, after the rise of ISIS:

Although Syria’s secular traditions would make it extremely difficult for religious zealots to establish an Islamic Republic, should they succeed they would likely deepen hostilities with Israel and provide support and sanctuary to terrorists groups. [pg.24]

What continues to unfold in Syria has apparently surpassed even the worst case scenarios of intelligence planners in the 1980’s. Tinkering with regime change has proven itself to be the most dangerous of all games.

Tulsi Gabbard Versus "Regime Change" Wars

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is a rare member of Congress willing to take heat for challenging U.S. “regime change” projects, in part, because as an Iraq War vet she saw the damage these schemes do, as retired Col. Ann Wright explains to ConsortiumNews.com.

I support Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, going to Syria and meeting with President Bashar al-Assad because the congresswoman is a brave person willing to take criticism for challenging U.S. policies that she believes are wrong.

It is important that we have representatives in our government who will go to countries where the United States is either killing citizens directly by U.S. intervention or indirectly by support of militia groups or by sanctions.

We need representatives to sift through what the U.S. government says and what the media reports to find out for themselves the truth, the shades of truth and the untruths.

We need representatives willing to take the heat from both their fellow members of Congress and from the media pundits who will not go to those areas and talk with those directly affected by U.S. actions. We need representatives who will be our eyes and ears to go to places where most citizens cannot go.

Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran who has seen first-hand the chaos that can come from misguided “regime change” projects, is not the first international observer to come back with an assessment about the tragic effects of U.S. support for lethal “regime change” in Syria.

Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire began traveling to Syria three years ago and now having made three trips to Syria. She has come back hearing many of the same comments from Syrians that Rep. Gabbard heard — that U.S. support for “regime change” against the secular government of Syria is contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians and – if the “regime change” succeeded – might result in the takeover by armed religious-driven fanatics who would slaughter many more Syrians and cause a mass migration of millions fleeing the carnage.

Since 2011, the Obama administration supported various rebel groups fighting for “regime change” in Syria while U.S. allies – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey – backed jihadist groups including Islamic State and Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, some of the same extremists whom the U.S. military is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Assad were overthrown, these extremists might take power and create even worse conditions for Syrians.

This possibility of jihadists imposing perverted extremist religious views on the secular state of Syria remains high due to international meddling in the internal affairs of Syria. This “regime change” project also drew in Russia to provide air support for the Syrian military.

Critical of Obama’s ‘Regime Change’

During the Obama administration, Rep. Gabbard spoke critically of the U.S. propensity to attempt “regime change” in countries and thus provoking chaos and loss of civilian life.

On Dec. 8, 2016, she introduced a bill entitled the “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” which would prohibit the U.S. government from using U.S. funds to provide funding, weapons, training, and intelligence support to extremists groups, such as the ones fighting in Syria – or to countries that are providing direct or indirect support to those groups.

In the first days of the Trump administration, Rep. Gabbard traveled to Syria to see the effects of the attempted “regime change” and to offer a solution to reduce the deaths of civilians and the end of the war in Syria. A national organization Veterans For Peace, to which I belong, has endorsed her trip as a step toward resolution to the Syrian conflict.

Not surprisingly, back in Washington, Rep. Gabbard came under attack for the trip and for her meeting with President Assad, similar to criticism that I have faced because of visits that I have made to countries where the U.S. government did not want me to go — to Cuba, Iran, Gaza, Yemen, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia and back to Afghanistan, where I was assigned as a U.S. diplomat.

I served my country for 29 years in the U.S. Army/ Army Reserves and retired as a colonel. I also served 16 years in the U.S. diplomatic corps in U.S. Embassies in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. I resigned from the U.S. government nearly 14 years ago in March 2003 in opposition to President George W. Bush’s “regime change” war on Iraq.

In my travels since my resignation, I didn’t agree with many of the policies of the governments in power in those countries. But I wanted to see the effects of U.S. government policies and, in particular, the effects of attempts at “regime change.”

I wanted to talk with citizens and government officials about the effects of U.S. sanctions and whether the sanctions “worked” to lessen their support for the government that the U.S. was attempting to change or overthrow.

For making those trips, I have been criticized strongly. I have been called an apologist for the governments in power. Critics have said that my trips have given legitimacy to the abuses by those governments. And I have been called a traitor to the United States to dare question or challenge its policy of “regime change.”

But I am not an apologist, nor am I a traitor … nor is Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard for her recent trip to Syria.

*  *  *

Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army/Army Reserves and retired as a colonel. She also was a U.S. diplomat for 16 years and served in U.S. Embassies in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. She resigned in March 2003 in opposition to the war in Iraq. She has lived in Honolulu since 2003.

Congresswoman Who Says U.S. Funds ISIS Just Got Back from Syria: Here's What She Found

Submitted by Darius Shahtahmasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,

Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, the lawmaker who accused the U.S. government of funding and arming ISIS and introduced a bill to prevent it from happening in future, recently disclosed that she met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during her recent trip to Syria. The move has reportedly angered many of her fellow congressmen and women.

Upon returning from the war-stricken nation, Gabbard released the following statement in the form of a press release:

“My visit to Syria has made it abundantly clear: Our counterproductive regime change war does not serve America’s interest, and it certainly isn’t in the interest of the Syrian people.

“As I visited with people from across the country, and heard heartbreaking stories of how this war has devastated their lives, I was asked, ‘Why is the United States and its allies helping al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups try to take over Syria? Syria did not attack the United States. Al-Qaeda did.’ I had no answer.”

According to the press release, Gabbard met with refugees, Syrian opposition leaders who led protesters in 2011, widows and family members who fight alongside al-Qaeda groups, pro-Assad troops, humanitarian workers, and students, to name a few. Gabbard also met with high-ranking officials such as Lebanon’s newly-elected President Aon and Prime Minister Hariri, as well as U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Elizabeth Richard, Syrian President Assad, Grand Mufti Hassoun, and Archbishop Denys Antoine Chahda of the Syrian Catholic Church of Aleppo.

Initially, Gabbard allegedly had no intention of meeting Assad, as she stated in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper.

“When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so because I felt that it’s important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we can achieve peace,” she told Tapper.

The meeting with Assad is incredibly controversial because of numerous allegations by the U.N. that Assad has committed crimes against humanity.

“Whatever you think about President Assad, the fact is that he is the president of Syria,” she added. “In order for any peace agreement, in order for any possibility of a viable peace agreement to occur there has to be a conversation with him.”

Not surprisingly, the media has hyped up this visit as outrageous but has omitted some very glaring hypocrisies that arise as a result of Gabbard’s trip to Syria.

First, the Obama administration and Bush administration both drew serious allegations of war crimes, but if Gabbard had met with either of those former presidents, it’s doubtful anyone would have batted an eyelid.

Second, former Secretary of State John Kerry met with Assad in 2009, even though, after nine years in office, Assad was clearly responsible for all of the things western media has been relentlessly accusing him of doing since 2011.

Third, Gabbard’s meeting symbolizes the ridiculousness of America’s foreign policy decision-making system. A few hundred old men and women who have never been to Syria — nor care to go — sit in a room and deliberate a piece of paper deciding whether or not to drop million dollar tomahawk missiles on a relatively poor country. Even when these decision-makers are well aware of the horror their edicts will unleash, they are never required to visit the country, talk to its people, or understand the situation and better educate themselves. In the case of Syria, Congress wasn’t even required to approve the air campaign that began in 2014, as Obama authorized airstrikes without their approval anyway.

Gabbard’s move should be applauded — not ridiculed. Singling Assad out as some sort of mass-murdering psychopath while foreign leaders routinely meet with alleged war criminals such as Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu, Saudi Arabia’s leadership, and Henry Kissinger, to name a few, is the epitome of U.S.-NATO arrogance.

Gabbard may have met with a mass murderer, but she also met with numerous people on the ground — the people who matter most. After doing so, she concluded:

“I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government. I call upon Congress and the new Administration to answer the pleas of the Syrian people immediately and support the Stop Arming Terrorists Act. We must stop directly and indirectly supporting terrorists—directly by providing weapons, training and logistical support to rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS; and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, who, in turn, support these terrorist groups. We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.”

No one can criticize her strategy because, for the last six years, no one has even attempted it.

Intelligence Report Reveals US Urged Saddam Hussein to Attack Syria

January 24, 2017   |   Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) — Despite what even some alternative media commentators might argue, the Syrian war is about oil, gas, and money. A secret 1983 intelligence report has confirmed that America’s distaste for the Assad family in Syria has always revolved around pipeline disputes — and this alone has given the U.S. cause to go to war with Syria.

Most disturbingly, the report revealed that the United States urged Saddam Hussein to attack Hafez al-Assad in Syria because of the closure of Iraq’s oil pipeline.

The report by former senior CIA official Graham Fuller urged the U.S. to consider “urging Iraq to take the war to Syria,” noting Saddam was “fighting for his life” in the Iran-Iraq campaign. The closure of the Iraq pipeline was seen to have a “hammerlock” on U.S. interests in the region.

Fuller said the U.S. should consider “sharply escalating the pressures against Assad” from three border states hostile to Syria – Iraq, Israel, and Turkey. The report claimed that faced with these “three belligerent fronts,” Assad would probably be forced to abandon his closure of the pipeline.

Sound familiar?

It is alleged that in 2009, Qatar put forward a pipeline proposal that would run through Syria and Turkey and be used to export Saudi and Qatari gas. The Syrian regime turned down this proposal, and instead, forged an agreement with Iran and Iraq to run a pipeline into Europe, cutting out the Gulf States completely. Since then, these regional players have been the most vehement opponents of the Assad regime because they view the expansion of the Shia-led bloc of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria as a major economic threat.

Anyone who claims the Obama administration and its allies, including Saudi Arabia, were motivated by human rights concerns in Syria is either misinformed or lying. It has been speculated that Israel has been looking to exploit the Syrian war by tapping into sources of oil in the Golan Heights area, which the oil company Afek claims is part of the “State of Israel”.

At the time U.S. intelligence produced the secret report on Hafez al-Assad, the U.S. was not only arming and supporting Saddam Hussein’s war of aggression on neighboring Iran (rife with the use of chemical weapons), they were also caught red-handed arming the Iranians in order to maximize the death toll.

According to the secret report, the U.S. was looking to expand the death toll in Iraq and Syria as well, all because of a pipeline closure.

It seems as though the same economic interests remain at the heart of America’s relationships with other nations. Perhaps U.S. allies in the Middle East should take note of this bipolar foreign policy and take heed of what happened to Saddam Hussein, who went from receiving unfaltering support from the U.S. to being public enemy number one. This is especially true with President Trump, who appears to have undone Obama’s cold war approach to Russia and thus far attempted to create a productive dialogue with Vladimir Putin. Trump also appears to differ with the Gulf States regarding the correct approach to the Syrian war.

It will be an unpredictable next few years. That being said, Trump already looks set to continue Obama’s most dangerous policies.

---

This article (Intelligence Report Reveals US Urged Saddam Hussein to Attack Syria) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.