"Before our eyes"
The Future of the Middle East
by
Thierry Meyssan
For
several months, Barack Obama has been trying to change US policy in the
Middle East in order to eliminate the Islamic Emirate with the help of
Syria. But he cannot do this, partly because he has been saying for
years that President Assad must go, and secondly because his regional
allies support the Islamic Emirate against Syria. However, things are
slowly evolving so he should be able to do so soon. Thus, it appears
that all States that supported the Islamic Emirate have ceased to do so,
opening the way for a redistribution of the cardseric
The world awaits the conclusion of a comprehensive
agreement between Washington and Tehran -under the ridiculous pretext of
ending a military nuclear program that has not existed since the end of
the war waged by Iraq (1980-1988) -. It would focus on the protection
of Israel in exchange for recognition of Iranian influence in the Middle
East and Africa.
However, this should only take effect after the Israeli elections of
March 17, 2015. The supposed defeat of Netanyahu would renew ties
between Washington and Tel Aviv and facilitate agreement with Tehran.
In this context, the US elite are trying to agree on future policy,
while the European allies of the United States are preparing to align
with what will be the new US policy.
The search for consensus in the US
After two years of inconsistent policy, Washington is trying to
develop a consensus on what should be its policy in the "extended Middle
East".
1.
On October 22, 2014, the Rand Corporation, main think tank of the
military-industrial lobby, dramatically changed its position. After
campaigning for the destruction of the Syrian Arab Republic, it said
that now, the worst thing that can happen to the United States and
Israel is the fall of President Assad. [1]2. On January 14, 2015, Leslie Gleb, the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, the club of the US elite, warned against divisions of the Obama administration that threaten its authority in the world. He advocated a kind of new "Baker-Hamilton Commission" to review foreign policy top to bottom. [2]
3.
On January 24, the New York Times published an editorial supporting the
new direction of the Rand Corporation and calling for a complete policy
change vis-à-vis Syria [3].
4.
On February 6, the Obama administration published its new strategic
doctrine. It would no longer guarantee Israel’s security by destroying
Syria but by creating a regional military alliance with zionist Muslim
monarchies. At most, the Islamic Emirate ("Daesh") could be used to
prevent Syria from holding its head high and replaying a regional
political role. [4]5. On February 10, the National Security Network (NSN), a bipartisan think tank that tries to explain geopolitics in the United States, published a report on all the possible options regarding the Islamic Emirate. It reviewed forty expert opinions and concluded the need to "contain and destroy" the Islamic Emirate first by relying on Iraq, then Syria’s Bashar el Assad. NSN was founded by Rand Beers, a former adviser to John Kerry, today Secretary of Homeland Security. [5]
6.
On February 11, the Obama administration introduced to Congress a
request to use military force against the Islamic Emirate which
relegated to oblivion the idea to overthrow President Assad and destroy
Syria [6].
7.
On 23 February, the new Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, brought
together experts for a working dinner. He took their advice for 5 hours
without revealing his own point of view. Mr. Carter intended to
investigate for himself the work of the CSN. Among his guests were not
only former US ambassador to Syria, Robert S. Ford, and oldies think
tanks, but Clare Lockhart, known for her links with the world of
finance; as well as the president of the Columbia School of Journalism,
Steve Coll, to assess possible media reactions. [7]What has changed on the ground
During the last months, several factors have changed in the field.
The
"moderate Syrian opposition" has completely disappeared. It has been
absorbed by Daesh to the point that the United States cannot find
fighters to train to build a "new Syria." The former ambassador, Robert
S. Ford (now an employee of the AIPAC think tank), who organized the
2011 protests and supported to the end the "moderate opposition" has
officially changed his position. He now thinks the only real opposition
in Syria is composed of jihadists that it would be extremely dangerous
to arm further. [8]
In retrospect, it appears that the terminology "moderate opposition"
meant, not civilized fighters, but the Syrians ready to betray their
country in alliance with Israel. They in fact made no mystery of this. [9]
From the beginning, this opposition was led de facto by members of
al-Qaeda (as the Libyan Abdel Hakim Belhaj, and the Iraqi Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi) and indulged in the worst atrocities (including
cannibalism) [10]. Now all these leaders are responsible for the Islamic Emirate.
On
January 28, 2015 (Hezbollah response to the assassination of several
leaders in Syria), Israel stopped support for jihadi organizations in
Syria. For three and a half years, Tel Aviv supplied them with weapons,
nursed their wounded in military hospitals, supported their operations
with its aviation - all the while pretending to fight against arms
transfers to the Lebanese Hezbollah - and, ultimately, entrusting to
them the security of its border in the Golan to the detriment of the UN
forces.
The
new king of Saudi Arabia, Salman, dismissed Prince Bandar on January
30, 2015 and forbade any person to support the Islamic Emirate. The
Kingdom has thus ceased to play a role in the handling of international
terrorism; a role that had been entrusted to it by the CIA after the
Iranian Islamic revolution of 1979 and which was its mainstay for 35
years.
Identically,
Turkey also appears to have stopped supporting the jihadists since
February 6 and the resignation of the head of MIT, its secret services,
Hakan Fidan. Moreover, on the night of February 21st to 22nd, the
Turkish army illegally entered Syria, about thirty kilometers, to remove
the ashes of Suleiman Shah, the grandfather of the founder of the
Ottoman Empire, the reliquary it holds by virtue of the Treaty of Ankara
(1921). Despite an impressive display of force, the Turkish army did
not fight the Islamic Emirate which controls the area. The remains of
Suleiman Shah were not repatriated but deposited a little further, still
in Syrian territory. In this way, Turkey showed that it does not intend
to take action against the Islamic Emirate and retains its anti-Syrian
ambitions.
Possible US Options
Six options are being discussed in Washington:
Destroy
the Islamic Emirate and destroy Syria; this is the point of view of the
Raytheon firm, the world’s leading producer of missiles, defended by
its lobbyist Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser to George
W. Bush. The idea is to wage war for war without regard to national
interests. This maximalist view is not supported by any political
leader; it’s just formulated in the media to tip the scales in favor of
the widest possible war.
Building
on the Islamic Emirate to destroy Syria, on the model of alliances
concluded during the Vietnam War. This is the view of the chairman of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain, despite the memory of
the fall of Saigon in 1975. It is extremely expensive (20 to 30 billion
dollars a year for very long years), risky and unpopular. Immediately
there would be a direct intervention of Iran and Russia and the conflict
would go global. No one, not even Mr. McCain, is able to explain why
the United States should engage in such an operation which would benefit
only the state of Israel.
To
weaken and destroy the Islamic Emirate, coordinating US bombings and
allied ground troops, including groups of the "moderate Syrian
opposition" (which no longer exists). Then use these opposition groups
(?) just to maintain pressure on Syria. This is the current
counter-terrorism position in the Obama administration. It is budgeted
at 4 to 9 billion per year. However, assuming that it created a
"moderate Syrian opposition" is not clear how the US Air Force could
successfully eliminate Daesh when it found itself unable to destroy the
Taliban in Afghanistan despite already 13 years of war, not to mention
the examples of Somalia or the current French stalemate in Mali.
To
weaken and destroy the Islamic Emirate, coordinating US bombing with
the only forces capable of defeating it on the ground: the Syrian and
Iraqi armies. This is the most interesting position because it can be
supported by both Iran and Russia. It would restore the US global
leadership position, as in "Desert Storm" against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein
and win without fail. However, this would require stopping the
demonization campaigns against Syria, Iran and Russia. This option is
supported by the CSN and clearly corresponds to what the Obama
administration would like to do.
Containment
of the Islamic Emirate and its progressive degradation to reduce it to
an acceptable size. In this option, the priority would be to protect
Iraq, the major fighting would be moved to Syria.
The
siege. The idea would no longer be to fight the Islamic Emirate, but to
isolate it to avoid its spread. People under its control would then be
left to their fate. It is the most economical solution, but the least
honourable, defended by Kenneth Pollack.
Conclusion
These elements allow one to easily predict the future : in a few
months, maybe even as early as late March, Washington and Tehran would
reach an overall agreement. The United States will renew contact with
Syria, closely followed by the European states, including France. We
will discover that the el-Assad is neither a dictator nor a torturer.
Therefore, the war against Syria will come to an end, while the main
jihadist forces would be eliminated by a true international coalition.
When this is all over, the surviving jihadists would be sent by the CIA
to the Russian Caucasus and Chinese Xinjiang.
No comments:
Post a Comment