US Exploited Assad’s Fight Against Al-Qaeda

27 Sep

By Daniel McAdamsGlobal Research, September 26, 2015

Ron Paul Institute 24 September 2015

The US government has been relying on its standard narrative that the Syria crisis emerged spontaneously after an “Arab Spring” inspired protest was violently suppressed by the Syrian government. The entire US intervention was justified on these grounds. Thus the Obama Administration, as it did in Ukraine, has attempted to disavow any role in fomenting the uprising and thus any responsibility for the violence that ensued.
But like much else in US foreign policy the narrative is wholly false, constructed to propagandize the American people in favor of US intervention and shield the US government from any fallout.
In fact the US government had long had its sights on regime change in Syria, starting at least with the Project for a New American Century’s plan peddled to George W. Bush to overthrow five countries in five years and remake the entire Middle East. The neocons always like to think big, but like any slimy salesman they never deliver as promised. Their Iraq “cakewalk” proved a deathwalk.
In 2006, according to a secret State Department cable made public by Wikileaks, US Embassy Damascus drafted an extensive memo outlining nine “vulnerabilities” of the Syrian government with corresponding “possible actions” on how the US can exploit these “vulnerabilities” to destabilize the government of Syria.
The State Department cable was authored by William V. Roebuck, who was at the time the Political Counselor at the US Embassy in Damascus. Roebuck has since been rewarded for his “good work” on destabilizing Syria and now serves as US Ambassador to Bahrain, where one presumes his role is rather the opposite of what it was in Syria.
Roebuck’s bio suggests he has been somewhat of a regime change rock star: He managed the fallout from US regime change operations in Egypt, Libya, and Iraq, with a stint at the US Embassy in Israel as well.
What did Roebuck advise the US to do to Syria in 2006? Exploit the Syrian government’s fight against Islamist extremists in attempt to undermine Assad’s position in the region.
That’s right: use Syria’s fight against al-Qaeda against it.
Perhaps it’s best to let Roebuck speak for himself. The Syrian government’s “vulnerability” is:
Extremist elements increasingly use Syria as a base, while the SARG (ed: Syrian government) has taken some actions against groups stating links to Al-Qaeda. With the killing of the al-Qaida leader on the border with Lebanon in early December and the increasing terrorist attacks inside Syria culminating in the September 12 attack against the US embassy, the SARG,s policies in Iraq and support for terrorists elsewhere as well can be seen to be coming home to roost.
How to exploit that vulnerability? In Roebuck’s own words:
Possible Actions: — Publicize presence of transiting (or externally focused) extremist groups in Syria, not limited to mention of Hamas and PIJ. Publicize Syrian efforts against extremist groups in a way that suggests weakness, signs of instability, and uncontrolled blowback. The SARG,s argument (usually used after terror attacks in Syria) that it too is a victim of terrorism should be used against it to give greater prominence to increasing signs of instability within Syria. (emphasis added).
The US had long planned to overthrow Assad well before 2011 and had obviously spent a great deal of time, effort, and money cooking up plans to exploit whatever “vulnerabilities” he may have had to help make that overthrow happen. Roebuck captures that essence in the summary of his 2006 US Embassy Damascus secret cable:
The bottom line is that Bashar is entering the new year in a stronger position than he has been in several years, but those strengths also carry with them — or sometimes mask ) vulnerabilities. If we are ready to capitalize, they will offer us opportunities to disrupt his decision-making, keep him off-balance, and make him pay a premium for his mistakes.
If we are ready to capitalize…
Yes, they were ready to capitalize. And more than 200,000 people have been killed as the US “capitalized” on vulnerabilities produced by Assad’s fight against terrorists unleashed on his country by the US attack on Iraq. At this point, US foreign policy toward Syria has become too grotesque to even contemplate. In another time there would be a Nuremberg readying the dock for Roebuck and anyone else associated with this mass murder. These days the media just keeps churning out a steady diet of US regime propaganda.

Saudi Arabian Head of Human Rights Panel

25 Sep


 Obama’s Fateful Syrian Choice

19 Sep

By Robert ParrySource:
President Obama faces a choice that could define his legacy and the future of the American Republic: He can either work with Russia’s President Putin to stabilize Syria or he can opt for a confrontation that could lead to an open-ended war with grave risks of escalation, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry

September 18, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “Consortiumnews” – There is an obvious course that President Barack Obama could follow if he wants to lessen the crises stemming from the Syrian war and other U.S. “regime change” strategies of the past several decades, but it would require him to admit that recent interventions (including his own) have represented a strategic disaster.
Obama also would have to alter some longstanding alliances – including those with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel – and correct some of the false narratives that have been established during his administration, such as storylines accusing the Syrian government of using sarin gas on Aug. 21, 2013, and blaming the Russians for everything that’s gone wrong in Ukraine.
In retracting false allegations and releasing current U.S. intelligence assessments on those issues, the President would have to repudiate the trendy concept of “strategic communications,” an approach that mixes psychological operations, propaganda and P.R. into a “soft power” concoction to use against countries identified as U.S. foes.
“Stratcom” also serves to manage the perceptions of the American people, an assault on the fundamental democratic precept of an informed electorate. Instead of honestly informing the citizenry, the government systematically manipulates us. Obama would have to learn to trust the people with the truth.
Whether Obama recognizes how imperative it is that he make these course corrections, whether he has the political courage to take on entrenched foreign-policy lobbies (especially after the bruising battle over the Iran nuclear agreement), and whether he can overcome his own elitism toward the public are the big questions – and there are plenty of reasons to doubt that Obama will do what’s necessary. But his failure to act decisively could have devastating consequences for the United States and the world.
In a way, this late-in-his-presidency course correction should be obvious (or at least it would be if there weren’t so many layers of “strategic communications” to peel away). It would include embracing Russia’s willingness to help stabilize the political-military situation in Syria, rather than the Obama administration fuming about it and trying to obstruct it.
For instance, Obama could join with Russia in stabilizing Syria by making it clear to putative U.S. “allies” in the Mideast that they will face American wrath if they don’t do all that’s possible to cut off the terrorists of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda from money, weapons and recruits. That would mean facing down Turkey over its covert support for the Sunni extremists as well as confronting Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Persian Gulf sheikdoms over secret funding and arming of these jihadists.
If Obama made it clear that the United States would take stern action – such as inflicting severe financial punishments – against any country caught helping these terrorist groups, he could begin shutting down the jihadists’ support pipelines. He could also coordinate with the Russians and Iranians in cracking down on the Islamic State and Al Qaeda strongholds inside Syria.
On the political front, Obama could inform Syria’s Sunni “moderates” who have been living off American largesse that they must sit down with President Bashar al-Assad’s representatives and work out a power-sharing arrangement and make plans for democratic elections after a reasonable level of stability has been restored. Obama would have to ditch his mantra: “Assad must go!”
Given the severity of the crisis – as the refugee chaos now spreads into Europe – Obama doesn’t have the luxury anymore of pandering to the neocons and liberal interventionists. Instead of talking tough, he needs to act realistically.
Putin’s Clarity
In a sense, Russian President Vladimir Putin has clarified the situation for President Obama. With Russia stepping up its military support for Assad’s regime with the goal of defeating the Islamic State’s head-choppers and Al Qaeda’s terrorism plotters, Obama’s options have narrowed. He can either cooperate with the Russians in a joint campaign against the terrorists or he can risk World War III by taking direct action against Russian forces in pursuit of “regime change” in Damascus.
Though some of Official Washington’s neocons and liberal war hawks are eager for the latter – insisting that Putin must be taught a lesson about Russia’s subservience to American power – Obama’s sense of caution would be inclined toward the former.
The underlying problem, however, is that Official Washington’s foreign policy “elite” has lost any sense of reality. Almost across the board, these “important people” lined up behind President George W. Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq, arguably the worst blunder in the history of U.S. foreign policy.
But virtually no one was held accountable. Indeed, the neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks strengthened their grip on the major think tanks, the op-ed pages and the political parties. Instead of dialing back on the “regime change” model, they dialed up more “regime change” schemes.
Although historically the U.S. government – like many other imperial powers – has engaged in coups and other meddling to oust troublesome foreign leaders, the current chapter on “regime change” strategies can be dated back to the late 1970s and early 1980s with what most American pundits rate a success: the destruction of a secular regime in Afghanistan that was allied with the Soviet Union.
Starting modestly with President Jimmy Carter’s administration and expanding rapidly under President Ronald Reagan, the CIA mounted its most ambitious “covert” operation ever – funding, recruiting and arming Islamic extremists to wage a brutal, even barbaric, war in Afghanistan.
Ultimately, the operation “succeeded” by forcing a humiliating withdrawal of Soviet troops and driving the Moscow-backed leader Najibullah from power, but the cost turned out to be extraordinary, creating conditions that gave rise to both the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
In 1996, the Taliban took Kabul, captured Najibullah (whose tortured and castrated body was hung from a light pole), and imposed a fundamentalist form of Islam that denied basic rights to women. The Taliban also gave refuge to Saudi extremist Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda band enabling them to plot terror attacks against the West, including the 9/11 assaults on New York and Washington.
In response, President George W. Bush ordered an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in late 2001 followed by another invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 (though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11). Those “regime changes” began a cascade of chaos that reached into the Obama administration and to the present.
As Iraq came under the control of its Shiite majority allied with Shiite-ruled Iran, disenfranchised Sunnis organized into increasingly vicious rebel movements, such as “Al Qaeda in Iraq.” To avert a U.S. military defeat, Bush undertook a scheme of buying off Sunni leaders with vast sums of cash to get them to stop killing U.S. soldiers – called the “Sunni Awakening” – while Bush negotiated a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops.
The payoffs succeeded in buying Bush a “decent interval” for a U.S. pullout that would not look like an outright American defeat, but the huge payments also created a war chest for some of these Sunni leaders to reorganize militarily after the Shiite-led regime of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to make significant economic and political concessions.
Obama’s Misjudgment
Obama had opposed the Iraq War, but he made the fateful choice after winning the 2008 election to retain many of Bush’s national security advisers, such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and General David Petraeus, and to hire hawkish Democrats, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Council aide Samantha Power.
Obama’s pro-war advisers guided him into a pointless “surge” in Afghanistan in 2009 and a “regime change” war in Libya in 2011 as well as a propaganda campaign to justify another “regime change” in Syria, where U.S. Sunni-led regional “allies” – Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf sheikdoms – took the lead in a war to oust President Assad, an Alawite, an offshoot of Shiite Islam. Syria was allied with Iran and Russia.
At the same time, the Sunni rebel group, “Al Qaeda in Iraq,” expanded its operations into Syria and rebranded itself the Islamic State before splitting off from Al Qaeda’s central command. Al Qaeda turned to a mix of foreign and Syrian jihadists called Nusra Front, which along with the Islamic State became the most powerful terrorist organization fighting to oust Assad.
When Assad’s military struck back against the rebels, the West – especially its mainstream media and “humanitarian war” advocates – took the side of the rebels who were deemed “moderates” although Islamic extremists dominated almost from the start.
Though Obama joined in the chorus “Assad must go,” the President recognized that the notion of recruiting, training and arming a “moderate” rebel force was what he called a “fantasy,” but he played along with the demands from the hawks, including Secretary of State Clinton, to “do something.”
That clamor rose to a fever pitch in late August 2013 after a mysterious sarin gas attack killed hundreds of Syrian civilians in a Damascus suburb. The State Department, then led by Secretary of State John Kerry, rushed to a judgment blaming the atrocity on Assad’s forces and threatening U.S. military retaliation for crossing Obama’s “red line” against using chemical weapons.
But the U.S. intelligence community had doubts about the actual perpetrators with significant evidence pointing to a “false flag” provocation carried out by Islamic extremists. At the last minute, President Obama called off the planned airstrikes and worked out a deal with President Putin to get Assad to surrender Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal even as Assad continued to deny a role in the sarin attack.
Still, the U.S. conventional wisdom held fast that Assad had crossed Obama’s “red line” and – amid more bellicose talk in Washington – Obama authorized more schemes for training “moderate” rebels. These sporadic efforts by the CIA to create a “moderate” rebel force failed miserably, with some of the early trainees sharing their weapons and skills with Nusra and the Islamic State, which in 2014 carried its fight back into Iraq, seizing major cities, such as Mosul and Ramadi, and threatening Baghdad.
As the Islamic State racked up stunning victories in Iraq and Syria – along with releasing shocking videos showing the decapitation of civilian hostages – the neocons and liberal war hawks put on another push for a U.S. military intervention to achieve “regime change” in Syria. But Obama agreed to only attack Islamic State terrorists and to spend $500 million to train another force of “moderate” Syrian rebels.
Like previous efforts, the new training mission proved an embarrassing failure, producing only about 50 fighters who then were quickly killed or captured by Al Qaeda’s Nusra and other jihadist groups, leaving only “four or five” trainees from the program, according to Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, head of the U.S. Central Command which has responsibility for the Middle East.
The Current Crisis
The failure of the training program – combined with the destabilizing flow of Mideast refugees into Europe from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other countries affected by the regional chaos due to “regime changes” – has brought new calls across Official Washington for, you guessed it, a U.S.-imposed “regime change” in Syria. The argument goes that “Assad must go” before a solution can be found.
But the greater likelihood is that if the U.S. and its NATO allies join in destroying Assad’s military, the result would be Sunni jihadist forces filling the vacuum with the black flag of terrorism fluttering over the ancient city of Damascus.
That could mean the Islamic State chopping off the heads of Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other “heretics” while Al Qaeda has a new headquarters for plotting terror strikes on the West. Millions of Syrians, now protected by Assad’s government, would join the exodus to Europe.
Then, the option for Obama or his successor would be to mount a major invasion and occupation of Syria, a costly and bloody enterprise that would mean the final transformation of the American Republic into an imperial state of permanent war.
Instead, Obama now has the option to cooperate with Putin to stabilize the Syrian regime and pressure erstwhile U.S. “allies” to cut off Al Qaeda and the Islamic State from money, guns and recruits. Though that might seem like clearly the best of the bad remaining options, it faces extraordinary obstacles from Official Washington.
Already there are howls of protests from the neocons and liberal interventionists who won’t give up their agenda of more “regime change” and their belief that American military power can dictate the outcome of every foreign conflict.
So, whether Obama can muster the courage to face down these bellicose voices and start leveling with the American people about the nuanced realities of the world is the big question ahead.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

Do you really want to know how the war in Ukraine and Syria started, and which devil behind it

13 Sep

Do you really want to know how the war in Ukraine and Syria started, Can you tell truth from lies in mass media? RTD’s Miguel Francis-Santiago delves deep to try to understand the intricacies of information war. He meets media experts and puts together the Mosaic of Facts, showing how public opinion is manipulated, not just over the Ukrainian Crisis but throughout the world. Watch this it will shock you, and make sure to share it and share it again and again

Putin: People flee from Syria because of ISIS, not Assad regime

4 Sep

Source: ,

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the fight against terrorism should be a coordinated international effort, and Russia is taking steps to form such a coalition. He added that in Syria it should go hand in hand with an internal political process.

“Of course, we know that there are different approaches to Syria. By the way, people are running away not from the regime of Bashar Assad, but from Islamic State, which seized large areas in Syria and Iraq, and are committing atrocities there. That is what they are escaping from,” RIA Novosti quoted Vladimir Putin as saying on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok.
“They [IS] kill hundreds and thousands of people, burn them alive or drown them, cut off people’s heads. How are people supposed to live there? Of course, they run away.”
He stressed that it is necessary to fight terrorism in all forms, saying, “We really want to create some kind of an international coalition to fight terrorism and extremism.”
The Russian president revealed that he had personally discussed the creation of an anti-IS coalition with the leaders of the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and other partners.
The war on terror in Syria should be complimented by an internal political process, Putin said, stressing that President Assad is ready to take certain steps in this direction.
“We do realize that political changes are needed and we are talking to our partners in Syria,” Putin told journalists, adding that a “general understanding” on the issue has been elaborated.

“The president of Syria, by the way, agrees with it, up to calling early parliamentary elections, establishing contacts with the so-called ‘healthy’ opposition and involving them in governance,” Putin said, adding that this is an internal matter for Syria.

“We do not impose anything, but we’re ready to contribute to internal dialogue in Syria,” the Russian president emphasized.
Answering journalists’ questions about whether Russia is ready to engage in military operations to combat IS, the president said it was premature to speak about Moscow’s participation.
“We see what is happening now: the US Air Force is carrying out strikes. Yet, the efficiency of these airstrikes is poor. It is premature to say that we are ready to do it [too]. But we are already providing Syria with quite strong support in terms of equipment, training of military servicemen and weapons,” Putin said. He reminded that Moscow and Damascus have certain military contracts and they are being fulfilled.
“We are considering various options, but so far what you are talking about is not on the agenda,” Putin said.

Two thorns in Obama’s side

1 Sep

by Thierry Meyssan


Whatever happens, Washington will win in Syria, because the United States has not one, but two different policies with regard to this country. Either there will be peace, and President Obama will be praised for having successfully negotiated with Iran ; or else the Syrian Arab Republic will be destroyed and occupied by NATO, and a few US generals and NATO will be praised for having brought an end to the bloodbath. Here, Thierry Meyssan reveals the underside of this double policy, in particular the plot that was hatched by the NATO Deputy Secretary General for Political Affairs.

The application of the agreement reached between Washington and Teheran, on the 14th July, 2015, depends mainly on President Obama’s capacity to convince his fellow-citizens, and particularly the Congress of his own administration, to accept it. Here, however, he will be faced with two major obstacles.
The Petraeus group
On the one hand, there is a political current which remains favourable to the Juppé-Wright project for the creation of a Sunnistan and a Kurdistan straddling the borders of Syria and Iraq. It is organised around General David Petraeus, who was director of the CIA until Obama’s re-election in October 2012, and is currently chief analyst for the Kohlberg Kravis Roberts investment fund. The group includes his ex-deputy, General John Allen, current special Presidential envoy in the fight against Daesh, and ex-Secretary of State and present Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. Petraeus also enjoys the support of certain members of the Republican Party, like the current President of the Senatorial Commission for the Armed Forces, John McCain, and the real estate promoter and main candidate for nomination, Donald Trump.
At the end of July, General Allen was invited to the Aspen Security Forum. There he met journalists from the New York Times to whom he secretly confided that he had reached an agreement with Turkey to create a safety zone in northern Syria. Astounded by this decision, which violates the United Nations charter, Eric Schmitt decided to dedicate the front page of his newspaper to it [1]. However, after a few days of contradictory public announcements, Washington and Ankara denied the story [2]. Immediately afterwards, the White House clarified its position : the priority is the fight against Daesh. In this fight, they are allied with the « moderate Syrian rebels » and also the YPG (a Marxist-Leninist Kurdish group) – consequently, although Turkey was authorised to attack the Turkish branch of the organisation, it was asked not to attack these groups [3].
On the 29th July, the « army » of sixty CIA-trained « moderate Syrian rebels » entered Syrian territory to ground-mark Daesh positions for Coalition bombers. But al-Qaïda had been informed, and attacked the « rebels », taking twenty prisoners including their chief, Colonel Nadim Hassan. They could only have been betrayed by the US army.
Although Turkey was at first the prime suspect, suspicion was transferred to the United States after vehement denegations by the Interim Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu [4]. And who else in the US army could it have been, except for General Allen’s group ?
General Allen’s manœuvres first of all provoked a serious incident between the Pentagon and the Turkish army. The Turkish liaison officer to the CAOC (Combined Air and Space Operations Center) issued warning only ten minutes before the raid in Iraq, thus endangering both the Kurdish trainee soldiers and their US instructors, who were present in the area [5]. The path chosen by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, should the AKP stay in power, could lead to a partial breakdown in relations between Washington and Ankara [6].
Above all, these incidents led the Pentagon to ask CentCom to check the allegations – which are wide-spread in the Near East – claiming that the Coalition is not bombing Daesh, but on the contrary, supporting it. This was also the moment chosen by the Defense Intelligence Agency to denounce the fudging of CentCom reports [7]. It seems that CentCom is commanded by another ex-collaborator of General David Petraeus, General Lloyd James Austin III.

The Feltman group
Obama’s other problem is the United Nations General Secretariat. While it is difficult to know to which movement Ban Ki-moon belongs, since he is too busy making money from his position, the same is not true of his Deputy Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Jeffrey Feltman.
Before becoming an international civil servant, he was a United States ambassador, specialising progressively in the Near East. In particular, he was posted to Israël, Iraq (where he administered for the Kurdish party) and Lebanon (where he imposed his ideas on the Siniora government ). He enjoyed a rare relation of confidence with the Secretary of State of the time, Condoleezza Rice, with whom he shared a weekly video-conference, and then was nominated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to work with Rice in Washington and supervise all policies touching the Near East.
Jeffrey Feltman organised the 2005 assassination of the ex-Prime Minister of Lebanon Rafic Hariri, then Detlev Mehlis’s Inquiry Commission, and then the creation of the Special International Tribunal for Lebanon. This hybrid structure was formed to convict the Presidents of Lebanon and Syria, Emile Lahoud and Bachar el-Assad, on the basis of paid, false testimony, but the accusations collapsed once the truth was known. Mr. Feltman continues to work against Syria and Iran in his new post.
Arriving at the United Nation just before the Geneva Conference 1 on Syria, Feltman did his best to sabotage the agreement between his country and Russia, and joined the Petraeus group to push France into re-starting the war. He drew up a plan for the total and unconditional surrender of the Syrian Arab Republic. The sovereignty of the Syrian People must be abolished ; the Constitution must be revoked ; the President must be relieved of his duties ; the Peoples’ Assembly must be dissolved ; 120 Syrian leaders must be arrested and judged and convicted ; the Direction of Military Intelligence, the Direction of Political Security and the Direction of General Security must be decapitated or dissolved ; the « political prisoners » must be freed and the anti-terrorist courses must be stopped.
After the failure of the Lakhdar Brahimi’s mission, Feltman asked Ban Ki-moon to nominate the Italian Steffan De Misruta as his representative in Syria. He had met this elegant diplomat in Iraq, and forged close ties with him during their missions in Lebanon. De Mistura had also frequently met with Petraeus and Allen during his mission as a representative of the General Secretary of the United Nations in Afghanistan.
From then on, while meeting the different parties in the conflict with bountiful smiles, Stefan De Mistura buckled down to imposing Feltman’s surprise plan for Syria. On the 29th July, 2015, with Ban Ki-moon, he presented the broad outlines of his « peace » plan to the Security Council, but neither of them provided the slightest written text [8]. They politely asked the Security Council to push the protagonists to sign an Interim Agreement, then left them to deal with it. In reality, the agreement was intended to withdraw the Council’s prerogatives, to force the Syrian Arab Republic to sign a vague text which would have allowed NATO to occupy Syria, and authorised Messrs. De Mistura, Feltman and Ban to organise her capitulation according to the process elaborated in 2012 by Feltman.
This skillful manœuvre almost worked, because on the 17th August, the Security Council adopted a strange declaration (not a resolution) of support for Stefan De Mistura [9]. Contrary to all practices, the text was first of all discussed in private by the five permanent powers. Russia, worried that something was being prepared in secret, decided to vote « yes ». It feared that Washington may be preparing an action out of the bounds of the Security Council and International Law. However, the Venezuelan ambassador Rafael Ramírez, who been kept absent from the writing of the declaration, cautiously raised two objections : first of all, the Geneva Communiqué 1 [10], which is supported by everyone, in fact violates the United Nations Charter ; secondly, it’s not enough to declare that you are fighting terrorism, you must also help the Syrian Arab Republic in their fight against al-Qaïda and Daesh. You must stop indirectly supplying these organisations with arms, and stop creating and activating pseudo-rebel groups.
So it was an old companion of Hugo Chávez, not the Allies, who was on the same wavelength as President Barack Obama.


22 Aug

Published in 2013, the Wright plan is based on the Juppé plan for Libya, Syria and Iraq. However, Robin Wright goes further by including projects for Saudi Arabia and Yemen. 

by Thierry Meyssan


The resumption of the repression of Kurds in Turkey is nothing more than a consequence of the impossible task of implementing the Juppé-Wright plan of 2011. While it was easy to deploy Daesh in the Syrian desert and the provinces of Niniveh and d’al-Anbar (Iraq), which are mostly Sunnite, it proved to be impossible to take control of the Kurdish populations of Syria. In order to realise his dream of a Kurdistan outside of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has no other choice but civil war.

When they took power in Ankara in 2003, the Islamist party AKP modified Turkey’s strategic priorities. Rather than using reports on the post-« Desert Storm » balance of power, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan harboured the ambition of freeing his country from the isolation it has known since the end of the Ottoman Empire. Based on analyses provided by his advisor, Professor Ahmet Davutoğlu, he advocated solving century-old problems with Turkey’s neighbours, and becoming progressively the inevitable regional mediator. In order to do so, Turkey had to become a political model and build relations with his Arab partners, without losing its alliance with Israël.
This policy, known as « zero problem », began sucessfully at first.Ankara no longer feared Damascus and its support for the PKK, and also asked Syria for help in negotiating an exit. In October 2006, the Kurdish party declared a unilateral truce and began negotiations with the Erdoğan government. In May 2008, Ankara organised indirect negotiations between Damascus and Tel-Aviv, the first talks since Ehud Barack’s rejection of the Bill Clinton / Hafez el-Assad plan. But President Bachar el-Assad withdrew from the discussions after Israël attacked Gaza in December 2009.
Realising that because of the Palestinian conflict, it was impossible to maintain good relations with all the states in the region, Ankara chose to support the Palestinians against Israël. This was the period of the Davos and Freedom Flotilla episodes. Backed by vast popular support in the Muslim world, Ankara approached Teheran and accepted, in November 2010, to participate in a Turkey-Iran-Iraq-Syria common market. Visas were repealed ; the rights of the Customs were considerably reduced ; a consortium was created to manage the oil and gas pipe-lines ; an authority was created to enable the management of water ressources. The overall structure looked so inviting that Lebanon and Jordan presented their candidacy. Sustainable peace seemed possible for the Levant.
When, in 2011, the United Kingdom and France launched a double war against Libya and Syria, at the request and under the control of the United States, Turkey quite logically opposed it. These wars, launched on the pretext of protecting the populations, were far too evidently neo-colonial strategies. Besides, they damaged Turkish interests, since Libya was one of its main economic partners and Syria had become one by way of the new regional common market.
That’s when everything collapsed…
How France caused the collapse of Turkey
In March 2011, on the initiative of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alain Juppé, Paris secretly proposed to support Ankara’s candidacy to the European Union and help it solve its Kurdish problem if Turkey would join France in its war against Libya and Syria. From the French point of view, this was a radically new proposition, since during the period he led the Gaullist party and was a collaborator of Jacques Chirac, Alain Juppé had been firmly opposed to the entry of Turkey into the Union. But, condemned for corruption in France, he had exiled himself to America in 2005 and taught classes in Québec while at the same time following a course at the Pentagon. Converted to neo-conservatism, he returned to France and was chosen by Nicolas Sarkozy as Minister for Defence, then for Foreign Affairs.
Retrospectively, the Juppé plan revealed French intentions : they concerned the creation of a Kurdistan in Iraq and Syria, according to the map which was published two years later by Robin Wright in the New York Times, and was implemented conjointly by the Islamic Emirate, the Regional Government of Iraqi Kurdistan and some ex-collaborators of Saddam Hussein linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. The document, co-signed by Alain Juppé and his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoğlu, leaves no doubt : France intended to reconstitute a colonial empire in Syria. Moreover, it had connections within the Islamist terrorist movements and anticipated the creation of Daesh. In order to guarantee the Juppé plan, Qatar agreed to make massive investments in eastern Turkey, hoping that the Turkish Kurds would then abandon the PKK.
This plan has remained secret until today. If the French and Turkish parlementaries could manage to legally obtain a copy, it would amply suffice to bring Messrs. Juppé and Davutoğlu before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
Contrary to a popular notion, the Kurds are deeply divided. In Turkey and Syria, the PKK, originally a Marxist-Leninist party, has always defended the anti-imperialist point of view. While the Iraqi Kurds, linked with Israël since the Cold War, have always been the allies of the United States. The two groups do not speak the same language and have very different histories.
It is probable that, from their side, the United States would sweeten the dowry by promoting the Turkish political model in the Arab world, and helping the AKP to take charge of the political parties born of the Muslim Brotherhood, so that Turkey would become the centre of the next Middle East. In any case, and in extremis, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan supported NATO’s project, which took over from AfriCom after the revolt of its commander [1].
Immediately, Ankara mobilised the citizens of Misrata in Libya. These are mostly the descendants of the Jewish soldiers of the Ottoman Empire, the Adghams, and the nomadic merchants descended from black slaves, the Muntasirs, who had supported the Young Turks. They formed the only significant Libyan group capable of attacking Tripoli [2].
Simultaneously, Ankara organised several meetings of the Syrian opposition in Istanbul, from August 2011. Finally, the Muslim Brotherhood constituted the Syrian National Council in October, associating representatives from the diverse political and minority groups.
NATO renounces the invasion of Syria
Watching NATO’s implication in Libya, Ankara was logically counting on an identical implication by NATO in Syria. But despite a large number of terrorist attacks and an unflagging international Press campaign, it proved impossible to both inflame the population and attribute mass crimes to President el-Assad in a credible manner. Above all, Moscow and Bejing, angered by the Libyan affair, opposed any Security Council resolution pretending to « protect » the Syrians from their own government (October 2011, February and July 2012).
Washington and London abandoned the game, even though Paris and Ankara continued to believe in it [3]. The two states developed close collaboration, which went as far, in September 2012, as planning the assassination of the Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Walid al-Mouallem, and President Bachar el-Assad.
The terrorist attack in Riyadh, a response to the assassination of members of the Syrian National Security Council, seriously wounded Prince Bandar ben Sultan in July 2012, and left the international jihadist movement orphaned. Even though the prince survived his wounds, he only left hospital a year later, and was never again able to assume the role he had played until then. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan seized the occasion to replace him. He opened personal relations with Yasin al-Qadi, the banker for al-Qaïda, whom he received in secret several times in Ankara. He supervised a number of jihadist groups, initially created by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France.
In January 2013, by intervening in Mali, France distanced itself from the Syrian jihadists, thus leaving on-the-ground military operations to Turkey, even if it left a few legionnaires in place. Shortly afterwards, the Emir of Qatar, cheikh Ahmad, was obliged to abdicate by Washington, which blamed him – after denunciation by Russia – for operating in a way that was damaging to United States economic interests. Even before his son, cheikh Tamim, succeeded him, the greater part of the financing of the war against Syria was being handled by Saudi Arabia.
In order to benefit from this support, and that of Israël, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan began to promise anyone who was listening that the United States were going to ignore the Russian and Chinese vetos and launch NATO in an assault against Damascus. Profiting from the confusion, he organised the pillage of Syria, dismantled all the factories in Aleppo, the economic capital, and stole the machine-tools. Similarly, he organised the theft of archeological treasures and set up an international market in Antioch [4]. Still apparently unaware of the consequences, with the help of General Benoît Puga, Chief of Staff for the Elysée, he organised a false-flag operation intended to provoke the launching of a war by the Atlantic Alliance – the chemical bombing of la Ghoutta in Damascus, in August 2013. But London immediately uncovered the manipulation and refused to engage [5].
Turkey participated in the operation of ethnic cleansing and partition of Iraq and Syria, known as the « Wright plan ». The presence of the Turkish secret services in the preparatory meetings for Daesh in Amman is verified by the publication of a record of decisions by the PKK. Moreover, the « Wright plan » is a copy of the « Juppé plan », which convinced Turkey to go to war. Following this, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan himself took command of the terrorist organisation, ensuring at the same time its arms supply and the sale of its petrol.
Anxiously observing the talks between Washington and Teheran, Ankara feared a peace agreement which would leave it powerless. Solicited by his Russian opposite number, Vladimir Putin, Mr. Erdoğan accepted to participate in the gas pipe-line project Turkish Stream, intended to break the US monopoly and avoid the European embargo. Then, racking up his courage, he went to see his Iranian opposite number, cheikh Hassan Rohani, who assured him that he had nothing to fear from the agreement which was then being developed. But as soon as it was signed, on the 14th July 2015, it was apparent that it left no room for Turkey in the region.
Without surprise, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan received, on the 24th July, an ultimatum from President Obama, requiring him to 

 immediately renounce the Russian gas pipe-line project ; cease his support of Daesh – of which he had become the excutive chief behind the screen of calife Abou Bakr al-Baghdadi – and go to war with them. Applying even greater pressure, Barack Obama evoked the possibility of excluding Turkey from NATO, with the concertation of the United Kingdom, even though this situation is not mentioned in the Treaty.
After having begged pardon and authorised the United States and NATO to use the the military base at Incirlik against Daesh, Mr. Erdoğan made contact with the special emissary for the Anti-Daesh Coalition, General John Allen, known for his opposition to the agreement with Iran. The two men agreed to interpret President Obama’s remarks as an encouragement to fight terrorism, a heading under which they listed the PKK. Exceeding his functions, the General promised to create a « no-fly zone » ninety miles wide, over Syrian territory, along the whole border with Turkey, supposedly intended to help Syrian refugees fleeing from their government, but in reality to apply the « Juppé-Wright plan ». The Turkish Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, revealed US support for the project on the TV channel A Haber by launching a bombing raid against the PKK.
General John Allen had twice succeeded in prolonging the war against Syria. In June 2012, he plotted with General David Petraeus and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to sabotage the Geneva agreement between Washington and Moscow for peace in the Near East. This agreement called, amongst other things, for peace in Syria – even though Damascus had not been invited to the conference – but this was considered inacceptable by both the US neo-conservatives and the US « liberal hawks ». The trio Clinton-Allen-Petraeus counted on the new French President, François Hollande, and his new Minister for Foreign Affairs, Laurent Fabius, to convene a conference of the « Friends of Syria » and reject the Geneva Agreement. Since he was in the heat of an election campaign, President Obama could not sanction his collaborators, but the day following his election, he had David Petraeus and John Allen arrested, victims of a sexual trap. Hillary Clinton stayed on for a few weeks, but then suddenly retired after an « accident ». Finally, only Petraeus was found guilty, while Allen was whitewashed and Clinton – like Juppé – began preparations for the next Presidential election campaign.
The trio Clinton-Allen-Petraeus staged a second operation in December 2014 which managed to disrupt the Moscow Conference. By promising the Muslim Brotherhood that they would implement the « Juppé-Wright plan », they convinced the Syrian National Coalition to refuse any disscussions on peace. Incidentally, this episode attests to the fact that the aim of the Syrian National Coalition is not regime change in Syria but the destruction of the country and its state.
Learning the facts during his journey to Africa, President Obama officially denied the engagement of General Allen, recognised Turkey’s right to fight the PKK, but denounced any action against it outside of Turkey. President Erdoğan then called for a meeting of the Atlantic Council to inform them of his entry into the Anti-Terrorist Coalition and his double action against Daesh and the PKK. On the 29th July, the Allies coldly replied that they supported his action, but did not recognise his right to bombard the PKK in Iraq and Syria except in cases of « pursuit » – in other words, if the PKK used bases in other countries to manage troop movements against Turkey.
Moreover, President Obama has relieved Daniel Rubinstein of his functions as Special Envoy to Syria, and replaced him with Michael Ratney, a specialist of both the Near East and communications. His main task will be to keep an eye on General Allen.
Turkey enters into civil war
Presently, the actions of the Turkish army against the PKK in Iraq and Syria have no legal justification in international law. Both governments have denounced attacks on their territory. From the US pont of view, the PKK and the Syrian Arab Army – in other words, the army of the Republic – are the only ground forces capable of confronting Daesh. The resumption of the war against the Kurdish minority illustrates the AKP’s desire to continue the implementation of the « Juppé-Wright plan », even after the partial withdrawal of Qatar and France.
However, one fundamental element has profoundly changed the game : Israël and Saudi Arabia, who not so long ago supported the idea of creating a Kurdistan and a Sunnistan in Iraq and Syria, are now opposed to it. Tel-Aviv and Riyadh now understand that these two new states, if they come to be, will not be controlled by them, but by a Turkey which is no longer hiding its imperial ambitions, and will become a de facto regional giant.
By one of those turn-arounds of which the Near East has the secret, Israël and Saudi Arabia have reached an agreement in order to oppose President Erdoğan’s folly, and also, surreptitiously, to help the PKK, despite its Marxist identity. Furthermore, Israël has already contacted the traditional enemies of Turkey, Alexis Tsípras’ Greece, and Níkos Anastasiádis’ Cyprus.
Let there be no mistake – Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has chosen civil war as his only political exit. After losing the general election and managing to block the creation of a new government, he is now trying to scare his own people into convincing the MHP (nationalists) to support the AKP (Islamists) and form a coalition government, or call another round of general elections – and win.
The anti-terrorist operation which was intended to fight both Daesh and the Kurdish population is aimed almost exclusively at the PKK and the PYG (its Syrian alter ego). The bombings which were supposedly aimed at the Islamic Emirate destroyed nothing. At the same time, Mr. Erdoğan has begun judicial enquiries against the Kurdish leaders of the HPD, Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ. For a start, the prosecution accuses them of having called for violence against non-Kurds – which is ridiculous – and secondly, of supporting the PYG, the militia of the Syrian Arab Republic and therefore, according to the magistrate, a terrorist organisation.
The civil war which is beginning will not be the same as in the 1990’s. It will be far more wide-ranging and murderous. Partly because Turkey has not one ally left outside its boundaries, and partly because the government’s Islamist policies have divided its own society. Thus there will not be Turkish institutions supported by NATO on one side and Syrian-backed PKK on the other – but a fragmentation of Turkish society – secular against Islamist ; modern against traditionalist ; Alevis against Sunnites ; Kurds against Turks.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,998 other followers

%d bloggers like this: