All international problems are
currently suspended, awaiting the results of the US mid-term elections. The
partisans of the old international order are gambling on a change of majority
in Congress and a rapid destitution of President Trump. If the man in the White
House holds fast, the protagonists of the war against Syria will have to admit
defeat and move on to other battle fields. On the other hand, if Donald Trump
should lose the elections, the war on Syria will immediately be revived by the
United Kingdom.
The
current situation – extending from the Russian response to the destruction of
its Ilyushin-20 to the US mid-term elections on 6 November – is uncertain. All
the protagonists of the war in Syria are waiting to see whether the White House
will be able to pursue its policy of breaking away from the current
international order, or if Congress will become the opposition and immediately
trigger the process for the destitution of President Trump.
The origins of the war
It
has become clear that the initial project by the United States, the United
Kingdom, Israël, Saudi Arabia and Qatar will not be realised. The same goes for
France and Turkey, two powers that entered the war against Syria somewhat
later.
What we need to remember is
not the way in which we were informed about the start of the events, but what
we have discovered about them since. The demonstrations in Deraa were presented
as a « spontaneous revolt » against « dictatorial repression », but we now know
that they had been in preparation for a long time [1].
Losing Military Suprem...Andrei
MartyanovBest Price: $27.76Buy New $22.49(as
of 06:00 EDT - Details)
We
also need to free ourselves of the illusion that all the members of a
Coalition, united in order to achieve the same goal, share the same strategy.
Whatever the influence of one or the other, each State conserves its own
history, its own interests and its own war objectives.
The United States pursued the
strategy of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, which was the destruction of the State
structures in the Greater Middle East [2]. For this they relied upon the United
Kingdom, which implemented Tony Blair’s strategy aimed at placing the Muslim
Brotherhood in power throughout the region [3]. And also on Israël, which rebooted the
strategy of Oded Yinon [4] and David Wurmser [5] for regional domination. The necessary
weapons were stored in advance by Saudi Arabia in the Omar mosque [6]. Qatar stepped in by inventing the story
about the children whose nails were torn out.
At
that time, Saudi Arabia was not seeking to impose a new form of politics on
Syria, nor even to overthrow its government. Riyadh’s intention was exclusively
to prevent a non-Sunni from becoming President. By some strange historical
evolution, the Wahhabites, who, two centuries ago, considered both Sunnis and
Shiites as heretics and called for their extermination if they failed to
repent, are today presenting themselves as the defenders of the Sunnis and the
killers of the Shiites.
As for the tiny emirate of
Qatar, it was exacting its revenge after the interruption of its gas pipeline
in Syria [7].
France, which should have
taken part in the conspiracy by virtue of the Lancaster House agreements, was
sidelined because of its unexpected initiatives in Libya. The Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Alain Juppé, attempted to push France into rejoining the
conspirators, but the ambassador in Damascus, Eric Chevallier, who could see
the distortion of facts on the ground, resisted as far as humanly
possible [8].
When France was once again
admitted to the group conspiracy, it continued its 1915 objective of the
colonisation of Syria, pursuing the Sykes-Picot-Sazonov agreements. Just as the
French mandate over Syria was considered to be transitory compared with the
lasting colonisation of Algeria [9], it is considered, in the 21st century, as
secondary to control of the Sahel. Besides which, while attempting to realise
its old engagement, Paris pushed for the creation of a national home for the
Kurds, on the model used by the British in 1917 for the Jews in Palestine. In
order to do so, it allied itself with Turkey [10] which, in the name of Atatürk’s « national
oath » [11], invaded the North of Syria in order to
create a State to which the Turkish Kurds could be expelled.
While
the war objectives of these first four aggressors are mutually compatible,
those of the latter two are not compatible with the others.
Besides
which, France, the United Kingdom and Turkey are three old colonial powers. All
three are now trying to impose their power over the same throne. The war
against Syria has thus reactivated their old rivalries.
The Daesh episode within the
war against Syria and Iraq
At the end of 2013, the
Pentagon revised its plans within the framework of the Cebrowski strategy. It
modified its initial plans, as revealed by Ralph Peters [12], and substituted the plan by Robin Wright
for the creation of a « Sunnistan » straddling Syria and Iraq [13].
However,
in September 2015, the deployment of the Russian army in Syria, as an obstacle
to the creation of « Sunnistan » by Daesh, ruined the projects of the six
principal partners in the war.
The
three years of war that followed had other objectives – on the one hand, to
create a new state straddling Iraq and Syria within the framework of the
Cebrowski strategy, and, on the other, to use Daesh to cut the Silk Road that
Xi Jinping’s China were seeking to reactivate – thus maintaining continental
domination over the « Western » part.
The Syrian / Russian victory
and the reversal of the United States
The affair of the destruction
of the Ilyushin-20 on 17 September 2018 handed Russia the occasion to terminate
this extended war and come to an agreement with the White House to stand
against other aggressors. This is a rerun, on a smaller scale, of the Russian /
US reaction to the Suez crisis of 1956 [14].
Moscow has not only given the
Syrian Arab Army anti-aircraft missiles (S-300’s), but has also deployed an
entire integrated surveillance system. As soon as this system is operational,
and Syrian officers have been trained to use it, which will take three months
at the most, it will be impossible for Western armies to over-fly the country
without permission from Damascus [15].
President Trump announced in
advance that he intends to withdraw US troops from Syria. He went back on this
decision under pressure from the Pentagon, then agreed with his general
officers to maintain pressure on Damascus as long as the United States were excluded
from the peace negotiations in Sotchi. The deployment of the Russian armies –
for which the White House had probably given its agreement – provided President
Trump with the occasion of forcing the Pentagon to back off. It would have to
withdraw its troops, but it could maintain the presence of its mercenaries (as
it happens, these would be the Kurds and Arabs from the Democratic
Forces) [16].
The Syrian Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Walid el-Mouallem, speaking before the General Assembly of the
UNO, demanded the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the foreign forces
of occupation, US, French and Turkish [17].
If
the United States leave, then the French and Turkish troops will be unable to
stay. The Israëlis would no longer be able to overfly and bomb the country. The
British have already left.
However,
Tel-Aviv, Paris and Ankara still hope that President Trump will lose the
elections of 6 November and will be fired. They are therefore awaiting the
results of this fateful election before they decide.
If it
happens that Donald Trump should win the mid-term elections in Congress,
another question will arise. If the Western powers give up on the battle in
Syria, where will they go to continue their endless war? This is indeed a
reality on which all experts agree – the Western ruling class has become so
swamped in bad blood and hubris that it is unable to accept the idea of being
geared back behind the new Asian powers.
Wisdom
would dictate that once the war is lost, the aggressors should withdraw. But
the intellectual disposition of the West prevents them from doing so. The war
here will cease only when they find a new bone to gnaw on.
Only the United Kingdom has
given its response any thought. It is clear by now that although London
maintains its diplomatic pressure on Syria via the Small Group, its attention
is already focused on the revival of the « Grand Game » which saw the Crown
confront the Tsar throughout all of the 19th century. After having invented the
Skripal affair, and on the model of the « Zinoviev Letter » [18], London has just ’caught’ the Russian
Exterior Intelligence Services red-handed in their attempt to discover what is
being plotted against them by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPWC).
This
geopolitical doctrine is independent of the events which serve as its pretext.
The « Grand Game » was the strategy of the British Empire. Its resumption by
the current United Kingdom is the consequence of Brexit and the policy of «
Global Britain ». Just as in the 19th century, this anti-Russian configuration
will lead in time to an exacerbated rivalry between London and Paris. On the
contrary, should Theresa May fail, along with the questions concerning Brexit
and the maintenance of the United Kingdom in the European Union, all these
projections will be cancelled.
If
France is now studying the possibility of leaving the Middle East in order to
concentrate on the Sahel, the position of the United States is a lot more
problematic. Since 9/11, the Pentagon has enjoyed a certain autonomy. The ten
combat Commanders of the armed forces no longer receive orders from the
president of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, but only from the Secretary
of Defense.
With time, they have become
the veritable « viceroys » of the « American Empire » – a function which they
do not wish to see reduced by President Trump. Some of them, like the Commander
for South America (SouthCom) [19], intend to continue with the Cebrowski
strategy, despite the admonitions of the White House.
So
there remains much uncertainty. The only positive step taken concerns Daesh –
for three years, the Western powers pretended to be fighting this terrorist
organisation, while at the same time supplying them with weapons. Today, Donald
Trump has ordered the cessation of this experience of an explicitly terrorist
state, the Caliphate, and the Syrian and Russian armies have pushed the
jihadists back. The Westerners have no desire to see their friends, the «
moderate rebels », now qualified as « terrorists », turn up in their countries
en masse. Consequently, whether they admit it or not, they hope they will all
be killed in Syria.
It is
the US mid-term elections which will decide whether the war continues in Syria
or move on to another battle field.
—
[1] “Aggression
disguised as civil wars”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete
Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 27 February 2018.
[2] The Pentagon’s New Map,
Thomas P. M. Barnett, Putnam Publishing Group, 2004. “The
US military project for the world”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation
Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 22 August 2017.
[3] “Tony
Blair speech at the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles”, by Tony
Blair, Voltaire Network, 1 August 2006. When Progressives Treat with Reactionaries. The British
State’s flirtation with radical Islamism, Martin Bright,
Policy Exchange, September 2004. “I had no choice but to leak”, Derek
Pasquill, New Statesman, January 17, 2008.
[4] “A
Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties (The “Yinon Plan”)”, by
Oded Yinon, Translation Israel Shahak, Kivunim (Israel)
, Voltaire Network, 1 February 1982.
[5] The plan A Clean Break : A New Strategy
for Securing the Realm, Institute for Advanced Strategic and
Political Studies, July 2006, was attributed to its signatories, mainly Richard
Perle and Douglas Feith. However, according to Feith, the text was drawn up by
Wurmser, without the signatories having the opportunity to modify it. See
“Credit for Israel Report Clarified”, Douglas Feith, Washington Post, September 16, 2004.
[6] Interview with General Anwar Al-Eshki by
the BBC, in 2011. https://youtu.be/EGu3sh4MMK8.
[7] “Syria’s Pipelineistan war”, Pepe
Escobar, Al-Jazeera, August 6, 2012. “Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not
chemical weapon concern”, Nafeez Ahmed, The Guardian, August 30, 2013. “ Syria attraction: Russia moving into Eastern
Mediterranean oil bonanza”, William Engdhal, Russia Today, Januray 13, 2014. “Why the Arabs don’t want us in Syria”, Robert
Kennedy Jr, Politico, February 23, 2016.
[8] “Alain
Juppé accused by his own Administration of having falsified reports on Syria”,
Translation Michele Stoddard , Voltaire Network, 22
March 2012.
[9] France, Syrie et Liban
1918-1946: Les ambiguïtés et les dynamiques de la relation mandataire,
Nadine Méouchy, Presses de IFPO, 2013.
[10] Accord franco-turc –
signed by Alain Juppé and Ahmet Davutoğlu, 2011, not published.
[11] “Misak-ı
Milli Kararları”, Voltaire İletişim Ağı ,
28 Ocak 1920.
[12] “Blood borders – How a better Middle East would look”,
Colonel Ralph Peters, Armed Forces Journal,
June 1, 2006.
[13] “Imagining a Remapped Middle East”, Robin
Wright, The New York Times Sunday Review, September 8, 2013.
[14] “Will
London, Paris and Tel-Aviv be sanctioned by Moscow and Washington?”,
by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 25
September 2018.
[15] “Implication
of creating a modern integrated management of the Syrian air space”,
by Valentin Vasilescu, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 8 October 2018.
[16] “Trump eyeing Arab ‘boots on the ground’ to counter Iran
in Syria”, Travis J. Tritten, Washington Examiner,
September 29, 2018.
[17] “Remarks
by Walid Al-Moualem to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly”,
by Walid Al-Moualem, Voltaire Network, 29
September 2018.
[18] “The
Skripal Affair: A Lie Too Far?”, by Michael Jabara Carley, Strategic Culture Foundation (Russia) , Voltaire Network, 23 April 2018.
[19] “Plan
to overthrow the Venezuelan Dictatorship – “Masterstroke””, by Kurt
W. Tidd, Voltaire Network, 23 February 2018. “The
United States “Master Stroke” against Venezuela”, by Stella Calloni,
Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 17
May 2018.
French
intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace
Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in
daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last
two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate.
The
articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided the source is
cited, their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial
purposes (license CC BY-NC-ND).
