What does Washington really want in Syria?

When the United States announced that it would be abandoning “peace talks” with Russia regarding the ongoing conflict in Syria, many had already dismissed them as disingenuous.

The Washington Post in an article titled, " US abandons efforts to work with Russia on Syria", noted that: "U.S.-Russia relations fell to a new post-Cold War low as the US administration abandoned efforts to cooperate with Russia on ending the Syrian civil war and forming a common front against terrorists there, and Moscow suspended a landmark nuclear agreement." This admission made by US policymakers, politicians and the Western media all but admits that the US has never prioritized confronting terrorism in Syria and has been using the presence of terrorist organizations merely as a pretext for more direct Western military intervention.

In fact, by acknowledging that Western-backed militant groups are indistinguishable and inseparable from designated terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, Jabhat Al-Nusra, the US is all but admitting it is intentionally arming and equipping the terrorists themselves. This explains the apparently inexhaustible resources terrorist organizations like Al-Nusra possess and why they have risen to prominence above so-called “moderate rebels” the US and its allies have repeatedly claimed they were funding hundreds of billions of dollars throughout the conflict.
It appears that the answer to the question as to how Al-Nusra could rise to prominence in Syria despite the so-called “moderates” receiving hundreds of billions in aid from the US and its allies is that there were never any moderates to begin with, and that the US and its allies were arming and funding terrorist organizations, including Al-Nusra, since the conflict began. It also appears to be no coincidence that this scenario now openly unfolding in Syria fulfils warnings published by Western journalists including the investigative journalist Seymour Hersh as early as 2007. It was revealed that the US was already at that time providing material support to extremist organizations “sympathetic to Al Qaeda” toward the end goal of overthrowing the governments of both Iran and Syria, but to no avail.

While the US now claims Russia has sabotaged US efforts to bring an end to hostilities in Syria, Washington is also illogically attempting to argue that the failure of its feigned “peace talks” has also somehow prevented the US from targeting terrorists organizations in Syria, the alleged pretext of America’s presence in Syria to begin with.

Despite strained relations with Russia, the US is still cooperating with Moscow regarding the use of Syrian airspace to avoid unintentional confrontations. While the cessation of hostilities may have collapsed, is there really any excuse as to why separating designated terrorist organizations from militant groups the US and its allies are providing billions in weapons and equipment to is still not an absolute and urgent priority? The answer is, no — there is no excuse. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say, it is simply an excuse for the US to continue funneling men and materiel into Syria, Washington knows with absolute certainty will end up in the ranks of Al Qaeda, whom the US admittedly intended to use as early as 2007 to overthrow the Syrian government with. Beginning in 2001, the United States has systematically destroyed the nations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, while either directly or indirectly laying waste to the nations of Sudan and Somalia. The nation of Iran was also subjected to multiple attempted provocations and US-driven subversion especially from 2001 onward, but to no avail.

The United States has created narratives for the public to serve as apparently “unique” and independent justifications for each and every one of these conflicts, often predicated on averting a “humanitarian disaster” or pursuing “terrorists” and even preventing “weapons of mass destruction” from being used against the West and its allies. This is while, America’s serial blitzkrieg across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia are part of a singular, admitted agenda.

US Army General Wesley Clark, in a 2007 Flora TV talk titled," A Time to Lead", revealed this singular agenda by relating a conversation he had as far back as 1991 with then US under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz, by stating (with emphasis): we learned that we can use our military in the region in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. He said, and we have got about five or ten years to clean up those all Soviet allies – before the next great super power comes on to challenge us. 

And indeed, even from 1991 onward, the goal of US intervention across the planet has been to establish deeply-entrenched global hegemony before another rising world power could balance American geopolitical domination.

Fast forward to today, with the US on the brink of war with Russia in Syria, and with China in the South China Sea, the United States has run out of time and finds the leading edge of its hegemonic ambitions chaffing against a reemerging Russia and a rising China. Washington has invented an array of excuses as to why it is involved in Syria’s conflict, running the full gambit from fearing “weapons of mass destruction” to fighting terrorists to addressing humanitarian concerns. But the reality of America’s involvement in Syria boils down to the pursuit of the latest and most desperate leg of its rush to dominance before emerging world powers reintroduced balance and limits to Western hegemony.

It is therefore incumbent upon the world to reject Washington’s various excuses for intervening in Syria and expose the truth driving its involvement in and responsibility for the conflict. It is also incumbent upon the world to confront Washington regarding its state sponsorship of terrorist organizations it itself has designated as such and bring the Syrian conflict as well as America’s latest “growth spurt” to an abrupt end. Global peace and stability depends on bringing this decades-long global power-grab to an end, in an atmosphere of conflict and confrontation many fear may even lead to a direct confrontation between nuclear-armed states.

With the United States refusing to change its self-defeating policy toward the war on Syria, Russia has intensified its airstrikes against terrorist groups in eastern Aleppo. Taken aback by Moscow’s actions, US officials have slammed the move and called are for a no-fly zone over the city. This is confusing, as Russia has always suggested the two should coordinate in targeting terrorist groups - something the US rejected doing. Still worse, the US violated a recent ceasefire agreement for a host of excuses, which are not that hard to expose. Airstrikes by the US-led coalition violate international law as interference into the territory of a sovereign state can only be carried out on authorization of UN Security Council or on request of official legitimate authorities. Russia, coupled with Iran's advisory role, is the sole country that is carrying out that operation on the legitimate basis at the request of Syria's legitimate authorities.

The true intentions behind the Russian bombardment are clear: to liberate eastern Aleppo and end the war as Washington tries to slow down or block the momentum of the victories gained by Syria and its allies in every possible way. This is not about cooking up a rationale for wider military aggression. And one would wonder why the US is so mad at the Russian airstrikes, because they are killing Al-Qaeda?!!; the same guys that launched the 9-11 attacks on the US citizens on the US soil. Washington has been repeatedly demanded by Moscow to identify its so-called moderate groups, but the US always shrugs off an answer, and expects Russia and Syria to put the war on hold - at a time when they have gained a momentum in their non-stop victories - until Al-Nusra reinvigorates and regroups to be able to hold its ground in Aleppo.

Civilians are not killed in the ongoing Russian-Syrian airstrikes. Rather, they are being used as human shields by Washington’s “moderate rebels” - read Al-Nusra Front - to slow down the advance of the Syrian ground forces. All information concerning the joint airstrikes is made public at the UN Security Council. Ironically, this is the exact same thing the US is being heavily criticized for. In alliance with Tehran, Moscow is defending the Syrian government and the Syrian people from the foreign-backed terrorists aligned against them. As it seems, the US officials are terrified to see eastern Aleppo fall into the hands of Syrian armed forces. They are furious about the allied forces of Iran, Syria, Russia and Hezbollah hitting its so-called “moderate rebels,” who are heavily armed and backed by the Pentagon - the same so-called moderates like Jeish Al-Fatah and Jund Al-Aqsa who have long been working with Al-Nusra and ISIL.

Sitting in their thought trap, the regime changers are loath to admit defeat, but the Syrian government's allied forces will achieve their military objectives against the terrorist groups. As everyone can see, Washington is totally paralyzed in terms of formulating a response to this nightmare. The Damascus allied forces are not pounding militant groups in eastern Aleppo bypassing the United Nations. This is not a campaign against the civilian population either. They are targeting various terrorist strongholds at the request of Damascus. The ultimate goal is to destroy them and not just “police” them - as the United States has been doing all these dreadful years.

That's why sources in Washington say the White House is cooking a dreadful plan for Syria and has taken introductory steps to execute this plan as soon as the next president comes to office. Other sources in the Middle-East say the scheme focuses on a new strategy for the disintegration of Syria and has been underway for some time now. By the way, it is again incumbent upon the world to reject Washington’s various excuses for intervening in Syria and come up with due efforts to root out terrorism in Syria and the entire region.

That was from an article by Joseph Thomas, the chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas.It was coupled, however, with some realities on the policy followed by the US military intervention in Syria. 

EA