How Syria Defeated the 2012-2019 Invasion by United States & Al-Qaeda by Eric Zuesse!
(2019-09-05 at 04:24:20 )

How Syria Defeated the 2012-2019 Invasion by United States & Al-Qaeda by Eric Zuesse

On August 31st, the brilliant anonymous German intelligence analyst who blogs as "Moon of Alabama" headlined "Syria - Coordinated Foreign Airstrike Kills Leaders Of Two Al-Qaeda Aligned Groups", and he reported that,"Some three hours ago an air- or missile strike in Syrias Idleb governorate hit a meeting of leaders of the al-Qaeda aligned Haras-al-Din and Hay at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) aka Jabhat al-Nusra.

Both were killed.

It is likely that leaders of other Jihadist groups were also present. The hit completely destroyed a Haras al-Din guesthouse or headquarter.

The Syrian Observatory says that more than 40 people were killed in the strike. The hit will make it much easier for the Syrian army campaign to liberate Idleb governorate."

At long last, Syrias army and Russias air force are no longer being threatened with World War III by the United States and its allies if they proceed to destroy the tens of thousands of Al-Qaida-led jihadists whom the United States had helped to train and arm (and had been protecting in Syria ever since December 2012) in order to overthrow Syrias non-sectarian Government and replace it by a fundamentalist-Sunni Government which the royal Sauds who own Saudi Arabia would appoint.

All throughout that war, those Al-Qaeda-led -moderate rebels- had been organized from the governate or province of Idlib (or Idleb). But now, most (if not all) of their leadership are dead.

Turkeys leader Tayyip Erdogan had hoped that he would be allowed both by Russias Vladimir Putin and by the United States Donald Trump to grab for Turkey at least part of Idlib province from Syria.

But now, he is instead either participating in, or else allowing, Syrias army and Russias air force, to slaughter Idlibs jihadists and restore that province to Syria.

On 9 September 2018, Russia and Iran had granted Turkey a temporary control over Idlib, and Erdogan then tried to seize it permanently, but finally he has given it up and is allowing Idlib to become restored to Syria.

This turn-around signals Syrias victory against its enemies; it is the wars watershed event.

Here is the history of how all that happened and how Syria is finally a huge and crucial step closer to winning its war against the invaders (which had originally been mainly Al Qaeda, United States, Turkey, Qatar, and the Sauds, but more recently has been only Al Qaeda and United States):

I reported, back on 10 September 2018, that:

Right now, the Trump Administration has committed itself to prohibiting Syria (and its allies) from retaking control of Idlib, which is the only province that was more than 90% in favor of Al Qaeda and of ISIS and against the Government, at the start of the -civil war- in Syria.

Idlib is even more pro-jihadist now, because almost all of the surviving jihadists in Syria have sought refuge there - and the Government freely has bussed them there, in order to minimize the amount of "human shield" hostage-taking by them in the other provinces. Countless innocent lives were saved this way.

Both Democratic and Republican United States federal officials and former officials are overwhelmingly supportive of United States President Trumps newly announced determination to prohibit Syria from retaking control of that heavily jihadist province, and they state such things about Idlib as:

It has become a dumping ground for some of the hardcore jihadists who were not prepared to settle for some of the forced agreements that took place, the forced surrenders that took place elsewhere... Where do people go when they have reached the last place that they can go?

What is the refuge after the last refuge?

That is the tragedy that they face.

That happened to be an Obama Administration official expressing support for the jihadists, and when he was asked by his interviewer "Did the world fail Syria?" he answered "Sure. I mean, there is no doubt about it. I mean, the first person who failed Syria was President Assad himself."

Idlib city, incidentally, had also been the most active in starting Syrias -civil war-, back on 10 March 2012 (that is a news-report by Qatar, which had actually helped to finance the jihadists, whom it lionized as freedom-fighters, and Qatar had also helped the Central Intelligence Agency to establish Al Qaeda in Syria).

Idlib city is where the peaceful phase of the "Arab Spring" uprisings transformed (largely through that CIA, Qatari, Saudi, and Turkish, assistance) into an armed rebellion to overthrow the nations non-sectarian Government, because that is where the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda was centered.

On 29 July 2012, the New York Times headlined "As Syrian War Drags On, Jihadists Take Bigger Role" and reported that "Idlib Province, the northern Syrian region where resistance fighters control the most territory, is the prime example." (Note the euphemism there, "resistance fighters," not "jihadists," nor "terrorists."

That is how propaganda is written.

But this time, the editors had slipped up, and used the honest "Jihadists" in their headline.

However, their news-report said that these were only "homegrown Muslim jihadists," though thousands of jihadists at that time were actually already streaming into Idlib from around the world.

Furthermore, President Obama lied and said that the people he was helping (the al-Saud family who own Saudi Arabia, and the al-Thani family who own Qatar) to arm, were not jihadists, and he was never called-out on that very blatant ongoing lie.)

But the United States-allied, Saud-and-Thani-financed, massive arms-shipments, to the Al-Qaeda-led forces in Syria, did not start arriving there until March 2013, around a year after that start.

And, then, in April 2013, the EU agreed with the United States team to buy all the (of course black-market) oil it could that "the rebels" in Syrias oil region around Deir Ezzor were stealing from Syria, so as to help "the rebels" to expand their control in Syria and thus to further weaken Syrias Government. (The "rebels," in that region of Syria, happened to be ISIS, not Al Qaeda, but the United States teams primary target to help destroy was actually Syria, and never ISIS.

In fact, the United States did not even start bombing ISIS there until after Russia had already started doing that on 30 September 2015.)

A week following my 10 September 2018 news-report, I reported, September 17th, about how Erdogan, Putin, and Irans Rouhani, had dealt with the United States alliances threat of going to war against Russia in Syrian territory if Russia and Syria were to attack the jihadists in Idlib:

As I recommended in a post on September 10th, Russias President Vladimir Putin and Turkeys President Tayyip Erdogan jointly announced on September 17th, "We have agreed to create a demilitarized zone between the government troops and militants before October 15. The zone will be 15-20km wide," which compares to the Korean DMZs 4-km width.

I had had in mind the Korean experience, but obviously Putin and Erdogan are much better-informed about the situation than I am, and they have chosen a DMZ that is four to five times wider.

In any case, the consequences of such a decision will be momentous, unless United States President Donald Trump is so determined for there to be World War III as to stop at nothing in order to force it to happen no matter what Russia does or does not do.

What the Putin-Erdogan DMZ decision means is that the 50,000 Turkish troops who now are occupying Idlib province of Syria will take control over that land, and will thus have the responsibility over the largest concentration of jihadists anywhere on the planet: Idlib.

It contains the surviving Syrian Al Qaeda and ISIS fighters, including all of the ones throughout Syria who surrendered to the Syrian Army rather than be shot dead on the spot by Government forces.

However, after Mr. Erdogan got control over Idlib, he double-crossed Putin and Rouhani, by trying to solidify his control not only over Idlib but over adjoining portions of Syria, I headlined on 14 July 2019 "Turkey Will Get a Chunk of Syria: An Advantage of Being in NATO", and reported:

Turkey is already starting to build infrastructure even immediately to the north and east of Idlib in order to stake its claim to a yet larger portion of Syria than just Idlib.

This might not have been part of the deal that was worked out by Russias Putin, Irans Rouhani, and Turkeys Erdogan, in Tehran, on 9 September 2018, which agreement allowed Turkey only to take over - and only on a temporary basis - Idlib province, which is by far the most pro-jihadist (and the most anti-Assad) of Syrias 14 provinces.

Turkey was instead supposed to hold it only temporarily, but the exact terms of the Turkey-Russia-Iran agreement have never been publicly disclosed.

Turkey was building in those adjoining Syrian areas not only facilities from two Turkish universities but also a highway to extend into the large region of Syria to the east that was controlled by Kurdish separatist forces which were under United States protection.

In July 2019, Mr. Erdogan seems to have been hoping that President Trump would allow Turkey to attack those Kurdish proxy-forces of the United States.

For whatever reason, that outcome, which was hoped for by Mr. Erdogan, turned out not to be realized.

Perhaps President Trump decided that if the separatist Kurds in Syria were going to be allowed to be destroyed, then Mr. Assad should be the person who would allow it, not he; and, therefore, if Mr. Erdogan would get such a go-ahead, the blame for it would belong to Mr. Assad, and not to Americas President.

Given the way Mr. Assad has behaved in the past - since he has always sought Syrian unity - the likely outcome, in the Kurdish Syrian areas, will be not a Syrian war against Kurds, but instead some degree of federal autonomy there, so long as that would be acceptable also to Erdogan.

If Erdogan decides to prohibit any degree of Kurdish autonomy across the border in Syria as posing a danger to Turkish unity, then Mr. Assad will probably try (as much as he otherwise can) to accommodate the Kurds without any such autonomy, just like in the non-Kurdish parts of the unitary nation of Syria.

Otherwise, Kurdish separatist sentiment will only continue in Syria, just as it does in Turkey and Iraq.

The United States has backed Kurdish separatism all along, and might continue that in the future (such as after the November 2020 United States Presidential election).

Finally, there seems to be the light of peace at the end of the nightmarish eight-year invasion of Syria by the United States and its national (such as Turkey-Jordan-Qatar-Saud-Israel) and proxy (such as jihadist and Kurdish) allies.

Matters finally are turning for the better in Syria.

The United States finally appears to accept it.

Americas threat, of starting WW III if Russia and Syria try to destroy the jihadists who have become collected in Syrias Idlib province, seems no longer to pertain.

Maybe this is because President Trump wants to be re-elected in 2020.

If that is the reason, then perhaps after November of 2020, the United States regimes war against Syria will resume.

This is one reason why every United States Presidential candidate ought to be incessantly asked what his-her position is regarding the United States regimes long refrain, "Assad must go", and regarding continued sanctions against Syria, and regarding restitution to Syria to restore that nation from the United States-led war against it.

Those questions would reveal whether all of the candidates are really just more of the same actual imperialistic (or "neocon") policies, or whether, perhaps, one of them is better than that.

Mr. Putin has made his commitments. What are theirs?

Will they accept peace with Russia, and with Iran?

If America were a democracy, its public would be informed about such matters - especially before the November 2020 -elections-, and not merely after they are already over.

Reprinted here from the "Strategic Culture Foundation" provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.