SYRIA : Direct clash between Moscow and Washington. Who’s pulling the strings?
Jean Terrien, Rivarol
Following the American bombing of a humanitarian convoy in Syria (on the 20th September 2016) and five long hours of relentless bombardment of Syrian army positions by the US air-force, a violation of the cease-fire agreement signed on 9 September, Moscow is taking a harder line.
During a BBC interview, the Russian foreign affairs minister, Sergueï Lavrov, dropped diplomatic language and openly accused the US of protecting terrorists belonging to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (formerly the Al-Nusra Front) when he pointed out that “The Americans have never attacked a single position belonging to the Al-Nusra Front”. (1)
This was confirmed by a commanding officer of the Al-Nusra Front in an interview granted to the German newspaper Stadt-Anzeiger : “Yes, the US support the opposition (in Syria), but not directly. They support the countries which support us. But we are still not satisfied with this support”. (2) What’s more, he revealed that the terrorist group had won battles thanks to American TOW anti-tank missiles which were “directly given” to his troops and added that “thanks to these missiles, the situation in several (Syrian) regions is under control”. Regarding heavy artillery, he explained that “our tanks and rocket-launchers came from Libya via Turkey”.
In order to prevent any future error being made by the American air-force, and thereby protect the Syrian army and Russian ground units, Russia has deployed its defensive missile systems (S300 and S400). Washington’s reaction was swift. Pentagon spokesman, Peter Cook, warned the Russians: “It must be clear for the Russians and all those operating in Syria that we take very seriously the safety our pilots”. In response, the spokesman for the Russian ministry of defence, Igor Konachenkov, stated: “we reiterate that the S-300 is uniquely for defence purposes and threatens nobody”. (3)
It should be made clear that the Russians decided to deploy their defensive systems following news that Washington was considering carrying out air-strikes against the Syrian army. Igor Konachenkov added in a press statement that “We have to be aware of the fact that the Russian systems will not have time to identify the precise trajectory of the missiles and their origin. And those who claim that invisible airplanes exist are heading for a big disappointment” (4)
We have perhaps come to a point of no return in this stand-off between America and Russia. A direct confrontation between the two great military powers in Syria could cause a world war. But one question, which has never been asked, remains: who would benefit from this possible world war? In order to identify the guilty party and the ultimate beneficiary of this coming world war, it is necessary to go back to the origins of the Syrian conflict and those who created it.
ARCHITECTS OF MIDDLE EASTERN DESTRUCTION
In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Israeli leaders and the Israeli lobby in America jumped into action to use these attacks as a justification for a series of wars against their Arab neighbours, a war which the Americans were to wage on their behalf. In statement which Netanyahou had published in the Chicago Sun-Times on the 7 January, we see very clearly that 9/11 was nothing other than a pretext for the reconstruction of the Middle East: “Should America overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the Al-Qaida network would fall apart on its own accord. The United States must now act in the same way for the other regimes of terror – Iran, Iraq, the dictatorship of Yasser Arafat, Syria and several others” (5)
In 2002, the very powerful pro-Israeli lobby group, AIPIC, held their annual conference, the theme of which was “America and Israel against Terrorism”. Discussions focused on the common threats to Israel and the US: the old and tired Yasser Arafat (who, poisoned, would die two years later), the former CIA employee Ossama bin Laden, the Taliban (armed and supported by the CIA via the Pakistani special forces), Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. (6)
In April 2002, the American neoconservative think-tank PNAC (Project for the New American Century) published a letter addressed to president Bush. This letter was signed by several Jewish figures (William Kristol, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Eliot Cohen, Norman Podhoretz) and non-Jewish Zionists (William Bennet, R James Woosley) together with 28 other prominent neoconservatives figures: “Nobody should doubt that the United States and Israel have a common enemy. Our two countries are the target of what you have rightly called the ‘axis of evil’. As the secretary of state for defence, Donald Rumsfeld, pointed out, Iran, Iraq and Syria encourage a culture of political assassination and terrorist attacks against Israel, just as they have supported terrorist campaigns against the US. Mr President, you have declared war against international terrorism. Israel is fighting the same war”. (7)
Looking at the chronology of the statements, we can clearly see that the neoconservatives have in fact merely followed a plan which was drawn up well in advance by Israeli strategists, their American followers and by their agents of influence planted at the heart of the citadel of American power…
In the US, the promoters of this project to destroy Arab countries are the neoconservatives. But make no mistake: the roots of neoconservatism are essentially Jewish (8). The hard core of American neoconservatives is dominated by Jews, who occupy key posts in influential organisations, foundations and political institutions, such as: Elliott Abrams, Keneth Adelman, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz. In journalism, we find David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Bret Stephens and Norman Podhoretz. Among the Jewish neoconservative university professors, we find Eliot Cohen, Aaron Fridberg, Ruth Wedgwood and the highly influential Bernard Lewis, a pro-Israeli Jewish historian (father of the “theory” of the clash of civilisations, popularised by his assistant, Samuel Huntington). Among the experts we have Max Boot, David Frum, Reuel Gerecht, Robert Kagan, Michael Ledeen (father of the “constructive chaos” doctrine), Joshua Maravchik, the ineffable Daniel Pipes, Danielle Pletka, Michael Rubin and Meyra Wurmser.
The Jewish neoconservative Max Boot stated very clearly that “support for Israel is one the key principles of neoconservatism”. (9) As renowned American professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt point out: “neoconservatism is a sub-set of the pro-Israeli movement. Jewish Americans are at the heart of the neoconservative movement, in the same way that they form the majority of the (pro-Israeli) lobby”. (10)
THE ORIGINS OF THE SYRIAN WAR
American strategic aims in Syria are based on the Israeli plan written in 1982 by Oded Yinon (11), who was an official at the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs. This primarily targeted Iraq and made a plan to disintegrate the country before subjecting it to the same treatment as Syria. The Israelis, via the intermediary of the United States, have indeed followed the Oded Yinon plan to the letter. As soon as Baghdad fell, the Israeli leaders began to prepare for the future war against Syria, making accusations of a Syrian chemical weapons programme.
In April 2003, when Baghdad had just fallen, the Israelis started to push the United States to attack the Syrian regime. (12)
In an interview granted to the newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth on the 15 April 2003, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, stated that Bashar Al-Assad was “a dangerous man, incapable of sound judgement”. The Israelis had already said the same thing about Saddam Hussein who, according to them, had hidden “weapons of mass destruction” in Syria in collusion with Damascus just before the outbreak of the conflict. Is there really any need to explain why such an accusation is ludicrous?
Sharon called for the United States to put “great pressure” on Syria to force it to stop supporting Hamas and Islamic Jihad. He also demanded that Lebanon: drive out the Iranian Revolutionary Guards from the Beqaa Valley; stop all cooperation with Iran; force Hezbollah to withdraw from its positions on the border with Israel; replace Hezbollah with the Lebanese army; and remove its short-range missiles targeting Israel. (13)
In other words, Sharon demanded that all barriers to Israeli expansion in the region be removed; he wanted the Levant served on a plate. Even an Israeli diplomat criticised Sharon’s excessive demands, inviting him to be more discreet regarding the relations between Damascus and Washington. (14)
Sharon was not an isolated case among the Israeli leaders. The minister of defence, Shaul Mofaz, declared on 14 April 2003 that: “We have a long list of demands regarding the Syrians, and it seems appropriate that they be communicated via the Americans” (15). Like Sharon, the minister of defence demanded that Syria break all links with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and that Hezbollah be disbanded.(16)
Two weeks later, Sharon’s national security adviser, Ephraïm Halevy, came to Washington to push American leaders to take decisive action against Syria. He deployed the well-known Israeli argument. According to him, Syria had weapons of mass destruction and they were in the hands of Bashar al-Assad, who was described as being “irresponsible” and “arrogant”. (17)
For its part, Syria – whether it be under Hafez (1930-2000) or under Bashar al-Assad, throughout the 90s and from the year 2000 onwards – has sought peace with both the Israelis and the Americans. But the Israelis – who, as usual accepted to enter negotiations in order to better deceive – systematically derailed negotiations or simply did not comply with the agreements made. For instance, in December 2003, Assad proposed a peace deal and Haaretz’s military correspondent, Ze’ev Schiff, made the following comment: “The most surprising thing about the Syrian president’s proposal to resume peace talks with Israel is the Israeli leaders response…Prime minister Ariel Sharon has remained silent. Not a single word has passed his lips… We in the press have always held up hopes that such an offer would be made” (18)
This policy of mistrust towards Syria, promoted by the Israelis in the United States, did not please the American administration. The CIA and the State Department, in particular, stressed that the policy of confronting Syria was a strategic error. But Israel and the pro-Israel lobby convinced the American government to follow them down this road. (19) They used the same argument that they had previously used for Iraq, namely that Syria was not only a severe threat to Israel but also to the United States (20). It could well be asked in what sense Syria could possibly be a threat to the United States? No lie is too big for the Israeli leaders. By destabilising the region and beyond, these falsehoods have serious consequences.
Following the fall of the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Israelis declared that Syria was, at the very least, just as dangerous as Iraq. The Israeli strategists, Yossi Alpher, giving the Israeli point of view on Syria, explained that “Syria had a great ability to do harm, much more so than Iraq”. In April 2003, the Washington Post reported that Sharon and Mofaz strove to fuel the anti-Assad campaign by swamping the United States with secret reports on the misdeeds of president Bashar al-Assad (21) and the concealment of his Iraqi weapons (22). Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States began their anti-Syrian campaign as early as 1996. (23) The current situation is merely the direct consequence of this.
For those who believe that attempts to overthrow the Syrian government began in 2011 following the supposed “massacres” of Syrian civilians by Assad, here’s something that will make them think again. In April 2003, eight years before the Arab Spring, Paul Wolfowitz, a Jewish neoconservative, declared that “regime change in Syria is essential”. Speaking to a journalist, Richard Perle, also a Jewish neoconservative, said that “we will be able send a short message, five words long, to other hostile regimes in the Middle East: now it is your turn”. (24)
In the light of these facts, and given Israel’s constant aggression towards Syria together with its open support of terrorists, it is obvious that the potential war between the United States and Russia will ultimately be to the exclusive benefit of Israel. Its goal is to have its insane project completed by the United States, which is supposed to destroy the Syrian army and drive Russia out of the region, in order to finally clear the way for Greater Israel, which will stretch to the Euphrates. In other words, Greater Israel will be built on the corpse of the Syrian nation. When the great global catastrophe happens, we shouldn’t forget who the true culprits are.
Article Translated from French
The original author was Jean Terrien
Source: Rivarol, n°3253, 13/10/2016
- Lavrov : Les Etats-Unis protègent un groupe jihadiste en Syrie : <http://aa.com.tr/fr/monde/lavrov-les-etats-unis-prot%C3%A8gent-un-groupe-jihadiste-en-syrie-/655943>.
- Russia Today, 27/09/2016.
- 20 minutes, Syrie : L’armée russe déploie des systèmes de défense antiaérienne S-300, 05/10/2016.
- Sputnik News, Moscou annonce ses intentions d’abattre tout missile menaçant en Syrie, 06/10/2016.
- Benjamin Netanyahou, “Three Pinciple Keys to Defeat Terrorism”, Chicago Sun-Times, 7 January 2002.
- Dana Hearn, AIPAC Policy Conference, 21-22 April 2002, Journal of Palestine Studies 31, n° 4, summer, 2002, pp. 66-79.
- Letter to President Bush on Israel, Arafat, and the World on Terrorism, Project for the New American Century, 3 avril 2002, www.newamericancentury.Org/bushletter-040302.htm
- Murray Friedman explains that neoconservatism is a Jewish invention in: The Neoconservative Revolution : Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy. See also the article written by Gal Beckerman in Forward, “The Neoconservative Persuasion”, 6 janvier 2006.
- Max Boot, “What the Heck is a Neocon ?”, Wall Street Journal, 30 December 2002.
- Walt and Mearsheimer, La politique étrangère américaine et le lobby pro-israélien, 2007, La Découverte.
- Oded Yinon’s “A strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”, 1982. New French translation, Le Plan sioniste pour le Moyen-Orient, Sigest, Paris, 2015.
- Seymour Hersh, The Syrian Bet, art. cit. ; Molly Moore, Sharon Asks U.S. Pressure Syria on Militant, Washington Post, 17 avril 2003 ; Ori Nir, Jerusalem Urges Bush ; Next Hezbollah, Forward, 11 avril 2003 ; Ori Nir, Sharon Aide Makes the Case for U.S. Action against Syria, Forward, 18 avril 2003 ; Marc Perelman, Behind Warnings to Damascus : Reassessment of Younger Assad, Forward, 18 avril 2003 ; Daniel Sobelman and Nathan Guttman, PM Urges U.S. to keep on Syria, Calls Assad “dangerous”, Haaretz, 15 avril 2003.
- Daniel Sobelman and Nathan Guttman, PM Urges U.S. to Keep Heat on Syria. See also Molly Moore, Sharon Asks U.S., article quoted in Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 299.
- Herb Keinon, “Sharon Criticized for Public Declaration on Syria-U.S. Tension”, Jerusalem Post, 16 avril 2003.
- Ori Nir, “Sharon Aide Makes the Case”. See also DeYoung, “U.S. Toughens Warning”, quoted in Molly Moore, “Sharon Asks U.S.”
- Walt et Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 299.
- Forward, quoted par Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 299.
- Ze’ev Schiff, “The Peace Threat from Damascus”, Haaretz, 8 december 2003. See the details of Syrian peace offers in Walt et Mearsheimer, op. cit., chap. 9.
- Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 298.
- Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 298.
- Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 300.
- Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 300. See note 51, p. 475.
- Walt and Mearsheimer, op. cit., p. 300.
- Wolfowitz quoted in Nathan Guttman, “Some Senior U.S. Figures Say Syria Has Crossed the Red Line”, Haaretz, 14 avril 2004 ; Perle quoted in Michael Flynn, “The War Hawks : The Right Flexes Muscle with New U.S. Agenda”, Chicago Tribune, 13 avril 2003.