Serious Syrian talks: Is Iran’s involvement a game-changer?
30 Vineri oct. 2015
Posted Uncategorized
in30 Vineri oct. 2015
Posted Uncategorized
in25 Duminică oct. 2015
Posted Uncategorized
inhttp://landdestroyer.blogspot.ro/2015/10/us-turkey-buffer-zone-to-save-isis-not.html
NATO’s irregular forces face their supply lines being completely cut, that is, unless a „buffer zone” can be created to save them.
October 25, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – Russia’s intervention in Syria has derailed US regime-change efforts aimed at Damascus. It also threatens America’s secondary objective of dividing and destroying Syria as a functioning, unified nation-state. Long sought after „buffer zones” also sometimes referred to as „free zones” or „safe zones” still stand as the primary strategy of choice by the US and its regional allies for the deconstruction of Syria’s sovereignty and the intentional creation of a weak, failed state not unlike what the US and NATO left within the borders of Libya since 2011.
And while the US seeks to sell its „buffer zone” strategy under a variety of pretexts – from protecting refugees to fighting the so-called „Islamic State” (ISIS/ISIL) – it is admittedly a tactic aimed instead at America’s true objectives in Syria – the destruction of its government, the division of its people, and the eradication of its sovereignty.
ISIS is Clearly the Product of State-Sponsorship
In 2012, it was clear that the region north of Aleppo and across the border into Turkey, had become one of two primary points (Jordan being the other) of staging and entry for NATO-backed terrorists operating in Syria. It was from across the border north of Aleppo and Idlib that NATO-armed, funded, and trained terrorists from Libya first flowed into Syrian territory and from where the initial 2012 invasion of Aleppoemanated.
While NATO opened up several other fronts along Syria’s northern border, this has remained their primary focus – specifically for the purpose of taking Idlib, Aleppo, or both, establishing them as a seat of government for a proxy regime, and as a strategic and logistical springboard to wage war deeper into Syrian territory from.
While initially the West attempted to make ISIS appear to be sustaining its fighting capacity within a vacuum deep within Syrian and Iraqi territory, allegedly sustaining itself on ransoms and black market oil, the scale of their operations has since betrayed this narrative, revealing immense state-sponsorship behind them.
If ISIS was being armed, funded, equipped, and its ranks replenished from abroad, it would need supply lines leading to and from these resources. Fighting along the Syrian-Turkish border, between ISIS and both Syrian troops and Kurds exposed NATO-ISIS ratlines – with maps published even by the Western media clearly indicating ISIS supply lines as „support zones” and „attack zones.”
Cutting NATO-ISIS Supply Lines
It was clear that as Syrian troops deep within Syria encircled, cut off the supplies of, and defeated terrorist bastions in cities like Homs and Hama, a much larger version of this would need to be accomplished to secure Syria’s borders. With Syrian troops themselves unable to operate along its borders with Turkey because of a defacto no-fly-zone established with the help of US anti-air missile systems, the burden has been shifted onto Syrian and Iranian-backed Kurds.
The Kurds with their advantages as irregular forces familiar with the territory and now receiving significant material support have managed to cut off ISIS from its NATO supply lines along nearly the entire Syrian-Turkish border, save for the region just north of Aleppo and Idlib. Kurds and Syrian forces have managed to secure the border on positions flanking this last NATO-ISIS logistical zone and threaten to cut it off as well.
Thus the intentionally confusing narrative and feigned jostling between Turkey and the US over the exact details of the impending „buffer zone” they seek to carve out of Syrian territory becomes crystal clear.
It is intended entirely to preserve ISIS, Al Nusra, and other Al Qaeda affiliates’ supply lines to and from Turkey. It, by necessity, will exclude Kurds – an immense betrayal by the Americans who have attempted to pose as their allies – and the Syrian Arab Army, to ensure no force is capable of harassing and disrupting NATO’s increasingly tenuous logistical and terrorist operations.
With Russia’s entry into the conflict, and its application of airpower across regions previously out of reach of Syria’s own heavily taxed air force, the prospect of Syrian and Kurdish forces now being able to close that last remaining gap has become a real possibility. Should this gap be closed and similar efforts accomplished in Syria’s south near its border with Jordan, not only will NATO’s mercenary forces be strangled, all prospects of NATO dividing and destroying Syria will be lost well into the foreseeable future.
„Buffer Zone” To Divide and Destroy, Not Save Syria
Western policymakers have made it quite clear precisely what these „buffer zones” are truly intended for. While they claim they are aimed at fighting ISIS or protecting refugees – these are but pretexts.
The Brookings Institution – a corporate-funded policy think-tank whose policymakers have helped craft upper-level strategy for the Iraqi, Afghan, Libyan, and now Syrian conflicts as well as plans laid for future confrontations with Iran and beyond – has been explicit regarding the true nature of these „buffer zones.” In a recent paper titled, „Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war,” it states:
…the idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within Syria once they were able. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would act in support, not only from the air but eventually on the ground via special forces.
The paper goes on by explaining (emphasis added) :
The end-game for these zones would not have to be determined in advance. The interim goal might be a confederal Syria, with several highly autonomous zones and a modest (eventual) national government. The confederation would likely require support from an international peacekeeping force, if this arrangement could ever be formalized by accord.But in the short term, the ambitions would be lower—to make these zones defensible and governable, to help provide relief for populations within them, and to train and equip more recruits so that the zones could be stabilized and then gradually expanded.
In essence, these zones constitute a defacto NATO invasion and occupation. The territory seized would be used as springboards to launch attacks deeper still into Syrian territory until eventually the entire nation was either permanently Balkanized or destroyed. Despite Brookings’ claims that eventually a national government would emerge and the territory under it „stabilized,” a look at all other NATO interventions, invasions, and occupations (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya) clearly indicates Syria’s true fate will be anything but stable and well-governed.
The President of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Richard Haas, published an op-ed titled, „Testing Putin in Syria,” which echoed the Brookings plan (emphasis added):
In the meantime, the United States and others should pursue a two-track policy. One track would channel steps to improve the balance of power on the ground in Syria. This means doing more to help the Kurds and select Sunni tribes, as well as continuing to attack the Islamic State from the air.
Relatively safe enclaves should emerge from this effort. A Syria of enclaves or cantons may be the best possible outcome for now and the foreseeable future. Neither the US nor anyone else has a vital national interest in restoring a Syrian government that controls all of the country’s territory; what is essential is to roll back the Islamic State and similar groups.
It was also recently revealed during a US Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing that retired US Army General John Keane suggested the creation of „free zones” in precisely the same manner. General Keane also suggested using refugees as a means of deterring Russian airstrikes in these zones – or in other words – using refugees as human shields. The common denominator between the Brookings, the CFR, and the US Senate Committee on Armed Services’ plans is the establishment of these zones for the destruction of Syria by perpetuating the fighting. To perpetuate the fighting terrorists like ISIS and Al Nusra must be continuously supplied and supported – a process now in jeopardy because of Russia’s intervention.
Revealing the true nature of NATO’s „buffer zones” and the fact that they are aimed at saving, not stopping ISIS, Al Nusra, and other Al Qaeda linked extremist factions, further undermines the moral, political, diplomatic, and even strategic viability of this plan. By revealing to the world the true solution to solving the „ISIS problem” – cutting their fighters off from their Western and Arabian state-sponsors, opens the door to more aggressive – not to mention more effective – measures to defeat them both in Syria and elsewhere.
That Russia has already begun taking these measures means that that window has closed further still for the US. The only question now will be whether the US concedes defeat, or escalates dangerously toward war with Russia to save a policy that has not only utterly failed, but has already been exposed to the world as a criminal conspiracy.
Logistics is the lifeblood of war. Understanding this and denying the enemy the resources they need to maintain their fighting capacity is the key to victory. The Russians, Syrians, Kurds, and Iranians are strangling NATO’s proxies at their very source and instinctively, NATO has raised its hands in the form of a „buffer zone” to defend them and relieve the pressure – thus revealing the true nature of this regional conflict and the central role the West has played in creating and perpetuating ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other extremists currently ravaging Syria and beyond.
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.
23 Vineri oct. 2015
Posted Uncategorized
inOriginally appeared at Moon of Alabama
Earlier this week, Saudi foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir had the following message for Tehran:
“We wish that Iran would change its policies and stop meddling in the affairs of other countries in the region, in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. We will make sure that we confront Iran’s actions and shall use all our political, economic and military powers to defend our territory and people.”
In short, Riyadh and its allies in Doha and the UAE are uneasy about the fact that the P5+1 nuclear deal is set to effectively remove Iran from the pariah state list just as Tehran is expanding its regional influence via its Shiite militias in Iraq, the ground operation in Syria, and through the Houthis in Yemen.
Thanks to the fact that Tehran has more of an arm’s length relationship with the Houthis than it does with Hezbollah and its proxy armies in Iraq, the Saudis have been able to effectively counter anti-Hadi forces in Yemen without risking a direct conflict with Iran, but make no mistake, Sana’a is not the prize here. Yemen is a side show. The real fight is for the political future of Syria and for control of Iraq once the US finally packs up and leaves for good. Iran is winning on both of those fronts.
Over the last several weeks, we and others have suggested that one should not simply expect Washington, Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha to go gently into that good night in Syria after years of providing support for the various Sunni extremist groups fighting to destabilize the regime. There’s just too much at stake.
As noted on Tuesday, Assad’s ouster would have removed a key Iranian ally and cut off Tehran from Hezbollah. Not only would that outcome pave the way for deals like the Qatar-Turkey natural gas line, it would also cement Sunni control over the region on the way to dissuading Tehran at a time when the lifting of crippling economic sanctions is set to allow the Iranians to shed the pariah state label and return to the international stage not only in terms of energy exports, but in terms of diplomacy as well. Just about the last thing Riyadh wants to see ahead of Iran’s resurgence, is a powergrab on the doorstep of the Arabian peninsula.
Thanks to Washington’s schizophrenic foreign policy, there’s no effective way to counter Iran in Iraq but as Mustafa Alani, the Dubai-based director of National Security and Terrorism Studies at the Gulf Research Center told Bloomberg earlier this week, “The regional powers can give the Russians limited time to see if their intervention can lead to a political settlement – if not, there is going to be a proxy war.”
That’s not entirely accurate. There’s already a proxy war and the dangerous thing about it is that thanks to the fact that Iran is now overtly orchestrating the ground operation, one side of the “SAA vs. rebels” proxy label has been removed. Now it’s “Iran-Russia vs. rebels” which means we’re just one degree of separation away from a direct confrontation between NATO’s regional allies in Riyadh and Doha and the Russia-Iran “nexus.” Here’s Bloomberg with more on the Saudi’s predicament:
Powerful Saudi clerics are calling for a response to the Russian move, even though the kingdom is already bogged down in another war in Yemen. Analysts say the Saudi government will probably speed up the flow of cash and weapons to its allies in the opposition fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, who’s also supported by Saudi Arabia’s main rival, Iran.
While the Saudis may seek to direct their aid to “moderate forces” in Syria, “the definition of this word is subject to much debate,” said Theodore Karasik, a Dubai-based political analyst. Sending arms “is dangerous in the medium term because of how easily weapons can fall into the wrong hands,” he said.
And let’s not kid ourselves, there are no “wrong hands” as far as Riyadh and Doha are concerned. Sure, they’d rather not have ISIS running around inside their borders blowing up mosques but then again, those bombings simply provide more political cover for justifying an air campaign in Syria. Back to Bloomberg:
Extremist groups already hold sway over large parts of the country. The Saudis joined U.S.-led operations against Islamic State last year, and since then jihadist attacks in the kingdom have increased, many of them targeting minority Shiite Muslims in the oil-rich eastern province. Meanwhile, Assad accuses the Saudis and other Gulf states of arming rebel groups with ties to al-Qaeda.
Some Saudi thinkers advocate direct military engagement in Syria, just as the kingdom has done in Yemen. Nawaf Obaid, a visiting fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, is one of them.
“The Saudis are going to be forced to lead a coalition of nations in an air campaign against the remnants of Syrian forces, Hezbollah and Iranian fighters to facilitate the collapse of the Assad regime and assist the entry of rebel forces into Damascus,” Obaid wrote in an opinion piece published by CNN on Oct. 4.
And while some still see that outcome as far fetched not only because the Saudis are stretched thin thanks to falling crude prices and the war in Yemen, but because it would be an extraordinarily dangerous escalation, it looks as though Qatar is leaning in a similar direction. Here’s Sputnik:
Qatar who has been a major sponsor of jihadist groups fighting in Syria for years, now is actively considering a direct military intervention in the country, according to its officials.
Throughout Syria’s bloody civil war, the government of Qatar has been an active supporter of anti-government militants, providing arms and financial backing to so called “rebels.” Many of these, like the al-Nusra Front, were directly linked to al-Qaeda. That strategy has, of course, done little to put a dent in terrorist organizations in the region.
But as Russia enters its fourth week of anti-terror airstrikes, Qatar has indicated that it may launch a military campaign of its own.
“Anything that protects the Syrian people and Syria from partition, we will not spare any effort to carry it out with our Saudi and Turkish brothers, no matter what this is,” Qatar’s Foreign Minister Khalid al-Attiyah told CNN on Wednesday, when asked if he supported Saudi Arabia’s position of not ruling out a military option.
“If a military intervention will protect the Syrian people from the brutality of the regime, we will do it,” he added, according to Qatar’s state news agency QNA.
Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad was fast to warn the Middle Eastern monarchy that such a move would be a disastrous mistake with serious consequences.
“If Qatar carries out its threat to militarily intervene in Syria, then we will consider this a direct aggression,” he said, according to al-Mayadeen television. “Our response will be very harsh.”
Let’s just be clear. If Saudi Arabia and Qatar start bombing Iranian forces from the airspace near Russia’s base at Latakia, this will spiral out of control.
Iran simply wouldn’t stand for it and if you think for a second that Moscow is going to let Saudi Arabia fly around in Western Syria and bomb the Iranians, you’ll be in for a big surprise. Of course the first time a Russian jet shoots down a Saudi warplane over Syria, Washington will have no choice but to go to war.
Finally, we’d be remiss if we didn’t point out the absurdity in what’s being suggested here. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are essentially saying that they may be willing to go to war with Russia and Iran on behalf of al-Qaeda if it means facilitating Assad’s ouster. The Western world’s conception of “good guys”/ “bad guys” has officially been turned on its head.
And meanwhile:
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s public approval rating has reached a record 89.9 percent since he ordered his military to begin air strikes in support of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, according to a state-run polling center.
04 Duminică oct. 2015
Posted Uncategorized
inNu ştiu dacă, într-adevăr, la Casa Albă, se conştientizează ireversibila cale adoptată de Kremlin, cu clemenţa preşedintelui SUA, deţinător al Premiului Nobel pentru Pace. Abia în ceasul al 12-lea a început să se rostogolească bulgărul demisiilor de onoare, precum aceea a lui Evelyn Farkas, care a gestionat dezastruos, la Pentagon, timp de cinci ani, Care ar fi primele concluzii, după misiunile aeriene chirurgicale efectuate de piloţii militari ruşi în Siria? 1. Misiunile aeriene şi bombardamentele, cu un simplu anunţ, pentru americani, doar cu 60 de minute înainte de acţiunea aeriană în forţă indică determinarea Kremlinului de a stabili, din start, zona proprie de control aerian total. 2.Lovirea unor arealuri atribuite unor formaţiuni militare care nu sunt ale ISIS indică decizia preşedintelui Putin de a elimina toate structurile paramilitare care nu agreează rămânerea la putere a preşedintelui Assad. 3.Dacă în războiul contra Vietnamului, trupele chineze au folosit aşa numita maree umană, cu valuri succesive de trăgători, atacând non stop, în operaţiunea Moscovei pentru consolidarea aliatului strategic de la Damasc, furtuna în deşert, începută cu lovituri din aer, va continua cu trimiterea de rachete cu rază lungă de acţiune, de pe teritoriul Rusiei, cu conducerea de la nivel grupă, pluton, companie şi batalion a trupelor siriene de către… ofiţeri din Forţele Speciale Ruse, parte a celor 30.000 de profesionişti militari direct subordonaţi lui Vladimir Putin. 4.Reinstituirea controlului administraţiei preşedintelui Assad pe întreg teritoriul ţării va da satisfacţie Turciei, prin eliminarea zonei exclusive kurde, din nordul Siriei, va determina Irakul să fie tot mai cooperant, pentru că trupele ruse vor continua distrugerea trupelor ISIL şi pe teritoriul Irakului, va pune şi menţine Forţele de Apărare ale Israelului în stare de alertă permanentă şi va genera îngândurare atât în Iran, cât şi în Arabia Saudită. 5.Greşeala trupelor ostile preşedintelui Assad ar fi să doboare un avion sau un elicopter rus, sau să distrugă un blindat în care se va afla un profesionist militar al Federaţiei Ruse. În cel mai scurt timp victima va legitima o dezlănţuire a forţei expediţionare ruse pe teren. Nimicitoare. 6.NATO nu ar avea motiv să intervină – oricum, fără implicarea americană nu contează deloc în ecuaţia locală -, iar poziţionarea unor sofisticate baterii de rachete ruseşti pe coasta siriană confirmă decizia lui Putin de a descuraja orice pod aerian militar nedorit sau atac al unei terţe ţări, cu o putere aeriană
ACTUALIZARE LA 1.10.2015, ORA 22.40 DOVADA CĂ REZOLUŢIA CONSILIULUI FEDERAŢIEI RUSE… …luând în considerare solicitarea preşedintelui Federaţiei Ruse, în conformitate cu punctul „d” din partea 1 a articolului 102 din Constituţia Rusă şi-a dat acordul pentru ca Preşedintele Federaţiei Ruse să utilizeze forţele armate ale Federaţiei Ruse în afara teritoriului Federaţiei Ruse, pe baza principiilor în general recunoscute şi ale normelor de drept internaţional. Nu se specifică durata. Nu se limitează intervenţia militară la utilizarea loviturilor aeriene.
Just another WordPress.com site
Beyond the Smoke & Mirrors
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
despre sistemul juridic şi magistrati
ce nevoie sa mai avem de dusmani noi romanii cind ne avem pe noi insine
Virtual Identity
EDUCATIE, COMPORTAMENT UMAN, SANATATE, CINE CONDUCE LUMEA, POLITICA, SOCIETATE
Cântarea României eterne, fascinante şi ţicnite
Natural option for all of us
Blog de Traian Vasilcău, tot el — Traianus
'We must, between periods of digging in the dark, endeavour always to transform our tears into knowledge' - Alain De Botton
Confessions of a Jack of All Trades
Independent Commentary about Politics, Sports, the Media, and Current Events
You can pry my burrito out of my cold, dead hand.