[chottala.com] America’s Syria Obsession Explains Its Rendezvous With Al Qaeda

America's Syria Obsession Explains Its Rendezvous With Al Qaeda

By Taj Hashmi

20 August, 2012

"The implication is that Saudi backing for the Syrian rebels is
part of a strategy to replace the Assad regime with a Sunni-dominated
governance which might include Salafist elements. The presence of
al-Qaida-linked paramilitaries in Syria may help to further the Saudi
plan. Iran's efforts to prop up its Syrian ally reinforce the
Riyadh-Tehran antagonism, as well as making the US even more
determined to curb Iran's influence. Washington's strong support for
its Saudi partner casts further doubt on the argument that its
encouragement of the Syrian opposition has much to do with democracy."

-- Paul Rogers, "Syria, the Proxy War", 14th June 2012

It is unbelievable but true that America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar,
al Qaeda and other Western, Arab and Islamist allies have been
sponsoring and arming the "Free Syrian Army" and other militants with
a view to staging another regime-change in Syria. This time, very
similar to what it did in Libya, America is not going to directly
invade Syria in the manner it invaded Iraq to topple the Saddam
Hussein regime. Thanks to the influence of the Israel Lobby, America
has had a problematic relationship with Syria since the 1940s. America
first intervened into Syria in March 1949 by toppling the
democratically elected President Shukri al-Quwatly who had been
elected for a five-year-term in 1943. The CIA-sponsored coup d'état
installed Colonel Husni al-Zaim, the "America's Boy" to power. Unlike
nationalist Quwatly, who did not toe the American line, al-Zaim was
too compliant to fulfill American desire. He legitimized Israel by
signing an armistice with it and allowed ARAMCO (Arabian-American Oil
Company) to pipe Saudi oil through Syria to the Mediterranean coast.
Between 1949 and 1955, America staged five military coups in Syria to
complete the de-democratization process in the country.

Newly discovered documents reveal a joint Anglo-American ploy to
overthrow the anti-Western Syrian regime in 1957. Interestingly, very
similar to what America and its allies have been doing since 2011 to
overthrow the Assad-regime through the "Free Syrian Army", President
Eisenhower and Prime Minsiter Macmillan wanted a "regime change" in
Syria in the name of the "Free Syria Committee". The CIA and SIS (MI6)
planned to stage fake border incidents between Syria and its
pro-Western neighbors (Turkey and Jordan) as an excuse for an invasion
by its neighbors. The plan was not only to topple the pro-Russian
regime but also to eliminate some key figures in the Syrian
government. Afterwards, with a brief union with Egypt as part of the
United Arab Republic (1958-1961), Syria gradually distanced itself
from the West and came under the avowedly anti-Western / anti-Israeli
Arab Socialist Baath Party rule. America adopted a more hostile policy
towards Syria after 9/11, and there were speculations about
America-led regime-change in Syria after the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein in 2003. Bashar Assad's opposition to the US invasion of Iraq
and his harbouring Iraqi fugitives and opening Syrian border to
encourage armed Syrian / Arab fighters to infiltrate into Iraq to
fight Americans angered the Bush administration.

In February 2012, American- and Israeli-armed and Saudi financed Arab
League mercenaries infiltrated into Syria in the guise of Free Syrian
Army. Interestingly, they were fighting along with al Qaeda fighters
against the Assad regime in Syria. Secretary Hillary Clinton later
admitted that anti-Assad rebels and al Qaeda had fought together
against Syrian army. By March 2012, the American and Arab-League
sponsored rebellion backfired. The UN, America and the Arab League
agreed to a ceasefire and a negotiated peace in Syria under the
mediation of former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. However, because
of American interest in breaking the Syria-Iran-Hezbollah nexus – and
to diminish the growing Iranian influence in Iraq, Afghanistan and
Bahrain – a US-backed war against Syria is very much on the cards. As
a former director of Mossad (Israeli intelligence agency) has written,
the West needs to evict Iran from Syria to "cut off Iran's access to
its proxies (Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza)…. and Israel and
the West must prevent this at all costs".

An understanding of the Syrian crisis requires an understanding of the
"Arab Spring". Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain
witnessed mass uprisings for democracy. However, as the Tunisian
revolution was different from the Libyan, Egyptian or Yemeni
uprisings; so was the Syrian unrest very different from uprisings
elsewhere in the Arab World. Unlike the Mubarak regime in Egypt, the
Assad regime in Syria is neither at peace with Israel nor is friendly
towards America. Syria also has a mutual defense pact with Iran and
allows a Russian base on its territory. The "Israel Lobby" in America
is trying to isolate and neutralize Syria, first through UN-sponsored
sanctions, and then through open invasion of the country to overthrow
Bashar Assad a la Qaddafi. Syria, an adversary of Israel and a close
ally of Iran and Hezbollah with 300,000 regular troops and 200,000
reservists, is an impediment to the Israeli design in Iran. Israel
seems to believe that the road to Iran goes through Damascus.

America, Israel and Saudi Arabia know it well that Syria must fall
before they neutralize Iran. It is interesting that while America has
turned a blind eye to Israeli threats to attack Iran to neutralize the
latter's alleged nuclear program, on 12th January 2012 President Obama
wrote a letter to the Iranian leadership. In the letter, he spelled
out the position of the United States, which Iranian officials read as
a sign of American weakness. "The U.S. cannot afford to wage a war
against Iran", they surmised. However, the reality is quite different.
"What Washington is doing is exerting psychological pressure on Iran
as a means of distancing it from Syria, so that the United States and
its cohorts can go for the kill," observed one analyst. King Abdullah
of Saudi Arabia stated in 2011that "nothing would weaken Iran more
than losing Syria." The so-called "Friends of Syria" that includes
America, Turkey and Saudi Arabia decided in Istanbul on 1 April 2012
to arm Syrian rebels. Arab nations pledged $100 million to pay the
rebels. As one analyst elaborates: "[T]heir [the GCC member states']
interest is clearly in bringing down an ally of their arch-enemy Iran
and not humanitarian….The stakes are too high to make, and repeat big
mistakes with terrible consequences…. More weapons in civilian hands
would lead Syria to a mix of Lebanon in the 1970s, Algeria in the
1980s and Iraq since 2003."

In February 2012 a Saudi TV station broadcast a Salafist religious
leader giving his blessing for spilling the blood of foreign
observers. Most people do not know that al Qaeda leader Ayman
al-Zawahiri in a video recording – "Onwards, Lions of Syria" –
appealed to Syrians and Muslims in Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan to
help those who were fighting to topple "the butcher, son of the
butcher Bashar bin Hafiz". One wonders, if the Salafists, al Qaeda,
America and its allies have discovered common friends and enemies in
Syria. In the case of Libya, the American "Oil Lobby" achieved what
they had wanted since long – to control the oil fields in Benghazi –
through UN-sponsored sanctions against Libya to justify a full-fledged
invasion of the country to topple the not-so-compliant Qaddafi regime.
Nevertheless, as our experience tells us, America is not going to let
Syria go its way. Not only the overpowering Israel Lobby is determined
to overthrow the Assad regime, but to paraphrase Michael Ledeen,
"every ten years or so" America also needs to invade "some crappy
little country". However, as the regime-changes in the Arab World have
so far strengthened the Islamists, Syria would not be an exception in
this regard.

One analyst has succinctly explained the Western design to weaken the
"axis of resistance" between Iran, Syria and Hizbullah, eventually to
attack Iran:

The strategy was simple, clear, tried and tested. It had been used
successfully not only against Libya, but also Kosovo (in 1999), and
was rapidly underway in Syria. It was to run as follows: train proxies
to launch armed provocations; label the state's response to these
provocations as genocide; intimidate the UN Security Council into
agreeing that "something must be done"; incinerate the army and any
other resistance with fragmentation bombs and Hellfire missiles; and
finally install a weak, compliant government to sign off new contracts
and alliances drawn up in London, Paris and Washington, whilst the
country tore itself apart.

According to Samir Amin: "The Muslim Brotherhood took advantage of the
opportunity to appear as the 'opposition'. Thus, a coherent plan
crystallized under the leadership of imperialism and its allies that
sought not to 'rid the Syrian people of a dictator', but to destroy
the Syrian state, modeled on the United States' work in Iraq and
Libya." He also believes that: "Contemporary imperialism's strategy
for the region (the 'greater Middle East') does not aim at all at
establishing some form of 'democracy'. It aims at destroying the
countries and societies through the support of so-called Islamic
regimes, which guarantee the continuation of a 'lumpen development'
(to use the words of my late friend AG Frank), i.e. a process of
continuous pauperization." He has aptly raised the question about
autocratic Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments' support for democracy
in Syria: "Isn't it a curiosity that we see now the emir of Qatar and
the king of Saudi Arabia among the most vocal advocates of
'democracy'? What a farce!"

America's sincere efforts to settle the Syrian-Israeli conflict could
have enhanced America's position in the Middle East by cleaning up its
"tarnished image as a neo-imperialistic crusader power" and stabilized
US-Syria relationship. Instead, George W. Bush during 2006 and 2007
exerted pressure on Syria to agree for a "peace talk" with Israel. The
Israel Lobby was instrumental in America's adopting a confrontational
policy toward Syria, although the country was not a serious military
threat to nuclear-armed Israel. Then again, although Syria is not in a
position to withstand an Israeli pressure, it can create problems for
the latter through Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. However,
American belligerence toward Syria is unwarranted and
counterproductive. Conversely, America should have remembered that
Syria fought against Saddam Hussein along with America in the First
Gulf War of 1991. Israeli unwillingness to return the Golan Heights to
Syria has complicated the situation. Syria by default has come closer
to Iran by distancing from America and Israel. Interestingly, Israel
and Syria had some sort of understanding during the Clinton
administration, which the Bush administration thwarted after the 9/11
attacks. Since "the road to Tehran goes through Damascus", an analyst
has observed: "It appears that Syria has become a crucial fulcrum for
the White House [to overthrow the Iranian regime], with the option of
overt military intervention, on one side, and a continuation of
diplomacy and covert action on the other".

Syria has all the potential to turn itself into another fractured
country polarized on sectarian and ideological lines. Since early 2012
America and Arab League sponsored mercenaries (that include al Qaeda
terrorists) and Assad loyalists are engaged in a bloody conflict. One
may impute the indiscriminate killing of Syrians to government troops,
foreign fighters and Syrian rebels. However, not only has the regime
substantial domestic support and powerful allies in Russia and China,
it has also the support from neighboring Iraq, Jordan, and Hezbollah
in Lebanon, and last but not least, from Iran, another bête noir to
the Western-Saudi-Israeli triumvirate. Interestingly, Prime Minister
Nouri al Maliki of Iraq, who is very close to the Iranian President,
does not want the removal of the Assad regime, and allows Iranian
convoys through Iraqi territories into Syria. As Fawaz Gerges reveals,
of late the Tehran-Baghdad highway has virtually become the
"life-line" for Syria. Thus it appears that the Assad regime is not
that vulnerable to Syrian rebels and foreign mercenaries.

Meanwhile, during and after the Houla Massacre in Syria in May-June
2012, which led to hundreds of civilian casualties, we heard
contradictory statements as to who had been responsible for the
killing. The Syrian government media and its counterpart circulated
totally opposite stories about the massacre. We may consider the
following BBC report a credible account on the killing: "They
[presence of Syrian troops not far from Houla] do not prove
conclusively that the Syrian regime was responsible for the deaths on
25-26 May." The same report describes the anti-Assad Shabiha militia,
which was also around, "as armed paramilitary thugs.…widely blamed for
committing the bulk of the killings at Houla". In sum, to a large
extent, Syria is the battlefield for two proxy wars between the US and
Russia and between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The US-Israel lobby is also
interested in breaking Syria into pieces. They are using Kurdish
separatists and other anti-Assad elements, including al Qaeda and
Wahhabis, against the Syrian regime.

It is time that America and its allies understand what Kofi Annan
emphatically stated after the failure of the UN-sponsored peace plan
in Syria: "'Syria is not Libya, it will not implode; it will explode
beyond its borders." Contrary to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki
Moon's stand on Syria – who one analyst believes "frequently reflects
Washington's interests" – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the CIA have
been mainly responsible for the Syrian crisis. Judy Bello's criticism
of America for what she thinks is "pouring gas on the fire in Syria" –
in view of her fact finding report on Syria – seems quite pertinent.
She singles out America as "incorrigible in its determination to
control the wealth and peoples of the earth". She also blames the US
and Israel for their six decade-long intervention in Syria and
Palestine, for turning people into refugees and destitute even in
their own countries – Palestinians and Kurds, for example – and she
has raised the question if Egyptians and Jordanians are better off
than Syrians under Assad. She has also raised issues like American,
Israeli, Saudi Arabian and Islamist over-enthusiasm about the prospect
of overthrowing the Assad regime, through violence or through the
UN-sponsored invasion of Syria. She pointed out that Syria under Assad
was not a Shiite Alawite minority rule but a joint
Shiite-Sunni-Christian-Kurdish rule. The summary of her findings is as
follows:

Many of the "facts" presented in media about the situation in
Syria are undocumented and the truth is difficult to ascertain; a
"continual stream of reports of atrocities in Syria has over time been
shown to be untrue or distorted". "The London Observatory, a
significant source of information on the Syrian crisis from day 1, has
no one on the ground in Syria, and has rather shady credentials";

"However, even a year ago, about 1/3 of the casualties were
members of the police and military, though this fact was not reported
in western news outlets. Suicide bombings of government buildings have
killed scores and injured hundreds in Damascus and Aleppo. The
question as to who perpetrated the recent massacres in Hula and Hama
remains unanswered. Investigations have not been completed";

"The Free Syrian Army is not a single organization, but rather an
assortment of militias composed of conscripts who have defected from
the Syrian Army, Islamic fighters from within Syria and Islamic
fighters from neighboring states along with members of al Qaeda and
militiamen from other Middle East wars in Libya, Lebanon and Iraq
looking for a new war";

"Muslim Brotherhood fighters have assassinated Christian, Alawite
and Druze, and leaders of these communities";

"US Ambassador Robert Ford was meeting with and advising members
of the Syrian Opposition from the day he set foot on the ground in
Syria, which was only shortly before protests began there. The US has
been demanding that the Syrian President step down from day one of the
protests. The US has been training and arming a military insurgency in
Syria that initially took cover behind peaceful protesters, and now
has driven them from the streets. The US admits to having CIA agents
on the ground in Turkey assisting Syrian militants".

As Paul Rogers puts it, Syria [very much like post-Cold War
Afghanistan] since the open rebellion against Bashar Assad in 2011 has
become a battlefield of a long-drawn proxy war between Saudi Arabia
and Iran, and between the US-Israeli duumvirate and Iran. The old Cold
War adversaries, Russia and America have had their interests in Syria
as well, both vying for compliant regimes in the country. The upshot
has been the Syrian civil war. In view of the presence of hardcore
Islamist fighters in the anti-Assad coalition, I think Rogers has
aptly explained the Syrian conundrum:

The implication is that Saudi backing for the Syrian rebels is
part of a strategy to replace the Assad regime with Sunni-dominated
governance, which might include Salafist elements. The presence of
al-Qaida-linked paramilitaries in Syria may help to further the Saudi
plan. Iran's efforts to prop up its Syrian ally reinforce the
Riyadh-Tehran antagonism, as well as making the US even more
determined to curb Iran's influence. Washington's strong support for
its Saudi partner casts further doubt on the argument that its
encouragement of the Syrian opposition has much to do with democracy.

Post-Assad Syria under America- and Arab League-backed regime would
not be a stable country. Russia and China – along with Iran and
Hezbollah – are not going to give up their interests in Syria. They
have different interests in Syria. Russia is not going to accept a
pro-Western regime in Syria. It has more than 100,000 "advisers" in
Syria. As discussed above, Russians would go to any extent to defend
its strategic interests in Syria. America's apparent benefits would
back fire as hardcore Islamists would call the shots in Suria, which
would go through a violent civil war that could kill as many as four
million people out of its twenty million population. Turkey would not
gain anything either. Tukey is not likely to intervene further as it
depends on Russia, more than eighty per cent of its natural gas comes
from Russia. Israel is likely to be a "major loser", as any
pro-American post-Assad regimes would not have any control over
Hezbollah. And Islamists would not be that friendly towards Israel in
the long run. As the Economist has put it: "Those who wish Syrian well
now need to focus not just on how to bring about Mr Assad's swift fall
from power, but also on how to spare the post-Assad Syria from murder
and chaos and how to prevent violence from spreading across a
combustible region." America is least likely to pay heed to its
analysts who believe that Syria has all the potential to become
"another Iraq", to the detriment of America:

Washington should stay focused on four key objectives: preventing
outside groups from benefiting from the power vacuum; denying weapons
to extremists; providing humanitarian aid to those in need; and
supporting efforts to build opposition unity. Through material,
technical, communications and other nonlethal assistance, the United
States should work with allies and neighboring countries to ensure
that those who are organizing the courageous internal resistance
against the regime and leading the revolution will have a key role in
the transition to a new Syria.

In sum, the Syrian crisis is not about the fate of the Assad regime
but about the overall security situation that transcends the
boundaries of the Middle East. America should pay heed to the
following and refrain from intensifying the Syrian crisis just to
punish Iran: a) the Red Cross considered the Syrian conflict a civil
war between pro- and anti-Assad groups, not a genocide initiated by
the Syrian government; and b) a Syria-based anti-Assad opposition
group, "Building the Syrian State", led by Louay Hussein blamed both
the Government and opposition for their cynical zero-sum games in
Syria: while the Assad regime wanted "either the authority or anarchy"
and the opposition demanded "Burn the Country Until Assad Falls".

The post-Assad Syria is not going to be a stable country. It could
become a fractured country of rival sects, religions and ethnic
communities, or even worse five different political entities run by
five major sects/ethnic groups. "For most of the past 5,000 years,
Syria was not a sovereign state". In the event of Assad's forced exit,
Syria is likely to disintegrate into at least five warring states:
Alawites in the mountains by the sea, the Druze in the southern
mountains, Maronite Christians in the Mount Lebanon, Kurds in the
north, and Sunni majority, 60 percent of the population elsewhere in
the country. It can be a replica of post-Saddam Iraq and even worse, a
failed state. Alawites constitute twelve percent of the population.
The conflict is likely to overflow into Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq among
Kurds and others. Syrian Kurds might also strive for autonomy. The
spillover effect of the Syrian sectarian conflicts would further
destabilize Iraq. Since Hezbollah in Lebanon depends on Syrian
support, a Sunni Islamist regime could be lukewarm to hostile to the
Shiite militia. One is not sure if the post-Assad Syria could be still
friends with Iran and Hezbollah. However, Iran is likely to control
Iraq for decades, and through Iraq is likely to keep an eye on Syria
and influence Syrians.

Meanwhile, thanks to American and Arab League sponsorship, al Qaeda
and militant supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood are likely to go for
an Islamist takeover in Syria. An Islamist Syrian regime would be
anything but pro-US and friendly to Israel. The departure of Assad –
who maintains the balance by restraining / controlling the Hezbollah –
would be a headache for Israel. Syrian chemical and biological weapons
could also threaten Israel, as Hezbollah's 30/40,000 missiles are
capable of carrying chemical weapons to Israel. Al Qaeda operative and
Osama bin Laden's Libyan accomplice Abdelhakim Belhadj, who fought
against Qaddafi along with pro-US / pro-NATO fighters, has hundreds of
Islamist mercenaries in Syria fighting against Assad. Things in
neighboring Iraq are far from normal. Terrorist bomb attacks are
killing Iraqi civilians and soldiers on a regular basis. Secular
political parties are giving way to Islamists and pro-Iranian al
Maliki government.

Taj Hashmi teaches at Austin Peay State University Clarksville, Tennesse

http://www.countercurrents.org/hashmi200812.htm


------------------------------------

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chottala/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chottala/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
chottala-digest@yahoogroups.com
chottala-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
chottala-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/