US, Russia & Syria: The Problem With
By Thomas S. Harrington
October 12, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - The great
danger of faking your ability to do something in the
public square is that someone with an actual desire to
the job you are pretending to do might come along and
show you up.
This is what has
just happened to the US in Syria with the entrance of
Russia into the fight against ISIL.
And as is generally the case with
posers caught with their pants down, the US policy
elites are not happy about it.
You see, the US strategic goal in
Syria is not as your faithful mainstream media servants
(led by that redoubtable channeler of Neo-Con
smokescreens at the NYT Michael Gordon) might have you
believe to save the Syrian people from the ravages of
the long-standing Assad dictatorship, but rather to
heighten the level of internecine conflict in that
country to the point where it will not be able to serve
as a regional bulwark against Israeli regional hegemony
for at least another generation.
How do we know? Because important
protagonists in the Israelo-American policy planning
elite have advertised the fact with a surprising degree
of clarity in documents and public statements issued
over the last several decades.
The key here is learning to listen to
what our cultural training has not prepared us to hear.
In 1982, as the Likud Party (which is
to say, the institutional incarnation of the Revisionist
Zionist belief, first articulated by Jabotinsky in the
"Iron Wall" that the only way to deal with "the
Arabs" in and around Israel was through unrelenting
force and the inducement of cultural fragmentation) was
consolidating its hold on the foreign policy
establishment of Israel, a journalist named Oded Yinon,
who had formerly worked at the Israeli Foreign Ministry,
published an article in which he outlined the strategic
approach his country needed to take in the coming years.
What follows are some excerpts from
Israel Shahak’s English translation of that text:
"Lebanon’s total dissolution into five
provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab
world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian
Peninsula and is already following that track. The
dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically
or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is
Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long
run, while the dissolution of the military power of
those states serves as the primary short term target.
Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and
religious structure, into several states such as in
present day Lebanon…."
"Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and
internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a
candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even
more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is
stronger thanSyria. In the short run it is Iraqi power
which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An
Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its
downfall at home even before it is able to organize a
struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of
inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run
and will shorten the way to the more important aim of
breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in
Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along
ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times
is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist
around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul,
and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the
Sunni and Kurdish north."
"If Egypt falls apart, countries like
Libya, Sudan or even the more distant states will not
continue to exist in their present form and will join
the downfall and dissolution of Egypt.
"There is no chance that Jordan will
continue to exist in its present structure for a long
time, and Israel’s policy, both in war and in peace,
ought to be directed at the liquidation of Jordan under
the present regime and the transfer of power to the
Yinon’s vision reappeared in the now
infamous "Clean Break" document from 1996, authored by a
consortium of US and Israeli "strategic thinkers" that
included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David and
Meyrav Wurmser, which was meant to serve as a foreign
policy guide for the first administration of Benjamin
The text is nothing if not obsessive
regarding the need to seriously debilitate Syria’s
ability to act in any way is a pole of regional
influence in the in the area .
"Israel can shape its strategic
environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by
weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This
effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power
in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in
its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional
"Most important, it is understandable
that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically,
militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s
actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances
with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and
are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite."
And as Dan Sanchez has recently shown,
David Wurmser went into even greater detail about the
need to balkanize Israel’s northeastern neighbor in
articles published in approximately the same time
period, talking quite openly in one essay about
"expediting the chaotic collapse" of Baathist Syria.
Then there is Wesley Clark's famous
speech, given in 2007, in which he revealed the true
strategic aims of those running US foreign policy in the
wake of the September 11th attacks. In it, he
tells of a conversation he had at that time with a
Pentagon official who admitted that the real plan was
"to attack and destroy the governments in seven
countries in five years".
Those countries, according to Clark,
were: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and
Iraq. In the same speech, he explicitly ties the
hatching of the plan to Richard Perle, head of the cadre
of people who wrote in the "Clean Break" document of the
paramount importance of putting Israel in position to
"shape its strategic environment".
On September 5th, 2013,
Alon Pinkas, the former Israeli Consul General in New
York and well-connected member of Tel Aviv’s
conservative policy elite described the Syrian conflict
in the following terms in the
New York Times:
"This is a playoff situation in which
you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want
one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,....Let them both
bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic
thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real
threat from Syria."
I don’t think it can get much clearer
than that. The US-Israeli plan in Syria never been about
helping anyone in that country, but rather insuring its
effective dismemberment so as to further the perceived
"strategic interests" of the Jewish state.
As Tomás Alcoverro, the longtime
Mideast correspondent of Barcelona’s La Vanguardia
newspaper wrote 9 October 2015, in reference to the
combined Russian and Syrian government attacks carried
out during the previous week: "If this joint offensive
is successful, the US plan for continuing the war of
attrition until both sides are exhausted, will lie in
Yes, the US and Israelis, have been
"faking it" in Syria for a good long time now. And Putin
has come along and called their bluff.
And they are not happy about it. Which
is why the ongoing campaign of demonization against the
Russian leader is being ratcheted up—if that’s
possible—to still higher levels of