​The “Israel backs Jabhat al-Nusra” fairy-tale and its deadly consequences

Syrian Revolution Commentary and Analysis

By Michael Karadjis

​The pro-Assad Druze lynch-mob who pulled two wounded Syrians from an ambulance in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, and then proceeded to bash one and kill the other while the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) looked on, justified their action with the claim that Israel is treating wounded fighters from the sectarian-jihadist group Jabhat al-Nusra.

As a Nusra unit had several weeks earlier killed 23 Druze in northern Idlib province, they and their supporters claimed to be concerned with the fate of the larger Druze communities in southern Syria, where a variety of Syrian rebel formations are in control, mostly the anti-sectarian Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) but also Nusra. Though all revolutionary organisations in Syria had vigorously condemned the massacre, and even Nusra had officially condemned it and removed the commander (see my analysis at  https://mkaradjis.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/revolutionary-forces-throughout-syria-condemn-nusras-massacre-of-druze-villagers/), understandably the Druze minority remain concerned and…

View original post 5,863 more words

Article titles/themes *(for expansion)* [UPDATED]

Hi everyone. The below are a few random article titles which have been drafts for way too long. I wanted to put them out there for anyone who would like to take them (or ideas/themes within them) and expand upon, as I don’t know if I will be able to do so anytime soon:

– How the unlikely duo of Abdullah and Khamenei served as the cornerstones of the US response to the Arab awakening
– Reverse orientalism: Analyses about Syria are about everything but Syria
– When the US accepts allies: Reactionism and the poisonous ‘T’ word
– Syria’s revolutionary Islamists a far cry from Egypt’s MB
– It is not only Western establishments that must be brought to account for Syria, but the ‘anti-establishments’ as well
– The War on Terror and its Arab proxies
Pawn Warfare: The Western left and the Arab revolutions or How Western establishments put their opponents ‘revolutionary consciousness’  to the ideological sword, and impaled them with it
– How the US was able to squirm out of the democracy-demanding (“bluff-calling”) Arab Spring – with the help of the unlikely allies of the statist left

– Talibanitis: How the combined forces of Left and Right rehabilitated a 21st century regime of national socialism
– On the Siege of Yarmouk and the PSC’s (irony-immune) ‘both sides’ onus: The unadulterated hypocrisy of Syria’s moral equivalencing and the activist killing of Desmond Tutu (‘if you are neutral in situations of injustice then you have chosen the side of wisdom’)
– How parts of the Western left might have (inadvertently and ‘advertently’) allowed the rise of ISIS to facilitate the beating up of political Islam, unaware of its further implications (simplistic ‘Islam’ vs ‘political Islam’ dichotomy)

– “Wahabbi, Jihadi, Takfiri” – I wish this was the Daily Mail: We once had to face mainstream media, now we have to fend off its ‘alternatives’ as well
– Is the only good Muslim, a secular Muslim?
– Iran in, Saudi out: How US rapprochement with Iran extends far beyond nuclear deal, and how Iranian mouthpieces are desperately trying to deflect attention [“Iranian Hasbara”?]

Random Thoughts:
– The US policy in Syria has been manifestly anti (mainstream) “Islamism”, before being anti-Assad or anti-ISIS (and yet, Syria’s opposition would not have been backed even if it were secular)
– Failure to stand up to the ‘moderate’ tag costly – same as the disparaging ‘commie’ tag for those fighting Franco
– For many in the left, conclusions of overlaps in populism: if you cant get socialism, national-socialism is apt
– Interesting observation: correlation of statement that people who tend to say ‘well we don’t know what’s happening in Syria’ are generally the ones making generic statements about what’s happening there in Syria
– Where the (status quo) Arab bourgeoise and Western Left converge
– “Wahabbi” is the new Sunni; “Islamist” is the new terrorist
– Muslims: don’t let ISIS and media-fuelled Islamophobia silence you from opposing Assad, and don’t let the “militant secularists” get away with rehabilitating him (and put the blame on politically-identifying Muslims)
– Can you imagine if Bashar was an “Islamic” (i.e “Islamist”) ruler?

– When’s a social uprising not a social uprising? When Islam plays a role (also, when’s a disadvantaged uprising not a disadvantaged uprising? When proclaimed leftists are in power)
– Blocked from weapons, abandoned to ISIS, bombed by our “allies”, and yet somehow we’re “puppets”: The curious case of the Syrian ‘rebels’

Happy to help with sources, references etc. if requested 🙂

Response to EI article (Electronic Intifada)

(The below is a response which was meant to go into the comment section of an article on Electronic Intifada, but I decided to put it here since it was too long to go into a single comment and preferred not to post it in multiple ones. It concerns the position of Israel in the Syrian conflict as covered in the article)

I think Israel’s position has been far more nuanced and balanced than has often been made clear. When it states “ Israel has no horse in the Syrian conflict”, that is a simplification since it assumes passivity.  Remember however that it also claimed that it didn’t have a horse in Iran-Iraq, even whilst it supported Iran (Iran-Contra affair), and even though the reality was that it didn’t like either (except if one goes into the conspiracy theory territory of Iran and Israel being the best of friends beneath the surface). Let us not forget either that Israel supported Hamas in the 80s. It is not alien for Israel to support its would-be enemies for short-term benefit. However, the scale of the support must always be examined, and the scale is never to empower these enemies, but to allow them to harm other enemies who may be at a stronger position at that point in time (and themselves in the process).

A few recent developments should be noted at the get-go; Israel has recently coming out threatening the Nusra Front, and there is a lot talk of military intervention to protect the Syrian Druze flying around in Israeli media (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11681860/Israel-threatens-military-intervention-in-Syrias-civil-war.html / http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israel-sends-message-to-Nusra-Front-Cease-attacks-on-Syrias-Druse-406183). Secondly and more importantly, it has come out (and been overwhelmingly ignored) that Israel saved the Assad regime from airstrikes in 2013 by the US, in which the deal where the regime would give up its chemical stockpile in exchange for being spared from attack was in fact its proposal, which it said it kept quiet until released in the memoirs of an Israeli minister a few days ago (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-15/israel-helped-obama-skirt-red-line-on-syria / ) . It is quite surprising that this has not been mentioned more widely, not least considering the controversy a title such as ‘Israel saved Bashar Al-Assad’ would create.

Regarding the article, there’s a few things to address. Firstly, Israel has treated anyone coming out of the Golan, it is part of its propaganda campaigns that then allows Netenyahu to proclaim it loudly. It has also said that it has treated Syrian army soldiers, although it is likely that more opposition fighters cross into Israel because they lack the medical facilities that the Syrian army has (also there are more opposition fighters in the area). It also makes sense that the majority of those are fighters, since civilians have probably fled the fighting areas. Israel has also routinely treated Palestinian victims of its bombings in Gaza for PR value, including Hamas fighters (http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/18745/idf-opens-field-hospital-treat-wounded-palestinians/#GQEOVCvEqg81aTya.97 / https://www.standwithus.com/news/article.asp?id=1671 / http://www.timesofisrael.com/once-inside-israels-hospitals-the-terrorist-becomes-the-patient/ /.

Secondly; ultimately the fact that Israel would like two sides to destroy each other is not that surprising, from day one of the uprising we have said that would be Israel’s policy, and that it would ultimately actually prefer Assad to come out on top. The fact that Israel would support (with very limited support it should be made clear) those fighting a historical enemy in Hezbollah is not that surprising either, Hezbollah is well-armed, rebels aren’t, and so it creates a balance of power. But neither does this even mean that Israel would prefer rebels to come out on top in this conflict against Hezbollah, rather it just wants Hezbollah to be hurt. For if it wanted Hezbollah to be *defeated* it had a golden opportunity to hit Hezbollah at its weakest most distracted point a few months ago when a flare-up happened. This would have put so much national pressure on Hezbollah (its invasion in Syria is unpopular even amongst many of its supporters) that it would have had to reroute its energies to defending Lebanon rather than helping Assad. But both sides let each other know that this was not their intention to escalate, and no escalation happened. If Israel wanted to give Hezbollah a decisive blow it would’ve hit it there and then, it was the opportune strategic moment. But instead it left it alone even when its soldiers got killed in a retaliatory attack by Hezbollah (after the airstrike against the IRG-Hezbollah convoy). Since when does Israel not take an excuse to respond to such ‘provocations’, regardless of whether it initiated them or not? In a different situation it would’ve bombed the s**t out of Lebanon, but it didn’t.

Meanwhile why Israel would strike those in the first place is really a straight-forward matter, if you have an opportunity to give your opponents a few slaps whilst they’re down then you do, but when Hezbollah responded it made a very pragmatic choice not to escalate (which is what Hezbollah also wanted). Israel also often attacked Egypt even after the Camp David accords, not because it wanted the collapse of the regime, but because it can, it’s what Israel does. That didn’t mean however that it would not back that regime if it came under internal threat.

Ultimately all this is in keeping with the US-Israeli position (although there are some variances between them) throughout this conflict, which has been to maintain a balance of power, or in other words a balance of destruction between the two sides. The US has routinely, contrary to popular myth, blocked rather than facilitated military supplies to the opposition, and has also bombed major factions which were both anti-ISIS and anti-Assad, both mainstream and extremist (Islamic Front and Nusra Front – it should be kept in mind that a massive number of those fighters are pragmatic not ideological ones, in other words their natural place would be in the FSA if it had better funding, and this is of course something known by the US – http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/11/us-led-air-raids-target-syria-rebel-groups-2014116123052671427.html / http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/06/us-strikes-ahrar-al-sham-syria_n_6113772.html). Israel has traditionally not done so because it does not want to appear on the same side of a regime it has repeatedly used to deflect attention from itself, and would hurt it in PR terms a lot.

Yet, now that ISIS has risen Israel has shifted a lot its propaganda focus from Assad onto ‘Islamic militarism’, and whilst it has facilitated that to a small extent (as it did when it essentially formed Hamas in the 80s), it can now come out and threaten rebels clearly without fear of appearing on the same side as Assad (as it has recently done), since popular conception has shifted towards him (something which could be seen even in comments here) and there is less ‘tainting’ of being aligned with Assad than being aligned with the Islamist-influenced opposition (which has been bundled together as ‘ISIS’, regardless of the reality of the conflict between them). Israel is not unique in this regard and if there was one single party that has consistently bolstered the rise of ISIS in Syria it has been the regime (most recently as highlighted by Al-Monitor today – http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/06/syria-aleppo-regime-army-assad-support-isis-marea-tlalin.html).

Most recently it has emerged that the US has asked that a chosen thousand number of rebels chosen for a training program sign a declaration not to fight Assad; they refused and withdrew from the program (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4670483,00.html / http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/31/key-rebels-ready-to-quit-u-s-fight-vs-isis.html. This US policy has not been a change, it has always requested that the handful of rebels (numbering in hundreds) that it started providing limited support in 2014 fight ISIS rather than Assad (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/11/syrian-rebels-we-ll-use-u-s-weapons-to-fight-assad-whether-obama-likes-it-or-not.html / / http://news.yahoo.com/syria-rebels-cast-doubt-us-training-program-173500650.html), but it has rarely come out and put in so blatantly as it has as in asking to sign a contract.

I also disagree with the statement that Israel finds the Shia Islamists more threatening than the Sunni ones (I don’t speak of ISIS when I speak of the Sunni Islamists, which, as a leader of the Islamic Front in Syria said, ‘if it had an opportunity to go to Palestine it would attack Hamas before it attacked Israel’ – there is possibly more than 100,000 self-describing ‘Islamists’ (i.e. those who identify as Muslim politically), and the vast majority of them despise ISIS). If that were the case it would have facilitated Assad’s collapse, it has done nothing of the sort and restricted its interventions to very limited number of strikes targeting things that could be of military benefit to Hezbollah. In so doing it has actually allowed Iran to gain a ever tighter foothold in Syria with the influx of allied militias and the weakening of the Syrian army, which combined has now allowed Iran to have a stranglehold on the Syrian state.

Israel’s biggest worry and the closest point it came to intervention in this conflict (before now) was when there was prospect that chemical weapons would drop into rebel hands. Israel never feared that Assad would use them, after all he never did (and never would). It wasn’t when Hezbollah or Iran flocked into the country in the thousands. As a Syrian friend told me, Assad saved himself when he gave away his chemical weapons, which were not his to give away but brought from the money of the people. Regardless of the fact that I am no fan of chemical weapons, the fact remains that it was a threat to Israel that was sacrificed with as it turns out, Israel’s coordination. Israel did not want Assad hit, it wanted Assad to lose his chemicals out of fear of them dropping into unfriendly hands. We should not think that mass-murderers have some kind of moral problem with one another, they just allow them to divert focus from each other. This is why as it turned out that Israel saved Assad.

Ultimately all this should not divert from the reasons and values of why we support the Palestinians, which is a rejection of the type of things that Israel does, from bombing, population cleansing, starvation, arbitrary arrests and torture. We do not dislike Israel because they are Jews but because of what we have grown up seeing them do to our brethren. Ultimately when we see the same thing happen to our brethren, whether in Iraq, Syria or Egypt (where I’m from) we feel the same sympathy. Palestine will be an ever-present issue in our lives so long as its occupied, even if it takes second place from time to time behind more pressing catastrophes occurring at that period such as in Iraq or Syria, it will always be a constant.

Thus whilst Syria should not distract from Palestine as this is what Israel wants and would allow its ethnic cleansing to go ahead unimpeded, neither should our attention be diverted to such an extent from the fact that there has been no regime that has come close to representing Israel’s than Assad’s. He comes second to Israel in the number of Palestinians he has killed. He has tortured more Palestinians to death than Israel could ever hope to do (http://beyondcompromise.com/2014/09/19/faces-of-our-dead-photos-of-the-palestinians-tortured-to-death-by-syrian-regime/). He has employed exactly the same tactics of starvation of civilian areas under the excuse of them being ‘held hostage by terrorists’; indeed his opponents have had to dig tunnels to try and circumvent those sieges (and those tunnels been labelled ‘terrorist’ tunnels). He has carpet-bombed civilian areas to the ground for four years unimpeded. It has stopped people returning to its homes (such as the famous uprising Baba Amr neighbourhood in Homs). For the past four years we have watched Syrian women and men scream in cameras ‘where are the Arabs? Where are the Muslims’ with rubble behind them in exactly the same way that they do in Gaza. If Zionism did not mean ‘Jewish nationalism’ Assad’s state would be the archetypal example of its Arab form.

The fact remains that Hezbollah is now knees-deep in Palestinian blood, and I would like it if such outlets like EI are brave enough to call it and Iran on its betrayal of the Palestinian people, and call on it to put their actions where their mouths are, how can they be pro-Palestinian when they refuse to take off sieges of Palestinians, which according to someone who has recently visited Yarmouk and previously Gaza, has been multiple times worse than Gaza? Through doing this campaign and put pressure on it to stop the regime starving and torturing the Palestinians under its mercy (to say nothing about the Syrians).

[Let us also not forget that Assad and Israel were on the verge of completing a peace treaty which would have been Obama’s legacy in 2011 (he now has the Iran deal as his legacy), a peace treaty in which Assad said he was willing to stop supporting Hamas and this was interrupted actually by the uprising, and have enjoyed trade deals through the Syrian Druze that Israel is now using as a precursor to intervene due to their links with the Israeli Druze, for many years (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0921/Assad-harvests-support-from-Druze-in-Israel-with-apples) – as has, for that matter, Iran (http://foreignpolicy.com/2008/04/07/has-israel-been-buying-iranian-oil/ / http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4075900,00.html).]

The failure of the Palestine solidarity movement in the West to follow the lead of the Palestinian movement inside Syria, the vast majority of whom oppose the government despite the costs, in offering solidarity to the Syrian uprising or at least the victims of the situation, is something that will be remembered badly in history, although there is still time to change course. (http://beyondcompromise.com/2014/01/23/declaration-of-a-shared-fate/ http://beyondcompromise.com/2014/01/18/while-you-were-neutral-about-yarmouk/).

FB paste | Hezbollah and Ahmad Chalabi

Anyone who knows about the invasion of Iraq will know about this man, Ahmad Chalabi.

Ahmad Chalabi was arguably the single most important Iraqi architect of the US invasion in 2003. He was the main face that the US used as a local ‘voice’ for the occupation. His fame is particularly for being the main ‘contact’ who provided the (false) information of Iraqi WMDs and ties to 9/11 in the leadup to the invasion. He was a close friend of neocons like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowtiz, etc and became minister in the US-occupied transitional government. He was even the subject of a book with the title: ‘The Man Who Pushed America to War’. For those who don’t know him you can familiarise yourselves more about him here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi

This is him at a conference in Beirut held by Hezbollah in 2011, where without an iota of embarrassment he repeats the Syrian government’s line of the protests happening at the time as ‘those who seek help from external parties’ – without a single hint of shame. His audacity being beyond surreal, he is attacked by an Egyptian present at the audience who says ‘you came on the back of American tanks and you dare to talk?’ before being kicked out.

Of course it is always those who actually have long history of complicity with the US that project this tarring accusation against their opponents, whether Mubarak and Sisi in Egypt, Abdullah in Saudi, Bashar in Syria, or Iran in general (which facilitated the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq). Israel has routinely done the same thing by projecting accusations of the crimes it commits onto the people who suffer it. It is rule 101 of effective propaganda strategy.

Syria’s revealed a lot of things about a lot of people. This is what it has revealed about Hezbollah:

Hezbollah – against American intervention, except when it suits them or empowers their sect elsewhere.

Hezbollah – with presidential “legitimacy”, and against rebellion against such legitimacy (Syria) – except when its from another sect (Yemen).

Hezbollah – for protecting sovereignty and against external intervention, even when requested by a ‘legitimate’ president (Yemen) – but for trampling sovereignty and for external intervention, when asked for by another ‘legitimate’ president (but from the same sect) (Syria)

Hezbollah – for struggling Palestinians – except when the Palestinians struggling are starving in Yarmouk and Dara’a refugee camps, they won’t even pressure the government (who with Iran they essentially control) to lift those sieges.

This is for the fools in the scabbing selective-solidarity (faux) ‘left’ who think that they will be more pro-Palestinian than us – or more importantly the Palestinian refugees in Syria suffering at the direct hands of Hezbollah and Iran (Assad’s just a proxy).

This is for those who still have delusions of Hezbollah being an anti-imperialist or non-sectarian force.


An (ever-expanding) list of people that the self-misnamed “anti-war” movement should support: The terminus of “headline politics”

The below is just a short list of examples I’ve recently come across, and is what happens when your politics isn’t based on what ‘those people’ on the ground are saying (because we can’t ostensibly ‘verify’ them but apparently we can verify the ‘analyses’ and opinions of people thousands of miles away) and rather on sensationalist self-centred headlines.

People the anti-war movement should support (that they currently don’t):

1) Abdel Fattah El-Sisi – for having US military aid cut off

2) The Myanmaran Regime – for being ‘warned’ by the US for its treatment of Rohingya

3) Israel – for treating Hamas’s soldiers in its hospitals (meaning that Hamas has to be opposed due to disgusting pro-Zionist betrayal; ergo support Israel) – Pay attention Asa Winstanley!


4) Saudi Arabia, for US pressure and meeting with enemies

(Updated) 5) Those fighting against the Kurds, because apparently the Kurds are being supported by US Iraq-war veterans! (Strange that that’s hardly mentioned by the “anti-imperialist” obsessed Stalinists, while if it was Americans fighting on the side of the opposition there would be uproar – wouldn’t have anything to do with the Kurds being socialist entitling them to different standards would it?)

List will be expanded from now on with every idiotic superficially-based hypothetical conclusion that I now come across.

A comment on Asa Winstanely’s “War on Terror” (and his common affliction of Talibanitis)

(Below is a comment responding to Asa Winstanley’s latest piece of non-investigative journalism: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/inquiry/18855-why-is-the-media-ignoring-israels-alliance-with-al-qaeda)

Asa Winstanley calls himself an “Investigative journalist”, yet there is no way that a genuinely curious investigative journalist can fail to investigate the US bombing the non-ISIS (actually anti-ISIS) Syrian resistance/”rebels” from September last year until now, there is no way that a genuine investigative journalist would not have ‘investigated’ the uproar and protests that happened across Syria when this happened, or cover the statements by *all* the revolutionary factions (saying something considering their general disunity) declaring that the US was ‘attacking the revolution’; a genuinely curious investigative journalist would point out such interesting ‘discoveries’ regardless of what the implications are of it (the purpose of a real ‘investigative journalist’ is to investigate not to conclude).
Instead of this model in Asa Winstanely we have one that fails to investigate the US pouring *$1 BN* into Iraq and providing air cover for Shia militias (instead divertingly referring to practically non-existent funding for the ‘vetted’ 0.016% of the overall rebel factions, which generally doesn’t reach even them (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/27/exclusive-obama-cuts-funds-for-the-syrian-rebels-he-claims-to-support.html, http://www.wsj.com/articles/covert-cia-mission-to-arm-syrian-rebels-goes-awry-1422329582), one that fails to investigate the US refusing to give radar warnings of Syrian aircraft to the Syrian civil defence (yet alone rebels) (https://twitter.com/TheSyriaCmpgn/status/571371684852326400), one that fails to investigate the US refusing to allow Arab countries to give rebels anti-aircraft missiles *for 4 years*, one that fails to investigate Hezbollah’s new budding intelligence-coordinating relationship with the US against Nusra and other rebels near Lebanon (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/world/middleeast/though-adversaries-on-the-surface-us-and-hezbollah-share-a-goal-.html), and indeed one that fails to ‘investigate’ the US and Iran saying that they will form official diplomatic relations. 
There is no way someone can ‘fail’ to investigate this, which means you are either really, really horrible at your job, or more likely that you are trying to clearly and intentionally divert from the clear alliance that the US has been forming with Iran ever since the Arab Spring broke out as an established conservative state against a sea of upheaval, and Iran and Hezbollah’s disgusting betrayal, Bush-like transformation of using the ‘terrorist’ label from day one like every other Arab government against those who once defended them from it. There is no way that someone who ‘investigates’ the region can actually claim that the US has preferred Sunni Islamists (ISIS and non-ISIS) more than the much less potentially regionally destabilising Shia Islamists. You must, therefore, be knowingly trying to do a hasbara type deflection (of projecting what you yourself are doing onto others). So the question posed is: Are you another of this new orientalist pseudo-leftist ‘rep activist’ anglophone ‘class’ which has been given favour and praise by the ‘Iranian lobby’ in recent times? (I use the term ‘Iranian lobby’ carefully, since I’ve never seen such a trend of relentless, coordinated and organised propaganda that can be compared to Israel as I have from the Iranian camp in the last 4 years of the Arab Spring)
If you’re still confused about what the US position on Syria is, it is what we pro-dignity (not pro-military boot) Arabs said from day one of the revolutions, literally. It wasn’t even a matter of hindsight, we actually said all this; that in Syria the US wanted two sides to destroy each other, that their support for the revolution was an illusion since the result would either be democracy or Islamists (mainstream or extremist, all of whom they’ve bombed), that extremists would rise because the US was blocking the help to moderate rebels because they shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ in ther videos, that in the end they would wanted the regime to come out eventually on top (‘Sisi solution’), perhaps without Assad but if things get really bad maybe even with him. But the far-removed identity-politics driven pseudo-leftist idiots like you in the West Mr Astansley did not care about what the activists and people of that region said, for like any Western-narcissist orientalist you would only listen to them where it fitted your identity-fitted agenda (of not being associated with the Western ‘we support democracy’ bullshit, entailing instead of choosing the path of saying that it was bullshit and examining all the policies proving why, choosing to associate yourself with right-wing fascist governments).
You could not look past was the ‘we support democracy’ usual bullshit that we had been accustomed to yet apparently should now have appreciated. Because the US which wouldn’t even stick up for Mubarak’s human rights abuses and criticised him was expected to stick up for Assad’s (and in fact in a morose sense of irony it did, it took longer for Obama to announce that ‘Assad lost his legitimacy’ than any other Arab leader – go back and check that).As a result of your detachment from the daily realities of the conflict (raising your head which is generally buried in the sand every now and then, thinking when you do that you do not need examine evidence but could ‘deduce’ what is going on from your orientalist ‘Talibanitis’), contradictions such as Sisi (‘Western puppet’) being a supporter of Assad (‘anti-Western hero’) of course don’t make sense, and to deal with that you simply ignore it. Contradictions like the US bombing those rebels who are its ‘puppets’ don’t make sense, so you simply ignore it. Contradictions such as all of Europe’s far right supporting Assad don’t make sense, so you simply ignore it. Contradictions such as neo-nazis going to fight for Assad don’t make sense (https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/are-greek-neo-nazis-fighting-for-assad-in-syria1), so you simply ignore it. In conclusion, you become a fascist apologist out of ignorance, yet there is no harm in admitting your errors. If your pride however stands in the way, and you continue to attack the people who’ve been massacred by the 21st Century’s Pol Pot with your approval, it is this we will relentlessly attack.
The US position has been verifiably, in both word and policy, to put political pressure on the regime entailing an Egypt-style transition which could minimise as much as possible the prospect of radical change and which can keep the core structures of the regime in tact while calming popular anger. There was perhaps hope that the military would sacrifice Assad as its head as it did in Egypt, but they were two very different structures. And the reason you didn’t understand this very straight-forward policy is that you also failed to ‘investigate’ the 4 years of intense courting that the US had undertaken with the Syrian regime leading up to 2011 and which were shown by Wikileaks (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=2442, https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/releasedate/2012-09-14-00-barack-obama-s-courtship-of-bashar-al-assad.html), and which it would prefer not to have thrown away if possible. Every Democrat president since Carter had had a ‘Middle-Eastern peace legacy’ to brag about (Carter with Sadat, Clinton with Arafat), and Obama was trying to make Assad his, and was very close to as well (ironically the revolution cut that short, when protesters chanted ‘Bashar is an American agent’). You also failed to investigate Syria’s history and associate its Arabism with the regime, rather than 80 years of Arabist tradition which went back to opposition to the Ottomans and existed long before the Ba’ath.
You must be a fool if you think that the US will allow (unfortunately for you) any popular *revolutionary* Islamists (which like a typical Islamophobe you want to make synonymous with ‘terrorist’ – political Muslims can’t be anything but extremist see, spreading the lying pretence that ISIS-types were the only ‘Sunni Islamists’) control over an airforce, navy or state machinery. Iran has established its ‘conservative’ credentials by using the poisonous word (but not just a word) of ‘terrorists’ and this is why the US is now dealing with it. Morsi lasted a year before ‘the military restored’ democracy as Kerry said, and Morsi was 100 times more of a compromise than Syria’s Islamists. Kerry also said that ‘Assad has to be part of the solution in Syria’, another thing you ‘failed’ to ‘investigate’.