Turkey, Russia, China Following U.S. Plan for Syria

READ THIS ON MY NEW WEBSITE: http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/08/26/turkey-russia-china-following-u-s-plan-for-syria/

There are often key moments in the world of geopolitics where if missed, leave one detached from the reality and consumed by the false narrative portrayed by the media.

After the intentionally flawed coup attempt in Turkey, you would have come across vast analysis by independent journalists who talk about the Russia vs America paradigm and often we get consumed by this narrative when trying to fish for information that isn't Fox News or the BBC. It’s the narrative the American neocons want us to believe, so that if "America doesn't get there first, Russia will".

Articles and analysis were posted hours after the coup explaining that Turkey will swing to the East and create a stronger Russian block or even Chinese considering they’re now involved in the Syrian quagmire.

However now we can see quite clearly that Russia, China, and Turkey are all following the American plan for the region. The Americans were the ones who drafted a Kurdistan region. The Americans were the ones who drafted autonomous "safe zones" in Syria, i.e. carving sectarian lines between the Kurds, Alawites and the rest of the Sunni population.

What are they getting by following the U.S plan?

This plan goes against Turkey’s territorial integrity because the Kurdish region directly threatens Turkey. It won’t be long before the issues in Turkey will escalate into chaos and they’ll have to draw concessions with the Kurdish State and let them annex the Kurdish area within Turkey - or simply keep Turkey in check through constant warfare and border issues.

So how does Turkey benefit from following the American plan? The fact is, they don’t. Turkey is under the thumb and if America wanted it can stage a real coup and take away Erdogan’s position. The purposefully flawed coup was a hint to Erdogan to say “We have more control in your country than you’d think”.

However, Erdogan did get something out of it, even if he loses some part of Turkey in the process. He has consolidated his position, removed his opposition, destroyed the judiciary that would have never let him continue with the American plan and he’s now going to finish his White Palace and live in it as a Presidential figure while the country is run by his ex-party. America rewards their agents from time to time if it suits them to do so.

Let’s look at Russia. If they’re some huge superpower people think them to be, why did they do a tactical retreat when they were on the verge of reclaiming Syria for Assad? Because this was not the American plan and whenever they do manoeuvres that are against American wishes, their own internal issues “coincidentally” flare up.

America’s watchful eye is ever present on Russia and they’ve held them by the proverbial for far too long — Crimea is just one of many choke-holds.

The other Baltic regions will be consumed by NATO if Russia doesn't play ball. In fact, Russia know that if they did not get involved in Syria which was always seen as a Russian-allied state historically, then they’d have nothing left there as America would have consumed it and replaced the government with Western puppets. It will still be the case, but this time, Russia would like to at least maintain their arms deals, trade, and semi-influence there.

Finally, it is well known that ISIS are trading with the likes of Turkey and exist through illicit financing from the West and if Turkey were honestly upset about American involvement in the coup, they wouldn't kiss and make up over a single Joe Biden visit. The institution misled the Turkish people by using anti-Americanism as a smokescreen while they shake hands behind closed doors.

Instead, anti-Americanism should have led to anti-American vision for Syria by cutting the supply routes for ISIS so they can no longer function, closing Incirlik airbase to both Russia and America, intercepting more airplanes that kill Muslims indiscriminately in Syria and calling for unity in the Muslim world.

READ THIS ON MY NEW WEBSITE: http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/08/26/turkey-russia-china-following-u-s-plan-for-syria/

Balkanisation of Syria: Starving the Population into Perpetual War

On 23 February, US Secretary of State John Kerry disclosed to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee that separating Syria into multiple states is 'Plan B' if the ceasefire does not work. However it was evidently clear that the ceasefire was inconceivable, if not impossible to achieve due to there being more than 40+ factions on the ground fighting and vying for power. The fighting would rage on through the ceasefire. Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS were not even included in this, leaving the U.S. with plenty of fingers to point at the rebel factions with.

One must realise that Russia were aware of this 'Plan B' from the very moment they stepped into the arena. Russia's sudden withdrawal when the Syrian Regime were in the strongest position they've been in 5 years. They had the ability to take back vast swathes of land from the rebels. This was evident by the fact many of these factions surrendered to the ceasefire to get a break from the Russian onslaught that didn't discriminate between combatant and non-combatants.

This is in line with the U.S. Department of Intelligence document leaked in 2015 in regards to the Syrian campaign. The document mentions that Russia will be there to 'support' the regime. Yet reporters, politicians and neoliberals feigned shock when Russia declared their military intervention - and they had to, as Russia are still the bogeyman for the U.S. to push through foreign policies on the basis of "otherwise Russia will take it".

The withdrawal of Russia has left the Syrian regime in a position whereby if they do not accept the U.S. plan then the rebels will slowly gain back the territory that Russia had helped them recapture. It also left the opposition factions with a threat that air support will not be withdrawn and therefore it is a case of 'take it or leave'. A perfect position for the U.S. proposed plan of balkanising Syria.

Read the full article at: http://kamkashem.com/2016/03/30/balkanisation-of-syria-starving-the-population-into-perpetual-war/

Equilibrium Warfare in Syria - U.S. using ISIS as the sectarian spearhead and Russia as the equalizer

In 2015 a document by the U.S. Department of Intelligence (DIA) was leaked with some astonishing details that were not redacted. You don't want to go away without knowing this!

It starts off with the general situation in Iraq and Syria and explains that they are both heading in the sectarian direction, failing to mention this to be a negative aspect of the war. We will conclude at the end of this article whether or not the U.S. seek a sectarian war or not.



Interestingly, this report was drafted in 2012 and released in 2015, way before Russia's involvement in the Syrian crises. At the time of Russia's involvement we heard many American diplomats and opposition politicians bombarding the media with this narrative that Russia are stealing America's thunder and Obama is incapable in his policies in Syria. A lot of people saw this role of Russia in Syria contrary to what America wanted and this narrative is still played out today. The report actually documents that Russia will be involved in this conflict and will side with the Assad regime - they knew this from the very beginning it was planned, drafted and agreed upon.



You can clearly read from that, that the U.S. require an equilibrium in Syria and from the very onset they knew that the Russians were only there to kill off the opposition that the West, Gulf and Turkey have been supporting to maintain an equal playing ground. If the U.S. sought to resolve the Syrian crises then surely it would solve its issues with Russia, China and Iran to stop them from supporting the regime, right?

Who are the opposition you ask? Well from the media we know that the West are supporting the Free Syrian Army and anyone linked to the Syrian National Coalition however it clearly denotes in this document that without the work of AQI (now known as ISIS), they could not play a pivotal role in uniting the Sunni Muslims under the sectarian card to fight the dissenters who they call the Jibha al-Ruwafidh (Forefront of the Shiites)



It goes on to say that the flow of fighters and ammunition comes through the border between Iraq/Syria and it depends on AQI (now ISIS) as it has major pockets and bases on both sides. This spells out that without ISIS, the West could not support the opposition against Assad or keep the equilibrium going to destroy the infrastructure, people and livelihoods of Syria and Iraq.



It mentions that the future holds a safe haven for the Syrian regime, i.e. Assad and the Alawi's. This is reaffirmed by the recent plans drawn up by RAND and the Brookings Institute explaining the greater plan for a federalized Syria into three regions.



Now the key for the next point is in the wording. The U.S. have maintained that they want a peaceful solution to the Syrian crises and they'll take every opportunity to demean Russia's actions in Syria, but make a note of the wording on this next point in the document.



Did you spot it?

Try again....



That's right the development of a proxy war WITH SUPPORT from Russia, China and Iran. This proxy war is undoubtedly and undeniably a proxy war that doesn't see the Americans, Russians, Chinese or even Europeans losing their lives. It is the MUSLIMS who are being targeted and it is the Muslims who are losing their lives for a war that is not even their own.

The report finally goes onto 'prophesies' if I may use that term loosely, that the opposition which the West support will use Iraq as a launch pad and safe haven for the Salafists, i.e. ISIS - whom they fully support and whom without the equilibrium could not be sustained without marring their own faces and sending in their own troops as was the case in the Iraq war.

And just to top all of this off they kindly mention that 'if the situation unravels' in the West's favour there is a 'possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared salafist principality' - and what is the form of interpretation of Islam ISIS are following? ... how convenient.. it's Salafist.



Finally it decides to redact the part about facilitating the terrorist organisations into entering the Iraqi arena.



If this section were to take the angle that other powers out of America's control were facilitating the terrorist elements to enter the Iraqi arena then it surely wouldn't have redacted this part out. It leads one to believe that this section was in fact talking about how the West can renew the facilitation of rounding up the Jihadi organisations from around the world and push them into Iraq. Exactly what ISIS are doing today with many groups pledging their allegiances to them and flocking to join their ranks.

Now if you still believe ISIS are not their to serve the agenda of the West, then you're truly and utterly naive. This is a sectarian war headed by the U.S with its allies Russia, Iran and China to bring the Muslims to their knees and destroy whatever they have left in their capability, i.e. nuclear, manpower or resources and ultimately their religion that binds them.

Thank you for reading this, share this widely with others.

Jazakamullah Khairan

RAND's peace plan for Syria

RAND Report: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE182/RAND_PE182.pdf

It is important to know that the RAND corporation are no ordinary think-tank. They are one of the leading think-tanks in America that have shaped policy and decision making at the highest level. This is why any analysis that come out of RAND, you can be sure that it is the direction the politicians will take in America.

This recent report by RAND regarding the peace plan for Syria agrees with much of the Brooking's Institutions report on deconstructing Syria towards a regionalized strategy.

The report starts off by recognising the two paths that can be taken in Syria, them being:

1. Concentrate on brokering a comprehensive political arrangement among the warring Syrian parties and their external sponsors, including the reform of state institutions, the formation of a new government, and a plan for elections, accompanied by a ceasefire and the beginning of a process of reconstruction.
2. The second approach would be to secure agreement to an immediate ceasefire, which would be followed by further negotiations on the shape of a reconstituted Syrian state and government.

We can see that the West are currently aiming for the first path by gathering the opposition to come to an agreement. However whether or not Assad stays or leaves is the main sticking point for most of the warring factions - something that Russia also wish to have a say in. 

RAND suggest that path one is unrealistic now that sectarianism is as rife as ever. 

"pitting the regime against the opposition, Shi’a against Sunni, Arab against Kurd, and moderate against extremist. It has attracted tens of thousands of foreign fighters from Europe, North America, and Africa; exacerbated geopolitical rivalries among Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, the United States, and others; and drawn in the armed forces of nearly a dozen external states. There may have been a time, early on, when it could be argued that the benefits of overthrowing Assad would be worth the human, strategic, political, and economic costs of achieving that goal, but that time has long past. At this point, whether President Assad stays or goes in the near term should be regarded as a matter of pure expediency"

Whereas the second path seems to be more achievable according to both RAND and the Brooking's Institute. The most telling point of this report is the acknowledgement of three safe zones for Syria. RAND writes:

"Were the fighting to be halted on the basis of the territory currently held, Syria would find itself divided into roughly four zones—one controlled by the government; one controlled by the Kurds; one controlled by diverse elements of the Sunni opposition; and one controlled largely by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).1 As ISIS has no foreign sponsors, is largely immune to external influence, and is certain to reject any ceasefire, Syria would effectively be divided into three “safe” zones in which the parties agreed to stop fighting, and one zone in which all other parties would be free to wage war on ISIS."

 RAND's proposal acknowledges three difficult realities.

1. The first is that four years of fighting and more than a quarter million dead have left Syria intensely divided by sect and ethnicity. It should be a goal to mitigate those divisions in the long run, but they must be acknowledged in the short run.
2. Second, ousting the current regime by building up the military power of the opposition—the basic approach of the United States and its partners for the past four years—is unlikely to succeed. Russia and Iran have proven so committed to the regime’s preservation that escalation of the conflict has not led to Assad’s capitulation, but rather a significant counter-escalation, more killing and refugees, and radicalization of the opposition.
3. Third, the current battle lines on the ground, while hardly ideal, would have to be the fundamental basis of any armistice. Limited territorial swaps may be necessary to facilitate the disengagement of combatants and assist in ceasefire implementation.

It goes on to state that the war in Syria has ruined the intermixing of  ethnicities and sects within Syria, thus forming regions based on them or creating lines in the sand, what some would call Sykes-Picot Part 2.

 "Like most countries in the Middle East, Syria’s ethno-sectarian breakdown is far from clean. Syria’s communities have historically intermixed, so there is no such thing as a solid stretch of land inhabited by a single community. In addition, Sunni Arabs constitute more than 60 percent of the country’s total population. They are present throughout the country, comprise A ceasefire may not be a sufficient condition for an eventual political settlement, but it is likely to be a necessary one. 3 a majority even in regime-held areas, and in many cases remain loyal to the Assad regime.4 These important caveats aside, Syria’s longstanding ethnosectarian map does reflect regional groupings, which have been consolidated by internal displacement"

Without the war in Syria it would have never been possible to split Syria up on ethnic and sectarian lines. One could call this the sickest method of separating the Ummah of Muhammad (pbuh).

The map above shows the clear zones that RAND are suggesting in their proposal for Syria. In the full report you will find more maps relating to sects within Syria before and after the war. 

It is also interesting to note how RAND suggest each of these players are backed by international support to secure its own interests.

Thus, Russia and Iran would guarantee the regime’s adherence; the United States would guarantee Kurdish adherence; and Turkey and Jordan would guarantee the Sunni opposition’s adherence. All external parties would collaborate to dislodge ISIS. 

However I do believe that the final point about all external parties collaborating to defeat ISIS is only mentioned due to the fact ISIS have been used as a pretext for all this change in the Muslim world and also to contain the Muslims from seeking an alternative system. It will be interesting to see how long ISIS remain after the Syria end game is played out. They will either cease to exist or kept like Al Qaeda as a pretext into other parts of the Muslim world where the West require change. So far they have become the golden egg for the West and so easily allowed them to dictate the situation for the rest of the world under the guise of "terrorism".

It goes on to mention that it could become somewhat similar to Lebanon's sectarian power sharing model including the international oversight on the Bosnia model using U.N forces to implement ceasefire and support. If this is the case, the Muslims should look back at what happened to the Bosnian Muslims as the Serbs slaughtered them in U.N's presence. It would be a disaster to allow them to "protect" the Muslims.

"International oversight of the ceasefire and support for the political process would be undertaken by a Peace Implementation Council, on the Bosnia model, made up of the above-mentioned states plus others ready to contribute significantly. "

It clearly admits that support for Al Nusra and other groups currently receive support and will stop receiving it once the above actions have been taken.

"It would have to be clear to all groups that external support will be cut off for groups that violate the ceasefire."

 In conclusion it is clear to see that this second path is on its way already as Russia have now become a key player in the Syria end game, and was needed in order to support Assad in a alawi region and be their main guarantor.

Kam Kashem

The Jihadis - A Pawn for the West

A recent confab took place in Saudi Arabia which included "opposition" leaders from the factions fighting in Syria, namely Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam, both affiliated to Al-Nusra Front who are a designated foreign terrorist organisation according to America - Saudi's greatest ally.

After great strides made in Syria against Assad it was about time that they'd be put back into their place by America's "enemy" Russia - but what has this achieved?

1) Allows the West to negotiate with the "rebels" temporarily until a deal is struck
a) Then wipes them out after claiming they have sided with Al Qaeda - similar to how most of the Jihadi factions were used and abused in the past after they've aided in the West's plans.

2) It forces the many factions on the ground to compromise the political solution for Syria

a) Giving up the Sharia in return for a liberal democratic form of governance, contrary to what most of the factions call for.

3) Preserves the face of America as it is the 'Russian Bear' that is delivering the blows while America are the peacemakers that will inevitably be the leader in coming to a political solution. 

a) At the same time it weakens the Russians, pulling them in to a battle that they'll never be able to come out of without a dent, both domestically and internationally. 

b) Creates a wedge between Russia and Turkey that will affect Russia moreso than Turkey due to its high dependency on trade after the sanctions with the European states. 

As for the Jihadi's, well... better luck next time. Sincere intentions, but the wrong method. However the sympathy shouldn't be with them but rather the millions of innocent Muslims that will die due to their carelessness and inability to stick to the Prophetic method of bringing Islam back as a State. 

May Allah make us one of those who persevere in the correct manner and in the manner that won't be detrimental to the Ummah of Muhammad (sallalahu alayhi wasallam)

Kam Kashem

Putin’s aspirations lead Russia towards disaster

The Russian military operations in Syria still raise many questions regarding the objectives, limits, duration and chances of achieving their goal of reinstalling Moscow as a dominant world power.

Russia’s conflict with the West came about as a result of the deployment of a US missile shield in Europe, Washington’s update of its tactical nuclear weapons and NATO’s advancement towards its western border. After Putin’s enthusiastic efforts to achieve closer integration with Europe and the West in general during his first three years in power, he changed direction suddenly and worked towards building a strong state. His strategy was based on two axes: Russia’s near neighbours and those further away. He has sought to regain control of what he considers to be Russian territory annexed by neighbouring countries and to restore Moscow’s control in the former Soviet Union countries under the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians and Russian speakers. The goal behind the second axis is to limit America’s global role and influence and to allow Russia to play a prominent role in international decision-making.

These efforts include working towards Russia regaining its position in an international system based on bipolarity alongside the US. In order to achieve this, Putin launched economic and military programmes to regain balance within Russia and increase its ability to take regional and international action to impose its presence and boost its prestige.

Hence, he worked on strengthening Russia’s military presence in the former Soviet Union by means of military bases and strengthening the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. He also called for the formation of a customs union to include the former Soviet Union countries and for the adoption of a military doctrine based on reinforcing missile defences and the development of carrying systems for nuclear warheads, such as missiles, submarines and strategic bombs. Conventional weapons have also been modernised, with an operational command and naval fleet based permanently in the Mediterranean. In addition, a network of military bases has been built to house air defence forces, rapid reaction brigades and navy vessels deployed above the Arctic Circle.

Having adopted brinkmanship as a tactic, Putin is also doing a lot of muscle-flexing, and is hinting at the possibility of the outbreak of a world war. Russia’s spending on arms now exceeds 9 per cent of GDP as the president deploys aircraft and ships around the world.

The outbreak of the Arab Spring revolutions sparked additional disputes between Russia and the West, especially after the latter’s intervention in Libya, depriving Russia of its piece of the cake, as well as threatening its interests in Syria. This pushed Russia into engaging in an indirect confrontation with the West by supporting the Syrian regime in its fight against the revolution and protecting the regime politically by using its veto at the UN on four occasions. Moscow has supplied Damascus with weapons, money and military experts, and has coordinated with Iran to prevent the Assad regime from collapsing under too much political and military pressure.

The moves by the European Union and NATO to allow Ukraine to join them irked Russia, due to Moscow’s imagining of a Eurasian Union. This has escalated the tension in the region, with Russia pushing ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine to hold a referendum and declare the establishment of the “Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republic”.

Russia has exploited the cool relations between the US a number of its allies, such as the Arab Gulf states on the back of the Iranian nuclear deal, and Egypt on the back of Washington’s reservations over political oppression, the use of excessive force against the Muslim Brotherhood and the politicisation of the judiciary. Putin has used this to make trade, arms and investment deals as well as contracts to build nuclear power plants, all in the hope of forcing Washington to deal with Russia as another world power.

This was achieved and Russia is now living with inflation and deflation due to Western economic sanctions and the fall in oil and gas prices. Some Russian observers predict the fall of oil prices to $40 or even $20 per barrel. It is worth noting that for every $1 drop per barrel of oil, Russia loses $2.5 billion.

We must not forget that a fifth of the external debt of $700 billion and the debt accumulated by Russian companies, which amounts to $500 billion, must be repaid this year; nor that capital ranging from $100 and $200 billion was taken out of Russia in 2014. An increase in oil and gas supply after recent large discoveries will reform the market and impose a new balance in which Russia’s share will drop; gas and oil represent about 74 per cent of Russian exports and its revenues make up 50 per cent of the state’s resources, both of which are the main source of hard currency. Western business investments are likely to be withdrawn; indeed, 87 companies have already liquidated or reduced their presence in Russia. This has caused a fall in the value of the rouble; the exchange rate against the dollar has fallen by 20 per cent. It is worth noting that at the beginning of 2014, $1 was equal to around 33 roubles; it is now 66 roubles. This has led to a 30 per cent increase in the price of basic foodstuffs and the decline of growth to below zero per cent.

Despite the fact that Russia’s revenues from oil and its by-products, and natural gas, reached about $3.2 trillion between 2000 and 2013, it did not result in the modernisation of the Russian economy, its diversification or ending its dependence on the export of raw materials and the import of advanced technology. It was growth without development. This caused a contradiction in Russia’s structure between the military and economic forces; the label attached to the Soviet Union of being a giant with two legs, one powerful (military) and the other weak (economy), also applies to the Russian Federation.

Which brings us to American historian Paul Kennedy’s equation regarding the rise and fall of great powers: a strong economy that finances an army deployed abroad and a lack of financial ability to spend on overseas military operations both put great powers on the path towards failure. The continuation of the Russian-Western conflict and Moscow’s military involvement in Ukraine and Syria, as well as the possibility of its involvement in Iraq, will lead to the exhaustion of Russia's money supply and push it to the brink of bankruptcy.

This worries Russian citizens and has widened the gap between them and their leadership. The situation does not align with the doctrine and principles of the populist government and its sole hero Vladimir Putin, which depends on the enthusiasm of the Russian people and their ardent nationalism in order to mobilise behind him and protect him from their anger. He does so by promoting his description of the situation that the Russians have found themselves in as part of a Western conspiracy.

The Russian military intervention in Syria is based on opportunities and risks. Such opportunities include reinforcing Russia’s influence, limiting Washington’s ability to take unilateral action in the Middle East and other parts of the world, and forcing the US to negotiate with Moscow on regional and international issues, thus recognising Russia as an equal partner in global decision-making. However, it involves greater risks, as Washington does not accept Moscow as an equal or an influential player in the international arena. Indeed, it treats it like a junior partner there to serve the interests of the stronger party, according to the intersection theory spoken about by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US National Security Advisor in his book Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era.

Many analyses have predicted that domestic criticism will increase when soldiers start going home from Syria in body bags. Despite the fact that Russia is relying on air strikes to wear down the opposition in preparation for a ground attack by the Assad regime, its Iranian allies and the militias associated with Iran, in order to regain control of the territories lost in recent months and keep the opposition forces away from the coast, where the Russian naval base is located, this tactic is facing many obstacles. The first of these is the lack of effectiveness of the air strike in achieving decisive results in the asymmetric war. Another obstacle is the fact that Russia is linked to a weak ally — the regime — making it more difficult and placing a heavy burden on Moscow.

If the Syrian opposition forces succeed in avoiding Russia’s air strikes, and containing them, and then respond with powerful blows to the regime and its allies, they would have stopped the “tsar” from achieving quick results, such as reinforcing the regime’s position and pressuring the West to accept a trade-off. They would have a tactical victory in light of the unbalanced nature of the conflict and in accordance with the rule that, “The army is defeated when it is not victorious, while the resistance is victorious when it is not defeated.”

This could put the Russian leadership in a confrontation with public opinion at home, which is still suffering from Afghanistan syndrome; the people have a deep-seated fear of slipping in a foreign war.

Pushing Russia to withdraw from Syria without any positive results will reflect negatively on the “heroic” image of Putin and will lead to a decline in Moscow’s international role. That would push it back and force it to accept Washington’s conditions for a resolution of the crisis in Syria, the first of which is a new leadership in Damascus.

Russia’s involvement in such a war as Syria’s involves great risks for a country that is suffering from economic problems and is on the verge of bankruptcy, unable to pay its debts. Add to that the fact that it is suffering from social problems and existential concerns due to the demographic and religious structure of society, in order to achieve a near-impossible goal — a return to a world of bipolarity — and it is clear that Russia is reflecting a number of disparities in its strategic outlook.

Translated from Al Jazeera net, 4 November, 2015.

Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/europe/22131-putins-aspirations-lead-russia-towards-disaster

The confederal and autonomous zones of Syria - Master Plan by the U.S.

In June 2015 Brookings Institution released a  paper titled Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country that detailed the policy that the U.S. should take in solving the Syrian crises that was unsurprisingly fomented by them. In this short post I will look at some of the key actions that was suggested and see whether they are being played out today.

In the introduction to the paper it mentions the overall strategy being:

The new approach would seek to break the problem down in a number of localized components of the country, pursuing regional stopgap solutions while envisioning ultimately a more confederal Syria made up of autonomous zones rather than being ruled by a strong central government. It also proposes a path to an intensified train and equip program. Once that program had generated a critical mass of fighters in training locations abroad, it would move to a next stage. Coupled with a U.S. willingness, in collaboration with regional partners, to help defend local safe areas using American airpower as well as special forces support once circumstances are conducive, the Syrian opposition fighters would then establish safe zones in Syria that they would seek to expand and solidify.

At the time, this sort of solution seemed far fetched and ambitious, but we can see today that with the help of Russia, and "U.S. willingness" to this, they can indeed target those factions unfavourable to a permanent solution for Syria after Assad is deposed. It also serves in segregating the Islamic world further by smaller nations already divided on lines in the sand, to a more aggressive sectarian division that is not only based on culture, colour or language but on fundamental religious values and war.

The paper goes on to mention how the confederal arrangement for Syria could be merged using Kurdish region and Jordan:

The strategy would begin by establishing one or two zones in relatively promising locations, such as the Kurdish northeast and perhaps in the country’s south near Jordan, to see how well the concept could work and how fast momentum could be built up. Over time, more might be created, if possible. Ultimately, and ideally, some of the safe zones might merge together as key elements in a future confederal arrangement for the Syrian state.

This may not be apparent right now but certainly is leading up to such a scenario after reports from the Institute of Study of War (ISW).

It is clear that without the support of Turkey and Jordan, these autonomous regions cannot be sustained and therefore they both will have a big role to play in dividing Syria, the report suggests:

Creation of these sanctuaries would produce autonomous zones that would never again have to face the prospect of rule by either Assad or ISIL. They would also constitute areas where humanitarian relief could be supplied, schools reopened, and larger opposition fighting forces recruited, trained, and based. U.N. agencies and NGOs would help in the effort to the extent possible, focusing on health, education, and basic economic recovery in the first instance. Governing councils would be formed, more likely by appointment than election, to help international agencies make decisions on key matters relevant to rudimentary governance. Regardless of details, relief could certainly be provided far more effectively than is the case today. At least one such area should be contiguous to Jordan and one to Turkey, and be created in cooperation with Amman and Ankara. These locations would allow secure transportation lines for humanitarian as well as military supplies. They would also provide bases from which to attack ISIL in its strongholds, a mission that western forces could carry out in conjunction with local allies. 

In the end, the Alawites will be given a zone whereby they can control, leaving Russia and Iran a part of the cake so that they take something away from this end-game. 

The ultimate 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. One of those zones might be for Alawites. But none could be for ISIL, al-Nusra, or Assad and his inner circle

The report interestingly goes on to say what Russia and Iran get from this plan of action:

This strategy might soften the opposition to the basic approach by Iran and Russia as well—perhaps reducing their inclination to escalate support for Assad and also possibly even enlisting them in a future negotiated deal about Syria’s ultimate future. Indeed, the strategy strikes a balance in its approach to Iran and Russia. It would grant neither a major role. But it would seek to mitigate the risks of escalating rivalry with them by holding out political hope and the prospect of an autonomous region for Alawites (even those previously associated with the Assad regime, as long as they were not from his inner circle). This approach may appeal even more to Moscow and Teheran to the extent that battlefield dynamics go clearly against Assad in a sustained way, as they have been already in the spring of 2015. 4 Damascus and Moscow would be much more likely to support a confederal Syria to the extent they believe that the alternative had probably become the complete overthrow of Assad and his government—and the elimination of meaningful Alawite influence in a future government—or, in a best case, protracted civil war of indefinite duration. 

Is this not the case today? The invisible handshake between America and Russia clearly states that there is an agreement in place. Iran has also become a major player in the region.

It's worth reading the full PDF here: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/06/23-syria-strategy-ohanlon/23syriastrategyohanlon.pdf

Engineered Refugee Crisis to Justify "Safe Havens" in Syria

Engineered Refugee Crisis to Justify "Safe Havens" in Syria

September 7 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - While the Western media attempts to portray the sudden influx of refugees suddenly appearing out of no where at Europe's gates, the reality is that for years they have been gathering in expansive, well-funded refugee camps in Turkey.

Image: Turkey has eagerly invited 2 million refugees into their country to stay at camps funded by upward to 6 billion USD, not out of altruism, but to use refugees together with the US, NATO, and the EU, as a geopolitical weapon. 

In fact, Turkey has brought in over 2 million refugees with a suspiciously eager "open door" policy and has spent upward to 6 billion USD on building and maintaining these immense camps. They have done so as part of a long-standing strategy to justify creating "safe havens" in northern Syria - essentially NATO invading and occupying Syrian territory, protecting their terrorist proxies within Syria's borders so that they can strike deeper toward Damascus and finally topple the government of President Bashar Al Assad.

US plans to carve out a "safe haven" or "buffer zone" in northern Syria stretch back as far as 2012 - before a real crisis even existed. In their "Middle East Memo #21," "Assessing Options for Regime Change," it was stated specifically (emphasis added):

An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.

Brookings would elaborate upon this criminal conspiracy in their more recent report titled, "Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country." It states (emphasis added):

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 the  presence  of  special  forces  as  well. The  approach would  benefit  from  Syria’s open desert  terrain  which  could  allow  creation  of  buffer  zones  that could  be  monitored  for possible  signs  of  enemy  attack  through  a  combination  of  technologies, patrols,  and other methods that outside special forces could help Syrian local fighters set up.

Were Assad foolish enough to challenge these zones, even if he somehow forced the withdrawal  of  the  outside  special  forces,  he  would  be  likely  to  lose  his  air power  in ensuing  retaliatory  strikes  by  outside  forces,  depriving  his  military  of  one  of its  few advantages over ISIL.Thus, he would be unlikely to do this.

Unfortunately for US policymakers, little justification or public support underpins any of these plans to intervene more directly in Syria in pursuit of what is obviously regime change dressed up as anything but.

Bring in the Refugees 
However, in hopes of solving this lack of public support, the West appears to have taken a huge number of refugees created by its years of war upon the Middle East and North Africa, and suddenly releasing them in a deluge upon Europe. The Western media itself implicates Turkey as the source of these refugees, and reports like that from the International New York Times' Greek Kathimerini paper, in an article titled, "Refugee flow linked to Turkish policy shift," claims (emphasis added):

A sharp increase in the influx of migrants and refugees, mostly from Syria, into Greece is due in part to a shift in Turkey’s geopolitical tactics, according to diplomatic sources. 

These officials link the wave of migrants into the eastern Aegean to political pressures in neighboring Turkey, which is bracing for snap elections in November, and to a recent decision by Ankara to join the US in bombing Islamic State targets in Syria. The analyses of several officials indicate that the influx from neighboring Turkey is taking place as Turkish officials look the other way or actively promote the exodus.

This wasn't done until after years of staged terror attacks across Europe, in attempts to ratchet up fear, xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia. Every attack without exception involved patsies tracked by Western intelligence agencies in some cases for almost a decade. Many had traveled to and participated in NATO's proxy war on Syria, Iraq, and Yemen before returning home to carry out predictable acts of violence.

Image: Even Western "international" organizations find it difficult to hide NATO's role in the refugee crisis with most migrants transiting through NATO-destroyed Libya, and NATO-member Turkey. 

In the case of the infamous "Charlie Hebo" massacre, French security agencies followed the gunmen for years - even arresting and imprisoning one briefly. This surveillance continued up to but not including the final six months needed for them to plan and carry out their final act of violence. When asked why French security agencies ended their surveillance of known terrorists, they cited a lack of funds.


With Europeans intentionally put into a state of fear at home and in hopes of eliciting support for wars abroad NATO appears to now be undulating Europe with a tidal wave or refugees intentionally accumulated and cared for in Turkey either to flood back into NATO-established safe zones in Syria or into Europe to extort from the public backing for further military aggression.

The Big Reveal 

The Huffington Post's article, "David Cameron Facing Pressure To Bomb Islamic State In Syria After Lord Carey Calls To Group To Be 'Crushed'," in covering the political discourse in England provides us with the final reveal of what was really behind this sudden "crisis."

Image: The Western media ensures that articles discussing the possibility of using the refugee crisis as justification to further decimate Syria includes lots of pictures of desperate refugees struggling to burst into Europe. 

It state (emphasis added):

David Cameron is facing growing pressure to extend RAF air strikes into Syria as the worsening conflict threatened to drive increasing numbers of desperate refugees to seek sanctuary in Europe. 

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey became the latest senior figure to call for a renewed military effort to "crush" Islamic State (IS) in its Syrian heartlands. 

He also backed calls for British military intervention to help create "safe enclaves" within the country where civilians would be protected from attack by the warring parties in Syria's bloody civil war.  

The Huffington Post's report would also state (emphasis added):

His intervention came after Chancellor George Osborne acknowledged that a comprehensive plan was needed to tackle the refugee crisis "at source". 

Speaking to reporters at a meeting of G20 finance ministers in Turkey on Saturday, he said that meant dealing with the "evil" regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad as well as the militant jihadists of IS.

At the end of the day, the "refugee crisis" is yet another contrivance by the same special interests who first sought to intervene in Syria to back "freedom fighters," then to stop the use of "WMDs," and most recently to fight "ISIS." Now with all three failing to justify what is otherwise naked military aggression openly pursuing regime change in Syria as a basis for wider confrontation with Iran, Russia, and even China, "refugees" are being used as human pawns to provoke fear and rage across Europe. 

Tension between #Cairo and #Riyadh escalates over #Brotherhood in #Syria and #Yemen - MidEastMonitor

Sources: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/middle-east/18963-tension-between-cairo-and-riyadh-escalates-over-brotherhood-in-syria-and-yemen

Official sources in Egypt have said that Cairo has conveyed to Riyadh its concern over what it describes as "an exaggeration" in opening up to the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world and "attempts to rely on the group in resolving the crisis" in Yemen and containing the situation in Syria. This, claims the Egyptian regime, will definitely lead to adverse consequences for regional stability; once the Brotherhood seizes the reins of government in certain Arab countries with the help of Saudi Arabia it will not stop there but will seek to seize control over all Arab capitals.

"Saudi Arabia itself," said one source, "despite its tight internal security policy, may find itself facing a new predicament associated with the Brotherhood, just like the other Gulf States. In this regard we have been talking to our brothers in the United Arab Emirates in an attempt to raise the issue quietly within the framework of the Gulf Cooperation Council."

There is widespread dismay within the folds of the Syrian opposition, he added, because of the enhanced communication between Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood there in parallel with Turkish military support for Syrian factions affiliated with the movement in one way or another. European diplomatic sources have told Al-Shorouk that the countries they represent have informed Cairo, directly or indirectly, that any vision of the political future of Syria after Assad cannot exclude the Brotherhood in the way that Egypt wants.

According to the same Europeans, it is not possible to expect Saudi Arabia to counter the increasing involvement of Lebanon's Hezbollah in support of Bashar Al-Assad in Syria without Riyadh taking action in order to mobilise what it considers to be the "likely Sunni" alternative. This is a reference to the Sunni forces that are not part of the ISIS umbrella; the Saudis consider the moves by Hezbollah to be a Shia dynamic supported by Iran, Riyadh's arch enemy.

In the meantime, officials in Cairo say that the Egyptian regime has received an unequivocal message about the rise in the level of discomfort among Yemeni factions opposed to the Houthi expansion as a result of the rise in Saudi support for the Brotherhood in the country. He added that leaders of the Yemeni factions have told Cairo of their displeasure with the political prescription that may come out of the ongoing communication between Saudi Arabia and the Islamic movement. "I think that they do not object to allocating a share for the Brotherhood but they can see that Saudi Arabia is heading towards offering the movement a majority and not just a share."

As for the Saudis themselves, according to Arab and Western diplomatic sources they do not intend to change their strategy or ideas regarding Yemen. "With regards to Yemen," said one European ambassador in the Egyptian capital, "we know very clearly that Riyadh is angry because of what it considers to be balking on the part of Cairo and a failure to provide support. The House of Saud does not intend to listen to what the Egyptians have to say. With Syria, the matter may be slightly different, whereby Riyadh will seek to ensure Egyptian support of some kind. It will proceed with formulating something and then will ask Cairo to support it, but it will not move in conjunction with Cairo."

The Egyptian government has told the Saudis that it understands their concern regarding the Iranian expansion "We share some of that concern," said a diplomatic source. "However, at the same time we do not want to confront religious forces with other religious forces."

He acknowledges that Riyadh is accusing Cairo of hindering its moves that are aimed at grouping together political formulations with a Brotherhood base in both Yemen and Syria. "We cannot support the ascension of the Brotherhood to power in any Arab state, however; for us this is a closed case."

Egyptian officials across various sectors keep reiterating the same phrases about the Turkey-Qatar concord intended to boost the ascension of the Muslim Brotherhood to power in as many Arab capitals as possible in what they insist is a move prompted from within some political circles in Washington which want to put Islamists in power. The talk in this regard is focused on the White House and not the State Department.

2014 U.S. Islamic World Forum Speech by Anne Patterson

Source: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2014/06/09-2014-us-islamic-world-forum/patterson-remarks.pdf

Remarks as Delivered by

Ambassador Anne W. Patterson

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs

U.S. – Islamic World Forum

Doha, Qatar

Monday, June 9, 2014

Thank you, Ted, for your kind introduction and thanks to our friends at Brookings for inviting me to speak today.

Let me recognize Prime Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Nasser bin Khalifa al Thani and Foreign Minister Dr. Khalid bin Mohammed Al Attiyah: I am very glad to be here today with you to bring best regards from Secretary Kerry. I know the Secretary of State is in very constant contact with Foreign Minister Attiyah, and keeps his number on his own cell phone.

Your Excellencies, Bujar Nishani, President of Albania and Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, President of Mali, I was very pleased to meet you here today.

Ambassadors, ladies and gentlemen:

I want to begin by expressing the gratitude of the United States to the Amir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and his government for their diplomatic efforts that made it possible to free U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl from years of captivity with the Taliban. I was the U.S. Ambassador in Pakistan when Sgt. Bergdahl was taken prisoner and am very familiar with this case and the strong commitment of our leadership to securing his freedom. As the mother of two sons who served, or are serving, in the U.S. military, I also took great personal comfort in seeing, first hand, that my government would do everything possible to bring back our servicemen and women to their families. The deal could not have been achieved without the Government of Qatar’s diplomatic good offices and its firm commitment to securing the five individuals after their transfer from the Guantanamo Bay facility.

I understand that the first plenary session will consider the future of the U.S. role in the region. I look forward to this discussion, as we prepare for significant changes in the next year. As you are likely aware, last month, President Barack Obama announced the plan that will bring to an end the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, a war that has gone on for 12 years. The United States has lost 6,812 lives and suffered 52,032 wounded in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars have already cost the American people some $1.3 trillion dollars, although some analysts believe the final cost will be far greater.

As a result, it won’t surprise you that there is an active debate underway in the United States about the way we engage with the world and should engage in the future. Many of our international friends are having a parallel conversation along these lines. As Americans and Europeans observed the D-Day anniversary, an enduring symbol of commitment to freedom, it was jarring to see a somewhat tattered eagle on The Economist’s cover, asking whether America would fight for anything, anymore.

In Europe and in this vitally important region, such questions make little sense. The United States is a leading member of NATO – a fact underscored by the President last week in Warsaw – and has treaty obligations to defend our allies. We continue to maintain the world’s largest defense budget.

Similar questions have been raised by some in this neighborhood about the U.S. commitment to this region. However, U.S. defense cooperation with the countries of this region has never been stronger; in fact, it has dramatically expanded in recent years. The U.S. has 35, 000 military personnel in the Gulf region. I visited the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet a few weeks ago in Bahrain, where we station about 7,000 personnel. The UAE is the Fleet’s most frequent port of call as it patrols the Gulf. Our military is deployed with our most advanced fighter aircraft and a wide array of missile defense capabilities in this region.

President Obama came to Saudi Arabia recently to directly reaffirm our commitment to regional security and partnership, and he has met many regional leaders at the White House. In addition to phone calls and meetings by senior civilians and military personnel, we are linked by high-level forums: the U.S. – GCC Strategic Cooperation Forum at the Foreign Minister level and its counterpart, the U.S. – GCC Defense Ministerial. Our diplomatic engagement in the region is as broad as it is deep. Our diplomats meet daily with government officials and civil society and our senior leadership, particularly the Secretary, is in constant contact with his counterparts in the region. Despite increased security concerns, U.S. missions abroad will continue to do the important work of building ties and forging common purpose. The United States recognizes that there can be no durable solution to the range of challenges facing the region without the vital engagement of countries of the Gulf.

The U.S. is committed to maintaining the world’s largest and best-equipped military. And the President was clear in his recent West Point speech when he said that “the United States will use military force, unilaterally, if necessary, when our core interests demand it – when our people are threatened; when our livelihood is at stake; or when the security of our allies is in danger.” A robust economic and diplomatic engagement will also remain a cornerstone of our relations in the Middle East.

As we look around the region, however, we see important diplomatic and security challenges that will require more tailored strategies if we are to succeed. So it is important to take a clear-eyed look at our priorities and how all of us in the region can work together to preserve stability and build a better future. The United States seeks to make the world more secure by helping our allies and friends defend their national security interests and by intensifying our partnership. This is an approach that has been evolving over the years: some of the greatest dangers now arise from efforts by violent extremists operating in areas where borders and territory cannot be defended by national governments.

To assure their defenses, we have provided to our partners in this region some of the world’s best military equipment. Saudi Arabia recently purchased 72 of the advanced F-15 aircraft. The UAE is upgrading and expanding its F-16 fleet. Qatar, the UAE, and Kuwait are acquiring some of the world’s most sophisticated missile defense systems.

But having the best equipment available is not nearly enough. We are moving to support regional collective defense through the Gulf Cooperation Council. We maintain a Combined Air Operations Center here in Qatar that monitors the skies over the region. We are hoping that the GCC will establish an Air Defense Chiefs Conference as its primary military forum for regional air and missile defense policy. We would like to see improved security cooperation in the Straits of Hormuz through the GCC Operations Center, once it is operational. We believe the GCC should assume and maintain command of the Combined Maritime Force’s Gulf operations, with a naval chief’s conference to coordinate policy. From the UAE and Qatar’s contributions to the no-fly zone of Libya, to the GCC participation in counter-piracy operations in the Arabian Sea, we are beginning to see what our enhanced security partnership can achieve as Gulf countries are becoming increasingly robust military partners.

Although terrorism which emerged from this region has been effectively ended as a unified force in Afghanistan, various splinter groups and factions still seek to undermine and overthrow regional governments. But we have seen the consequences of permitting violent extremists to establish safe havens or to take over entire nations, and the enormous cost of turning back the tide.

In his recent speech at West Point, President Obama pointed to violent extremist elements as the greatest threat to the United States and to our interests and partners. He committed the United States to work in partnership with countries across the globe as a network or web of allies to confront extremist violence. Nowhere is this more true than Syria and Iraq. I believe we can do much together to contain and roll back the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s aspirations to create a terrorist state in western Iraq and eastern Syria. ISIL draws on the widespread anger in the region and beyond over the Asad regime’s brutal repression of its people -- repression supported by Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. To defeat ISIL, the United States and the countries of the region need to work in concert -- and overcome some differences -- to develop effective policies and durable solutions to this dangerous threat.

Counter terrorism strategies sometimes require the use of military power, but we must also use other tools, including diplomacy and development to take on the appeal that terrorists still can have for angry, disenfranchised and unemployed young people. And as allies, we need to strengthen our business and people-to-people ties.

The second, related challenge is job creation. This region has a very large cohort of young people who are driving change with their aspirations for better lives. But there will be no stability in this region until the large numbers of unemployed young men can find good jobs – the kinds of opportunities that young people everywhere seek. Observers of the recent Egyptian election noted that they saw very few young men at the polls, another indicator of the disillusionment and frustration with the political process that we see across the entire region. Improving the prospects of young people across the region will require increased investment, more open markets, more intra-regional trade, and, critically, more cooperation among the Gulf countries and Europe and the United States.

This cooperation will be crucial to finding ways to help less prosperous Arab countries develop productive, job creating investments. Some work has been done to synchronize our overall economic approach to the region, but not nearly enough. The Gulf countries will continue to be

vulnerable as less prosperous neighbors face stagnant economies and declining living standards. On our part, we in developed countries need to open our markets just as we work closely with our business communities to invest in the region, since overseas markets offer our companies the greatest opportunities for growth and profit.

Prosperity will require widespread reform of Arab economies to depend less on subsidies, to slow the growth in public employment, and to curb energy demand. Secretary Kerry has worked hard to lay the basis for an improved Palestinian economy predominantly using the private sector but engaging government tools selectively. This innovative plan, which is private sector driven, may provide a model for other countries in the region and will be greatly strengthened by support from the Gulf States.

Higher education is a prime area for increased cooperation, because both in the Arab world and in the United States costly, but advanced education raises the expectations of young people for a better life -- expectations thwarted when they cannot find jobs. The United States has the best universities in the world and some of these institutions are now operating in the Middle East. And U.S. degree programs are attracting growing numbers of people from across the region.

There are currently 80,000 Saudi students in the U.S., a number poised to increase to over 100,000 next year, representing an investment of about $4 billion by the Saudi government. This stake in human capital will transform Saudi society – and it will develop deep partnerships and business ties for Saudi Arabia with a new generation of Americans. Countries in this region also need to cooperate more on developing specialized high schools, vocational training, and expertise in math and science, both for girls and boys. Our cooperation in education and in important academic and professional exchanges will help build stronger ties between our people and will dispel misunderstandings.

And then finally, political stability in the region will be a significant challenge. The United States is well aware that there are deep differences among our friends in this region about the future of Islamist politics and we understand the need for new thinking to address the intensity and depth of sectarian issues that threaten regional peace. It will be an important theme of discussion at this conference. We have seen Islamist groups prosper when they provide services that governments have been unable to provide and when there has been a lack of political space for other political movements.

Some people in this region conflate Islamists with terrorists and desire to eliminate the Islamists entirely from the political scene. Our difficult fight against violent extremists is made more complicated by this viewpoint. The need for compromise is underscored by political experience in the Arab world as well as our own. It will take concerted leadership on the part of political leaders, governments, religious figures and civil society – leadership that must come from people here in this region.

I want to mention some U.S. diplomatic undertakings that are underway in the region – addressing challenges that also require our shared efforts if we are to build a region of peace and stability. I know that most of you have been following these issues closely. Let me offer a few thoughts.

The United States desires better relations with Iran. We want to believe President Rouhani’s efforts to improve relations with the West are both sincere and sustainable within Iran’s political structure. Our differences with Iran go far beyond the nuclear issue, yet in clear recognition of the existential threat that an Iranian nuclear weapon poses to this region and to the United States we are working together with the P5+1 to test Iran’s intentions.

We have provided temporary, limited and reversible sanctions relief in exchange for a partial rollback of Iran’s nuclear program as a demonstration of our sincerity and desire to complete an agreement. We have been keeping regional governments closely and regularly briefed throughout the process. I cannot say that these negotiations will succeed, but we need to seek a diplomatic solution to a dangerous situation.

We believe that efforts to address regional challenges will be strengthened by a close partnership with Egypt. We look forward to working with President Al-Sisi and his government to advance our strategic partnership and our many shared interests. A strong, stable and economically successful Egypt is good for the region and good for the United States. We continue to urge that the Egyptian government follow through on its commitment to lead an inclusive transition to a democracy that respects the universal rights of all its citizens, including the right to peacefully dissent, and an open economy that provides opportunities for growth and development.

The Asad regime, which terrorizes and slaughters its own people and drives them into exile, has given new life to violent extremism in this region. While it has had some battlefield successes, the regime will not be able to end the civil uprising through the use of force and repression. Nor will it gain legitimacy from its recent bogus election. We will continue to work with our London 11 partners toward a political solution that will facilitate Syria’s transition. In his recent West Point address, President Obama underscored our desire to support the moderate Syrian opposition, which offers the best alternative to both the regime and the terrorists. He noted that we will coordinate with our partners and allies to increase that support. The President also intends to increase our assistance to Syria’s neighbors to deal with the refugees and terrorist spillover from the conflict. But this crisis requires all of us to work together, putting our partnership into practice. We need to cut off the flow of resources and fighters from this region to ISIL and other extremist groups – and we will need to expand security cooperation to strengthen defenses and borders.

The United States remains the largest donor to the international humanitarian effort for the Syrian people. Last week, the Secretary of State Kerry visited Lebanon, which has been deeply affected by the Syrian crisis, where he announced an additional $290 million in humanitarian assistance, bringing the U.S. total to over $2 billion.

The Middle East Peace negotiations are currently in a period of pause as Israel and the Palestinians reflect on the next steps necessary to secure the peace agreement that has eluded them for so many decades. Secretary of State Kerry expended extraordinary efforts to restart and to shepherd these talks; and we are grateful that the Brookings Institution loaned Ambassador Martin Indyk back to the State Department to work closely with both parties. I want to acknowledge the support for these talks provided by so many of the region’s leaders, including incentives for the parties to reach a solution. Regrettably, both sides have taken steps that have brought the talks to the current pause. The United States will not – and cannot – give up trying to achieve a just and lasting peace to the region.

In conclusion I’ll say that although the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan is coming to an end, we see much productive work ahead – not just on shared security concerns, but also on building of stronger economic, political, and cultural ties. Achieving these goals will depend heavily on our partnerships in the region and require expanded cooperation and intensive consultation.

This forum is an opportunity to propose and develop solutions to the challenges we face and I look forward to a very fruitful discussion.

President Obama has spoken often about America’s desire to build a new relationship with the countries of the region, based on mutual respect, cooperation and economic development. We have done much in recent years to deepen our business and commercial relations, and the surge of Arab students currently entering U.S. universities will do much to broaden people-to-people engagement – and also to share new skills in technology and entrepreneurship. But much more can be done, in part, because we believe that every society – regardless of its religious or cultural traditions – benefits from extending universal rights to all men and women.

The Middle East has entered a new era, one in which the demands of people for greater access to legitimate political power and economic opportunity are growing. These demands will not go away. We are looking for ways to align ourselves more effectively, politically and economically, with the Middle East as a long-term partner for peace and economic growth.

Thank you very much.