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

The Key Policy Making Reports and Articles of the 21st Century

In this post I have amalgamated all the key policy making documents that I feel are game changing for the Ummah in 2015. These are all a must read for all Muslims, to be aware of the plots and plans of the West.

The Redirection by Seymour Hersh

An article cited by many freelance journalists to be bluntly true about America's redirection in the Middle East.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

From Pol Pot to ISIS: "Anything that flies on everything that moves"

Interesting article that is packed with quotes from previous officials within the U.S regarding the Iraq war.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-anything-that-flies-on-everything-that-moves

Burma Campaign UK

A 2006 36-page document out of the "Burma Campaign UK" explicitly details the enormous amount of money and resources both the US government and its corporate-funded foundations have poured into Suu Kyi's image and her "movement."

http://burmacampaign.org.uk/media/DFIDReview.pdf

Al Qaeda's Foreign Fighters in Iraq

In November 2007, the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point received nearly 700 records of foreign nationals that entered Iraq between August 2006 and August 2007. The data compiled and analyzed in this report is drawn from these personnel records, which was collected by al‐Qa’ida’s Iraqi affiliates, first the Mujahidin Shura Council (MSC) and then the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). The records contain varying levels of information on each fighter, but often include the fighter’s country of origin, hometown, age, occupation, the name of the fighter’s recruiter, and even the route the fighter took to Iraq. The records were captured by coalition forces in October 2007 in a raid near Sinjar, along Iraq’s Syrian border. Although there is some ambiguity in the data, it is likely that all of the fighters listed in the Sinjar Records crossed into Iraq from Syria. The Sinjar Records’ existence was first reported by The New York Times’ Richard Oppel, who was provided a partial summary of the data. English translations of the Records can be accessed at

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/FF‐Bios‐Trans.pdf 

and the records in their original Arabic text at:

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/Foreign_Fighter_Bios‐Orig.pdf

However I think these original documents have now been removed, the summary is still available at:

http://tarpley.net/docs/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf

Choices for America in a Turbulent World by RAND

A magazine by RAND featuring many interesting articles which include counterterrorism, picking partners and identifying enemies, rebalancing civil liberties and security, the arab-israeli settlement, learning lessons from the past and US National Strategy.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1114/RAND_RR1114.pdf

Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change by Brookings Institute

This memo lays out six options for the United States to consider to achieve Asad’s overthrow, should it choose to do so:

1. Removing the regime via diplomacy; 
2. Coercing the regime via sanctions and diplomatic isolation;
3. Arming the Syrian opposition to overthrow the regime;
4. Engaging in a Libya-like air campaign to help an opposition army gain victory;
5. Invading Syria with U.S.-led forces and toppling the regime directly; and
6. Participating in a multilateral, NATO-led effort to oust Asad and rebuild Syria.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/3/15-syria-saban/0315_syria_saban.pdf

Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country by Brookings Institute

This paper makes a case for a new approach to Syria that attempts to bring ends and means more realistically into balance. It also seeks to end the Hobson’s choice currently confronting American policymakers, whereby they can neither attempt to unseat President Assad in any concerted way (because doing so would clear the path for ISIL), nor tolerate him as a future leader of the country (because of the abominations he has committed, and because any such policy would bring the United States into direct disagreement with almost all of its regional allies). 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. The safe zones would also be used to accelerate recruiting and training of additional opposition fighters who could live in, and help protect, their communities while going through basic training. They would, in addition, be locations where humanitarian relief could be provided to needy populations, and local governance structures developed.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/06/23-syria-strategy-ohanlon/23syriastrategyohanlon.pdf

A Peace Plan for Syria by RAND

An important policy making document on advising America on which way to turn in Syria and which path to ultimately take. The two paths it discusses are:

1.  To 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. To secure agreement to an immediate ceasefire, which would be followed by further negotiations on the shape of a reconstituted Syrian state and government.

It advises the White House to take the second path into regionalising Syria into three safe zones, i.e. Alawi/Assad region, Kurds Region, Opposition/Rebel region. The rest of Syria will then be deemed to be ISIS held and targeted for mass killings by all three regions cooperatively including the international arena.

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

2016 Global Forecast by Centre for Strategic & International Studies 

An important lessons learned forecast by CSIS who are a liberal leaning Washington think tank. It gives an insight into the frustrations of America and forecasts the future.

http://csis.org/files/publication/151116_Cohen_GlobalForecast2016_Web.pdf

Rethinking Political Islam by Brookings Institute

Rethinking Political Islam is the first project of its kind to systematically assess the evolution of mainstream Islamist groups across 12 country cases—Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Pakistan, as well as Malaysia and Indonesia. The project engages scholars of political Islam through in-depth research and dialogue to consider how the Arab uprisings and their aftermath have shaped—and in some cases altered—the strategies, agendas, and self-conception of Islamist movements.

Series of PDF can be found here: http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2015/08/rethinking-political-islam

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

Countering the Call: The U.S., Hizb ut-Tahrir, and Religious Extremism in Central Asia by the Brookings Institution: My Thoughts

I have come across this report that was written in July 2003 regarding the policy the U.S should take on countering the call of 'extremist' groups, of which Hizb ut-Tahrir is classed as by the West. It is a particularly interesting read and proves that the call of the Hizb is far threatening to the West, and possibly more-so than violent extremism.

This article sheds a light on how the West are constantly fighting against the Islamic narrative and does not leave any group, no matter how big or small, out of their scope of focus. It is worth noting that this report is targeting the Hizb that was headed by Abd al-Kalim Zallum at the time and currently Ata Abu Rashta, this is why it quite rightly so agrees that the students of this Hizb hold contradictory views and cannot explain their position nor method when prompted. Quite contrast to the students under the correct leadership after the redress in 1997 due to fundamental differences on the method of resuming the Islamic way of life.

It begins by highlighting that the Hizb calls to "restoring the Ottoman Era caliphate" and that "it has been able to harness public popularity primarily through a commitment to nonviolence and an appeal for social and economic justice."

The report interestingly suggests the West's policy towards Hizb ut-Tahrir will set a framework for all other Islamic groups who call for non violent social change:

"Hizb-ut-Tahrir also represents a challenge for broader U.S. policy towards Muslim states and movements. How the United States chooses to respond to the emergence of HT in conjunction with governments in the region, as well as more broadly, sets a framework for how the United States will deal with Islamist groups nominally committed to nonviolent social change, who enjoy increasing grassroots support"

It goes on to suggest that moderating and modernising the Hizb's call to political Islam by including them into the secular and democratic framework "may provide key lessons for crafting a well-informed policy". This is exactly what we are seeing today, whereby Hizb Ata are enjoying platforms with non-Muslims as well as supporting armed groups in the Middle East, which drastically diverts the party from its originally stated method.

It is clear that this report is targeted at Hizb Ata as it states that "This worldwide organization is presently headed by Abd al-Kadim Zallum, also an ethnic Palestinian."

It quite rightly points out that "HT members strongly adhere to the belief that only the formation of an Islamic state regulated by Shariat, Islamic law, can address the ills of society. HT sees the process of modernization and secularization in many Muslim-populated countries as a Western plot against the umma, the Muslim community of believers as a whole."

It suggests that the growth of Hizb ut-Tahrir is partly due to "to underlying economic, social, and political issues that have made Central Asia fertile soil for the introduction of radical ideas." as this report focuses on Central Asia rather than the West. Although we can see that this statement is far from the truth as membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir, whether that be the correct leadership or the misled Hizb Ata has grown in many prosperous countries, such as the West. However it begs the question, whether students studying under the Hizb Ata leadership are serious students or just numbers filling out stadiums and rallies due to their incoherent and contradictory views on the prophetic method to re-establish the Caliphate.

The report has recognised correctly that both Hizb ut-Tahrir and Hizb Ata "calls for a return to Islamic values. In its most extreme political manifestation, the party’s goal is to establish a united Islamic caliphate that would spread from the Middle East through Central Asia to Muslim areas of South Asia."

It also distinguishes Hizb ut-Tahrir different to other 'extremist' Islamic groups by recognising that "an extremely significant factor in HT’s popularity is the party’s rejection of violence as a political means" - which was true in 2003, however the change in tact by Hizb Ata would make one think that there are serious issues internally after they back Jihadi factions in Syria in 2013, and claiming that the 'blessed revolution' has been hijacked.

The report by Khadimov notes that the Hizb's campaigns and leaflets have definitely been a factor in "minimal political participation of the population, the growth of distrust of authority, and skepticism about the utility of democratic institutions".

It goes on to say "growing appeal of its extreme views is a cause of concern for local, national, regional and international actors, including the U.S. government. HT’s rhetoric is often aggressive. It frequently incites anti-Semitic and anti-American sentiments. Following the events of September 11, 2001, HT has focused on casting itself as the voice of all Muslims in Central Asia, while presenting the cooperation of Central Asian governments with the U.S.-led anti-terrorist campaign as treason and tantamount to a war against Islam and Muslims"

It seems to suggest that one way of pushing Hizb members into militant and terrorist activity would be to 'demonize' and 'repress' them so that they feel 'disillusioned' into joining Al-Qaeda or IMU in Uzbekistan where Hizb Ata enjoys a large group of members. 

Quite unsurprisingly, the Brookings Institute has studied the method Hizb ut-Tahrir follow and briefly explained the three stages; the cultural, interaction and the establishment stage. However it is according to Hizb Ata methodology whereby each country has a difference in progress, it mentions that "In Central Asia, HT appears to be in its initial stage". 

Here is how the Brookings Institute has understood the method:

"The first stage is mainly a proselytizing or recruitment phase in which the party reaches out to Muslims in an effort to persuade them to accept the idea, mission, and goals of the party. Convinced individuals are invited to join the party and assume its methods and strategies. They are then expected to join the outreach effort."

"The second stage involves interaction with the umma, taking the message to the broader Muslim community. In this stage, HT attempts to persuade the umma to embrace its view of Islam so that the Islamic way of life becomes an everyday practice for each Muslim and encompasses all affairs of his/her life."

"The third stage sees the establishment of an Islamic government that will implement the norms and practices of Shariat, generally and comprehensively, and will carry it as a message to the world."

It is important to note that the East and West are trying to infiltrate Hizb ut-Tahrir by "planting agents into new HT cells" but are failing to achieve results due to the "veil of secrecy" behind its activities:

"Hizb-ut-Tahrir operates in Central Asian republics in small secretive cells of usually five to seven people called “doiras” or “halkas,” which make-up a large pyramidal structure. Headed by a mushrif (group leader), each group member knows only the members of his/her circle and only the mushrif knows the next stage superior. This arrangement also adds to both HT’s security and the veil of secrecy about its activities and motives. For example, it has made the attempts of the Uzbek police to plant agents in new HT cells and to penetrate the chain of command nearly impossible."

It seems that Hizb Ata have started to "enjoy handsome financial awards and incentives" for new members joining the party according to the report - not surprising to say  the least.

As mentioned earlier I have claimed that members of Hizb Ata fail to explain the method of the Hizb and the same frustration has been noted in this report when it mentions that it is "of particular concern are the vague future plans of HT in Central Asia. HT members often cannot explain how the caliphate would be achieved, what economic or social policies it would pursue, and what the role of other religious traditions and ethnicities in a truly Islamic society would be"

The report admits its frustration with the way in which Hizb ut-Tahrir works by distributing "leaflets and books that often contain scathing criticisms of regional governments. Party activists also rely on underground meetings rather than public speeches. These techniques make Hizb-ut-Tahrir operatives hard to find and to silence. They also let Hizb-ut-Tahrir members send messages more quickly than the government can suppress or discredit them." 

The "challenge is to create mechanisms under which HT could cease its aggressive rhetoric and become involved in the official political process" according to the report. The use of state-supported Imams or clergy is being used to "counter HT's message", however the are "incapable of presenting any credible arguments to counter HT doctrine in mosques" due to being "self-educated individuals with no higher religious education".

It recognises HT members to "enjoy a reputation as highly honest, incorruptible, and determined individuals" 

Finally the report advises the U.S government not to "designate HT as a terrorist organisation" as this would be a "a simplistic move that could legitimize the repressive measures of Central Asian governments" and "Branding Hizb-ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organization will have serious implications for regional security. It will further embolden the ongoing official harassment of ordinary believers and lead to widespread public outcry. Such a measure will also be seen by local religious factions as an U.S. effort to support oppressive governments in the war against terrorism. As such, it will undermine U.S.-led efforts to counter Islamic extremism among local populations."

It also advises the U.S to "reconsider encouraging any blanket policy by Central Asian governments of viewing Islamic parties to be the enemy and instead work to bolster Islamic parties’ involvement in political process. The general lesson appears to be that while exclusion of such groups leads to violence, inclusion forces them to compete for voters and offer real governing options, leading them to moderate. Principled support of democracy and human rights, in this regard, is key to moderating radical Islamists."

It finishes off to suggest more backing for moderate imams to counter the Hizb's call. 

The full report here: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2003/7/asia-khamidov/khamidov20030701.pdf

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.

CONFIRMED: US “Operation Rooms” Backing Al Qaeda in Syria

A good article below but the Iranian political analysis is a little far fetched and seems to be in line with the 'Great Game' conspiracy which believe that Iran are the next world superpower battling for domination. Yet we know they are unconscious allies of the West with every action they've done on the political arena only serving that sectarian divide between the Shia Sunni to create a clear arc in the Middle East that'll leave Muslims too engrossed in a battle of fitnah.

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

US policy think-tank Brookings Institution confirms that contrary to propaganda, US-Saudi “moderates” and Turkey-Qatar “Islamists” have been coordinating all along. 

The war in Syria continues to drag on, with a recent and renewed vigor demonstrated behind an opposition long portrayed as fractured and reflecting a myriad of competing foreign interests. Chief among these competing interests, the public has been told, were the US and Saudis on one side, backing so-called “moderate rebels,” and Turkey and Qatar on the other openly backing Al Qaeda and its various franchises including the Islamic State (ISIS).

However, for those following the conflict closely, it was clear from the beginning and by the West’s own admissions that success hinged on covertly providing arms, cash, equipment, and both political and military support to Al Qaeda and other sectarian extremists, not opposed by Saudi Arabia, but rather by using Saudi Arabia as the primary medium through which Western material support could be laundered.

And this fact is now confirmed in a recent article published on the Brookings Institution’s website titled, “Why Assad is losing.”

It states unequivocally that (emphasis added):

The involvement of FSA groups, in fact, reveals how the factions’ backers have changed their tune regarding coordination with Islamists. Several commanders involved in leading recent Idlib operations confirmed to this author that the U.S.-led operations room in southern Turkey, which coordinates the provision of lethal and non-lethal support to vetted opposition groups, was instrumental in facilitating their involvement in the operation from early April onwards. That operations room — along with another in Jordan, which covers Syria’s south — also appears to have dramatically increased its level of assistance and provision of intelligence to vetted groups in recent weeks.

Whereas these multinational operations rooms have previously demanded that recipients of military assistance cease direct coordination with groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, recent dynamics in Idlib appear to have demonstrated something different. Not only were weapons shipments increased to the so-called “vetted groups,” but the operations room specifically encouraged a closer cooperation with Islamists commanding frontline operations.

Overall, Brookings is pleased to report that with the infiltration and overrunning of much of Idlib in northern Syria, it appears their long-stated goal of creating a seat of power for their proxies within Syria’s borders and perhaps even extending NATO aircover over it, may finally be at hand. Brookings still attempts to perpetuate an adversarial narrative between the West and Al Qaeda, despite admitting that it was only with Western backing that recent offensives spearheaded by Al Qaeda itself were successful.

In reality, as far back as 2007, it was the admitted policy of the then Bush-led White House to begin arming and funding sectarian extremists, including Al Qaeda, through the use of intermediaries including Saudi Arabia. Veteran journalist and two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Seymour Hersh in his report “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?“would lay bare this conspiracy which has since then unfolded verbatim as described in 2007.

The above mentioned Brookings article also alludes to a grander geopolitical landscape taking shape beyond the Syrian conflict. It states in regards to the US now openly backing what is for all intents and purposes an Al Qaeda-led offensive that:

The most likely explanation for such a move is pressure from the newly emboldened regional alliance comprising Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. The United States also is looking for ways to prove its continued alignment with its traditional Sunni Gulf allies, amid the broader context of its rapprochement with Iran.

The continuation, even expansion of the US-backed conflict in Syria is the most telling evidence of all regarding the disingenuous nature of America’s rapprochement with Iran. The entire goal of destabilizing and potentially overthrowing the government in Syria is to weaken Iran ahead of a similar campaign of encirclement, destabilization, and destruction within Iran itself.

The fact that events in Syria are being accelerated, with Brookings itself admitting that “international and ideological differences,” have been “pushed to the side,” illustrates a palpable desperation among the West to finish the conflict in Syria in hopes of moving forward toward Iran before regional dynamics and Iran’s own defensive posture renders moot the West’s entire regional agenda, jeopardizing its long-standing hegemony across North Africa and the Middle East.

Similarly rushed operations appear to be underway in Yemen. With Western-backed conflicts embroiling virtually every nation surrounding Iran, the idea that the US seeks anything but Iran’s eventual destruction, let alone “rapprochement” must surely have no one fooled in Tehran.

While Brookings enthusiastically reports on the continued destruction in Syria it itself played a part in engineering and promoting, it still admits that overthrowing Syria’s legitimate government is not inevitable. While it attempts to portray Syria’s allies as withdrawing support for Damascus, the reality is that if and when Syria falls, Syria’s allies are indisputably next in line.

Iran will face an entire nation handed over to Al Qaeda and other heavily armed and well-backed sectarian extremists dreaming of a cataclysmic confrontation with Tehran, fueled by a global network of US-Saudi backed madrases turning out legions of ideologically poisoned zealots. And beyond Iran, Russia faces the prospect of its Caucasus region being turned into a corridor of terror aimed straight at the heart of Russia itself.

The conflict in Syria is but a single battle among a much larger war — a global war constituting what is basically a third World War, fought not upon vast but clearly defined fronts, but rather through the use of fourth generation warfare, proxies, mercenaries, economics, and information. For those that fail to see how Syria is linked to the survival of many nations beyond its borders and the very concept of a multi-polar world built upon the concept of national sovereignty, they invite not just Damascus’ defeat, but that of the world as we know it.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.