One week ago, when reporting on the latest bizarre plan presented by the Pentagon, namely providing Syrian rebels (but only the moderate ones, not the jihadists like al Nusra, or, well, ISIS) with B-1B Bomber air support in their attacks on ISIS, when we wrote that this “means in the coming weeks and months look forward to a surge in false flag “attacks” blamed on the Assad regime, aiming to give Obama validation to expand the “War against ISIS” to include Syria’s regime as well.”
We didn’t have long to wait: in an entirely unsourced Time article written today by Aryn Baker, the Middle East Bureau Chief, the stage for the second attempt at invading Assad regime is finally set.
The article, titled “Why Bashar Assad Won’t Fight ISIS” is essentially an essay that, as the title suggests “proves” that the Syrian leader is, in fact, quite close with ISIS and derives strategis benefits from his relationship, which is why he won’t attack them, and thus by implication is just as bad as ISIS and worthy of America’s wrath.
How does Baker build up her propaganda? First, she cits a “Sunni businessman who is close to the regime but wants to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions from both ISIS supporters and the regime” and who “trades goods all over the country so his drivers have regular interactions with ISIS supporters and members in Raqqa, the ISIS stronghold in Syria, and in ISIS-controlled areas like Dier-ezzor.” According to this Syrian version of Amazon:
The regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad has long had a pragmatic approach to the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria. Even from the early days the regime purchased fuel from ISIS-controlled oil facilities, and it has maintained that relationship throughout the conflict. “Honestly speaking, the regime has always had dealings with ISIS, out of necessity.”
“Honestly speaking” of course being used quite loosely, considering that it is by now no secret that ISIS, in the words of General Wesley Clark, “got started through funding from our friends and allies“, most notably Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and according to some even the CIA is involved so, no: honestly speaking, if anything, the Assad regime has been doing its best to stay away from ISIS, which at least on paper, was created as a result of extremist Al Nusra factions, who were fighting Assad in 2013, and were funded and weaponized by the US.
Of course, none of that is mentioned. What is, however, duly emphasized is the goalseeked conclusion that Assad and the Islamic State are like two peas in a pod:
Assad does not see ISIS as his primary problem, the businessman says. “The regime fears the Free Syrian Army and the Nusra Front, not ISIS. They [the FSA and Nusra] state their goal is to remove the President. But ISIS doesn’t say that. They have never directly threatened Damascus.” As the businessman notes, the strikes on ISIS targets are minimal. “If the regime were serious about getting rid of ISIS, they would have bombed Raqqa by now. Instead they bomb other cities, where the FSA is strong.” That said, the businessman does not believe that the regime has a formal relationship with ISIS, just a pragmatic one. “The more powerful ISIS grows, the more they are useful for the regime. They make America nervous, and the Americans in turn see the regime as a kind of bulwark against ISIS.”
Actually, the “Americans” see ISIS as the perfect false flag placeholder to build up yet another case about invading Damascus, after the humiliation of the bumbled attempt to use a doctored YouTube clip showing paid actors following what the CIA guaranteed was an Assad “chemical weapon” attack as a pretext to launch an invasion on Syria in the first attempt to topple Assad. It took an escalation that involved numerous Russian ships side by side with US cruisers in the Mediterranean before John Kerry realized that building Qatar’s nat gas pipeline to Europe is not worth rising World War III over, and promptly backed off.
This time, ISIS is the bait.
Back to the Time article, where next we get the next “source” of information:
A senior Western diplomat who specializes in the Syrian civil war agrees that ISIS is seen as an asset by Assad. “They will do whatever it takes to devalue the opposition, even if it means strengthening ISIS. They know that if it comes to choosing between the black flag [of ISIS] and Damascus, the international community will choose Damascus.” And the strategy has worked extremely well. “The way it’s going now, it’s a matter of months, not even a year, that the moderate opposition is so weakened that it won’t be a factor anymore. So in just a few months from now the regime will be able to achieve its strategic goal of forcing the world to choose between Damascus and the black flags.”
Actually, according to that logic, the “international community” will choose both Damascus and the “black flags”, in fact the community will be delighted to have the “flags” as a cover in an invasion, both air, sea and ground, toppling Assad and replacing him with yet another US-puppet regime (whose fate, following such sterling examples as Egypt, Libya and Iraq will be just spectacular), one which will be glad to accept Qatar and Syria hush money, while thousands of kilometers of pipes are laid under the territory in attempt to dethrone Gazprom as the provider of first and last resort to Europe… which as a reminder is what it is all about.
The anonymous “western diplomat” continues:
… by ignoring the conflict between the Syrian opposition and the Assad regime to focus purely on ISIS may solve problems in the short term, says the diplomat, “but there will be more problems to come. These are the ingredients for a further escalation of the conflict — alienating large parts of the Sunni population, so that they have no choice but to join ISIS. Not for ideological reasons, but because they will do whatever it takes to overthrow the regime in Damascus.” Not only that, it will widen the geographical boundaries of the conflict by making this a fight of all Sunnis. “It’s a clear recipe for further escalation well beyond the geographical boundaries of the current conflict.”
Which is why in order to prevent further escalation in the future, the US will be delighted to provide much more escalation right now.
And here is the piece de resistance of the article that may as well have been written by a 6th grader who is about to flunk propaganda class:
Damascus believes that once it has neutralized most of the opposition, it can then defeat ISIS with ease. “ISIS alone, the regime can deal with them. What Assad wants is international recognition of his legitimacy as Syria’s President,” says the businessman. “When the war is over, he can easily handle ISIS with the help of Hizballah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.”
So let’s get this straight:
- A “terrorist” group which was created and funded by US allies in the middle east (there are many) is fighting a war on behalf of a regime that the US and its allies in the middle east are desperately trying to topple; a “terrorist” group which until recently did not exist and which, inexplicably according to the author, Assad refuses to fight because…. unlike the US he has not seen the dreadful beheading movies which lead to so much daily water cooler talk across the US?
- Ths US now believes that “ISIS is seen as an asset by Assad” and that the moderate (this distinction is key: their flag has a pink skull and crossbones as opposed to the red one used by the “non-moderate”) opposition which spawned ISIS in the power vacuum following the incomplete first US invasion of Syria in the symmer of 2013, is about to be destroyed by the same ISIS.
- Assad is confident he can “defeat ISIS with ease” once he has destroyed his so-called moderate enemies; the same ISIS which the US has been “fighting” now for half a year, and achieved absolutely nothing.
- We know all those due to an essay of amateur propaganda caliber, which derives its entire narrative and conclusions based on two anonymous sources.
At this point we probably speak for everyone when we say: just invade Syria already, and let’s proceed to the inevitable, and quite understandable, Russian retaliation, because frankly this endless propaganda and false-flaggery is now as obvious and pathetic as the Greek default which is also about 5 years overdue.