West's "Humanitarian" Claims Struggle as Syrian War Nears Endgame

September 2, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Headlines emanating from the West regarding Syria's ongoing war have a common theme - allegations of Syria and Russia's "ruthless barrage" of the northern region of Idlib.

So often - however - has the US and its allies falsely invoked "humanitarian concern" that these headlines fall on informed and discerning ears who not only reject it, but have cemented in their minds a familiarity with this ploy that will make it all but impossible to use it again on whatever battlefield the US shifts its foreign policy to next.

Like a Broken Record

CBS in its article, "Syrians trapped by Assad's ruthless Russian-backed barrage in Idlib beg for help," peddles an all-too-familiar narrative of helpless, innocent civilians in desperate need of "help." That "help," of course always comes in the form of US intervention and the eventual, total destruction of the nation as was the case for Libya in 2011.

The article claims:

More than three million people are trapped under a Syrian bombing campaign as Bashar Assad battles to reclaim the last enclave held by rebels in his country. Idlib is the only remaining opposition stronghold after eight grueling years of civil war.

There are no "rebels" or "opposition" in Idlib. There are - however - legions of militants operating under the banners of Al Qaeda, the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS), and their various affiliates.

These terrorists are the recipients of foreign arms and support - and many of them are not even themselves Syrian - making CBS' claims that Syria's conflict is a "civil war" wholly inaccurate.

Far from Syrian or Russian "propaganda," the fact that Idlib has been occupied by terrorists and not "rebels" is one admitted by the Western media itself - and a fact admitted to since the region first fell to foreign-armed terrorists.

The Associated Press in its 2015 article titled, "Assad Loses Final Idlib Stronghold to Al Qaeda-led Insurgents," would report:

After a two-year siege, al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria and other insurgents on Wednesday captured the one remaining Syrian army air base in Idlib, a development that activists said effectively expelled the last of President Bashar al-Assad’s military from the northwestern province. 

From the moment Idlib fell, throughout its occupation by terrorist forces, and up to the current Syrian assault to liberate Idlib, it is - by the West's own admission - terrorists that Syrian and Russian forces are fighting.

The collective attempt by the Western media to sidestep this fact - a fact they themselves have previously acknowledged and reported on - is aimed at condemning and impeding ongoing security operations organized by Damascus in Idlib. 

Still Trying to Sell US Intervention 

The CBS article - like many examples of Western war propaganda - after deceiving readers as to who Syrian forces are fighting in Idlib - makes the case for US intervention, claiming:

In the aftermath, one woman screamed hysterically at a news camera, begging for an American intervention. 

"We are getting killed every day," she cried. "Mr. Trump, please, please stop this!" 

But there is no help.

Like many of the West's narratives, CBS' story depends on readers believing without any evidence that not only did their "witness" really exist and said what CBS claims they said, but really begged the US to intervene despite seeing what US interventions have done everywhere else in the region over the past two decades.

Extra irony can be drawn from CBS' reporting - considering that the US itself has carried out airstrikes and drone attacks on Idlib over the years as well.

Opposition or Terrorists: Who is Syria and Russia Bombing in Idlib?

August 12, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Scott Lucas - a professor at the University of Birmingham UK - would decry with the rest of the Western media - resumed joint military operations carried out by Syria and Russia in and around the northwestern governorate of Idlib.

Reuters in their article, "Syrian army resumes military operations against rebels in northwest Syria," would claim:

The Syrian army said on Monday it was resuming military operations in a Russian-led campaign in northwest Syria that has uprooted tens of thousands and killed hundreds, blaming Turkey for not abiding by its commitments under a truce deal.

Both Lucas and Reuters - like many other Western media fronts and personalities - are careful never to fully characterize who the "opposition" actually consists of - instead attempting to imply Syria and Russia are waging war on civilians and "moderate rebels." 

When asked by journalist Peter Hitchens to give a run down on who the Syrian opposition actually was, Lucas in a post on social media would respond:

Hi, Peter! #Syria situation, across not only northwest but northeast, is web of local councils, local military groups, and local activist organizations to provide services. You'll need to specify a particular area, such as a town or city in #Idlib or #Hama Province.

Yet the accompanying picture Lucas used to illustrate his point was of a meeting organized by the IHH (Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief). IHH is based in Turkey and is by no means "local."

IHH is also linked directly to Al Qaeda, serving as a logistical support network for the terrorist organization, merely couching itself behind its humanitarian mission statement.

Will Shake Up at IAEA Impact Iran?

July 31, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Yukiya Amano's passing has stirred up suspicion and further tensions amid US-Iranian tensions.

Amano was 72 years old and as of mid July 2019 had already begun preparing to step down due to poor health.

A July 18 AFP-JIJI article titled, "Japanese IAEA head Yukiya Amano to step down next year for health reasons: diplomatic sources," reported:

The head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, Yukiya Amano, will step down in March for health reasons, diplomatic sources said Wednesday, as the agency navigates verification of the increasingly fragile Iran nuclear deal.

However, in the wake of his death and because of his perceived opposition to US efforts to undermine the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or "Iran Deal" - suspicions began circulating that the US or Israel - or both - may have played a role in his death.

Iran-based Tasnim News Agency in an article titled, "Sources Raise Possibility of Israeli Assassination of Amano," would claim:

Informed sources have speculated that late chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Yukiya Amano was assassinated by Israel in collaboration with the US for refusing to give in to pressures to raise new fabricated allegations against Iran’s nuclear program.

Considering the foreign policy track records of either the US or Israel - an assassination targeting members of international institutions impeding Western interests certainly sounds plausible. However no evidence has been provided to suggest Amano was assassinated.

Furthermore - his death whatever the cause will likely have little impact on the IAEA's policies or the general state of US-Iranian tensions - for several reasons.

International Institutions are the Sum of their Member States

International institutions reflect the vector sum of sponsoring nations' interests. As the global balance of power shifts, so too does the proportion of influence of each member state represented by these institutions. In turn the agenda of these institutions changes accordingly.

The IAEA's criticism of Washington's undermining of the Iran Deal reflects not the IAEA's independent assessment - but the collective interests of member nations the IAEA supposedly represents in all matters of nuclear technology. It is no coincidence that in the halls of foreign ministries around the globe similar criticism has been leveled against Washington regarding the Iran Deal.

Nations in Europe attempting to salvage the deal have taken measures to sidestep US sanctions imposed after the US unilaterally and without justification, withdrew. Whatever influence these same nations have within the UN and IAEA has certainly filtered through and was reflected by Amano's position over the Iran Deal prior to his death.

With this in mind, one can expect the IAEA's position to remain relatively unchanged regardless of who becomes the institution's next chief.

Washington's Abuse of International Institutions: A Tired Trick 

The United States and its partners have so regularly abused or even entirely sidestepped international institutions that the legitimacy and impact of these institutions have been greatly diminished.

While the IAEA may reflect a position supporting the Iran Deal's continuation - nations of the world pragmatically sidestepping US sanctions and pursuing multilateral diplomacy is by far more important than anything the IAEA can contribute.

Should the US or Israel succeed in maneuvering to the head of the IAEA a new chief reflecting their interests it will only accelerate the IAEA's irrelevancy further regarding the Iran Deal.

US "Downs" Legitimacy After Claims of Downing Iranian Drone

July 20, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The US boasted of downing an Iranian drone over the Strait of Hormuz, admittedly in international waters, just miles off Iran's coast, and thousands of miles from Washington.

It claims the drone was "threatening" a US amphibious assault ship, the USS Boxer.

The Washington Post in its article, "Trump says the U.S. Navy downed an Iranian drone in the Strait of Hormuz," would claim:

A U.S. naval ship downed an Iranian drone that flew too close and ignored multiple calls to turn away, President Trump said Thursday, as tensions between the United States and Iran appeared to be rising once again in the Persian Gulf region. 

Speaking at the White House, Trump said the drone came within 1,000 yards of the USS Boxer in the Strait of Hormuz before the crew “took defensive action” and “immediately destroyed” it.

An AP article titled, "US warship downs Iranian drone in Hormuz Strait," noted that (emphasis added):

The Pentagon said the incident happened at 10 am local time on Thursday in international waters while the Boxer was transiting the waterway to enter the Persian Gulf. The Boxer is one of several US naval ships in the area, including the USS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier that has been operating in the nearby North Arabian Sea for weeks.

The claims come nearly a month after Iran shot down a US drone - an RQ-4A Global Hawk - operating near Iranian shores, also in the Strait of Hormuz.

At the time, the US condemned Iran's move claiming it had downed the drone over international waters. Now - the US openly claims it has shot down an Iranian drone over international waters. The overt hypocrisy is intentional. The US has been attempting to goad Tehran into an armed conflict for years with US policy papers openly admitting as much.

A 2009 Brookings Institution paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran," would openly admit (emphasis added):

...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it.  

Apparently, the US is no longer concerned about whether or not the world recognizes this game and is doing everything in its power to goad Iran into miscalculating and granting the US justification for a long-desired and much larger conflict with Tehran.

Did the Iranian Drone Really Threaten the USS Boxer? Was it Even an Iranian Drone? 

As with most deliberate provocations - the recent US claims of downing an Iranian drone came with minimum details and no evidence at all. Not even the type of drone was mentioned by the Washington Post or AP.

Claims that the drone came within 1,000 yards of the ship and was disabled through electronic jamming indicates it was most likely an off-the-shelf drone used for photography and in no way posed a threat to the USS Boxer.

Iranian media - for its part - claims the US most likely shot down their own drone, and denies Iran was operating any of its own drones in the area at the time. Iran's PressTV in an article titled, "US may have shot down own drone in Persian Gulf, Iran says of Trump’s claim," would claim:

Iran has rejected US President Donald Trump’s claim that a US warship had shot down an Iranian Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) in the Strait of Hormuz. 

“We have not lost any drone in the Strait of Hormuz nor anywhere else,” Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araqchi said in a tweet on Friday. 

“I am worried that USS Boxer has shot down their own UAS by mistake!”

What is certain is that even if it were an Iranian drone, it couldn't have posed more of a threat to the USS Boxer than America's military presence in the Middle East poses to its inhabitants - a region where the US has repeatedly bombed, invaded, currently occupies or is waging war by proxy against multiple nations including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and indeed - Iran itself.

British Hijack Iranian Ship: Another Day, Another Provocation

July 17, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Had Iran openly hijacked a vessel of any nation, for any reason, plying through waters anywhere on Earth, the US and its allies would immediately cite it as a provocation toward war.

In fact, even without evidence, suspiciously timed attacks carried out last month on tankers passing through the Persian Gulf were cited by Washington and London as a pretext for increased pressure on Tehran despite the attacks appearing staged by the West itself.

Now in a display once again illustrating just who the actual menace is to global peace and stability, the British have openly - even proudly - hijacked a ship carrying Iranian oil allegedly bound for Syria.

The Guardian's article, "Iran fury as Royal Marines seize tanker suspected of carrying oil to Syria," would report:

Royal Marines have helped seize an Iranian supertanker suspected of carrying oil to Syria off the coast of Gibraltar, escalating tensions between the UK and Tehran as the agreement aimed at halting Iran’s nuclear programme unravels. 

A detachment of nearly 30 British troops working with the Gibraltarian police intercepted the vessel, believed to be carrying 2m barrels of oil, in a dramatic manoeuvre Spain said had been conducted at the request of the US.

The article would quote the British ambassador to Iran who claimed:

[The UK] welcomes this firm action by the Gibraltarian authorities.

 As to why the UK believed it was justified to hijack the Iranian tanker - the article would cite "sanctions against the regime of Bashar al-Assad" the UK and EU placed on Syria - which are in themselves illegal and an act of war.

Stealing Ships from Stolen Land to Enforce Illegal Sanctions 

The UK's presence in Gibraltar itself is a point of contention between London and Madrid.

Spain does not recognize British claims over the tiny piece of land located at the furthest tip of the Iberian Peninsula. The British presence is one of its many holdovers from its imperialist past. The British presence gives the UK a choke point over the Strait of Gibraltar and all shipping passing through it.

The fact that the British are using the disputed territory of Gibraltar to hijack ships or that the London Guardian is trying to depict it as an operation undertaken while "working with the Gibraltarian police" - when the "Gibraltarian police" are nothing more than functionaries representing London itself - provide a clear illustration of how foreign policy, media, and crimes against international law are being coordinated, justified, and sold to the public by Washington and London.

While Iran has regularly threatened to impede shipping through the Stait of Hormuz in retaliation to Western military aggression - it has never acted upon these threats - reserving them as a means of last resort.

The British and Americans - on the other hand - have literally implicated themselves in disrupting "freedom of navigation." 

The US and UK both pose as international arbiters and underwriters of what they call "the freedom of navigation" of the world's seas. They regularly accuse nations like China of impeding such "freedom" in the South China Sea - using these accusations as an excuse to build up a military presence off China's shores - thousands of miles from their own shores.

They have also regularly cited Iran's "threats" to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz as another reason Iran should be further pressured, sanctioned, and its government ultimately removed from power.

Yet by hijacking Iranian ships, or likewise intercepting North Korean vessels, or the ships of any nation based on sanctions unilaterally and illegally imposed by Washington, London, and Brussels implicates the West themselves as the primary threat to the very "freedom of navigation" of the world's seas they claim to uphold.

Provoking War 

From Western policy think tanks to policymakers and politicians themselves - the West has all but admitted it is trying to goad Iran into war.

Sanctions, Western-sponsored terrorism aimed at Iranian territory itself, and provocations - like the recent hijacking of an Iranian tanker - all aimed at Tehran - are moves seeking to trigger a response from Iran that will justify even wider Western economic sanctions and military aggression.

And if Iran fails to provide such a provocation, one might be staged and blamed on Iran anyway.

These are the actions of outlaw nations presiding over a fading international order - one fading specifically because it is so transparently unjust, lopsided, and disruptive toward global stability. It has persisted for so long solely through the maxim of "might makes right."

The British stealing ships from stolen land to enforce illegal sanctions is a vulgar display of "might makes right," but one that may possibility be reaching its expiration.

The countervailing multipolar order emerging across Eurasia has an opportunity to oppose this flagrant provocation - not merely on Iran's behalf - but to erode the impunity that will allow the US and UK to target the ships of other nations in a similar fashion if afforded impunity to do so to Iran now.

For Tehran, it will need to continue exhibiting "maximum patience" while enduring Washington and London's "maximum pressure" campaign - avoiding the traps both have laid out for Tehran as they attempt to bait the nation into war and change their failing fortunes in the Middle East and around the globe.

The British - still a thorn in the side of global peace and stability despite losing most of its empire - presents us with a preview of what to expect from America even long after it fades as sole global hegemon. Learning to put the UK's recent provocations in check now will help develop the tools necessary to put in check its future provocations - and those the US will find itself also depending on more and more often in the future.

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

Convenient "Tanker Attacks" as US Seeks War with Iran

June 13, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO)

...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it.  

- Brookings Institution, "Which Path to Persia?" 2009  

For the second time since the United States unilaterally withdrew from the so-called Iran Nuclear Deal, Western reports of "suspected attacks" on oil tankers near the Stait of Hormuz have attempted to implicate Iran.



The London Guardian in an article titled, "Two oil tankers struck in suspected attacks in Gulf of Oman," would claim:

Two oil tankers have been hit in suspected attacks in the Gulf of Oman and the crews evacuated, a month after a similar incident in which four tankers in the region were struck.

The article also claimed:

Gulf tensions have been close to boiling point for weeks as the US puts “maximum economic pressure” on Tehran in an attempt to force it to reopen talks about the 2015 nuclear deal, which the US pulled out of last year. 

Iran has repeatedly said it has no knowledge of the incidents and did not instruct any surrogate forces to attack Gulf shipping, or Saudi oil installations.

The Guardian would admit that "investigations" into the previous alleged attacks in May carried out by the UAE found "sophisticated mines" were used, but fell short of implicating Iran as a culprit.

The article would note US National Security Advisor John Bolton would - without evidence - claim that Iran "was almost certainly involved."

All Too Convenient 

This news of "attacked" oil tankers near the Stait of Hormuz blamed by the US on Iran - comes all too conveniently on the heels of additional steps taken by Washington to pressure Iran's economy and further undermine the Iranian government.

The US just recently ended waivers for nations buying Iranian oil. Nations including Japan, South Korea, Turkey, China, and India will now face US sanctions if they continue importing Iranian oil.

Coincidentally, one of ships "attacked" this week was carrying "Japan-related cargo," the Guardian would report.

Also convenient was the US' recent designation of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) just ahead of this series of provocations attributed to Iran.

AP in a May 2019 article titled, "President Trump Warns Iran Over 'Sabotaged' Oil Tankers in Gulf," would claim:

Four oil tankers anchored in the Mideast were damaged by what Gulf officials described as sabotage, though satellite images obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday showed no major visible damage to the vessels.

Two ships allegedly were Saudi, one Emirati, and one Norwegian. The article also claimed:

A U.S. official in Washington, without offering any evidence, told the AP that an American military team’s initial assessment indicated Iran or Iranian allies used explosives to blow holes in the ships.

And that:

The U.S. already had warned ships that “Iran or its proxies” could be targeting maritime traffic in the region. America is deploying an aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers to the Persian Gulf to counter alleged, still-unspecified threats from Tehran. 

This more recent incident will likely be further exploited by the US to continue building up its military forces in the region, applying pressure on Iran, and moving the entire globe closer toward war with Iran.

The US has already arrayed its forces across the Middle East to aid in ongoing proxy wars against Iran and its allies as well as prepare for conventional war with Tehran itself.

All of this amounts to a renewed push toward a more direct conflict between the United States and Iran after years of proxy war in Syria Washington-backed forces have decisively lost.

It is also a continuation of long-standing US foreign policy regarding Iran put into motion over a decade ago and carried out by each respective presidency since.

Washington's Long-Standing Plans 

Continued sanctions and the elimination of waivers are part of Washington's unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or the "Iran Nuclear Deal." The deal was signed in 2015 with the US withdrawing in 2018.

US Propaganda Blitz Ahead of Idlib's Liberation

June 12, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - A concerted effort is being made to once again flood Western headlines with now familiar and long-since discredited war propaganda as Syrian forces and their Russian and Iranian allies move in on Idlib in northern Syria to liberate it from US-backed terrorists. 

A recent New York Times article titled, "Inside Syria’s Secret Torture Prisons: How Bashar al-Assad Crushed Dissent," dusts off, combines, and repackages now nearly 8 years of Western war propaganda aimed at demonizing the Syrian government and paving way for regime change. 

While the article claims it now has "memos sent to Syria's head of military intelligence" to back up previous claims, it admits "some information was blacked out to protect the integrity of evidence for possible prosecutions." 

Yet in order to accuse a government publicly of maintaining "secret torture prisons," evidence must be provided. Instead, the NYT presented recycled accounts from "activists" and opposition figures as well as Western-funded fronts including the "Syrian Network for Human Rights" and the  "Commission for International Justice and Accountability" (CIJA).

The CIJA in particular is claimed by NYT to have collected the alleged memos. Nothing about the CIJA's background is provided by the NYT, nor can any website with background information be found.

However, the US government's Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) interviewed CIJA director of investigations and operations, Chris Engels in 2018. In the interview, CIJA's funding was discussed:

[CSCE:] Who funds CIJA? 

[Chris Engels:] We have had a number of donors over the years. Our current donors include the United Kingdom, Canada, the European Union, Germany, Demark, the Netherlands, and Norway.

Engels also openly admits that the CIJA works directly with the US government. In the interview he admits:

By design, CIJA has a strong relationship with U.S. law enforcement.

When asked if members of the US Congress have supported the work of CIJA, Engels would enthusiastically confirm so - citing proposed laws pertaining specifically to Syria.


In other words - nations committed to the overthrow of the Syrian government fund and support the CIJA's work in Syria - casting doubt on both their integrity and their motivations. Just as the NYT would be remiss to write an entire article based on claims made by the Syrian government itself - it is remiss in uncritically reporting the claims made by its opponents.


The fact that the CIJA's "evidence" is so heavily redacted that the NYT merely mentions it before building the rest of its article around older hearsay-accounts from its regular circle of "activists" and opposition figures, including the now notoriously discredited informant - "Caesar" - casts even further doubt.

The NYT appears to instead be contributing merely to the latest chapter of US-driven war propaganda aimed at undermining the Syrian government, protracting the Syrian conflict, and further dividing and destroying the nation.

Idlib is Al Qaeda Central  

A renewed barrage of war propaganda has been launched by the West in tandem with Syrian government efforts to move in on Idlib - the last bastion of Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations west of the Euphrates River.

US-Iran: Inverted Reality, Real War

June 3, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - In its march toward yet another war, the United States accuses Iran of using military force to establish itself as a "regional hegemon." It accuses Iran of being the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It accuses Iran of aiding rebels in Yemen, the government in Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

But what the United States leaves out about Iran is just as important as what it accuses Iran of.

Familiar Lies

For one, the Middle East already has a regional hegemon - the United States.

Even the wildest accusations against Iran regarding state sponsored terrorism pale in comparison to Al Qaeda and the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS) whose terrorism spans the globe, including standing armies operating in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan - several of which Iran itself is specifically fighting.

The US also supports terrorist organizations within Iran including the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK). MEK enjoys the support of National Security Adviser John Bolton - who lobbied for them for years while they were listed as a foreign terrorist organization by the US State Department itself.  

Thus, Iran finds itself involved in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon precisely to stave off openly declared intentions by the US to include Iran next under its already expansive hegemony over the Middle East. 

During Washington's slow-motion blitzkrieg across North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, now decades of lies have continued generating excuses, pretexts, and artificial threats to justify America's unending wars and Washington's march toward its next target - Iran. 

Iran is Resisting Regional Hegemony 

The US invasion of Afghanistan along Iran's eastern borders in 2001, then the US invasion of Iraq along Iran's western borders in 2003 left the nation surrounded by US military forces. The invasions, followed by extended occupations were only two of the most extreme examples of Washington's aggressive military encirclement of Iran itself. 

US proxy wars against Libya, Syria, and Yemen also sought to eliminate political and military blocs allied to Tehran. Coupled with deliberate, crippling economic sanctions and a campaign of admitted and concerted political subversion aimed at Iran itself - the US has all but declared war against Iran.

Iran finds itself on the US regime change "hit list," dubbed the "Axis of Evil" by US President George Bush who presided over the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. On the list alongside Iran was Libya - now a divided and destroyed failed state after US military intervention there in 2011 - as well as Syria which still faces US-backed militants and a still-ongoing US military occupation of its territory. 

Iran has been surrounded by an openly hostile United States and its allies for now nearly two decades. What the US characterizes as "Iranian aggression" is merely the rational steps any government surrounded by hostile forces would take to defend itself, its territory, and its people. 

The Middle East is already subject to a regional hegemon - the United States - presided over by a government thousands of miles away. And if the US would be bold enough to presume dominion over an entire region of the planet so far from its own shores, it should come as no surprise that it would also shift responsibility for the disruptive consequences of its hegemony onto the nations still resisting it from within the region.  

Iran is Fighting the Largest State Sponsor of Terror 

In a recent interview with The Epoch Times, US Congressman Van Taylor of Texas called Iran "the largest state sponsor of terror in the world." He cites Iranian support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah as examples. It is a claim being repeated throughout America's pro-war establishment. 

However - it is not entirely true, and it omits mention of state sponsored terrorism that eclipses it even if it were.

Groups like Hamas actually fought against Damascus and its Iranian allies during the recent conflict in Syria - calling into question claims of "Iranian state sponsorship" of Hamas. 

Hezbollah - on the other hand - does enjoy close ties with Iran. But it also dedicated large amounts of resources and manpower - not creating terrorism across the Middle East - but fighting it - specifically in taking on ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq. 

It was Iran and Hezbollah who aided Syrian forces on the ground while Russia provided air support that began rolling back ISIS and Al Qaeda from 2015 onward. 

ISIS and Al Qaeda - ironically - persist in Syria only in areas under the protection of US-NATO forces. This includes in Al Qaeda-held Idlib where the US has repeatedly warned Damascus and its allies not to retake under threat of military retaliation. 

While US accusations against Iran regarding "state sponsorship of terror" remain nebulous, US intelligence agencies themselves have admitted the US and its allies' role in the creation of terrorist organizations like ISIS.

US-Backed Terrorists "Struggle" After Returning from Syria

May 25, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - Upon reading the Financial Times article, "Isis fighters struggle on return to Balkan states," you might almost forget the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was and still is a hardcore terrorist organization guilty of some of the most heinous terrorism carried out in the 21st century.



The article begins, claiming:

In a village in the Kosovar countryside, Edona Berisha Demolli’s family have gathered to celebrate her return from Syria where she and her husband fled to six years ago to fight for Islamic militants Isis. 

 “I am exhausted,” said Ms Demolli, as her relatives served guests slices of celebratory chocolate and vanilla cake and children played in the yard. “I thank God, the Kosovo state, and the US for bringing me home,” she said, referring to the pressure Washington put on countries to take their fighters back from camps across the Middle East and the logistical assistance they provided to that end.

The Financial Times would note that some 300 Bosnians joined ISIS and that Kosovo has set up barracks to accommodate returning fighters.

The article would end by quoting Besa Ismaili, a lecturer at Kosovo’s Faculty of Islamic Studies:

“You don’t have to approve of what they did, but you have to reach out to them to prevent further radicalisation, and their children need to develop a bond to the country.”

It is difficult to imagine how extremists who left their home country to fight alongside ISIS could be yet "further radicalized."

We can suppose "further radicalization" might mean a second deployment in yet another of Washington's proxy wars around the globe. It could be argued that returning fighters who receive assistance in reintegrating into society and escaping any real consequences for their actions will do very little to dissuade them or others in their community from doing it again.

Escaping Justice 

The Financial Times in its sympathetic narrative begets questions surrounding an inescapable truth regarding the central role the United States and its allies played in facilitating the transfer of foreign extremists to and from the battlefield in war-torn Syria.

The article specifically mentions (and through the words of a former extremist, thanks) the US for its logistical assistance in returning ISIS militants to their respective countries.

We can only imagine if terrorists invaded the United States, killed Americans, destroyed American infrastructure and fought against US troops, just how slighted Washington would feel if a foreign nation intervened and spirited these terrorists away, especially back to their countries of origin and beyond Washington's ability to exact justice.

But that is precisely what the US has denied Damascus.

America's Terrorist Foreign Legions 

The US aiding terrorists in their return to the Balkans will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the real rather than feigned relationship between Washington and Al Qaeda whom ISIS is merely a rebranded offshoot of.

In the 1990s as the US meddled in the Balkans, it provided weapons and aid to the so-called "Kosovo Liberation Army" (KLA), an analogue to the so-called "Free Syrian Army" in Syria today. Both were nothing more than public relations fronts. Behind it were regional Al Qaeda affiliates.

Further Evidence US Attacked Syria Based on False Flag

May 15, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Further evidence has emerged indicating that the alleged 2018 Douma, Syria chemical attack was staged by US-backed militants, not the Syrian government.

With the US plotting war from South America to the South China Sea, understanding how US-backed militants staged the attack, allowing the Western media to sell US military intervention to the global public based on a lie - will help guard against similarly staged attacks in the near future.

Recent revelations mean the US not only falsely accused Damascus of having carried out the attack - but launched military strikes against Syria based on an entirely false pretext. To date, the US has categorically failed to produce any convincing evidence backing their original claims.

Conversely, a subsequent investigation carried out by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) produced damning evidence suggesting a false flag event was carried out by US-backed militants. This included a chlorine gas cylinder found in a militant weapons workshop inspected by OPCW investigators closely matching the two cylinders allegedly used in the 2018 Douma attack itself.

While US-backed militants insisted two gas cylinders were dropped on Douma by government helicopters, the OPCW noted that the alleged craters caused by the cylinders' impact matched those on nearby buildings clearly caused by high-explosive ordnance.

The final OPCW report regarding the Douma incident claimed:

The [the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria] team noted that a similar crater was present on a nearby building. 

The implication is that the cylinders may not have created the craters attributed to them by US-backed militants and the Western media supporting their version of the story. Instead, it implies that the cylinders were manually put into place near preexisting craters created by conventional ordnance.

While the final OPCW report included photographs of damage on the adjacent building, it did not elaborate further or explore the obvious implications of similar craters seen nearby explicitly.

However, more recently, a previously unpublished report by the OPCW titled, "Engineering Assessment of Two Cylinders Obsered at the Douma Incident - Executive Summary" (PDF), did elaborate (emphasis added):

Experts were consulted to assess the appearance of the crater observed at Location 2, particularly the underside. The expert view was that it was more consistent with that expected as a result of blast/energetics (for example from a HE mortar or rocket artillery round) rather than a result of impact from the falling object. This was also borne out by the observation of deformed rebar splayed out at the underside of the crater, which was not explained by the apparent non-penetration and minimal damage of the cylinder. The likelihood of the crater having been created by a mortar/artillery round or similar, was also supported by the presence of more than one crater of very similar appearance in concrete slabs on top of nearby buildings, by an (unusually elevated, but possible) fragmentation pattern on upper walls, by the indications of concrete spalling under the crater, and (whist it was observed that a fire had been created in the corner of the room ) black scorching on the crater underside and ceiling.

The engineering assessment would conclude (emphasis added):

In summary, observation at the scene of the two locations, together with subsequent analysis, suggest that there is a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft. 

The assessment further adds weight to what many analysts concluded at the time when the OPCW published its final, official report on the incident - that the event was staged.

Al Baghdadi: The US Couldn't Wish for a Greater Ally

May 11, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - By 2013 the US-led proxy war on Syria had stalled. A staged chemical attack and threats of direct US military intervention were thwarted by Russian efforts to diplomatically resolve the impasse through the declaration and disposal of Syria's entire chemical weapons arsenal.

With US-backed militants having already reached the full extent of their gains on the battlefield and now facing incremental but inevitable defeat - the US appeared to be out of time and out of options.

Then suddenly - as if on cue - Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - alleged leader of the so-called "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" (ISIS) was resurrected after US claims he had died years early, and provided the US with the perfect pretext to militarily intervene in Syria anyway.

A July 2014 BBC article titled, "Isis chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi appears in first video," would claim:

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamist militant group Isis, has called on Muslims to obey him, in his first video sermon. 

Baghdadi has been appointed caliph by the jihadist group, which has seized large swathes of Iraq and Syria.

The sudden wave of violence unleashed by ISIS across Iraq and Syria was on such a scale that only state sponsorship could have accounted for it.

Creating the Perfect Enemy 

In fact - the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) as early as 2012 had even noted (PDF) a Western and Persian Gulf-led conspiracy to create what it called at the time a "Salafist" [Islamic] "principality" [State] precisely in eastern Syria where ISIS would eventually find itself based.

The DIA document would explain (emphasis added): 

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran). 

On clarifying who these supporting powers were, the DIA memo would state:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

The goal had been to further isolate the Syrian government in aid of Washington's ultimate goal of overthrowing Damascus. When growing numbers of extremists failed to do this, the US then used the presence of ISIS as a pretext for a revised version of the direct military intervention Russia had thwarted just a year earlier.

For one year the US posed as fighting ISIS while simultaneously seizing Syria's oil fields and building an army of militants it had hoped to use to both push ISIS into Syrian government-held territory, and with which to fight the Syrian government itself.

By 2015, Russia began its own military intervention. It immediately targeted ISIS supply lines leading out of NATO-member Turkey - something the US has failed to do up to and including today, isolating the terrorist group within Syrian territory before Russian air power along with Syrian, Iranian, and Hezbollah ground forces encircled and eliminated them along with Al Nusra and other extremist groups everywhere west of the Euphrates River.

US Targets Iran, Presumes Dominion Over Global Trade

May 8, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - If Iran was truly a threat to global peace and security, why would nations like China, India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey be trading with it? Why would the European Union seek to trade with it? Why would the United States struggle and eventually resort to global-scale coercion to convince the majority of the planet to cut ties existing or desired with Tehran?

The New York Times in its article, "U.S. Moves to Stop All Nations From Buying Iranian Oil, but China Is Defiant," all but admits US efforts have very little to do at all with global peace and security and more to do with Washington's desire to undercut Iranian influence in the Middle East where Iran is actually located, and thousands of miles and oceans away from Washington.

The NYT would admit: 

In tightening sanctions on Iran, the Trump administration moved on Monday to isolate Tehran economically and undercut its power across the Middle East. But the clampdown has complicated relations with China at a particularly sensitive moment.

The article would also report: 

The decision to stop five of Iran’s biggest customers from buying its oil was an audacious strike at Tehran’s lifeline — one million barrels of oil exports daily, fully half of which go to China. The order was also aimed at India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey, all countries that trade robustly with the United States.

The NYT cites the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which the US unilaterally withdrew from based on unsubstantiated claims that Iran had violated it.

The US has more recently withdrawn unilaterally from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia based on similarly unsubstantiated claims that Moscow was violating it.

If it wasn't clear, there is a pattern emerging where the US is compensating for its diminished ability to compete economically and politically, with increasingly aggressive accusations (of treaty violations, for example) followed up by equally aggressive sanctions and military encirclement.

As other researchers have pointed out the US-proposed Iran nuclear deal and the inevitable US withdrawal from it was planned as early as 2009 and was never intended to be a serious effort to resolve US-Iranian difference, but rather to create a pretext to widen them further in pursuit of long-sought after war with Iran.

The NYT article would note closer coordination between Washington and Riyadh over matters regarding oil prices. Other researchers have also pointed out that before this most recent escalation was implemented, Saudi Arabia attempted to court China's leadership as a means of offering Saudi oil as an alternative to soon-to-be blocked Iranian oil exports.

US Defeat in Syria Transforms into Campaign of Spite

April 21, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The US-engineered proxy war against Syria, beginning in 2011 and the crescendo of the so-called "Arab Spring," has ended in all but absolute defeat for Washington.

Its primary goal of overthrowing the Syrian government and/or rendering the nation divided and destroyed as it has done to Libya has not only failed - but triggered a robust Russian and Iranian response giving both nations an unprecedented foothold in Syria and unprecedented influence throughout the rest of the region.

Lamenting America's defeat in Syria in the pages of Foreign Affairs is Brett McGurk - a career legal and diplomatic official in Washington whose most recent title was, "Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." He resigned in protest over alleged plans for a US withdrawal from its illegal occupation of eastern Syria.

McGurk's lengthy complaints are full of paragraph-to-paragraph contradictions - illustrating the lack of legitimate unified purpose underpinning US policy in Syria.

In his article titled, "Hard Truths in Syria: America Can’t Do More With Less, and It Shouldn’t Try," McGurk would claim (emphasis added):

Over the last four years, I helped lead the global response to the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS)—an effort that succeeded in destroying an ISIS “caliphate” in the heart of the Middle East that had served as a magnet for foreign jihadists and a base for launching terrorist attacks around the world.

McGurk would also claim (emphasis added):

Following a phone call with his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Trump gave a surprise order to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria, apparently without considering the consequences. Trump has since modified that order—his plan, as of the writing of this essay, is for approximately 200 U.S. troops to stay in northeastern Syria and for another 200 to remain at al-Tanf, an isolated base in the country’s southeast. (The administration also hopes, likely in vain, that other members of the coalition will replace the withdrawn U.S. forces with forces of their own.)

Yet if anything McGurk says is true, then ISIS is undoubtedly a threat not only to the United States, but to all of its coalition partners - mainly Western European nations. Why wouldn't they eagerly commit troops to the coalition if ISIS truly represented a threat to their security back home? And why would the US withdraw any troops in the first place if this were true?

The answer is very simple - ISIS was a creation of the West - a tool explicitly designed to help "isolate" the Syrian government and carry out military and terrorist operations the US and its partners were unable to do openly.

It was in a leaked 2012 US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo (PDF) that revealed the US and its allies' intent to create what it called a "Salafist principality" in eastern Syria. The memo would explicitly state that (emphasis added):

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran). 

On clarifying who these supporting powers were, the DIA memo would clarify:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

This "Salafist"[Islamic] "principality" [State] would show up on cue, placing additional pressure on an already besieged government in Damascus and eventually creating a pretext for direct Western military intervention in Syria.

Only through Russia's own intervention in 2015 were US plans overturned and its overt war against Syria frozen in limbo.

McGurk and others throughout the Western establishment have attempted to compartmentalize what is essentially their own collective failures by linking them exclusively to both former-US President Barack Obama and current US President Donald Trump.

Whether President Trump maintains troops in eastern Syria or not, nothing will change or reverse the significant strategic and geopolitical defeat Washington has suffered.

Instead, troops levels and deployments in not only Syria, but also neighboring Iraq, serve to contribute to the next phase of US interference in the Middle East - spoiling reconciliation and reconstruction.

Washington's War of Terror

This most recent episode of US military intervention in the Middle East - fighting terrorists it itself created and deliberately deployed specifically to serve as a pretext - is an example of US "slash and burn" foreign policy.

Just as farmers burn to the ground forest that serves them no purpose so that they can plant what they desire in its place - the US deliberately overturned an emerging political and economic order in the Middle East that served them no purpose in a bid to replace it with one that did.

In Iraq, as US Influence Ebbs, Iran's Flows

March 31, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - In the dead of Christmas night last year, to evade possibly being shot down, US President Donald Trump made a surprise, whirlwind visit to US troops in Iraq.

He visited Al Asad Air Base about 100 miles west of Baghdad in Al Anbar province, or about halfway between Baghdad and the Syrian border where US forces are also operating. Between Al Asad and Baghdad are the notorious cities of Ramadi and Fallujah, hotbeds of resistance after the 2003 US invasion, and since then, hotbeds of extremism fueling the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq.

The base is home to about 5,000 US service members. 

As in Syria, America's presence in Iraq seems to be clinging to areas where extremism and separatism are greatest. In many instances, it is the US openly and deliberately encouraging both, especially in Kurdish territory stretching over both nations, but also in areas dominated by Sunni Muslims where extremist fronts like Al Qaeda and IS believe they can find support.

The fact that President Trump visited American forces in the dead of night, meeting no one from the actual Iraqi military or government, helps illustrate the increasingly isolated position the US holds in Iraq.

While the US claims it is fighting extremists from Syria to Iraq and beyond, with Syrian, Russian, Iranian and Iraqi forces clearing these extremists out of virtually all corners of Syria and Iraq except where US forces occupy, it seems the US isn't fighting extremism, it is cultivating it. 

Enter Iran

Several months later, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani made his first official visit to Iraq. His trip brought him to the center of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. There he met with top representatives of the Iraqi government including Iraqi President Barham Salih. He also travelled through the city to visit Al-Kadhimiya Mosque, a particularly important pilgrimage site for Shia'a Muslims.

President Rouhani had previously commented on Trump's swooping in at night and his failure to meet with any actual Iraqis in an open and official capacity. The Washington Post would quote President Rouhani as also stating:

“You have to walk in the streets of Baghdad ... to find out how people will welcome you.”

In addition to meeting Iraqi representatives and leaders, and travelling through Baghdad, President Rouhani also signed agreements involving "oil and gas, land transport, railways, agriculture, industry, health and regarding the central bank," the Washington Post would report.

French news portal France24 would note in their article, "Iraq attempts balancing act as Iran’s Rouhani arrives for first official visit," that:

Last year, Iran's exports to Iraq amounted to nearly $9 billion. Tehran hopes to increase the roughly $13 billion volume in trade between the two neighbouring countries to $20 billion. Also, some 5 million religious tourists bring in nearly $5 billion a year as Iraqis and Iranians visit Shiite holy sites in the two countries.

The article would note the growing ties between the two nations and the growing influence Iran has over Iraq in contrast to America's ebbing presence there.

Iraq-Iran Ties are Built on Mutual Interests - US Ties are Built on Fabricated Threats 

The Trump-Rouhani visits and the stark contrast between the two illustrates another very important point.

President Trump would openly admit the US was in Iraq to "to watch Iran," the New York Times would report.

Syria: Is US Fighting ISIS or Liquidating Assets?

March 30, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - That the "final stronghold" of the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS) resides in US occupied territory in Syria says it all.

From US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memos dating back to 2012 noting efforts to create a "Salafist" [Islamic] "principality" [State] in eastern Syria precisely where ISIS rose and now clings to its "final stronghold," to the obvious fact that ISIS' fighting capacity was only possible through extensive state sponsorship - it was already clear that the US and its partners in regime change against Syria had been using terrorists including ISIS as proxy ground forces.

Now the US claims it has cornered and is on the verge of defeating ISIS - despite the terrorist group having been cleared out of virtually every other corner of the nation by Syrian, Russian, Iranian, and Hezbollah forces long ago.

In reality, the US is merely liquidating assets it had harbored, protected, armed, and funded throughout the 8 year proxy war until no longer politically feasible.

CNN in its article, "Thousands of ISIS troops surrender amid attack on final stronghold in Syria," uncritically claims:

At its height, ISIS controlled huge swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq. The US-led coalition has been working for years to oust the group from cities and towns.

CNN omits entirely any mention of the source of ISIS' fighting capacity and the fact that its supply lines led directly out of NATO-member Turkey and was overseen by US special forces and intelligence agencies.

CNN also omits that it wasn't until the 2015 Russian military intervention when Russian air power attacked and cut ISIS supply lines that ISIS began suffering defeat across Syrian territory - first and foremost in territory being retaken by Syrian forces and its allies.

In territory illegally-occupied by the US, it appears that ISIS militants and other extremists were simply being shuffled around. In other cases, US forces attacked the Syrian military and their allies when attempting to cross into US-occupied territory in pursuit of ISIS forces. This game has carried on to the point of absurdity with the largest and most powerful military in the world only now creeping in last across the finish line of its own supposed battle against ISIS.

What Becomes of Surrendering and Fleeing ISIS Militants? 

CNN also claims:

More than 3,000 ISIS fighters have surrendered amid a pitched battle by US-backed forces to retake the last ISIS stronghold in Syria.   

The article also notes that many more may attempt to flee. The US has not made it clear what will happen with these fighters, or others "fleeing" from the supposed US-backed offensive. In certain cases, it seems Washington has singled interest in sending foreign fighters back to their countries of origin - which means many will simply be reintegrated into society where local intelligence agencies will keep tabs on them, use them for domestic distractions, or redeploy them to Washington's next proxy war when required.

A recent Iraqi military deployment near the Syrian-Iraqi border consisting of Iranian-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) amid the ongoing US offensive in Syria indicates that at least Baghdad believes Washington's "defeat" of ISIS is more likely another attempt to shuffle valuable proxy fighters around on the battlefield - and this time - back into Iraq and in particular, into Al Anbar governorate where the US still maintains a military presence and where they will continue receiving defacto US protection.

VIDEO: Summary of OPCW's Douma, Syria Report

March 3, 2019 (LD) - Via 21st Century Wire - Patrick Henningsen (21WIRE) and Mike Robinson (UK Column) do a quick overview of the final OPCW report on the April 7, 2018 alleged "chemical attack" in Douma, Syria, just a day before Syrian government forces finally retook the area from US-sponsored terrorists.

Other points to consider include a similar yellow canister turning up at a nearby militant-run bomb factory as well as similar craters on nearby buildings as those the two yellow canisters involved in the supposed attack allegedly passed through - suggesting the canisters might have been placed near pre-existing damage.

Both points - regarding a similar canister found in a militant bomb factory and similar craters in nearby buildings - were specifically noted in the OPCW report itself.  

Assad's Tehran Visit Signals Iran's Victory in Syria

March 9, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - For the first time since war broke out in Syria in 2011, Syrian President Bashar Al Assad has travelled to Iran to meet Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

President Assad had only travelled outside of Syria on two other occasions during the war - both times to Russia.

The significance of the trip cannot be understated - it was a message sent to those who orchestrated the proxy war against Syria that Damascus has prevailed and instead of driving a wedge between it and its allies in Moscow and Tehran - it has only drawn these regional powers closer together.

The symbol of solidarity between Syria and Iran comes at a time when Washington finds itself vacillating between a full withdrawal from Syria, a redeployment to Iraq, or an attempt to drag out the conclusion of the Syrian conflict for as long as possible by keeping US forces there indefinitely.

The Washington Post in its article, "Syria’s Assad visits Iran in rare trip abroad," would admit:

U.S. officials said Trump’s decision authorizing a small number of U.S. troops to stay is a key step in creating a larger multinational observer force that would monitor a so-called safe zone along Syria’s border with Turkey. The buffer zone is meant to prevent clashes between Turkey and U.S.-backed Kurdish forces. It is also aimed at preventing Assad’s forces and Iran-backed fighters from seizing more territory.

The US will also seek to preserve militants - many of which are openly aligned with designated terrorist organizations - still occupying the northern Syrian governorate of Idlib.

While the US has certainly failed in its goal of regime change in Syria and even as it appears weak and confused regarding its policy in Syria and the Middle East in general - its potential to prolong the Syrian conflict and leave the nation more or less permanently divided persists.

Iran is in Syria for Good 

President Assad's visit to Iran was not only a symbolic gesture of gratitude for Iran's role in helping Syria prevail over US aggression - it is also a clear sign that Iranian influence has only grown in Syria. Iranian-backed militias have spread across both Syria and Iraq to confront US and Persian Gulf-backed terrorists including various factions of Al Qaeda and the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS) itself.

Washington's gamble banked on what it had hoped would be a relatively quick regime change operation following along the same lines as the US-backed proxy war in Libya. The Syrian government was meant to fold quickly - the US appears not to have anticipated its resilience nor the eventual Russian military intervention in 2015. Washington may also not have anticipated the scale and efficacy of the commitment made by Tehran.

Instead of liquidating one of Iran's allies thus further isolating Tehran ahead of US-backed regime change efforts aimed directly at Iran - the terrorist proxies the US and its regional partners sponsored in Syria served as impetus for Tehran to broaden and deepen the presence of its forces - including militias sponsored by Iran - across the region, and specifically in Syria and Iraq.

US policy papers predating the 2011 proxy war against Syria - including the RAND Corporation's 2009 publication titled, "Dangerous But Not Omnipotent : Exploring the Reach and Limitations of Iranian Power in the Middle East," noted that much of Iran's domestic and regional policies revolved around self-defense.

The RAND paper itself would note:

Iran’s strategy is largely defensive, but with some offensive elements. Iran’s strategy of protecting the regime against internal threats, deterring aggression, safeguarding the homeland if aggression occurs, and extending influence is in large part a defensive one that also serves some aggressive tendencies when coupled with expressions of Iranian regional aspirations. It is in part a response to U.S. policy pronouncements and posture in the region, especially since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Iranian leadership takes very seriously the threat of invasion given the open discussion in the United States of regime change, speeches defining Iran as part of the “axis of evil,” and efforts by U.S. forces to secure base access in states surrounding Iran.

RAND also noted Iran's preference for asymmetrical warfare over conventional military forces and the use of resistance militias across the region. The report would note:

Some of Iran’s asymmetric capabilities are threatening. Because of its inferior conventional military forces, Iran’s defense doctrine, particularly its ability to deter aggressors, relies heavily on asymmetric warfare. Iranian strategists favor guerilla efforts that offer superior mobility, fighting morale, and popular support (e.g., the Hezbollah model in Lebanon) to counter a technologically superior conventional power— namely, the United States.

These militias would end up playing a significant role in neutralizing both asymmetrical forces sponsored by the US and its regional partners, as well as conventional military forces deployed by the US and Europe in both Syria and Iraq. It is clear that US policymakers were aware of Iran's capabilities - and either ignored them or believed their own plans had sufficiently accounted for them. 

OPCW Syria Report Cripples Western "Chemical Weapons" Narrative

March 4, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) has presented its final report regarding an alleged chemical weapons attack on Douma, Syria on April 7, 2018. Despite attempts by the Western media to hail it as "proof" that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in Douma - the report says nothing of the sort.

In fact, the report fails to link any of the alleged 43 deaths to apparent chlorine found at the scene of the alleged attack.

Claims of the attack were made by US-backed militants on the eve of their defeat - with the Syrian military retaking Douma the following day. Initial reports claimed sarin or chlorine chemical weapons were deployed through the use of two yellow gas canisters modified as bombs. 

No sarin of any kind was found by OPCW inspectors.

While the report suggests two modified yellow gas canisters were used in the attack and that they appeared to have been dropped onto two buildings (locations 2 and 4), the report also mentions that OPCW inspectors found a nearly identical canister in a workshop used by militants to construct weapons.

The alleged "chemical weapons" attack prompted the United States, UK, and France to launch missiles strikes against Syrian military targets on April 14, 2018, long before the first OPCW inspectors even arrived at the sites of the alleged attack on April 21.

No Link Between Chlorine and Casualties

The OPCW report would note video and photographic evidence of alleged victims of chemical exposure could not be linked to any specific chemical including traces of chlorine OPCW inspectors found. The report would specifically claim (emphasis added):

Many of the signs and symptoms reported by the medical personnel, witnesses and casualties (as well as those seen in multiple videos provided by witnesses), their rapid onset, and the large number of those reportedly affected, indicate exposure to an inhalational irritant or toxic substance. However, based on the information reviewed and with the absence of biomedical samples from the dead bodies or any autopsy records, it is not currently possible to precisely link the cause of the signs and symptoms to a specific chemical.

In other instances, the OPCW report would cite witnesses - including medical staff who allegedly treated victims of the supposed attack - who expressed doubts of the presence of any chemicals at all.

The report would state (emphasis added):

A number of the interviewed medical staff who were purportedly present in the emergency department on 7 April emphasised that the presentation of the casualties was not consistent with that expected from a chemical attack. They also reported not having experience in the treatment of casualties of chemical weapons. Some interviewees stated that no odour emanated from the patients, while other witnesses declared that they perceived a smell of smoke on the patients’ clothes. 

Other accounts reviewed by the OPCW suggest a large number of casualties were owed to smoke and dust inhalation from conventional bombardment.

The report would specifically state (emphasis added):

Some witnesses stated that many people died in the hospital on 7 April as result of the heavy shelling and/or suffocation due to inhalation of smoke and dust. As many as 50 bodies were lying on the floor of the emergency department awaiting burial. Others stated that there were no fatalities in Douma Hospital on 7 April and that no bodies were brought to the hospital that day.

The conflicting witness reports, the lack of any evidence linking chlorine to even a single death on April 7, and other inconsistencies and contradictions make it impossible to use the report's conclusions as "proof" that the Syrian government carried out a deadly chemical attack on the eve of its victory in Douma.

Similar Canisters Found in Militant Workshop

While the Western media has focused on the report's conclusion that chlorine was present and possibly emanated from the two canisters that appear to have been dropped onto two buildings in the area, another crucial finding has been predictably glossed over.

A militant-run weapons workshop investigated by OPCW inspectors revealed a large number of resources for working with chemicals to make explosives. Among an array of chemicals and equipment associated with making explosives, a yellow gas canister was found.

The report would admit:

Although the team confirmed the presence of a yellow cylinder in the warehouse, reported in Note Verbale of the Syrian Arab Republic (Annex 10, point 2) as a chlorine cylinder, due to safety reasons (risk involved in manipulating the valve of the cylinder, see Figure A.8.2) it was not feasible to verify or sample the contents. There were differences in this cylinder compared to those witnessed at Locations 2 and 4. It should be noted that the cylinder was present in its original state and had not been altered.

The lack of interest by the OPCW in the canister despite the obvious implications of its presence in a weapons workshop controlled by militants calls into question the inspectors' diligence and agenda.

The canister's "differences" are owed to the fact that those at locations 2 and 4 were modified to appear as bombs, while - admittedly - the canister in the militant workshop remained unaltered.

Returning Syrian Refugees Were Fleeing US Proxy War, Not "Assad"

February 28, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - A recent BBC segment titled, "The Syrians returning home after years of fleeing war," contradicted 8 years of the British state media's narratives regarding the war in Syria.

A synopsis of the short BBC video segment would read:

After years of people fleeing Syria and its civil war, there are now long queues to enter the country each day. Jordan opened its Jaber border crossing last October after Syrian government troops defeated rebels who had controlled the other side. 

Now several thousand people pass through each day. They include small-scale merchants reviving cross-border trade and returning Syrian refugees who hope to rebuild their lives.

Huge numbers of Syrians have already returned to Syria - specifically to areas government forces have cleared of Western-armed and backed terrorists. This includes Aleppo, Homs, and Daraa.

The flood of returning refugees to government-held areas indicates Syrians were fleeing the US-backed proxy war against the Syrian government - not the Syrian government itself.

What the BBC Has Previously Claimed  

Viewers and readers who invested trust in the BBC's narratives over the past 8 years will be shocked to hear thousands of Syrians crowding the Jordanian-Syrian border daily to return to the war-ravaged nation.

The BBC has insisted for 8 years, millions of refugees had fled Syria to escape the nation's "brutal dictator" Syrian President Bashar Al Assad - accused of "gassing his own people," raining down "barrel bombs" that were both crude and "indiscriminate" but also paradoxically capable of pinpointing elementary schools and children's hospitals, and whose "Shabiha" death squads lurked around every corner.

In 2016, a BBC article titled, "Syria conflict: Aleppo bombing shuts largest hospital," uncritically repeated claims made by US-funded fronts operating in Aleppo during security operations to clear it of terrorists.

The BBC would eagerly report:

Russian and Syrian air raids on the rebel-held eastern half of the city of Aleppo have forced the closure of the largest hospital in the area and killed two people, a medical charity says. 

The Syrian American Medical Society, which supports the hospital, said it had been struck by barrel bombs.

The BBC - along with the rest of the Western media - have depicted bombs used by the Syrian military as "barrel bombs," claiming that because of their crude construction, they could not be aimed and therefore were "indiscriminate" in nature.

A 2013 BBC article titled, "Syria conflict: Barrel bombs show brutality of war," would claim:

...barrel bombs reportedly used again in Aleppo by Syrian government forces during recent days - are home-made, relatively crude and totally indiscriminate in their impact.

The barrel bomb is essentially a large, home-made incendiary device. An oil barrel or similar cylindrical container filled with petrol, nails or other crude shrapnel, along with explosives. With an appropriate fuse, they are simply rolled out of a helicopter.

The article would also claim such "barrel bombs" were, "in no sense accurate," except of course - when they needed to be accurate for the sake of war propaganda - such as allegedly pinpointing US-funded "hospitals" in terrorist-held Aleppo.   

A 2017 BBC article titled, "Syria chemical 'attack': What we know," would claim:

More than 80 people were killed in a suspected chemical attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun in north-western Syria on 4 April. 

Hundreds suffered symptoms consistent with reaction to a nerve agent after what the opposition and Western powers said was a Syrian government air strike on the area.

The report - of course - was based entirely on "witness" accounts, with OPCW inspectors unable to investigate the site due to the fact Khan Sheikhoun was - and still is - under Al Qaeda occupation. The BBC article intentionally omits that "samples" the OPCW examined lacked any verifiable chain of custody. In other words - the samples could have come from anywhere, including labs where they were likely fabricated.

The BBC has faithfully repeated every claim made by militants regarding chemical weapons throughout the war. The BBC has gone as far as claiming "Assad's" repeated use of chemical weapons was a key factor in his victory - though failed categorically to explain how.

Why would people - enjoying refugee status in neighboring countries and even in Europe, risk returning to Syria where "brutal dictator" Bashar Al Assad not only still remains in power - but has decisively defeated his opponents through the use of "barrel bombs," "chemical weapons," and other forms of indescribable brutality?

The answer is simple - refugees were fleeing the US-backed war and the terrorists it had armed to divide and destroy the country - not the Syrian government. The vast majority of Syria's displaced remained inside Syria - and simply moved into areas under government protection. Now with many other areas of the country having security restored by government forces with Russian and Iranian backing - hundreds of thousands more are returning from abroad, including from Europe - according to the BBC itself.