West's "Kurdistan" Policy Not Adding Up

October 23, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - On one hand, the United States is demanding that Iranian-backed militias "leave" Iraq, claiming the fight against the self-titled "Islamic State" (IS) is over. On the other hand, the US and its European partners are still funneling weapons, cash, direct military support and organizing training for Kurdish factions in Iraq's northern region to "beat back" IS.



Additionally, US contractors are attempting to take control of Iraq's western highways connecting the nation to neighboring Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The contractors are to provide both security and rebuild destroyed infrastructure, also citing IS' continued presence as a pretext for America's continued presence in the country.

In other words, the United States is attempting to claim IS is both defeated and also yet to be defeated, attempting to craft a narrative that excludes Iraqi cooperation with Iran, Syria and Russia who are also operating in the region against IS and other militants, and gives the US and its partners exclusive control over Iraq and its future.

Artificial Conflict 

CNN in its article, "Tillerson: Time for Iranian-backed militias to leave Iraq," would claim:

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, anticipating an end to the fight against ISIS, said Sunday it was time for Iranian-backed militias to exit the war-torn nation of Iraq. 

"Those militias need to go home," Tillerson said. "Any foreign fighters in Iraq need to go home and allow the Iraqi people to regain control of areas that had been overtaken by ISIS and Daesh that have now been liberated. Allow the Iraqi people to rebuild their lives with the help of their neighbors."

 And while Secretary Tillerson notes that the Iraqi people should be allowed to rebuild their lives "with the help of their neighbors," he apparently means, all of the Iraqi people's neighbors except Iran and Syria.

Secretary Tillerson's remarks were made in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, giving a significant clue as to which neighbors he meant Iraq should get help from. However, it was Saudi Arabia who provided the very militants the Iraqi people have been fighting with arms, cash, equipment and training in the first place.

CNN would even note that:

At the same time, at least 1,500 Saudis had traveled to Iraq and Syria to join ISIS over the years, and Baghdad had long accused Saudi Arabia of turning a blind eye to Sunni militants crossing its territory to enter Iraq to take part in the country's sectarian conflict. 

In 2007, the US military reported that around 40% of all foreign militants targeting US troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces had come from Saudi Arabia. Half of the Saudi fighters who arrived in Iraq during that time went there to be suicide bombers, the US military said.

What this apparent contradiction indicates is that the conflict in Iraq was never about defeating a spontaneous militant threat, but was instead a proxy conflict engineered by Washington with the help of partners like Riyadh, aimed against Tehran and its allies.

Kurdistan, the Other "IS" 

If IS and other militant organizations fighting in Iraq and neighboring Syria represent one proxy of US, European and Persian Gulf interests, the Kurdish factions in northern Iraq seeking to carve out an independent "Kurdistan" are another.

US Mercenaries, Iraqi Highways and the Mystery of the Never-Ending ISIS Hordes

October 23, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - While the US and European media provided little explanation as to how militants from the self-titled Islamic State (IS) managed to appear, expand and then fight for years against the combined military power of Iraq, Syria, Iran and Russia, it was abundantly clear to many analysts that the IS organization was not only receiving state sponsorship, but it was receiving reinforcements, weapons and supplies from far beyond Syria's and Iraq's borders.

Maps of the conflict stretching over the last several years show clear corridors used to reinforce IS positions, leading primarily from Turkey's southern border and to a lesser extent, from Jordan's borders.

However, another possible vector may be desert highways in Iraq's western Anbar province where US military contractors are allegedly to "provide security" as well as build gas stations and rest areas. These highways contributed to the current conflict and still serve as a hotbed for state sponsored terrorism. Whether these US-controlled and improved highways pose a significant threat for a reorganized effort by the US and its regional allies to divide and destroy Iraq and Syria seems all but inevitable.

US Mercenaries "Guarding" Iraqi Highways 

Al Monitor in an April 2017 article titled, "How Iraq is planning to secure key border road," would claim:

 Due to the imminent threats to the road, which is one of Iraq’s vital economic lines as it connects Basra in the south to Jordan in the west, Iraq commissioned an American company to secure and rebuild the road. The contract also included reconstructing bridges, 36 of which are destroyed.  

The article would elaborate, stating:

A security source from the Iraqi intelligence service told Al-Monitor, “The American company will only secure the two roads reaching Terbil from Basra and Baghdad and will build gas stations and rest areas, in addition to building bridges and cordoning off the roads with barbed wires, as per distances that would be determined later.”  

Al Monitor would claim that Iraq's popular mobilization units found themselves unable to oppose the move made by the central government in Baghdad. It would also note that Iraq's Hezbollah Brigades claimed, in opposition to the plan, that:

The road connecting Iraq and Jordan is a strategic gateway allowing the US and forces seeking to control it to tighten their grip on Anbar and the potential Sunni region as per a US-Gulf plan.  

One could imagine future potential scenarios including these rebuilt roads, complete with gas stations and rest areas, leading from Jordan and Saudi Arabia and providing an efficient route for future wars waged either directly or by proxy against Iraq. The infiltration of fighters and supplies, for example, would be greatly expedited should the US and its partners decide to shift their efforts along this new axis.

Beyond this more obvious threat comes the fact that US-Jordanian-Saudi influence would be greatly enhanced with stronger logistical lines leading into Iraq's western regions.

How the US Might Use its New Highways  

The Islamic State's de facto invasion of Syria and Iraq was a more massive and dramatic replay of an earlier surge of foreign militants into the region, following the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.

It would be America's own Combating Terrorism Center at the West Point United States Military Academy in two reports published in 2007 and 2008 (.pdf) respectively that would describe in detail the networks some of Washington's closest regional allies used to flood post-war Iraq with foreign fighters.

While these fighters indeed attacked US soldiers, what they also did was disrupt a relatively unified resistance movement before plunging Sunni and Shia'a militias into a deadly and costly "civil war."

America's Predictable Betrayal of the Iran Deal

America's withdrawal from the "Iran deal" doesn't prove that Iran is a threat to world peace and stability - instead - it proves that America cannot be trusted. 

October 18, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - In a recent public statement, US President Donald Trump announced the United States' decertification of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) also known as the "Iran Deal."

Fox News and AP in their article, "Trump decertifies Iran nuclear deal, slaps sanctions on IRGC in broadside at ‘radical regime’," would claim:

 “I am announcing today that we cannot and will not make this certification,” Trump said during a speech at the White House. “We will not continue down a path whose predictable conclusion is more violence, more terror, and the very real threat of Iran's nuclear breakthrough.” 

Friday's announcement does not withdraw the United States from the Iran deal, which the president called “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.” 

But the president threatened that he could still ultimately pull out of the deal.

The agreement regarded Iran's nuclear technology program, seeking assurances from Tehran that its use of nuclear technology would remain peaceful - and in turn - pressure placed on Iran both politically and economically - particularly economic sanctions - would be reduced.

While the argument stands that Western nations already possessing nuclear weapons, coercing non-nuclear nations to abandon ambitions to acquire parity - while Western forces occupy and ravage nations both east and west of Iran's borders is as hypocritical as it is unjust - the deal itself was nothing more than a means to advance - not hinder or reduce - Western aggression versus Iran.   

The "Iran Deal" Was Always Meant to be Broken 

President Trump's announcement fulfilled nearly a decade-long ploy to draw Iran into what US policymakers as early as 2009 called a "superb offer" designed solely to portray the US as having tried diplomacy before changing tack toward more direct economic, political, and military aggression. 

In a 2009 report titled, "Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" (PDF), corporate-financier funded US policy think tank the Brookings Institution would explicitly call for a deal to be offered by the US to Iran only to be intentionally broken and used as a pretext for direct military confrontation.

The report would propose (emphasis added):

...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

The exactitude by which this 2009 policy has been executed - transcending two US presidencies - and leading precisely to the edge of an impending US-Iranian confrontation in the Middle East already being fought out in proxy across Syria, Iraq, and some may argue, Yemen - should leave no doubts as to what happens next.

US Troops Already in Place to Fight Long-Planned Confrontation with Iran

US troops are now operating all along Iran's so-called "arc of influence" across the Middle East - thanks in part to the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS) and America's alleged efforts to combat it. As was predicted at the onset of ISIS' entrance into the conflict, the US has used the terrorist organization's presence across the region to justify its initial and now expanding occupation of Syria and its continued interference in Iraq.

However, what the US has done instead of actually fighting ISIS - from Syria to Iraq - is divide and weaken Iran's regional allies - dragging them into a protracted and destructive conflict, exhausting their numbers and taxing their logistical and economic underpinnings. At the same time - however - they have created the circumstances in which Russia has intervened directly and on a scale eclipsing and complicating US involvement in both terms of diplomatic legitimacy and in terms of military force.

With Kurdish factions receiving US support and attempting to carve out territory straddling the Syrian-Iraqi border - also under the guise of "fighting" ISIS - the US and its partners are now attempting to introduce a new narrative - that Kurdish independence is under threat not by ISIS, but by Iranian-backed armies on both sides of the border.

Safe-Zone Judo as Syrian Forces Cross the Euphrates

October 2, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Syrian forces with the support of their Russian and Iranian allies, crossed the Euphrates River near the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria.

The move is not only a significant step forward in restoring security nationwide and ensuring the nation's territorial integrity, it is also a significant step toward turning the tables on the very interests who provoked and have perpetuated this conflict since 2011.

US policymakers as early as 2012 openly declared their intent to partition Syria through the use of "safe zones" or "buffer zones." From these zones - established with and protected by direct US military intervention - militant proxies would attempt to expand deeper into Syrian territory until the nation could either be toppled entirely, or sufficiently partitioned, effectively eliminating the Syrian Arab Republic as it was known before the conflict began.

Understanding "Safe Zones" 

A March 2012 Brookings Institution paper titled, "Middle East Memo #21: Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change" (PDF), proposed the concept of "safe zones" or "safe-havens" not to fight the yet-to-be invented so-called Islamic State (ISIS), but specifically to assist US-backed regime change. It claims (emphasis added): 

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

A 2015 Brookings paper titled, "Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country" would elaborate on the nature of these zones, not as bases for fighting terrorism - but as a means of incrementally dividing and literally "deconstructing" Syria as a unified nation-state (emphasis added):

The end-game for these zones would not have to be determined in advance. The interim goal might be a confederal Syria, with several highly autonomous zones and a modest (eventual) national government. The confederation would likely require support from an international peacekeeping force, if this arrangement could ever be formalized by accord. But in the short term, the ambitions would be lower—to make these zones defensible and governable, to help provide relief for populations within them, and to train and equip more recruits so that the zones could be stabilized and then gradually expanded.

It would also elaborate regarding the role ISIS specifically plays in all of this - not as an enemy to be defeated - but as a pawn to be used against the Syrian government: 

The  idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within Syria once they were able. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would actin support, not only from the air but eventually on the ground via the  presence  of  special  forces  as  well. The  approach would  benefit  from  Syria’s open desert  terrain  which  could  allow  creation  of  buffer  zones  that could  be  monitored  for possible  signs  of  enemy  attack  through  a  combination  of  technologies, patrols,  and other methods that outside special forces could help Syrian local fighters set up.

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

It was clear in 2012 and being demonstrated on the ground by 2015 that US commitment to this policy of creating "safe zones" was complete.

Safe-Zone Judo 

The nearly full manifestation of this policy can be seen in northeast Syria, where the United States has military forces literally occupying Syrian territory while US forces accompany Kurdish and Arab militants as they push southwest deeper toward Syria's heartland, supposedly fighting ISIS. However, even within the deepest Kurdish-held regions of Syria, the Syrian government maintains a presence.

The Iran "Nuclear Deal" Leads to War, Not Peace

September 25, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The so-called Iran "nuclear deal," officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was hailed as "historic" when the United States among other nations became a signatory of it. Then US President Barack Obama, attempted to make convincing statements regarding America's commitment to the deal.

However, America's rhetoric compared to its actual actions diplomatically, militarily, and geopolitically told two different stories.

US Was Waging Proxy War with Iran when the Deal was Signed 

The deal was created in 2015, 4 full years since the United States engineered a destructive proxy war in Syria - one of Iran's closest and most crucial regional allies. By 2015, the United States had already committed to direct military intervention in Syria, occupying Syrian territory, directly arming, funding, and providing air support for militants seizing Syrian territory, and even constructing military bases within Syria's borders.

By 2015, the United States was revealed to have poured billions of dollars into arming militants ranging from Kurdish groups in Syria's northeast, to militants aligned to Al Qaeda and even the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS) in northern and southern Syria.

While US President Barack Obama posed as conciliatory toward Iran, the US was steeped deeply in not only a proxy war against Syria, but ultimately a proxy war aimed directly at Iran.

According to years of US policy papers, dismantling Iran's allies in Syria and Lebanon were crucial prerequisites toward eventually undermining and overthrowing the government and political order in Iran itself.

In 2009, US corporate-financier sponsored geopolitical policy think tank, the Brookings Institution, would publish a 170 page report titled, "Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" (PDF), in which it proposes several options, including having Israel attack Iran on Washington's behalf. The report states (emphasis added):

...the Israelis may want U.S. help with a variety of things. Israel may be more willing to bear the risks of Iranian retaliation and international opprobrium than the United States is, but it is not invulnerable and may request certain commitments from the United States before it is ready to strike. For instance, the Israelis may want to hold off until they have a peace deal with Syria in hand (assuming that Jerusalem believes that one is within reach), which would help them mitigate blowback from Hizballah and potentially Hamas. Consequently, they might want Washington to push hard in mediating between Jerusalem and Damascus.

In hindsight, it is clear that no "peace deal" would be struck with Syria, and instead, the wholesale destruction of Syria would be orchestrated. Many of the proposals presented in the Brookings report in regards to triggering conflict and regime change in Iran have been instead used on Syria. 

Syria: As the Endgame Approaches

September 14, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - As Syrian forces reach the Euphrates River, breaking the siege of the eastern Syrian city of Deir ez-Zor, Damascus and its allies, along with the state sponsors fueling the militancy that has consumed Syria for the past 6 years, are putting in place their final pieces as the endgame approaches.

Syrian forces having already retaken the northern city of Aleppo and as they continue securing Syria's southern border with Jordan and Iraq west of the Euphrates, leaves the mainstream militancy backed by Washington, its European and NATO allies, as well as its Persian Gulf partners all but defeated.

Remaining is the northern city of Idlib. It has become the final destination for militants as they flee or are evacuated under government-brokered deals from other contested areas across Syria. The city and much of the surrounding countryside link directly to the Syrian-Turkish border where militants are still receiving supplies, weapons, and reinforcements from NATO territory.

With the nature of Western-sponsored militants now fully exposed and with Russian and Iranian forces present on the battlefield and deeply invested in Damascus' victory, it is all but inevitable that virtually everything west of the Euphrates will return to Damascus' control.

Political attempts to preserve Idlib as a militant stronghold will be difficult considering the overt terroristic nature of the groups holding the city, including those operating openly under the banner of Al Qaeda.

East of the Euphrates 

East of the Euphrates lies the city of Raqqa which serves as a battlefield for US-backed Kurdish forces and the US-Saudi armed and funded militants of ISIS.

Beyond Raqqa, a vast expanse of territory is being claimed and tenuously held by these Kurdish forces, with the Syrian military still occupying areas of control in Qamishli and Al Hasakah.

Across the Euphrates, east of Dier ez-Zor is a recently launched offensive by Kurdish fighters likely aimed at preventing the Syrian military from crossing the river.

Reuters in an article titled, "Syria army, U.S.-backed forces converge on Islamic State in separate offensives," would report that:

The U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces alliance of mostly Kurdish and Arab militias (SDF) said it had reached Deir al-Zor’s industrial zone, just a few miles to the east of the city after launching operations in the area in recent days.

 The article also reported that:

Sunday’s advances mean that U.S.-backed forces and the Syrian government side, boosted by Russian military support, are separated only by about 15 km (10 miles) of ground and the Euphrates River in Deir al-Zor.

Syrian forces crossing the river - taking and holding territory east of the Euphrates - will make attempts by the United States and its proxies to balkanize the nation more tenuous still. With Syrian government positions scattered across Kurdish militant-held territory, and with a solid position in Deir ez-Zor east of the Euphrates, Kurdish fighters would be required to undertake a dangerous and costly campaign to push Syrian forces back to finalize the nation's division.

September 11, 2001: Questions to Ask if You Still Believe the Official Narrative

September 11, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - The attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) left nearly 3,000 dead in NYC, Washington D.C. and over Pennsylvania. The attacks transformed America into a deepening police state at home and a nation perpetually at war abroad.

The official narrative claims that 19 hijackers representing Al Qaeda took over 4 commercial aircraft to carry out attacks on New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington D.C.

The event served as impetus for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan which continues to present day. It also led directly to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Attempts to cite the attack to precipitate a war with Iran and other members of the so-called "Axis of Evil" (Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba) have also been made.

And if this is the version of reality one subscribes to, several questions remain worth asking.

1. Can the similarities between 9/11 and plans drawn up by the US Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in 1962 under the code name "Operation Northwoods" be easily dismissed? 

The US DoD and JCS wrote a detailed plan almost identical to the 9/11 attacks as early as 1962 called "Operation Northwoods" where the US proposed hijacking commercial airliners, committing terrorist attacks, and blaming Cuba to justify a US military intervention.

Far from a fringe conspiracy theory, mainstream media outlets including ABC News would cover the document in articles like, "U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba," which would report:

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. 

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. 

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

A full PDF copy of the document is available via George Washington University's archives and states specifically regarding the hijacking of commercial aircraft:

An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone. 

The document also cites the USS Maine in describing the sort of event the DoD-JCS sought to stage, a US warship whose destruction was used to maliciously provoke the Spanish-American War. It should be noted, that unlike the DoD-JCS document's suggestion that airliner-related casualties be staged, the USS Maine explosion killed 260 sailors. It is likely that DoD and JCS would not risk engineering a provocation that leads to major war but allow low-level operators left alive with the knowledge of what they had participated in.

Considering that the US sought to deceive the public in order to provoke an unjustifiable war that would undoubtedly kill thousands or tens of thousands of innocent people, and that other proposals did include killing innocent people, it is worth considering that US policymakers would also be just as willing to extinguish innocent lives when staging the hijacking of aircraft to provoke such a war.

2. Why did US policymakers draw up extensive plans to reassert US global hegemony - including regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - without any conceivable pretext until 9/11 conveniently unfolded? 

In 2000, US policymakers from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) sought a sweeping plan to reassert America as a global hegemon. In a 90-page document titled, "Rebuilding America's Defense: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" (PDF), a strategy for maintaining what it called "American military preeminence" would be laid out in detail.

US To Hand Raqqa Over to ISIS Affiliates After "Defeating" ISIS

August 24, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - US policymakers have recently announced plans to hand over control of the Syrian city of Raqqa to former Islamic State (ISIS)-affiliated officials, Newsweek would report.

In its article, "Syria: Arab Tribes Who Once Supported ISIS Turn to U.S. As Endgame Being In Raqqa," Newsweek reports:

A top U.S. diplomat in the fight against the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) has praised recent talks with Syrian tribal leaders slated to play a large role in governing Raqqa once the jihadis are expelled. 

But the plan to create a careful balance of local power on the ground in Raqqa that will likely see former ISIS-affiliated officials ultimately in charge could cause a split between the U.S. and its Kurdish allies.

What appears to be ill-conceived policy is in fact the United States providing direct military protection to the remnants of terrorist organizations operating in Syria it has supported, including fighters of the so-called "Islamic State."

With other foreign-backed terrorist organizations facing collapse in strongholds including Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria - fighters funded, armed, and operating on behalf of foreign interests, including Al Qaeda, its affiliates, and even the Islamic State itself - will either need to flee the country back behind the borders of  their state sponsors - Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey - or find a safe haven in Syrian territory illegally occupied by the United States and its allies.

The northern city of Idlib is another admittedly Al Qaeda-controlled city the US and its allies are still flooding with torrents of aid, supplies, weapons, and equipment.

Idlib and Raqqa will form the remaining footholds of foreign-sponsored violence in Syria until Syria and its allies encircle and cut them off, making effective destabilization from either city difficult if not impossible.

In an effort to blunt Syria's gaining momentum, US-ally and proxy Israel has recently threatened war with Iran if it does not remove its forces from neighboring Syria. Iran and Russia have played a key role in preserving the territorial integrity of Syria and allowing the government in Damascus to restore order to the nation's most populous centers.

While the US currently poses as "fighting" the Islamic State, leaked 2012 documents (PDF) reveal that US policymakers and their European and regional allies sought the creation of what they called at the time a "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State) in eastern Syria to "isolate" the government in Damascus.

From 2012 onward, armed militants supplied via NATO-member Turkey and US-ally Jordan would flood into Syria and Iraq and establish the so-called "Islamic State," precisely where US policymakers sought to create their "Salafist principality."

Supply lines from US-ally territory would fuel the Islamic State's expansion and militant activities until the 2015 Russian military intervention which systematically targeted, disrupted, and destroyed these supply lines, allowing the Syrian army to corner and eliminate the organization in all but a handful of remaining strongholds.

Throughout the process, the US has attempted to hinder joint Syrian-Russian security operations, including both proxy and direct attacks on Syrian and Russian forces. With few options remaining, it appears the US will all but literally use its military assets illegally occupying Syrian territory to provide shelter to remaining Islamic State fighters under the tenuous guise of them having renounced their ties to the terrorist organization.

Image: US politicians and policymakers literally lobbying for MEK terrorists. 

The process of rehabilitating listed terrorist organizations into viable US proxies is a long-standing tradition in Washington.

Terrorists from the Mojahedin-e Khalq militant organization - which killed US military and civilian personnel as well as attacked civilian targets in Iran - was until recently a listed foreign terrorist organization by the US State Department. US policymakers who believed they could be armed proxies useful in violent regime change in Iran, lobbied to have the organization de-listed and even armed and funded by the United States government.

Efforts to "re-brand" Al Qaeda militants cornered in Syria's northern city of Idlib are also underway in order to provide more direct aid and support to the militants as a means of perpetuating Syria's deadly conflict.

With Newsweek's latest article, it appears a similar "re-branding" campaign is now being undertaken for the Islamic State itself.

Blackwater Founder Seeks Privatization of Afghan War

August 23, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Recent murmurs across the US media have indicated increased interest in "outsourcing" the war in Afghanistan to private military contractors. National Public Radio (NPR) interviewed Erik Prince, founder of controversial military contracting firm, Blackwater, who appears to be leading lobbying efforts toward this end.

In an interview titled, "Blackwater Founder Backs Outsourcing Afghan War-Fighting to Contractors," Prince would defend his proposal for the creation of an "American viceroy" in Afghanistan, consolidating and overseeing all US operations in the country.

He would also suggest replacing US troops with private mercenaries who he claimed would operate inside Afghan units, noting that some 25,000 contractors are already present in Afghanistan. When asked if his current private military contracting company, Frontier Service Group (FSG), would be interested in bidding on contracts that might materialize out of his proposal, he responded by saying, "absolutely."

Steve Inskeep, who conducted the interview, noted that Prince's proposal for an "American viceroy" overseeing what is essentially a private army inside of Afghanistan resembled very closely Imperial Britain's colonial administration of India, an administration that carved out personal fiefdoms for influential British businessmen and lords, and emptied out India's wealth into British coffers.

Inskeep also noted that such a proposal, even before being implemented, most likely would create further resentment among Afghans.

Prince, for his part, attempted to defend the proposal, claiming that current efforts in Afghanistan have cost American taxpayers several trillions and the cost would only continue to rise. He noted that such efforts have resulted in little progress. The "progress" Prince was referring to was defeating "terrorism" and preventing the country from becoming a safe haven for organizations like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

Prince would claim:

There's really three ways we can go in Afghanistan. We can pull out completely, in which case, the Afghan government would likely collapse in a matter of weeks and the terrorists would run the country. And for as hard as, you know, we may be pushing in Iraq or Syria and elsewhere to destroy the Islamic State, this would give them a victory. 

Back in Reality...

Unfortunately for Prince and others attempting to propose the privatization of the Afghan war, Afghanistan already is a safe haven for terrorists. Al Qaeda had only a nascent presence there before the US invasion in 2001. The Islamic State, in its current form, did not even exist.

Both organizations flourish not because of a lack of US troops in Afghanistan, Syria or Iraq, but precisely because US foreign policy has turned its attention toward each nation and has intentionally used both terrorist organizations as proxies.

In Afghanistan, while Al Qaeda and the Islamic State are used as a pretext for both the continued presence of US troops there and now the proposed deployment of a private army headed by an "American viceroy," the real battle has always been against the Taliban and in favor of an obedient client state headquartered in Kabul.

In pursuit of defeating the Taliban and the creation of a sustainable client state, the extensive use of private contractors in Afghanistan has not been part of any sort of coherent solution. Instead, private contractors are one of the most central reasons attempts at rebuilding Afghanistan have failed.

Private contractors seek to maximize profits and return home, and ultimately do not care what happens in Afghanistan. In many ways, shoddy work and continued chaos ensures continued contracts and immense profits. The estimated 2.4 trillion dollars spent on Afghanistan so far have not simply "disappeared." This immense amount of wealth has been transferred from US taxpayers to, in part, private contractors and the defense industry.

The notion of creating an "American viceroy" leading a private army in Afghanistan would give people like Erik Prince and other ambitious heads of contracting firms an entire nation to preside over and a government-subsidized budget to do it with. With the nation's immense narcotics industry and that industry's apparent ability to export worldwide under the nose of the US military with impunity, contractors notorious for systemic impropriety would have additional sources of revenue to tap and develop.

Toward Narco-Terror Fiefdoms 

Rather than stabilizing and rebuilding Afghanistan, contractors would ensure its perpetual slide into darkness. Instead of dealing with the Taliban, Afghans would face foreign contractors competing to carve out their own personal narco-terrorist fiefdoms. The US client regime in Kabul would have even less control over its military, with entire Afghan battalions dependent not on Kabul for support and leadership, but private contractors.

Prince and Blackwater have become synonymous with murder and mayhem for money and present yet another case study as to why dependence on mercenaries is always a dangerous liability. His proposal offers neither the American nor the Afghan people any benefits and is entertained only for the benefits it potentially offers military contractors and the immense armament industry that would provide them a steady stream of weaponry.

Syria: As the War Continues, WMD Lies Linger

August 18, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Despite the now historical lies exposed in the wake of the devastating US invasion and occupation of Iraq beginning in 2003, the United States has attempted to use similar lies regarding weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) repeatedly as a pretext for similar wars including in neighboring Syria.

The Syrian government - perhaps in an effort to head off another round of accusations,  threats, and direct military aggression carried out by the US - is leveling accusations against the United States itself and terrorist organizations it has funded, armed, and backed for the past 6 years of using chemical weapons - primarily to create a pretext for wider war.

Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad stated at a press conference that the April 2017 Khan Shaykhun, Idlib chemical attack was staged by US-backed militants, including members of the so-called "White Helmets," a US and European funded front posing as humanitarian workers but who serve as auxiliaries for listed terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda and its various Syrian affiliates.

As the Syrian military retakes territory from foreign-backed militants, munition warehouses and stockpiles, including those used for the production and deployment of chemical weapons for staged attacks, are being systematically uncovered. In them, chemical weapons - both lethal and nonlethal - provided by the United States and its allies are being discovered.

Mekdad would also point out that the use of chemical weapons by foreign-backed militants did not serve any sort of tactical purpose, but was instead being used as a form of blackmail.

While Western-dominated "international" institutions will likely not accept any evidence provided by the Syrian government - the Syrian government's narrative emerges as a far more logical explanation for the last 6 years of conflict and accusations made regarding chemical weapon use.

Chemical Weapons are Political, Not Tactical 

Despite claims by the Western media made in an attempt to enhance US lies regarding WMDs, chemical weapons are particularly ineffective on the battlefield - with conventional weapons being many times more effective.

This was revealed in detail by a study produced by the United States itself, conducted by the US Marine Corps regarding the devastating Iran-Iraq War fought between 1980-1988 which saw the extensive use of chemical weapons.

The document titled, "Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War" under "Appendix B: Chemical Weapons," provided a comprehensive look at the all-out chemical warfare that took place during the 8 year conflict. Several engagements are studied in detail, revealing large amounts of chemical agents deployed mainly to create areas of denial.

The effectiveness and lethality of chemical weapons is summarized in the document as follows (emphasis added): 

Chemical weapons require quite particular weather and geographic conditions for optimum effectiveness. Given the relative nonpersistence of all agents employed during this war, including mustard, there was only a brief window of employment opportunity both daily and seasonally, when the agents could be used. Even though the Iraqis employed mustard agent in the rainy season and also in the marshes, its effectiveness was significantly reduced under those conditions. As the Iraqis learned to their chagrin, mustard is not a good agent to employ in the mountains, unless you own the high ground and your enemy is in the valleys.

We are uncertain as to the relative effectiveness of nerve agents since those which were employed are by nature much less persistent than mustard. In order to gain killing concentrations of these agents, predawn attacks are best, conducted in areas where the morning breezes are likely to blow away from friendly positions.

Chemical weapons have a low kill ratio. Just as in WWl, during which the ratio of deaths to injured from chemicals was 2-3 percent, that figure appears to be borne out again in this war although reliable data on casualties are very difficult to obtain. We deem it remarkable that the death rate should hold at such a low level even with the introduction of nerve agents. If those rates are correct, as they well may be, this further reinforces the position that we must not think of chemical weapons as “a poor man’s nuclear weapon.” While such weapons have great psychological potential, they are not killers or destroyers on a scale with nuclear or biological weapons.

According the US military's own conclusions, the use of chemical weapons only enhance conventional warfare, but are not suitable for wiping out large swaths of enemy troops. Conventional weapons are deemed far more suitable for waging modern war. 

The effectiveness of chemical weapons is such that the Syrian government could never justify their use, balancing their limited benefits against the knowledge the US was specifically seeking to use their use as a pretext for direct military intervention. 

Thus, neither the Syrian government nor the foreign-backed militants it is fighting would benefit from their use in turning the tide of any specific battle, but should the US use chemical weapon deployments as a pretext, could intervene directly against the Syrian government, delivering victory to foreign-backed militants.

In essence, the only beneficiary of chemical weapon use by any side in Syria would be special interests in the US seeking regime change in Damascus.

Not only are outright lies regarding WMDs a known tactic repeatedly abused by the United States government worldwide, it has been caught repeatedly using this tactic in Syria. The number of ambiguous, unsubstantiated, or proven-false accusations made by the United States as it seeks a pretext for wider and more direct military intervention have multiplied over time as US-backed militants are pushed off the battlefield.

US Provocations, Lies, and Chemical Weapons 

Suspicious circumstances and familiar propaganda and diplomatic tactics were used by the US to rush the world to war - first in 2013 when an alleged chemical attack was carried out at the edge of Damascus. The attack followed multiple claims in 2012 by the US that the Syrian government was preparing such an attack, followed by threats of direct military intervention if the Syrian government did so.

This came at a time when it became apparent that quick regime change in Syria similar to that carried out by the US in Libya in 2011 was not possible and that only through direct military intervention would the US be able to topple the Syrian government.

In response, Syria relinquished its chemical weapons under a Russian-brokered deal, confirmed by UN inspectors. Despite this, chemical weapons continued turning up on the battlefield - followed by repeated attempts by the US to expand direct military intervention within Syrian borders each and every time.

No logical explanation has ever been provided by the United States - either by its politicians or its policymakers - as to why the Syrian government would repeatedly use ineffective chemical weapons in battles it was already winning with far more effective conventional weapons - and risk US military intervention.

Conversely, many of these attacks are carried out in areas held by terrorist organizations with direct access to the borders of their foreign sponsors. The more recent April 2017 alleged attack in Khan Shaykhun took place within the Idlib Governorate, directly on the border with NATO-member Turkey who has armed, supplied, and provided direct military support for Al Qaeda and its affiliates since the conflict began in 2011.

Consider the Source
Idlib has been controlled by Al Qaeda for years with even the New York Times and LA Times finally admitting as much.

The New York Times in a piece titled, "In a Syria Refuge, Extremists Exert Greater Control," would admit:

“Idlib Province is the largest Al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11,” Brett H. McGurk, the United States envoy to the coalition fighting the Islamic State, said last month. “Idlib now is a huge problem.”

The LA Times in a piece titled, "Humanitarian groups fear aid is being diverted to terrorist group after militant takeover of Syrian province," would reveal that torrents of supplies provided by the US, Europe, and their regional allies are still being poured into a city quite literally occupied by Al Qaeda, stating (emphasis added):

The recent takeover of the Syrian province of Idlib by an extremist organization has created a dilemma for the United States and other countries that send humanitarian aid to civilians and military aid to various rebel factions fighting the Syrian government. 

It has become impossible to provide assistance without inadvertently supporting Al Nusra Front, a former affiliate of Al Qaeda that has been deemed a terrorist group by the U.S. government.

In reality, Al Qaeda's domination of a region allegedly held by "rebels" provided billions in supplies, weapons, vehicles, training, and even direct military support by the West could only happen if Al Qaeda itself was receiving even more in state sponsorship - or were the recipients of this aid all along.



Both the New York Times and the LA Times in their articles, lace it with language meant to disarm readers from truly understanding the full scope of what the US has done in Syria. Claiming that the Al Nusra Front is a "former affiliate of Al Qaeda," for instance, is supposed to create in the minds of readers the notion that they are no longer Al Qaeda, or terrorists when they are in fact very much still both.

The LA Times would even go as far as suggesting Al Qaeda's Al Nusra Front would provide Western-backed organizations with "independence and neutrality."

The LA Times also claims:

But cutting off the aid could spur a humanitarian disaster among the estimated 2 million civilians who live in Idlib and derail efforts to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Efforts to "topple Syrian President Bashar Assad," however, can only be done with an armed opposition - and as both the New York Times and LA Times admit, the only armed militants left in Syria are Al Qaeda.

What both newspapers are actually saying is that Al Qaeda has been cornered in Idlib where the US and its allies are still flooding with support, and that support quite literally for Al Qaeda will continue in an effort to topple the Syrian government.

This means that the process of fabricating chemical weapon attacks and using it as a pretext to directly intervene - on behalf of Al Qaeda - will continue as well, either to topple the government outright, or create a safe-haven protected by the US military for Al Qaeda in Idlib.

It is in this context then, that "humanitarian organizations" in Al Qaeda-held Idlib are claiming they are being targeted by chemical weapons allegedly deployed by the Syrian government.

The Syrian government and its allies have all but won the conflict and they have done so using conventional military weapons. They are also attempting in every way to expose these lingering and repetitive lies regarding WMDs wielded by the US, by inviting UN inspection teams to further explore newly liberated Syrian territory and further confirm that the Syrian government did indeed give up its chemical weapons as it agreed to in 2013.

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

Facing Defeat in Syria, ISIS Inexplicably Expands Globally

August 11, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Throughout human history, when a military force and its economic center has been defeated, it contracts, then collapses. For the first time in human history, the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS), has managed to reverse this fundamental aspect of reality - but not without help.

Facing defeat in Syria as government forces backed by its Russian and Iranian allies close in on the terrorist organization, stripping it of territory it seized, it has managed to spread far beyond Syria's borders, establishing itself in Libya, Afghanistan, and even as far as Southeast Asia where it has seized an entire city in the Philippines' south, and carried out attacks and conducting activities everywhere from Indonesia and Malaysia to allegedly Thailand's deep south.

It should be remembered, according to Western governments and their media, the territory ISIS holds in Syria is allegedly providing it with the summation of its financial resources and thus the source of its fighting capacity. According to official statements, the US and its European allies allege that ISIS fuels its fighting capacity with "taxes" and extortion as well as black market oil sales - all of which are derived from territory it holds in Syria.

The Washington Post in a 2015 article titled, "How the Islamic State makes its money," would note:

Weapons, vehicles, employee salaries, propaganda videos, international travel — all of these things cost money. The recent terrorism attacks in Paris, which the Islamic State has claimed as its own work, suggest the terrorist organization hasn't been hurting for funding. David Cohen, the Treasury Department's Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, described the Islamic State last October as "probably the best-funded terrorist organization we have confronted" — deep pockets that have allowed the group to carry out deadly campaigns in Iraq, Syria and other countries. 

To explain where ISIS actually makes its money, the Washington Post claims:

Unlike many terrorist groups, which finance themselves mainly through wealthy donors, the Islamic State has used its control over a territory that is roughly the size of the U.K. and home to millions of people to develop diversified revenue channels that make it more resilient to U.S. offensives.

The Washington Post would also claim:

 Its main methods of generating money appear to be the sale of oil and antiquities, as well as taxation and extortion. And the group's financial resources have grown quickly as it has captured more territory and resources: According to estimates by the Rand Corporation, the Islamic State's total revenue rose from a little less than $1 million per month in late 2008 and early 2009 to perhaps $1 million to $3 million per day in 2014.

With this territory quickly shrinking and the intensity of fighting against what remains of ISIS in Syria and Iraq expanding, it is seemingly inexplicable as to how ISIS is expanding globally, instead of contracting and collapsing.

The Washington Post's already implausible thesis regarding ISIS finances - based on official statements from the US Treasury Department and US corporate-funded policy think tanks like Rand - appears to be the only thing contracting and collapsing.

ISIS Enjoys Global Reach Many Nation-States Lack 

Al Qaeda "Mysteriously" Metastasizing in Northwest Syria

July 30, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The Washington Post in an article titled, "Al-Qaida in Syria snuffs out competition in northwest," clumsily reveals what many following the Syrian conflict have known all along - that the so-called uprising never existed, and that the US and its allies are directly arming, aiding, and abetting Al Qaeda in Syria.

The article admits:

Syrian rebels and activists are warning that an al-Qaida-linked jihadi group is on the verge of snuffing out what remains of the country’s uprising in northwestern Syria, after the extremists seized control of the opposition-held regional capital, Idlib, last weekend.

However, the so-called "uprising" has been allegedly supported since 2011 by the US, Europe, and the West's collective allies across the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year in weapons, training, logistics, and even vehicles, and now even direct military support.

This significant support has been reported on numerous times by Western papers, including the Washington Post itself. If such support was truly being given to a secular, pro-democratic opposition inside of Syria, who then has supplied "Al Qaeda-linked jihadi groups" with enough support to meet or exceed it on the battlefield? The answer is, there was never a secular, pro-democratic opposition in Syria.

The Washington Post fails to inform readers that Al Qaeda's consolidation in the northwest of Syria is a logistical necessity, with the West unable to sustain token opposition groups any further if Damascus and its allies are to be prevented from exercising further control over its own territory before the conflict draws to a relative close.

The Washington Post - in a way - already admits this in its article. It states (emphasis added):

The Nusra Front is one of the many names for the al-Qaida-affiliate that now heads the mighty Hay’at Tahrir al Sham militant alliance — Arabic for Levant Liberation Committee — that seized the city of Idlib, as well as two border crossings with Turkey to feed its coffers. It is also known as HTS.

The Washington Post acknowledges that an Al Qaeda affiliate is sustaining its fighting capacity in Syria through supply lines leading out of Turkey - a NATO member since 1952. It is also a Western ally, with multiple Western nations still supplying the state with weapons, including 86 million British pounds sold to Ankara by the UK. Turkey, alongside Saudi Arabia, represent two state-sponsors of terror contradicting Western narratives revolving around a "War on Terror" allegedly being fought. In fact, it appears that instead of fighting terror, the West is propping up the largest nations on Earth driving it.

Worse than the West fueling terrorism by proxy, the Washington Post also obliquely mentions that militant groups in Syria supported directly by the US CIA are coordinating with the very Al Qaeda-affiliates it claims is "snuffing out" the opposition.

It claims:

Other factions, including many once financed and armed in part by the CIA, kept to the sidelines. They are hoping to win a share of the revenues from the lucrative Bab al-Hawa border crossing, said a Turkey-based opposition activist who liaises with Syrian rebels and their state sponsors. He asked for anonymity so as not to jeopardize his position.

In other words, Al Qaeda-controlled border crossings are being jointly used and exploited by groups "once" financed and armed by the CIA. More likely, this was the case before the conflict even began, with the US simply using Al Qaeda in Syria, just as it had in Afghanistan in the 1980's, as the global mercenary army of choice to go and do where and what US troops cannot.

The Washington Post's article appears to be a final attempt to salvage long-exposed disinformation, misinforming the public about the true nature of both the Syrian crisis and the alleged "opposition" fighting it on the West's behalf. The article concludes, claiming that US programs to arm militants in Syria are drawing to a close, and that the US is "leaving Syria in Russia's hands."

In reality, the US will only leave Syria once its options have been fully confounded and exhausted by Syria and its allies. While it may not be able to continue funding terrorists in Syria's northwest, it still maintains a military presence with US troops and proxies in the nation's east. It openly plans to occupy these regions - and from them - incrementally expand them until eventually Syria is either dissolved as a unified state, or regime change can eventually be achieved.

Al Qaeda's "emergence" in northwest Syria, and its dominance of "opposition" groups admittedly funded to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, can only be explained if those hundreds of billions of dollars were actually being fed into Al Qaeda's hands. Admitting that Al Qaeda now infests Syria's northwest allows the "opposition" to use any and all tactics required to keep or even claw back territory from forces loyal to Damascus, with papers like the Washington Post tasked  now with obfuscating and ignoring the reality that Al Qaeda does this with logistical routes leading directly into NATO territory, and arms and supplies acquired with NATO complicity.

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

NATO's New Libya Still Burning

July 27, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - In 2011, US and European policy think tanks, which both create and promote policy serving the collective interests of the corporations that sponsor them, promoted NATO military intervention in Libya. Under the guise of a humanitarian intervention, what unfolded was the long-planned overthrow of the Libyan government, then headed by Muammar Ghaddafi.

Unable or unwilling to commit significant ground troops, the majority of the fighting was carried out by militant groups with NATO air and covert ground support. Many of these militant groups would be later revealed as comprised of extremists, including Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

In essence, NATO overthrew a unifying government in Libya, placed entire regions of the fractured nation under the control of terrorist organizations and opposing militant groups, and allowed the nation to slid into chaos ever since.

The consequences of overthrowing the Libyan government in 2011 were well known long before the intervention even took place. Libya's role as a destination for refugees and migrants fleeing socioeconomic turmoil across Africa was long-established. After NATO's intervention, Libya has now become a springboard for those fleeing from across Africa, across the Mediterranean Sea, and into Europe.

Saudi Arabia: What's Really Behind Trump's Hypocrisy?

July 14, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - US President Donald Trump's support came in no small part from those Americans who believe terrorism, and more specifically, "Islamic" terrorism pose an existential threat to the United States and the wider Western World.

It is curious then that President Trump's first trip abroad was to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the sociocultural source code of the very extremism infecting both the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) as well as the wider, global extremism it inspires and fuels everywhere from Southeast Asia, western China and even in the streets of North America and Europe.

Far from a geopolitical gaff, US associations with Saudi Arabia and their mutual link and contribution to (not fighting against) terrorism is increasingly becoming an embarrassing, "open secret."

It was the US Defense Intelligence Agency in a 2012 memo leaked to the public that revealed the creation of terrorist organizations like the Islamic State (referred to in the memo as a "Salafist principality") were encouraged by "the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey."

Leaked emails from former US Secretary of State and 2016 US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would include direct references to Saudi Arabia and Qatar in regards to their complicity in arming the Islamic State. More specifically, both nations were accused of, "providing clandestine financial and logistic support" to the Islamic State.

While the US postures to the world as engaged in a global war on terrorism, it is clear that those nations in the Middle East cooperating closest with Washington are in fact those also perpetuating this seemingly endless war. Why?

It turns out that perpetual war is a lucrative affair in both terms of acquiring wealth and power. It is this equation of wealth and power that takes precedence, even at the expense of narrative continuity and political legitimacy.

Dollars, Oil and Arms

Was President Trump's visit to Riyadh to deliver a stern warning regarding its extensive history of state sponsorship of terror? On the contrary. It was to seal an unprecedented weapons deal with Saudi Arabia amounting to an immediate $110 billion, and $350 billion over the next 10 years, according to the New York Times.

The New York Times also revealed the participants in the massive arms deal to include Lockheed Martin.

It was no surprise then that US policy think tanks like the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) encouraged members to submit op-eds praising President Trump's trip to prominent US and European media sources including The Hill.

The (In)significance of Baghdadi Being "Dead"

Hopeful onlookers should recall how Bin Laden's death was followed by the expansion of terrorism, not its defeat. 

July 11, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Reports have once again emerged that the supposed leader of the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS), Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was killed - possibly in a recent Russian airstrike in Syria.

News confirming the death of Baghdadi, would appear to have significant implications regarding the terrorist organization and its now global-spanning operations stretching from North Africa, across the Middle East and Central Asia, and even reaching into Southeast Asia as ISIS-linked militants continue to occupy a city in the south of the Philippines.

However, beyond the possibility of undermining the US rationale for maintaining a significant and growing military presence across regions of the planet inflicted with ISIS operations, Baghdadi's death would have little to no impact at all on these actual operations.

ISIS is a State-Sponsored Militant Proxy - Not an Independent Organization 

ISIS is first and foremost a proxy military organization, created by and for the state sponsors that fuel it politically, financially, and militarily. As revealed in a 2012 US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document (PDF), these include the United States itself, its European partners, NATO-member Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan, as well as Israel.

The summation of ISIS' fighting capacity stems from a torrent of cash, weapons, supplies, and military protection provided to the group, particularly in the establishment of safe havens within Turkey, Jordan, and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights where Syria and its allies are unable to strike.

Image: US presence in Syria is large and growing. It will only "pull the plug" on ISIS if it plans on replacing it with something more permanent. ISIS itself has many other "safe houses" worldwide to preserve itself in, courtesy of US foreign policy.

Within Syria itself, virtual safe havens have been likewise established by US and Turkish occupations, preventing Syria and its allies - including Russia and Iran - from fully rooting the organization from within Syria's borders. On numerous occasions, Syrian forces have even come under direct US military attack while engaging ISIS militants.

Terror in Europe - Why Terrorists Are Allowed to Strike

June 9, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The London Bridge terror attack saw a repeat of a now familiar narrative in which every suspect involved had been long-known to both British security and intelligence agencies.

The London Telegraph in an article titled, "Khuram Butt, Rachid Redouane and Youssef Zaghba named: Everything we know about the London Bridge terrorists," would reveal:

The ringleader of the London Bridge massacre never bothered to hide his violent, extremist views. Khuram Butt was so brazen that he openly posed with the black flag of the so-called Islamic State in Regent’s Park in the centre of London for a Channel 4 documentary, entitled The Jihadis Next Door. 

Butt and other extremists linked to the banned terror group al-Muhajiroun were even detained by police for an hour over the stunt in 2015 but were released without being arrested.

The al-Muhajiroun terror group is headed by British-based extremist, Anjem Choudary, who for years helped fill the ranks of militant groups fighting governments the US and UK sought to overthrow in Libya, Syria and beyond. Choudary inexplicably escaped the consequences of his open advocacy and material support for known terrorist organizations for years, with the London Guardian in an article titled, "Anjem Choudary: a hate preacher who spread terror in UK and Europe," going as far as speculating he did so because he was actually an informant or operative working for the British government.

The article would also admit that Butt was under investigation by British intelligence up to the day of the attack:

MI5 and counter-terrorism officers began an investigation into Butt, which remained ongoing even as the 27-year-old launched his terror attack on London Bridge. Butt, who was wearing an Arsenal shirt and a fake bomb strapped to his chest, was shot dead by police on Saturday night.

A second suspect, Rachid Redouane, was repeatedly brought to the attention of police who ignored warnings he was an extremist and a member of the so-called "Islamic State."

The Telegraph reports that a third suspect, Youssef Zaghba, was also known to police:

He was reportedly arrested at Bologna airport in March 2016 trying to get to Syria and was also understood to be on an Italian anti-terror watch list.

The fact that these three suspects evaded capture and were able to carry out their attack despite being known and even monitored actively by British security and intelligence agencies lends even further credibility to the notion that they and others like them work for the British government, not against it.

Unable to Reach Syria, West's Dogs of War Bite Local Population 

Networks like al-Muhajiroun and the extremists they cultivate help fill the ranks of "moderate rebel" groups the US, UK, other European nations including France, as well as regional allies like Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar are arming, funding and providing direct military support for in Libya, Syria, Yemen and beyond.

This fact goes far in explaining why extremists are allowed - for years - to openly advocate violence and recruit members into what is essentially a terrorist organization operating under the nose of British security and intelligence agencies - if not with their collective and eager complicity.

While these terrorists are labeled "moderate rebels" when fighting abroad, they are only labeled as such by the Western media out of necessity in an attempt to differentiate them from the extremists that are in fact fighting the West's proxy war for it in places like Syria.

Suspects like Youssef Zaghba even attempted to travel to Syria to fight among the ranks of Western-backed militant groups - and failing to do so - participated in armed violence in the UK instead. Had he traveled onward to Syria, it would have been innocent Syrians instead of innocent British civilians terrorized, attacked, maimed and killed.