"If analysts want to look for the headquarters of ISIS they would look at Western capitals instead of the Syrian desert."
Are Western countries responsible for what’s happening in Syria? What has led to the rise of ISIS in the country?
Absolutely, Western countries are responsible for the Syrian crisis. In fact, you can’t view ISIS as something separate from the so-called "Syrian rebels” or Western involvement itself. The West is directly responsible for ISIS. It has created the organization, funded, armed, and directed it at virtually every turn. Of course, Western media and Western governments claim that the terrorist organization just appeared organically out of nowhere, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Are we really to believe that ISIS developed under the nose of Western intelligence, organized itself, and then marched through the middle of the desert in massive convoys without anyone noticing until it was too late? You ask what led to the rise of ISIS. It was the United States! It was NATO! This is where the roots of ISIS lie. Remember, ISIS is nothing but one name in a series of name changes for the same terrorist organization. What began as al-Qaeda in Iraq, an organization that was admittedly created by Western intelligence in the late 1970s, and al-Nusra in Syria, resulted in a merger that then went by the name of the Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant. From IEIL, it morphed into ISIL and shortly thereafter into ISIS. If analysts want to look for the headquarters of ISIS they would look at Western capitals instead of the Syrian desert.
Western countries have helped Assad’s enemies since the beginning of Syrian civil war in 2011. How did this affect Syria and the Middle East?
Western countries not only helped Assad’s enemies but they engineered the crisis to begin with. As far back as 2007 and even 2005, mainstream Western press carried reports exposing a plan by White House to fund death squads, terrorists, and color revolutions in Syria. Even earlier, the U.S. State Department was funding "revolutionary” and anti-Syrian government television stations in Syria. They were organizing the elements of color revolutions at the time as well. All of this was actually reported on in the Western mainstream press. The crisis in Syria is a proxy war being waged by the West against the Syrian government. It is not nor has it ever been a legitimate organic revolution by Syrians. It has always been a foreign-backed and largely foreign-populated invasion.
In terms of how the decision to destroy Syria affected the Middle East, it must be understood in context. The reasons for attacking Syria were numerous and largely centered around geopolitics and the desire for U.S./NATO hegemony. The oil pipeline agreed upon by Syria and Iran, the elimination of a supply route for Hezbollah and one of the last Russian outposts of influence in the region were all reasons for the U.S. assault on Syria. The other underlying reason for the destablization was the goal of eventually destroying Iran, itself only a stepping stone to the ultimate confrontation between the Western powers and Russia.
But you asked how this has affected Syria and the Middle East. One need only look to Syria to see that the Western policies have resulted in absolute chaos and destruction on an unimaginable scale. Syrian living standards have been eviscerated, the country is in full-scale war. 250,000 people, it is estimated, are dead. And it’s not just Syria. Iraq has once again had its legs cut out from under it and has returned, yet again, to war inside its borders. Lebanon is constantly on the brink of destabilization. Israel, of course, is sitting pretty as all of its regional enemies seem to be falling apart.
On the other hand, the NATO push for destruction of Israel’s opposition forces and for the destruction of states not willing to cooperate with it has seen the anti-NATO bloc become vastly stronger, despite the wars. Iran is now stronger as a result of the U.S. action. Syria and Russia are closer. Syria and Hezbollah are closer. Syria and Iraq are closer. Iraq and Russia are closer. We could go on and on. If the NATO plan for the region fails, then the costs of failure are immense since it has essentially unified its targets against it and into the arms of Russia.
Why do European countries and the US say they want to bring freedom and democracy for the Syrian people? Are they really sincere about what they say?
It’s a public cover. Empires often use the excuse of "civilizing” so-called "savage” people. In modern times, however, democracy and freedom or liberation is used to convince a gullible public back home that the wars of aggression are just. If the United States and Europe were truly interested in freedom and democracy they would try it at home.
What’s the difference between ISIS and those groups that Western countries refer to as "moderate rebels”?
There isn’t any besides a name change. All of these groups have the same ideology. They all want Shariah law imposed upon an unwilling public. They all murder innocent civilians. They all torture. They all rape. They all adhere to a fanatical version of Islam. They all commit atrocities. Moreover, they all work together. For instance, the U.S. pet group, Ahrar al-Sham has repeatedly worked together with al-Nusra as well as other terrorist groups. Everything about Ahrar al-Sham, beyond the name, is identical to al-Nusra but the U.S. will not label it a terrorist organization. Why? Because the designation of some of these groups as terrorists and other groups as "moderates” is entirely political and subject to the aims of the NATO coalition.
To be accurate, these groups do often fight one another. That is a common occurrence but that is also the nature of the fanatic. No one is ever righteous enough for a fanatic yet, at the same time, the fanatic can never consider his own dreadful behavior as unholy. Thus, they fight each other. But, all in all, these fanatics are all fighting under the same banner whether those on the actual battlefield know it or not.
How do you analyze the US support for Kurds in fight against ISIS? Syrian government is the strongest force in fight against ISIS, why US doesn't support Syrian army?
It should be clear enough by now that the U.S. doesn’t support the Syrian army because the U.S. views the Syrian army as its enemy. The whole point of the destabilization campaign against Syria was to destroy the Syrian government, of which the Syrian military is a part. As for the U.S. support for the Kurds, it’s a little more complex. The United States has been walking a fine line with its public connection to the YPG for fear of angering Erdogan’s Turkey to the point of non-compliance. Still, the U.S.-YPG connection is more about leveraging another separate group in Syria that can be used to destabilize the Syrian government, divide the Syrian people, and eventually, realize John Kerry’s Plan B or, as it is otherwise known, Brzezinski’s Plan A of "Federalization,” or "partitioning.” By this I mean the concept of creating "microstates and ministates” within formally national states. These states are typically based on race or religion or some other divisive element so that the nation itself is so small and impotent that it is incapable of standing up to outside forces, be they banks, corporations, or other nations.
The idea of creating a Kurdistan out of Syria and Iraq is part of the plan to "balkanize” Syria as the next best option to total destruction of the country and the appointment of a puppet regime from the point of view of the NATO forces. Still, it should be remembered that the Kurds have been played like fools by the United States and the West on a number of occasions. It may very well be that the Kurds will be used as battering rams to destabilize Syria and Iraq. Thus, it is also possible that, if the U.S. must abandon their plan or see that Plan A will actually come to fruition, the Kurds will be dropped yet again.
Saudi Arabia, United States, and their European allies are still supporting the so called "moderate rebels”. What would be the consequences of this action in the future?
For the United States and Europe, the consequences are a loss of credibility and respect the world over. But that consequence has largely already been realized. Virtually nowhere outside of the West does the West actually have any shred of credibility. What’s more concerning, however, is the possibility this psychotic obsession with overthrowing the Syrian and Iranian governments and the goal of eventually "federalizing” Russia will actually lead to a confrontation between nuclear powers. All of this is, of course, putting aside the moral issue. The amount of innocent lives taken because the United States and Europe continue their support of terrorists in Syria and elsewhere will be staggering.
As for Saudi Arabia, the monarchy seems to be overplaying its hand a bit. While it was supporting terrorists in Syria and abroad, relying on its bank accounts alone, the Saudis were much safer. But now, after attempting to hurt Russia oil exports by increasing its own oil production, those bank accounts have gotten much smaller. Add to that the Saudi expedition in Yemen and one can clearly see that the KSA is nothing but a paper tiger. Eventually, I think, Saudi Arabia’s authoritarian nature at home, production of terrorists for use abroad, and military failure in Yemen is going to take its toll and Saudi Arabia will be facing a revolution within its own borders.
What do Saudi Arabia and Turkey want in Syria?
One on hand, they both want the same thing – the destruction of the Assad government and the expansion of their own influence throughout the region. On the other hand, there are differences. Turkey (and by that I mean Erdogan and the Turkish oligarchy) is more focused on the expansion of Turkish territory into Syria and the recreation of the Ottoman Empire 2.0. Saudi Arabia, while interested in expanding its influence, is somewhat more interested in preventing the influence of Iran and the Shi’ite crescent.