Enrico TOMASELLI

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

La operación Al Aqsa Flood del 7 de octubre de 2023 es, sin duda, un acontecimiento que ha cambiado por completo el panorama geopolítico de Oriente Medio, y sus efectos están destinados a prolongarse durante mucho tiempo.

Obviamente, el primero y más evidente ha sido el fin del proceso de estabilización e integración iniciado por Trump durante su primer mandato, conocido como los Acuerdos de Abraham.

Al volver a centrar violentamente la atención en la cuestión palestina, ha puesto de manifiesto que es simplemente imposible imaginar un plan estratégico para la región sin abordar este nudo gordiano.

En cualquier caso, tanto durante la fase final de la presidencia de Biden como durante el primer año del segundo mandato de Trump, la estrategia estadounidense se basó esencialmente en delegar completamente en Israel la resolución militar de la cuestión; Netanyahu, además, aseguraba que podía hacerlo de forma casi definitiva.

Pero dos años de guerras en siete frentes diferentes han demostrado no solo que la seguridad del líder israelí era totalmente infundada, sino que, por el contrario, el esfuerzo bélico de Tel Aviv ha servido básicamente para aumentar desmesuradamente la dependencia del Estado judío de Washington.

Al igual que ocurrió con la Ucrania de Zelensky, en un momento dado quedó claro que el proconsul estadounidense en la región ya no era capaz de desempeñar el papel de proxy militar, y que incluso desde el punto de vista político estaba causando más daño del que se podía imaginar. Y no solo a nivel internacional, sino también en el corazón electoral del imperio.

Esto hizo necesario que Washington retomara las riendas del juego. Obviamente, Estados Unidos no puede desvincularse del conflicto de Oriente Medio como lo está haciendo con el de Ucrania.

En primer lugar, porque el poderoso lobby sionista en los Estados Unidos no lo permitiría. Y, en segundo lugar, porque no existe un equivalente de los países europeos que pueda desempeñar un papel de suplente. Desde hace tiempo, seguramente desde que Netanyahu inició su carrera política hace ya veinte años, la relación entre Tel Aviv y Washington ha cambiado progresivamente, hasta el punto de que hoy Israel se ha convertido en un auténtico simbionte.

Pero a partir del 7 de octubre, la simbiosis ha sufrido una nueva aceleración y, al mismo tiempo, un nuevo cambio, caracterizándose cada vez más como una relación parasitaria. Israel se aferra a Estados Unidos como un bañista en peligro se aferra a quien le está ayudando.

Fundamentalmente, de hecho, para los dirigentes israelíes —que en esto reflejan un sentimiento generalizado en gran parte de la población judía del país— no se trata simplemente de una cuestión de defensa de los intereses estratégicos del país, que, por otra parte, no siempre coinciden con los de Estados Unidos.

Para Israel entran en juego otros dos factores, aparentemente opuestos: por un lado, la percepción de haberse arrastrado hasta el borde del abismo y, por lo tanto, el miedo a una amenaza existencial real; y, por otro, el impulso mesiánico hacia la expansión y la construcción de Eretz Israel.

Ambos factores son irracionales y, por lo tanto, difíciles de controlar. Pero al mismo tiempo encuentran una especie de síntesis en la percepción de que la conquista de nuevos territorios también funciona como un alejamiento espacial de la amenaza, una forma de adquirir esa profundidad estratégica que Israel nunca ha tenido.

Desde el punto de vista de Estados Unidos, por lo tanto, la necesidad de retomar las riendas es tanto táctica —para recuperar el control del proxy, evitar movimientos perjudiciales y contener su continua demanda de recursos— como estratégica —para volver a hacer prevalecer sus propios intereses en una zona fundamental para el gran juego global—.

Sin embargo, esta operación se ve extremadamente dificultada, si no imposibilitada, por la naturaleza de la relación simbiótica —que no puede romperse—, por la irracionalidad (y, por tanto, la incontrolabilidad) israelí, pero también y sobre todo por el hecho de que estos elementos son un obstáculo insuperable para la definición de una estrategia viable.

En cualquier caso, en esta fase Washington intenta frenar a Tel Aviv y articular una estrategia regional capaz de mantener unidos muchos intereses diferentes, pero bajo el único paraguas de su supervisión.

Esta línea estratégica se articula en varios planos diferentes, constantemente bajo tensión por la tendencia israelí a eludirla y forzar la mano. El primer nivel es el de los antiguos Acuerdos de Abraham. El hecho de que Trump haya tenido que pedir a Kazajistán el cadeau de suscribirlos, a cambio de algunos acuerdos comerciales, da testimonio de las dificultades que sigue encontrando el avance de esta parte del plan, siempre como consecuencia del 7 de octubre.

Es bastante evidente que Netanyahu no está particularmente interesado y, en cualquier caso, no está dispuesto a hacer nada para favorecer su progreso. Sobre la mesa no solo está la cuestión de Gaza, sino también la inminente anexión de otra parte de Cisjordania (y, de hecho, la liquidación de la Autoridad Nacional Palestina, considerada ya inútil incluso como entidad colaboracionista), lo que constituye un obstáculo insuperable para Arabia Saudí, el socio clave para que los Acuerdos despeguen, que de hecho se encuentra en la situación de no poder suscribirlos.

Un pequeño paso en esta dirección, aunque en gran medida meramente simbólico, podría ser la adhesión de Siria, que podría producirse tras la conclusión de un acuerdo entre Damasco y Tel Aviv sobre la ocupación israelí del sur de Siria.

Sin embargo, no es una partida fácil de cerrar. Pero incluso si al final Siria se uniera a los Acuerdos, a nadie se le escapa que esto ocurrirá bajo la presión política de Estados Unidos y la presión militar de Israel. Y, en cualquier caso, el país está de hecho cantonalizado, con un Gobierno precario que solo se mantiene en pie gracias a quienes mueven los hilos en Washington y Ankara.

En otro plano, el plan estadounidense apunta al desmantelamiento del Eje de la Resistencia por vía político-diplomática, con la convicción de que desmontándolo pieza a pieza se logrará aislar y debilitar a Irán y, por lo tanto, en perspectiva, inducirlo a adoptar una postura más moderada.

Esta parte del plan estratégico estadounidense se está desarrollando actualmente, en particular, con respecto al Líbano y Irak, y está gestionada por el representante de Trump, Tom Barrack, que actúa y se considera a sí mismo como una especie de gobernador in pectore de la región.

En ambos países, el objetivo es lograr el desarme de las milicias que forman parte del Eje de la Resistencia, Hezbolá (pero también Amal) en el Líbano, y las diversas formaciones reunidas en las Fuerzas de Movilización Popular, en Irak. Tanto en Beirut como en Bagdad, esta tarea debería recaer en los respectivos jefes de Gobierno, Nawaf Salam y Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani, que acaba de ganar las elecciones, aunque no con una victoria aplastante.

Sin embargo, hay factores reales que complican mucho esta parte del plan estadounidense.

En el Líbano, los principales obstáculos son el hecho de que el equipo gubernamental incluye ministros de Hezbolá y Amal, sin cuyas fuerzas parlamentarias no sería posible gobernar, y, sobre todo, que el ejército libanés —al que se debería confiar la operación de desarme de las milicias chiitas— no está en absoluto en condiciones de llevar a cabo la operación.

Y no lo está porque al menos la mitad de sus efectivos son a su vez chiítas (y se puede estar seguro de que Hezbolá tiene entre ellos a muchos de sus hombres), y porque el ejército es demasiado débil militarmente en comparación con Hezbolá.

Paradójicamente, porque los patrones occidentales del Líbano (Estados Unidos y Francia en primer lugar) nunca han querido que se fortaleciera, precisamente para que no pudiera oponer resistencia a las Fuerzas de Defensa de Israel.

La situación es similar en Irak, donde las Fuerzas de Movilización Popular están integradas en el ejército nacional iraquí y donde, en cualquier caso, los chiítas son mayoría. El propio al-Sudani es chiíta y, cuando llegó por primera vez al poder, se le consideraba proiraní.

En cuanto al Líbano, Washington tiene una poderosa influencia, ya que controla de facto las ventas de petróleo iraquí, que representan el 90 % de los ingresos estatales. Sin embargo, la posición de al-Sudani es la de buscar constantemente el equilibrio entre Estados Unidos y su poderoso vecino iraní, al que están vinculadas precisamente las milicias armadas.

El otro líder chiíta importante, Muqtada al-Sadr, también al frente de una milicia, aunque ya no es proiraní, es sin embargo fuertemente nacionalista y, por lo tanto, tampoco ve con buenos ojos la hegemonía estadounidense sobre Bagdad. Además, probablemente con razón, cuenta con que, si se aprueba el desarme de las Fuerzas de Movilización Popular, luego le tocará a él.

La situación en estos dos países, por lo tanto, se encuentra básicamente en un punto muerto para el plan estadounidense.

En el que, evidentemente, Netanyahu cuenta con intervenir, ofreciendo a Washington la oportunidad de añadir a la presión política un buen aumento de la presión militar. De hecho, Israel se está preparando para una nueva guerra contra el Líbano, y es probable que acabe forzando la mano a Trump y obteniendo su visto bueno.

A un nivel aún más sofisticado, Estados Unidos está pensando en una especie de gran alianza antiiraní que reúna a Israel, Arabia Saudí y Turquía. En última instancia, esta debería ser la clave para aislar a Teherán, reuniendo a los principales países interesados en eliminar la influencia iraní y chiíta en la región.

Pero, por muy despiadado que sea Erdogan como político, lo que vale para Arabia Saudí —en relación con la cuestión palestina— vale aún más para Turquía. Además, Erdogan se ha esforzado mucho más que los saudíes en apoyar la causa palestina y, aunque mantiene buenas relaciones comerciales con Tel Aviv, es evidente que su política de influencia neo-otomana entra en conflicto directo con Israel, en particular en lo que Ankara considera territorios de su influencia histórica, Siria y Palestina precisamente. A su vez, los israelíes no confían en absoluto en los turcos y quieren tenerlos lo más lejos posible y al margen.

De todo ello se desprende con bastante claridad que los planes estadounidenses para Oriente Medio son muy ambiciosos, pero también, como mínimo, muy complicados. Desde este punto de vista, es fácil prever que fracasarán uno tras otro y que la iniciativa israelí volverá a cobrar protagonismo.

Ya se tiene una clara señal de ello precisamente en Gaza. Que el plan de Trump no podía funcionar era evidente desde el primer momento, tanto por su superficialidad como por la evasión total de las cuestiones fundamentales y por la incompatibilidad de las posiciones que quería forzar para llegar a un acuerdo.

Por lo tanto, fue una necesidad para todos (Trump se lo exigió a Netanyahu, aunque modificó los términos del plan para complacer al líder israelí) o una oportunidad (para la Resistencia y el pueblo palestino, que pudieron respirar parcialmente).

Mientras que oficialmente se sigue discutiendo sobre aire frito —la fuerza de interposición internacional, el mandato de la ONU, la composición de la gobernanza…—, en realidad ya se está yendo en una dirección completamente diferente.

Y, obviamente, no nos referimos aquí a las continuas violaciones israelíes del alto el fuego, sino a algo mucho más sustancial.

De hecho, se está concretando la idea de dividir en dos la Franja de Gaza, más o menos a lo largo de la actual “línea amarilla”, con una parte (aproximadamente el 58 % del total) bajo estricto control israelí, habitada exclusivamente por una población «filtrada» por la inteligencia de Tel Aviv, y donde las diversas bandas criminales, como la de Abu Shabab, serán utilizadas para mantener el orden.

Esta parte será reconstruida parcialmente, según un modelo urbanístico de tipo concentracionario, con aglomerados habitacionales aislados unos de otros (las llamadas Comunidades Seguras Alternativas) y las vías de comunicación bajo estricto control militar.

En la práctica, una transformación adicional: de la gran prisión a cielo abierto que era la Franja, a una serie de panópticos digitales donde segregar a la población sometida.

Pero si se salta la segunda fase del plan y se avanza en esta dirección antes de las elecciones de mitad de mandato, se añadirá un elemento adicional de debilidad para el equipo de Trump.

Según informa el periódico israelí Haaretz, Israel y Estados Unidos ya han preparado un plan en este sentido. El teniente general estadounidense Patrick Frank, jefe del Centro de Coordinación Civil-Militar (CMCC) de Kiryat Gat, envió recientemente un correo electrónico a sus colegas subrayando la urgencia de llevar adelante el plan.

Una medida que revelará una vez más a los países árabes que Estados Unidos es irremediablemente falso y poco fiable, y que al final siempre está dispuesto a seguir a Israel.

Por su parte, Netanyahu, tras haber tenido que aceptar el alto el fuego (que, sin embargo, no le habrá disgustado demasiado, ya que así se ha evitado tener que cumplir la enésima promesa de destruir Hamás), en un par de meses ya ha conseguido dar la vuelta a la situación y encauzar las cosas en una dirección favorable a Israel.

El mismo juego que se dispone a hacer en el Líbano, donde es evidente que el plan de Barrack de desarmar a Hezbolá por parte del ejército no podía sino fracasar, y donde, por lo tanto, se dispone a presentar una nueva guerra libanesa como la única alternativa para liquidar a la milicia chií.

O, al menos, esa será la historia que le volverá a contar a Trump para obtener su apoyo y los medios necesarios. El cual, a su vez, aunque sabe que la historia tiene fallos por todas partes, no tendrá nada en la mano para oponerse.

Más allá de los problemas personales de Netanyahu y de los políticos de su mayoría gubernamental, la cuestión tiene una dimensión más amplia y se puede resumir básicamente en un concepto fundamental:

la única forma de mantener la unidad de la sociedad israelí es la guerra, la única forma de sostener un estado de guerra permanente es el apoyo de Estados Unidos y mantenerla a baja intensidad.

Israel debe aprovechar al máximo su superioridad aérea, que le permite atacar con bajo riesgo y alto daño, sin poner en peligro a las fuerzas terrestres.

De hecho, las Fuerzas de Defensa de Israel (IDF) están extremadamente agotadas por los dos años de guerra en Palestina y el Líbano, sufren un elevado déficit de personal (al menos 12 000 militares menos), registran una fuerte incidencia de trastorno por estrés postraumático (PTSD) entre los veteranos y cuentan con un gran número de incapacitados por heridas de guerra, del orden de miles.

Tomar medidas para reintegrar su capacidad (se habla de aumentar la ya considerable duración del servicio obligatorio) corre el riesgo de agravar las divisiones sociales: en la actualidad, hay casi 50 000 haredim que se niegan a alistarse.

No obstante, el uso de las fuerzas terrestres se vuelve ineludible en la estrategia israelí. La ocupación de Gaza mantendrá ocupada a una parte significativa del ejército durante un largo periodo.

El agravamiento de las tensiones en Cisjordania, donde se está preparando el terreno para una nueva anexión parcial, ocupa a otra parte. Luego está la ocupación del sur de Siria. Y la guerra contra Hezbolá tendrá que llegar, una vez más, a un ataque a lo largo de la frontera.

Lo que Israel necesita, por lo tanto, y también lo que puede permitirse, es en realidad una guerra de intensidad variable. Que mantenga una presión militar constante, en uno o más frentes, y que periódicamente se incremente y acelere, con guerras cinéticas de alta intensidad, pero de corta duración.

El límite de esta estrategia es que es simplemente vieja y gastada. De hecho, se trata de una elaboración de la histórica estrategia israelí de disuasión, basada en una lección recurrente impartida a los enemigos con una acción militar violenta, concentrada y rápida, que, sin embargo, funcionaba con países árabes poco modernizados y motivados, y con formaciones guerrilleras limitadas en cuanto a organización y capacidad. Pero, una vez más, el 7 de octubre mostró una realidad radicalmente diferente.

Las formaciones guerrilleras como las de la Resistencia palestina han alcanzado una capacidad operativa y estratégica de muy alto nivel y han demostrado una resiliencia superior a la de las FDI. Formaciones como la de Hezbolá son ahora prácticamente equiparables a un verdadero ejército, con un arraigo territorial y una flexibilidad operativa que las fuerzas armadas israelíes no tienen. Un pequeño Estado como Yemen ha demostrado una sorprendente

habilidad estratégica y una considerable resistencia.

Por no hablar, por supuesto, de Irán, que ha sabido calibrar su capacidad de combate exactamente a la medida del enemigo israelí, demostrando cómo la inversión en drones y misiles ha neutralizado en gran medida estratégicamente la superioridad aérea de Tel Aviv.

Esto significa que la táctica israelí es cada vez más arriesgada, ya que desgasta inútilmente tanto a las fuerzas armadas como a la sociedad civil, sin obtener nunca un resultado que proporcione al menos un cierto período de tranquilidad. Por muy baja que sea su intensidad, una guerra tan larga —y cuyo final no se vislumbra— tiene un impacto extremadamente incisivo en la estabilidad económica y social del país.

Pero todo esto también significa que la dependencia israelí de Estados Unidos aumenta notablemente. Tanto en términos de ayuda económica y política, como en términos de suministros militares y de apoyo directo a la defensa del país. Y esto, obviamente, tiene un precio.

Por mucho que los lobbies sionistas en Estados Unidos mantengan un fuerte poder de influencia, las políticas genocidas de Israel han debilitado considerablemente su influencia, hasta tal punto que hoy en día es necesaria una fuerte inversión en propaganda para intentar restaurar la imagen comprometida de Israel ante los ciudadanos estadounidenses.

Por lo tanto, la administración Trump, por muy débil que sea en cuanto a propuestas estratégicas —y a su capacidad para llevarlas a cabo—, tiene en sus manos una baza más, aunque solo sea para frenar el impulso israelí.

Obviamente, mientras siga existiendo la simbiosis, la limitación se aplica a ambos. De hecho, el riesgo es que, por seguir con la metáfora anterior, ambos se ahoguen.

En cualquier caso, y casi inevitablemente, Israel no puede hacer otra cosa que intentar arrastrar a los Estados Unidos, empujándolos hacia una implicación cada vez mayor también en las guerras.

Aunque, obviamente, Washington nunca volverá a poner boots on the ground [tropas en el terreno] en Oriente Medio, Tel Aviv quiere que participe con su aviación y su marina en las operaciones ofensivas.

Sobre todo, si —o cuando— se llegue a un nuevo ataque contra Irán, donde el mero apoyo de la inteligencia y la defensa del espacio aéreo sería absolutamente insuficiente.

Todo ello constituye, sin embargo, un juego al filo de la navaja, en el que cada pieza debe encajar a la perfección, de lo contrario todo el diseño se viene abajo.

Para Trump, la partida está condicionada por la pérdida de consenso en su país, por la proximidad de las elecciones al Congreso y, sobre todo, por el hecho de que, por muy importante que sea, el escenario de Oriente Medio no es el único del que debe ocuparse. A diferencia de Israel, para quien esta no es solo la única partida, sino también una cuestión de vida o muerte.

En todo esto, no hay que olvidar que los demás actores, tanto regionales como internacionales, también están presentes y actúan, y no como meros peones en el juego de otros.

Irán, por ejemplo, se está moviendo de forma cada vez más pragmática, reforzando sus capacidades de defensa y ataque, pero sobre todo consolidando cada vez más su posición estratégica dentro del contexto euroasiático, situándose política y geográficamente como eje central entre Rusia y Oriente.

Su papel como potencia regional, por lo tanto, busca y obtiene un anclaje en este posicionamiento, y ya no solo en la inversión en el Eje de la Resistencia. Sin embargo, este sigue siendo un elemento clave para mantener su influencia y no quedar relegado a Asia Central.

Probablemente, como ha ocurrido en ocasiones anteriores, no intervendría directamente en apoyo de Hezbolá en caso de una nueva guerra con Israel. A menos que su aliado corra un riesgo grave de sufrir una derrota estratégica, algo que, en la situación actual, Israel no parece en absoluto capaz de conseguir.

En esta fase, Teherán juega a la espera, porque el tiempo está de su parte.

Turquía también juega su partida, que obviamente tiene como centro a Siria, con todo lo que ello conlleva, en primer lugar, la cuestión kurda.

La actual partición de facto del país va sin duda en contra de los intereses de Ankara, pero por el momento no puede contrarrestarla. Presentarse como potencial gestor de crisis, en nombre de Washington, es obviamente una opción atractiva para Erdogan, pero para asumir plenamente este papel debe superar la hostilidad israelí y, sobre todo, debe esperar a resolver realmente la cuestión kurda.

Probablemente, una mayor retirada de las fuerzas estadounidenses de la zona (Siria e Irak) sea también un paso necesario. En cualquier caso, la partida que está jugando Turquía es a medio-largo plazo, y tanto Erdogan como su ministro de Asuntos Exteriores (y probable sucesor), Hakan Fidan, razonan en estos términos.

Otro actor que se mueve de forma pragmática y con visión de futuro es, naturalmente, Rusia. Quienes pensaban que, con la caída de Assad, sería solo cuestión de tiempo que fuera expulsada de la región, obviamente no habían contado con el anfitrión.

En primer lugar, para Moscú, la presencia en Oriente Medio no es en absoluto secundaria, ya que es una pieza importante tanto para su proyección naval en el Mediterráneo como para la que está desplegando en el África subsahariana. Y, por supuesto, tiene una presencia histórica en la región, en la que desempeña un papel equilibrador.

A pesar del constante fortalecimiento de los lazos con Irán, por ejemplo, que preocupa e irrita bastante a los dirigentes israelíes, Tel Aviv considera la presencia rusa como un factor de seguridad. Al igual que Ankara, que a su vez ve con buenos ojos la presencia de las bases rusas en Siria; además, Moscú es vista como un elemento moderador frente a Irán.

Por último, pero no por ello menos importante, también los países árabes ven a Rusia como un elemento de estabilización, que de alguna manera limita las presiones desestabilizadoras que provienen de Israel y que Estados Unidos no es capaz de contrarrestar en gran medida.

Moscú actúa, por tanto, con una estrategia a largo plazo, en la que lo primero es mantener su presencia en una zona crucial como Oriente Medio. Al igual que Estados Unidos (y China), Rusia juega en todos los frentes, sus intereses —y su proyección estratégica— no son regionales, ni siquiera se limitan a la zona euroasiática. La región, por lo tanto, es solo un sector del tablero de ajedrez. Pero en el que pretende colocar firmemente sus piezas.

Una vez más, la región de Oriente Medio se confirma como la más turbulenta, la más inestable y la más peligrosa de todas aquellas en las que se desarrolla el enfrentamiento entre el viejo mundo que tarda en morir y el nuevo que está creciendo. Y una vez más, la clave de todo es Palestina.

La obsesiva negación israelí de cualquier hipótesis basada en dos Estados, que sigue persiguiendo con el objetivo de la aniquilación política de la ANP, no deja, obviamente, otro espacio real que la hipótesis de un único Estado, laico y democrático, que elimine toda forma de apartheid. Hipótesis que implica la disolución del Estado de Israel, probablemente por implosión.

De alguna manera, los dirigentes israelíes están tomando conciencia de ello y no pueden sino oponerse con una guerra permanente. Con la idea de que al menos sirve para alejar un poco más el problema, pero que en realidad no hará más que acelerar la caída.

Paradójicamente, este liderazgo teme tener que responder por el 7 de octubre —y los ciudadanos israelíes esperan respuestas claras e inequívocas al respecto, con la consiguiente asunción de responsabilidades—, pero ni unos ni otros se dan cuenta de que, en realidad, la verdadera culpa que se le puede atribuir al primero es precisamente la de haber acercado el fin de Israel.

Desde este punto de vista, comprender si, en qué medida y a qué nivel el liderazgo israelí ha permitido o no el ataque palestino del 7 de octubre se convierte en una cuestión de importancia histórica, pero mucho menos de importancia política.

Porque, independientemente de cómo se desarrollaran realmente los acontecimientos, fue indiscutiblemente Al Aqsa Flood quien trastocó el panorama de todo Oriente Medio, haciendo no solo posible, sino extremadamente probable, el fin del último colonialismo europeo.

Publicado originalmente por   Giubbe Rosse News. 

Traducción    Observatorio de trabajadores en lucha

Segue nostro Telegram.

La crisi del Mali è un fattore che da diverso tempo sta inquinando la situazione geopolitica del Sahel. La sua origine risale ai primi anni ’10 del XXI secolo e, sotto certi aspetti, è collegabile a quel fenomeno che è stato erroneamente definito come “primavere arabe”, se si considera l’influsso che ha avuto sul Sahel lo smantellamento della Libia di Gheddafi (apripista di una unione dell’Africa che spaventò non poco le cancellerie occidentali).

In questo senso, non è errato affermare che la crisi maliana del 2012 sia stata il prodotto di fattori esogeni (flusso di miliziani gihadisti nell’area del Sahel, interessi economici per lo sfruttamento semicoloniale delle risorse di potenze extra-regionali) che endogeni (intrinseca fragilità dello Stato).

Indubbiamente, colpisce il fatto che tale fragilità si rifletta in uno dei pochi Stati-nazione africani con una storia ricca, complessa e articolata, precedente al processo di colonizzazione europea. Il Mali, infatti, si vuole erede di quell’impero medievale, fondato dal cosiddetto “Leone del Mali” Sundiata Keita (1217-1255), che dall’attuale Sahel si spingeva fino al Golfo di Guinea ed all’Oceano Atlantico. Al centro del mito creatore dello Stato vi è la Battaglia di Kirina (1235), nei pressi dell’odierna Bamako, e proprio la figura di Keita, avvolta da aspetti semi-leggendari, come la sua presunta discendenza da uno dei primi compagni del Profeta Muhammad (sebbene non vi siano prove particolari del suo essere musulmano). Nonostante ciò, le sue gesta vennero “verificate” sia dal viaggiatore marocchino Ibn Battuta che dal celebre storico e antropologo ante litteram Ibn Khaldun. Alcune tradizioni, inoltre, affermano che Keita usasse identificarsi come il successore del personaggio coranico di Dhu al-Qarnayn, che molti associano alla figura di Alessandro il Macedone.

Ad ogni modo, quello maliano si presenta come l’ennesimo caso in cui un Paese con una storia plurisecolare di convivenza multietnica e tolleranza religiosa si sta rapidamente evolvendo in un buco nero in cui il radicalismo anti-tradizionale di stampo wahhabita dei gruppi terroristici legati ad al-Qaeda ed ISIS sta violentemente prendendo il sopravvento, aiutato dalle sue connessioni con le reti criminali transnazionali che imperversano nella regione. Un qualcosa ben raccontato anche nella pellicola del cineasta Abderahmane Sissako “Timbuctu” del 2014, in cui si mostra con evidenza l’enfasi desacralizzante del gihadismo wahhabita nei confronti della vita tradizionale e di uno de centri sacri più importanti per l’Islam sahariano.

Quella del Sahel è sicuramente una regione particolarmente sensibile per la sicurezza internazionale (soprattutto per quella europea in materia di controllo delle rotte migratorie). Cosa che ha trasformato l’area in una scacchiera geopolitica in cui si scontrano attori regionali e non. La crisi maliana inizia come una rivolta separatista Tuareg nel nord del Paese (a guidarla è stato il Movimento Nazionale di Liberazione dell’Azawad – MNLA). Tuttavia, questa “ribellione” si è rapidamente trasformata in un conflitto multilaterale in cui i gruppi terroristi (spinti verso il sud ed oltre confine dai militari algerini) hanno trovato ampio spazio di manovra, favoriti anche dalla porosità dei confini tra gli Stati della regione.

La Francia – che storicamente ha giocato un ruolo di un certo rilievo nell’area – ha lanciato due diverse operazioni militari per contrastare il gihadismo: l’operazione “Serval” (2013) e quella “Barkhane” (2014). L’obiettivo della prima operazione era quello di frenare l’avanzata dell’alleanza Tuareg-gruppi terroristi verso la città di Sévaré (obiettivo parzialmente raggiunto). Quello della seconda, invece, era contrastare l’espansione degli stessi gruppi in tutta la più ampia regione saheliana (obiettivo decisamente fallito). L’azione francese, inoltre, è stata accompagnata dall’attività dell’Unione Europea tramite l’European Union External Action Service (EEAS), legato a  sua volta alla Sahel Strategy del 2011 (di fatto, la prima strategia geograficamente incentrata su una precisa regione prodotta dall’UE). Questa era articolata in quattro punti: a) favorire sicurezza e sviluppo; b) incentivo alla cooperazione regionale; c) rafforzamento della capacità dei governi locali; d) garantire investimenti per l’economia locale. Nel 2015, il Consiglio UE ha pure approvato un Sahel Regional Action Plan. Tuttavia, i piani UE hanno subito le conseguenze della decadente potenza francese (il politologo russo Sergej Karaganov ha spesso indicato nella Francia odierna un esempio di ciò che avviene quando una grande Nazione non è guidata da un “grande idea”) e del diffuso sentimento anti-occidentale prodotto dalla fallimentare missione “Barkhane”. Un sentimento che ha indubbiamente favorito la penetrazione russa (e cinese) nella regione, a discapito anche delle posizioni di Stati Uniti e Regno Unito.

La Russia, in particolare, ha individuato nella regione uno spazio sul quale proiettare la propria influenza con due obiettivi precisi: a) avviare un commercio bilaterale con i Paesi del Sahel nel campo della difesa, vero fiore all’occhiello dell’export russo verso l’estero (dal 2013 al 2025, il budget russo destinato alla regione è più che raddoppiato); accerchiare la NATO da sud, mettendo piede in tutta la fascia di Paesi sahariani, dal Mar Rosso all’Atlantico. A questo scopo, Mosca ha utilizzato anche compagnie militari private (il noto Gruppo Wagner, oggi Africa Corps) per creare basi in loco, addestrare le forze di sicurezza locali ed ottenere dividendi economici come la partecipazione ad importanti contratti minerari. Non bisogna infatti dimenticare che il Mali vanta cospicue riserve di oro, litio, ferro, bauxite e fosfati (senza considerare la ricchezza in termini di fonti energetiche rinnovabili ed una demografia incentrata su una popolazione estremamente giovane e forte).

Ora, è bene tenere a mente che i militari hanno un ruolo centrale nel Paese. Già nel 2012, a seguito della ribellione Tuareg, vi fu un primo colpo di Stato con il quale l’esercito rivendicava maggiore spazio d’azione contro la debolezza manifestata dal governo centrale. Una debolezza che aveva portato l’intero Mali settentrionale sotto il controllo del MNLA. Nuovi colpi di Stato sono arrivati nel 2020 e nel 2021, ed hanno portato al potere il colonnello Assimi Goita che ha annunciato una “rifondazione” del Mali. Su queste basi, l’esercito ha di fatto smantellato le fondamenta istituzionali dello Stato (e pure le sue relazioni con l’estero) per ricostruirle ex novo. Hanno optato per abbandonare l’ECOWAS (la comunità economica degli Stati dell’Africa occidentale, ritenuta un’emanazione di forme neocoloniali occidentali, soprattutto francesi) dopo che questa aveva sanzionato il governo di Bamako). E, allo stesso tempo, si è arrivati ad un netto peggioramento  dei rapporti con l’Algeria, accusata dai militari maliani di fornire sostegno ai ribelli (una relazione ulteriormente deteriorata con il recente incidente del drone maliano abbattuto dall’esercito di Algeri). È sicuramente complesso stabilire chi ha ragione e chi torto. È comunque un fatto che il sostegno algerino al Fronte Polisario nel Sahara occidentale (movimento largamente infiltrato da gruppi terroristi qaidisti o legati all’ISIS) ha a più riprese destabilizzato l’intera regione, rendendo le rotte stradali che collegano i diversi Stati profondamente insicure (motivo alla base della crisi e della mancanza di carburante nel Mali). E motivo per cui Russia e Algeri (nonostante i tradizionali più che ottimi rapporti) sono arrivati a delle frizioni diplomatiche, con la prima che ha sostenuto il piano di autonomia marocchino per il Sahara occidentale e rafforzato le sue relazioni con Rabat.

Nel gennaio del 2024, inoltre, sono stati abrogati gli accordi di Algeri del 2015 che, in linea teorica, avrebbero dovuto congelare il conflitto tra governo centrale ed i ribelli Tuareg. E, con la fine della UN Multidimensional Integrated Mission, è scattata una nuova offensiva congiunta tra forze ribelli e milizie gihadiste (luglio 2025) che è arrivata fino alle porte di Bamako, accerchiando addirittura la città.

A questo proposito bisogna considerare due fattori. In primo luogo, lo sforzo di rifondazione del governo militare non ha riscosso particolare successo sia per le spinte all’isolamento, sia per il fatto che l’esercito si è concentrato soprattutto sulle purghe interne ed assai poco sulle operazioni di antiterrorismo (tra l’altro i privilegi dell’élite militare hanno aumentato non poco le diserzioni alla base della gerarchia; ovvero, tra i soldati inviati al fronte). E non sorprende il fatto che i mercenari russi presenti in loco si siano spesso scontrati anche in modo “violento” con questa casta di intoccabili (e spesso incompetenti) ufficiali dell’esercito.

La fragilità istituzionale, a cui l’esercito non ha saputo dare risposta, e la sostanziale impossibilità di controllare i confini e le strade (gli attacchi contro i convogli che trasportano carburante sono sempre più frequenti) sono le reali ragioni dell’attuale crisi. A ciò si aggiunga una notizia (confermata anche da fonti senegalesi) che vederebbe l’Ucraina sempre più coinvolta nella destabilizzazione del Paese. L’addetto stampa dei servizi segreti di militari di Kiev, Andriy Yusov, ha infatti candidamente ammesso che l’Ucraina ha fornito assistenza militare e logistica (inviando anche dati sulle posizioni delle truppe governative) per il lancio dell’offensiva dello scorso luglio.

Dunque, ancora una volta, l’Ucraina fa il lavoro sporco per la NATO, cercando di evitare quello che in precedenza è stato definito come il tentativo russo di accerchiare l’Alleanza Atlantica dal fronte meridionale.

In questo contesto, Russia e Cina (e magari pure Iran, sottotraccia) dovrebbero lavorare diplomaticamente per favorire una rotta atlantica per i Paesi del Sahel, cooperando con gli Stati dell’Africa occidentale (Senegal in primo luogo) per impedire il loro isolamento regionale.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

US President Donald Trump did not wait for his newly commissioned White House ballroom to be completed before staging his ironic dance with Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa, who formerly went by the nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Julani when he was an Al-Qaeda leader. 

By posing alongside the self-appointed “head of Syria’s transitional government” inside the Oval Office, Trump once again orchestrated a tableau of deliberate humiliation – “This is men’s fragrance,” said Trump, uncapping a gold-topped bottle of his own cologne and spraying it toward a visibly uncomfortable Julani, the former Al-Qaeda affiliate leader.

“It’s the best fragrance. OK?” He held up a second bottle meant for his wife before quipping, “How many wives do you have? One?” When Julani laughed and replied that he had only one, Trump grinned and slapped him on the arm. “With you guys, I never know,” he said.

For him, this is not novel. But for Syria, this marks the first time a sitting Syrian ‘president’ has been subjected to such indignity on US soil – a far cry from the days when Damascus hosted the likes of Henry Kissinger and Bill Clinton with dignity.

The calculus of American interest

The more pressing question is what Julani’s White House reception says about Washington’s evolving strategic doctrine. Trump, like much of the US political establishment, operates solely on the calculus of interest. He shows open contempt for international law, custom, or legacy.

He has no qualms about collaborating with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who oversaw the genocidal war on Gaza, or shaking hands with Julani, a man until recently designated a terrorist by the US State Department. This scene lays bare the grotesque irony of Washington’s so-called “war on terror.”

As Julani said in a Fox News interview during his PR-laced visit, “I think this is a matter in the past,” referring to his Al-Qaeda and ISIS past. That offhand remark captured the ethos of the visit – history must be erased to accommodate new alignments.

The making of a proxy president

Arab media has variously labeled the visit “historic.” And in one sense, they’re right. It is a harbinger. Under Julani’s leadership, Syria is poised for a new wave of looting, privatization, and foreign pillage disguised as economic reform. With this photo op, Julani has repaid his debt to his American patrons – his prior inclusion on terror lists now conveniently forgotten.

Before examining the implications of this political theater, it’s worth recalling who Julani really is.

Born in 1982 while his father was working in Saudi Arabia, Sharaa returned to Syria in 1989. He later moved to Iraq, where his affiliation with Al-Qaeda began. After the illegal 2003 US invasion, he joined the Islamic State of Iraq and was imprisoned in Camp Bucca in 2005, where he met future ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

In 2011, Baghdadi dispatched him to Syria to establish the Nusra Front. Two years later, Baghdadi announced that the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) would now operate in Syria as well, under the name the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and demanded Julani’s loyalty. Julani refused, opting instead to declare allegiance directly to Al-Qaeda’s “central” leadership.

The rift turned violent. ISIS expelled the Nusra Front from Raqqa, forcing Julani to consolidate power in Idlib. As ISIS proclaimed the “Raqqa Emirate,” Julani countered with the “Idlib Emirate.” The split was definitive.

In 2016, Julani formally broke with Al-Qaeda and renamed his group Jabhat Fath al-Sham, later rebranding as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in 2017. Even as he fought the Syrian state, Julani clashed with fellow extremists like Hurras al-Din, who accused him of deviation.

During this time, Washington began selectively targeting Julani’s rivals – killing ISIS and Hurras al-Din leaders in surgical strikes. Yet the Nusra Front remained untouched. The US was effectively clearing the field for Julani.

Simultaneously, he launched a PR campaign, courting western media outlets and insisting HTS was no longer aligned with Al-Qaeda.

His message was aimed even at Washington, which had once placed a $10-million bounty on his head.

Under the tutelage of Syria’s neighboring states, Julani formed the so-called Salvation Government to experiment with local governance.

The extremist with diplomatic immunity

Unlike other militants, Julani enjoyed sustained backing from certain regional powers. Wounded fighters from the Quneitra front were treated in Israeli hospitals. In Turkiye, government ties to the Nusra Front have long been whispered. Praising the ‘revolution’ Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan himself made remarks defending the group, and Ankara only reluctantly placed HTS on its terror list after UN pressure.

During the campaign to topple former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, Turkiye’s frontline role enabled deep cooperation with the Nusra Front and other extremist groups.

After HTS seized control of Idlib, Julani continued refining his image – trading combat fatigues for suits and ties. But a haircut, trimmed beard, and a rebrand cannot whitewash a blood-soaked legacy.

The group’s first claimed attack came on 6 January 2012, a suicide bombing targeting a military vehicle in the Maydan neighborhood of Damascus. Dozens, including civilians, were killed. In the months that followed, HTS conducted over 70 such bombings, murdering hundreds of Syrians. Even elementary schools were not spared.

Dozens of factions emerged during the war and eventually faded. HTS endured, enjoying protection and strategic patience. It was as if someone were waiting for the right moment to sanitize and reintroduce them.

Julani’s utility to Washington and Tel Aviv

So why Julani?

The first reason is his sect. The Axis of Resistance, led primarily by Shia movements, has suffered strategic setbacks. For Washington and its Persian Gulf allies, assembling a “Sunni coalition” requires a compliant Sunni Syria. Julani, with his Salafi pedigree and deep enmity toward Damascus, is their best available asset.

Julani’s claim that HTS is not like the Abraham Accords signatory states because of the “Golan issue” is farcical. Israeli tanks operate freely just outside Damascus. Yet HTS has never targeted the occupation forces. His war is against Palestinian factions.

That Julani has not lifted a finger against Israeli troops inside Syria, while waging war on Palestinian resistance groups, says everything. His usefulness to Tel Aviv is obvious.

The US plan to establish a presence at an air base near Damascus makes the Golan issue even more irrelevant.

Colonial continuity in a tailored suit

So why did Trump sneak Julani in through the back door? As The Telegraph points out:

“There were no flags, guard of honor, or presidential handshake at the door. Instead, his car was spotted at a basement entrance on West Executive Drive, used by national security officials during a crisis or members of Congress arriving for secret talks.”

This was because even Trump understands the scandal this would provoke. Hosting a man who was, until recently, a US-designated terrorist with a $10-million bounty risks backlash. But Trump is less hypocritical than his European peers. He doesn’t bother with euphemisms. “Let bygones be bygones,” is his diplomatic doctrine.

Julani likely never dreamed he’d be received in the White House. But Trump has now granted him the title of “most rapidly rehabilitated terrorist in history.”

This isn’t random. Trump and Netanyahu are racing to roll out their new regional order. While Israel prepares to escalate in the occupied West Bank, its immediate goal is to pacify Gaza and secure the Syrian front.

Julani is the man for the job. He’s never attacked Israeli troops inside Syria. He’s launched operations against Palestinian factions. Al-Qaeda remnants in Lebanon have pledged loyalty to him and stand ready to wage sectarian war against the Alawite and Shia communities.

To underscore this alliance, Trump suspended the Caesar Act sanctions on Syria for 180 days, having already lifted sanctions on Julani and associates.

Trump doesn’t give favors for free. In addition to normalization with Israel, what else does he want from Julani? One possibility is reviving the eight-point US–SDF integration plan. But Turkiye, HTS, and Washington each have their own red lines. Achieving consensus will be difficult.

Another area where Julani may offer concessions is the economy. Talks are underway with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. The Syrian people – already battered by war and sanctions – will soon face privatization of public assets and generational debt.

That these deals are being carved atop Syria’s ruins only deepens the wound.

In their lust to overthrow Assad, Washington and its regional allies backed monsters. Now, they dress them in suits and repackage them for postwar governance. But Syria has not been subdued yet. This final phase aims to bind its people for decades to come.

He doesn’t represent Syria – only its enemies

Julani is offering up Syria’s future to institutions like the IMF and World Bank – entities that have never set foot in the country.

In doing so, who does he represent? The revolutionary legacy of Sheikh Saleh al-Ali? Sultan Pasha al-Atrash? Fares al-Khoury, who once told the French to their faces that Syria would never bow to colonial rule? The poet Nizar Qabbani? Khaled al-Asaad, (“Mister Palmyra”) the archaeologist decapitated by ISIS? The soldiers of the October War? The martyrs hanged by the Ottomans in Marjeh Square?

None of them. Julani represents only the mercenary factions that sought to erase Syria from memory. He is now the most useful of their ilk – a Salafist extremist turned statesman, if only in costume.

Syria has endured presidents, coups, elections, and foreign conspiracies. But never before has a leader been air-dropped from abroad.

Time will tell how long Julani can maintain this masquerade.

Original article:  thecradle.co

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

On September 19th, the UN Security Council voted to reimpose savage economic restrictions on Iran over its nuclear program. European leaders have in recent months repeatedly accused Tehran of refusing to abide by the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action’s terms. 

A core, repeated claim is the Islamic Republic has collated a uranium stock over 40 times the level permitted under that deal. No supporting evidence for the charge has been provided, and the source of this information isn’t clear.

It may nonetheless be highly significant London has taken the lead in calling for the restoration of sanctions, independently imposed punitive measures on Iranian individuals and commercial entities, and employed relentlessly bellicose rhetoric about the Islamic Republic’s purported breaches of its JCPOA commitments. In August, then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy declared Tehran had “consistently failed to provide credible assurances on the nature of its nuclear programme.” In the wake of the UNSC vote, British ambassador Barbara Woodward proclaimed, “we urge [Iran] to act now.”

As this journalist has previously exposed, the JCPOA resulted from a long-running MI6 black propaganda campaign to falsely frame the Islamic Republic as possessing nuclear weapon ambitions, if not nukes outright. Under the Agreement’s terms, Tehran received sanctions relief in return for granting the International Atomic Energy Agency virtually unhindered access to its secret nuclear complexes. Despite the IAEA consistently certifying Iran’s compliance, the Trump administration shredded the Agreement in May 2018, and launched a “maximum pressure” campaign to cripple the country.

Information gathered by the IAEA under the Agreement appears to have assisted Israel’s criminal 12 Day War in June, raising the obvious question of whether the Agreement was always intended as an espionage operation, in preparation for future conflict with Tehran. This interpretation is amply reinforced by leaked documents, indicating the IAEA provided Zionist entity intelligence with names of Iranian nuclear scientists who were subsequently assassinated. Meanwhile, the papers show Agency chief Rafael Grossi enjoys an intimate, covert relationship with officials in Tel Aviv.

These disclosures understandably motivated Iranian lawmakers and President Masoud Pezeshkian to halt any and all cooperation with the Agency. The sanctions eased by the JCPOA being the product of an MI6 black propaganda effort, to falsely convince the West and its overseas proxies and puppets Tehran posed a global nuclear weapon threat, provides the Republic with even more urgent justification for ignoring the Agreement’s terms. Iran’s grounds for rejecting any accommodation with the same countries now seeking to sanction her are inarguable.

‘Supportive Relations’

At the centre of MI6’s black propaganda war on Iran was longtime British intelligence officer Nicholas Langman, a veteran dark arts specialist who has been repeatedly publicly exposed perpetrating the dirtiest imaginable deeds for London’s foreign spying agency the world over. He was for example intimately implicated in Britain’s contribution to the CIA’s global post-9/11 torture program. However, rather than being penalised or defenestrated for his actions and unmasking, he appears to have been richly rewarded, and consistently failed upwards.

A leaked CV shows 2006 – 2008, Langman led MI6’s Iran Department. Here, he oversaw a team seeking to “develop understanding” of Iran’s “nuclear program”. Then, 2010 – 2012, he led an “inter-agency” effort to infiltrate the IAEA, while “[building] highly effective and mutually supportive relations across government and with senior US, European, Middle and Far Eastern colleagues for strategy which enabled major diplomatic success [sic] of Iranian nuclear and sanctions agreement.”

It was during the latter period that public and governmental attitudes across the West – and in vassal states – towards the Islamic Republic became highly belligerent, and negative. One by one, governments and international bodies – including the EU and UN – imposed ravaging sanctions against Tehran, devastating its economy, influence, and standing. MI6 journeyman Langman triumphed in his mission to foment concerted global hostility against Iran, based on the bogus spectre of the country posing a nuclear threat.

The question of whether British ‘intelligence’ on Iran’s nuclear program was the product of torture is an open and obvious one. Langman moved straight to leading MI6’s Iran Department from running the agency’s station in Athens, Greece. There, in late 2005, he was exposed by local media as having overseen an operation to abduct and ferociously mistreat 28 Pakistani guestworkers, wrongfully suspected of having had contact with individuals accused of perpetrating the 7/7 bombings in London in July that year.

That Langman wasn’t reprimanded over the incident strongly suggests he enjoyed a high level of protection, and London approved of his vicious intelligence-gathering methods – known to invariably produce false testimony from detainees. MI6 was not only an enthusiastic collaborator in the CIA’s global extraordinary rendition program, but led its own operations. Markedly, in at least one case, the British sought to sideline the CIA and ensure exclusive access to “intelligence” from a detainee in which Langley also had an interest.

The Obama administration was during its first year in office formally committed to non-interference in the Islamic Republic’s affairs, to the extent State Department apparatchik Jared Cohen was almost fired for publicly demanding Twitter halt planned maintenance during June 2009 protests in Iran, to ensure demonstrators could continue posting. It’s therefore unknown whether Washington was in on MI6’s Iran nuke con. If not, it wouldn’t be the first time British intelligence has misled the international community, with catastrophic results.

‘Possible Manipulation’

In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a scathing report on “the US intelligence community’s prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq.” It reserved particular disdain for how the CIA et al had “[relied] too heavily on foreign government services and third party reporting, thereby increasing the potential for manipulation of U.S. policy by foreign interests [emphasis added].” This was a reference to MI6’s central role in gathering – or concocting – intelligence on Baghdad’s purported WMD capabilities:

As far back as the late 1990s, Britain’s foreign spying agency took the lead on sourcing dud ‘intelligence’ to manufacture consent for the against Baghdad. Under the auspices of a psychological warfare effort dubbed Operation Mass Appeal, MI6 black propaganda specialists circulated false information to foreign editors and reporters on its payroll “to help shape public opinion about Iraq and the threat posed by WMD,” which was then recycled by Western leaders and news outlets to reinforce its credibility.

In September 2002, then-MI6 chief Richard Dearlove personally approached British Prime Minister Tony Blair, claiming his agency had cultivated a source inside Iraq with “phenomenal access”, who could provide the “key to unlock” Iraq’s purported WMD program. Their assorted claims subsequently formed the basis of a dossier, which made a number of wild charges about Baghdad’s chemical and biological weapon capabilities. A prominently reported allegation was that Iraq could deploy WMD against Western countries within just 45 minutes. Its source was an Iraqi taxi driver.

This claim was repeated in a radio address by George W. Bush that month. In January the next year, as the invasion of Iraq rapidly loomed, the President declared in his State of the Union address, “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” That December, then-CIA chief George Tenet admitted this assertion was completely fallacious, and “these 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.”

The Zionist entity justified its unprovoked assault against Iran in June in large part on an intelligence dossier, which concluded the Islamic Republic had reached the “point of no return” in acquiring nukes. Its findings relied heavily on a May IAEA report that provided zero fresh information, but concluded Tehran supposedly maintained “undeclared nuclear material” until the early 2000s. While intended to trigger regime change, Tel Aviv’s broadside ended promptly in embarrassing failure, despite extensive foreign support, including US airstrikes.

Undeterred by the fiasco, Benjamin Netanyahu remains determined to crush the “Iranian axis”, while Trump has declared he would bomb Tehran “without a question” in response to indications the Islamic Republic has enriched uranium beyond agreed levels. We could be on the precipice of another war. As with the Iraq invasion, the perilous trail that brought us to this grave point could lead back to London. Yet again, MI6 may have taken the lead in concocting ‘intelligence’, justifying further US-Israeli aggression against the Islamic Republic.

Original article:  www.kitklarenberg.com

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

A construção narrativa do sionismo depende, fundamentalmente, de duas premissas: a vitimização histórica e o suposto isolamento regional. Ambas são armas retóricas que visam justificar a brutalidade sistemática de Israel contra os palestinos e outras populações nativas do Oriente Médio. Mas nenhuma dessas narrativas se sustenta diante de uma análise minimamente honesta da realidade geopolítica atual da região. O mito do “pequeno Estado de Israel cercado por inimigos” é uma das maiores farsas da propaganda ocidental contemporânea.

A ideia de que Israel é um bastião solitário em meio a um mar de hostilidade árabe é, hoje, completamente descabida. Salvo raras exceções, os países da região não apenas toleram Israel, como colaboram ativamente com o regime sionista — inclusive militar e diplomaticamente. A suposta resistência regional evaporou-se nas últimas décadas, abrindo espaço para uma política de normalização e, em muitos casos, submissão direta aos interesses israelenses.

O caso mais emblemático é o da Síria. A queda de Assad se transformou em uma obsessão ocidental, viabilizada por milícias islamistas com apoio logístico e militar do Ocidente, de Israel e das petromonarquias do Golfo. Após a vitória da Al Qaeda, o regime terrorista engajou quase imediatamente em negociações com Israel, apesar dos bombardeios sionistas contra o território sírio continuarem ativos. Hoje, a “Síria livre” é funcionalmente uma aliada de Israel. O país, fragmentado, perdeu sua capacidade de resistência nacional.

No Líbano, o cenário é igualmente ambíguo. Apesar da postura firmemente anti-israelense do Hezbollah, o governo libanês segue uma linha de conciliação com Tel Aviv. O recente acordo de cessar-fogo, assinado sem o consentimento do Hezbollah, deixa claro que as elites libanesas priorizam a acomodação com Israel em detrimento da soberania nacional. A pressão pelo desarmamento do Hezbollah por parte de setores do governo é outro indicativo da colaboração disfarçada.

Mesmo a Autoridade Palestina, supostamente representante legítima do povo palestino na Cisjordânia, tem atuado como parceira silenciosa do regime sionista. Seu papel é cada vez mais o de um mediador submisso, reprimindo a resistência popular e garantindo a estabilidade dos assentamentos ilegais israelenses. As autoridades locais na Cisjordânia parecem totalmente incapazes de combater o status quo colonial, abandonando qualquer projeto real de libertação.

A Jordânia, com sua monarquia títere, é outro exemplo flagrante de colaboração. A retórica oficial muitas vezes fala em “justiça para os palestinos”, mas na prática Amã atua como peça-chave da arquitetura de contenção regional, facilitando as operações de inteligência e vigilância de Israel. A monarquia jordaniana é, em essência, uma extensão da política anglo-americana na região, e por tabela, uma aliada objetiva de Tel Aviv.

No Golfo, a situação é ainda mais escancarada. Emirados Árabes Unidos, Bahrein, Arábia Saudita e Catar mantêm relações estreitas com Israel, tanto no plano econômico quanto no militar, apesar de muitos deles não reconhecerem a entidade sionista formalmente. Como bem observou o especialista brasileiro Rodolfo Laterza, a efetividade da defesa aérea israelense não se deve exclusivamente a sistemas como o Iron Dome, mas à infraestrutura regional integrada com apoio das monarquias do Golfo. Esses países permitem não apenas o sobrevoo e o uso de bases americanas, como compartilham inteligência e rastreamento de ameaças — garantindo a Israel uma vantagem estratégica significativa.

O recente bombardeio israelense ao Catar reacendeu as expectativas sobre um possível “despertar árabe”, mas, até que haja algum fato novo concreto, tal “solidariedade árabe” é apenas ficção e retórica vazia. Os regimes do Golfo, absolutamente dependentes do suporte militar ocidental e temerosos de desestabilizações internas, estão entre os mais úteis agentes do sionismo no Oriente Médio. Isso se soma à mentalidade de ambiguidade estratégica típica dos povos da região, que acreditam estar em posição de manter múltiplos alinhamentos simultaneamente.

No fim das contas, a única oposição de um ator estatal pleno a Israel é o Irã — que, ironicamente, sequer é árabe. Isolado, bloqueado, demonizado, o Irã mantém uma postura de enfrentamento ao apartheid israelense e continua sendo o principal apoio de movimentos de resistência como o Hezbollah e o Hamas. Ao lado do Iêmen, em guerra civil e dividido, é a única força estatal no tabuleiro que se coloca frontalmente contra a expansão israelense.

A propaganda de Tel Aviv, amplificada pela mídia ocidental, insiste em pintar Israel como vítima. Mas a verdade é que o sionismo cooptou e comprou quase todos os seus vizinhos. O “isolamento” israelense é uma peça de ficção — uma farsa repetida à exaustão para justificar o injustificável: a continuidade de um projeto colonial, supremacista e genocida.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The narrative construction of Zionism fundamentally depends on two premises: historical victimization and alleged regional isolation. Both are rhetorical weapons designed to justify Israel’s systematic brutality against Palestinians and other native populations of the Middle East. But neither of these narratives holds up under even a minimally honest analysis of the region’s current geopolitical reality. The myth of the “tiny State of Israel surrounded by enemies” is one of the greatest fabrications of contemporary Western propaganda.

The idea that Israel is a solitary bastion in a sea of Arab hostility is, today, completely baseless. With few exceptions, countries in the region not only tolerate Israel but actively collaborate with the Zionist regime — including militarily and diplomatically. The supposed regional resistance has evaporated in recent decades, giving way to a policy of normalization and, in many cases, direct submission to Israeli interests.

The most emblematic case is Syria. The fall of Assad became an obsession for the West, enabled by Islamist militias with logistical and military support from the West, Israel, and the Gulf petro-monarchies. After Al-Qaeda’s victory, the terrorist regime almost immediately engaged in negotiations with Israel, despite ongoing Zionist bombings of Syrian territory. Today, the so-called “Free Syria” is functionally an ally of Israel. Fragmented and destabilized, the country has lost its national capacity for resistance.

In Lebanon, the scenario is equally ambiguous. Despite Hezbollah’s firmly anti-Israeli stance, the Lebanese government follows a path of conciliation with Tel Aviv. The recent ceasefire agreement, signed without Hezbollah’s consent, makes it clear that the Lebanese elites prioritize accommodation with Israel over national sovereignty. Government pressure for Hezbollah’s disarmament is another indicator of veiled collaboration.

Even the Palestinian Authority — supposedly the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in the West Bank — has acted as a silent partner of the Zionist regime. Its role is increasingly that of a submissive mediator, suppressing popular resistance and ensuring the stability of illegal Israeli settlements. Local authorities in the West Bank seem entirely incapable of challenging the colonial status quo, abandoning any real project of liberation.

Jordan, with its puppet monarchy, is another blatant example of collaboration. While official rhetoric often speaks of “justice for Palestinians,” in practice Amman functions as a key piece in the architecture of regional containment, facilitating Israeli intelligence and surveillance operations. The Jordanian monarchy is essentially an extension of Anglo-American policy in the region and, by extension, an objective ally of Tel Aviv.

In the Gulf, the situation is even more obvious. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar maintain close relations with Israel, both economically and militarily — even if many of them do not formally recognize the Zionist entity. As Brazilian analyst Rodolfo Laterza correctly observed, the effectiveness of Israel’s air defense is not due solely to systems like the Iron Dome, but to a regionally integrated infrastructure supported by Gulf monarchies. These countries not only allow American military presence and overflights but also share intelligence and threat tracking — giving Israel a significant strategic advantage.

Israel’s recent bombing of Qatar reignited talk of a possible “Arab awakening,” but until concrete developments occur, such “Arab solidarity” remains fiction and empty rhetoric. The Gulf regimes — utterly dependent on Western military support and fearful of internal destabilization — are among Zionism’s most useful agents in the Middle East. This is combined with the region’s typical strategic ambiguity, where governments believe they can maintain multiple alignments simultaneously without paying the price.

In the end, the only full-fledged state actor opposing Israel is Iran — which, ironically, is not even Arab. Isolated, blockaded, demonized, Iran continues to take a confrontational stance toward Israeli apartheid and remains the main supporter of resistance movements like Hezbollah and Hamas. Alongside war-torn and divided Yemen, it is the only state actor on the board that openly challenges Israel’s expansionist agenda.

Tel Aviv’s propaganda, amplified by the Western media, insists on portraying Israel as a victim. But the truth is that Zionism has co-opted and bought off nearly all its neighbors. The so-called “Israeli isolation” is a fiction — a lie repeated endlessly to justify the unjustifiable: the continuation of a colonial, supremacist, and genocidal project.

Declan Hayes contends that the new rulers of Syria do not have a firm control over the country where resistance to the reign of terror is growing.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Atrocities are being committed every day in Syria by the new rulers, according to Irish writer and peace activist Declan Hayes.

However, the Western corporate-run media are ignoring or censoring the horrific reality because the Western governments backed the regime-change operation.

He says that Syria – a cradle of civilization – is now being ruled by barbarians with the tacit support of Western governments and media.

The population is living under a reign of terror because the new rulers are terrorists affiliated with Islamic State who espouse an extremist version of Islam that does not tolerate other religions or versions of Islam.

Declan Hayes visited Syria as a peace activist and humanitarian many times during the decade-long war in that country. He witnessed the aftermath of atrocities carried out by insurgent groups in Latakia, Kassab, and Maaloula, among other places.

These mercenary groups were proxy forces financed and armed by the United States and its Western allies in a covert war for regime change against the former Syrian government.

The reasons for the regime-change operation were geopolitical due to the West’s support for Israel and antagonism towards Russia and Iran, as well as control of oil and gas resources.

Hayes maintains close contact with religious leaders and other community figures in Syria, especially among the Alawite, Christian and Shia Muslim communities. He says that the appalling violence and killings that were carried out by the Western-backed terror proxies during the decade-long war are continuing to be inflicted today.

Homes and villages are raided daily by armed supporters of Syria’s new ruling regime led by the de facto president, Ahmed al Sharaa, also known as Mohammad al Jolani, who is the leader of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) militia.

HTS was formerly an affiliate of Islamic State and other Al Qaeda-linked terror networks. HTS seized power two months ago in Damascus after former President Bashar al-Assad fled the country with his family. Assad is living in exile in Russia.

The collapse of his government surprised the world but in many ways, it shouldn’t have been a surprise because Syria was worn down and destroyed by a 10-year war sponsored by the U.S., European powers, Israel and the Gulf Arab kingdoms.

The country was also devastated by crippling Western economic sanctions. Assad’s allies, Russia and Iran, could not prevent the collapse and takeover by the Western terrorist proxies.

Syria is facing an extremely dangerous future where the new regime is exacting brutal retribution against minorities and communities perceived as being loyal to Assad.

What makes the situation all the more grim is that the United States and European Union governments and their media are propping up the new regime, whitewashing its violations and its terrorist links, or simply ignoring the daily atrocities being inflicted.

However, Declan Hayes contends that the new rulers of Syria do not have a firm control over the country where resistance to the reign of terror is growing.

Author and human rights lawyer Dan Kovalik says the Western powers are whitewashing a terrorist regime that is imposing a reign of terror on the Syrian population.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The new rulers of Syria are presented by Western governments and media as “rebels” and “reformed militants” who are trying to bring law and order to the Arab country.

Author and human rights lawyer Dan Kovalik says the Western powers are whitewashing a terrorist regime that is imposing a reign of terror on the Syrian population.

The new rulers of Syria are presented by Western governments and media as “rebels” and “reformed militants” who are trying to bring law and order to the Arab country.

Author and human rights lawyer Dan Kovalik says the Western powers are whitewashing a terrorist regime that is imposing a reign of terror on the Syrian population.

Kovalik has just visited the country on a fact-finding mission.

He toured the capital, Damascus, as well as the outlying countryside. He witnessed firsthand minority groups living in fear of violent retribution from the now-dominant militant factions who profess an extremist version of Sharia Law.

Kovalik corroborates disturbing alternative reports filtering out of Syria of executions, lynchings and other atrocities meted out by the terrorist militia whom the West complacently calls “rebels”.

Christians, Alawites and Shia Muslims are in grave danger from the new rulers of Syria headed up by de facto leader Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa (also known as Mohammed al-Julani). He is head of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) faction.

HTS evolved out of Al Qaeda, Islamic State and Al Nusra Front. All these groups are officially on the US and West’s designated terrorist list. But that designation is part of the charade whereby the Western governments have covertly sponsored these groups as proxies for geopolitical interests.

Syria’s de facto ruler al-Sharaa (al-Jolani) was up to recently on the US wanted terrorist list with a $10 million reward for his capture. Since taking over Syria in December, the US has de-listed him after Washington delegates met in Damascus in recent weeks to discuss restoring diplomatic relations and carving up the resources of the war-torn Levantine territory. The US military already illegally occupies oil and agriculturally rich land in Syria.

Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock was also quick to travel to Damascus to greet the new regime and talk up business opportunities.

There should be no surprise in all of this. For years the Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups in Syria were the proxies for the United States and its NATO allies deployed to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad in a dirty covert war for regime change.

Western media are depicting the downfall of Assad as a liberation from dictatorship. That’s a tall order given that the “liberators” are terror groups that inflicted unspeakable violence on the Syrian population during the Western-backed proxy war.

Dan Kovalik attests that Al Qaeda (and its variants) is now in government in Syria – the very organization that the US and its Western allies supposedly fought against in a global “war on terror”.

He warns that Syria is facing dark and dangerous times ahead as minority communities fear for their lives. But the Western governments and media are whitewashing the terrorist regime with blood on their hands. The cover-up is made all the more urgent because the West is fully complicit in the destruction of Syria.

Kovalik is the author of several books published by Skyhorse Publishing. His titles include The Plot to Scapegoat Russia, The Case for Palestine, The Plot to Overthrow Venezuela, and No More War… How the West Violates International Law by Using ‘Humanitarian’ Intervention to Advance Economic and Strategic Interests.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

When German Green foreign minister Annalena Baerbock presented her “Guidelines for a Feminist Foreign Policy” in March 2023, we wrote that this project, as absurd as it is reactionary, was “ultimately about enforcing geostrategic and economic interests.” If necessary, this would also be done in “close cooperation with the most reactionary regimes in the world.”

In this respect, Baerbock’s most recent trip abroad to Syria represented a new high point. In Damascus on Friday, she met representatives of the new Islamist HTS regime and its leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani (real name Ahmed al-Sharaa). To describe al-Jolani as reactionary would be an understatement. Jolani is the former emir of the al-Nusra Front, which was initially linked to the Islamic State and then to al-Qaeda. It was designated a terrorist organisation by the UN in 2013.

In the same year, al-Jolani announced in a video message: “The sons of the al-Nusra Front swear allegiance to Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri.” Al-Zawahiri had been the leader of al-Qaeda since the 2011 assassination of Osama bin Laden by US special forces. He subsequently supported al-Jolani with fighters and weapons, which al-Nusra used for deadly terrorist attacks.

In October 2013, Human Rights Watch published a report describing how the al-Nusra Front, together with other armed opposition groups, organised massacres in rural areas of the Syrian governorate of Latakia between 4 and 18 August 2013, killing at least 190 civilians and taking more than 200 hostages. At least 67 were allegedly executed in the operation near villages of the Alawite religious sect.

In a report published in July 2016, Amnesty International accused al-Nusra of torture, child abduction and summary executions. In December 2014, for example, al-Nusra fighters executed a woman on charges of adultery and stoned to death women accused of extramarital relationships. Overall, they had “strictly interpreted Sharia law and imposed punishments for alleged violations that amount to torture or other ill-treatment,” the report said.

In addition, al-Nusra has carried out numerous terrorist attacks in major Syrian cities, including Damascus, Aleppo and Homs, each of which has claimed several dozen lives. The terror of al-Jolani’s fighters was so massive that the US government also classified the HTS (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham–Organisation for the Liberation of the Levant), which emerged from the al-Nusra Front, as a foreign terrorist organisation and imposed a $10 million bounty on al-Jolani himself.

Meanwhile, the US has withdrawn the bounty and Western officials such as Baerbock and her French counterpart Jean-Noël Barrot are making a pilgrimage to Damascus on behalf of the EU to pay their respects to the jihadists. The reasons for this are obvious. “They all believe they can utilise HTS as their subcontractor to further their geostrategic interests in the war-ravaged country,” as we wrote in a recent analysis.

In fact, mass protests against the HTS are already developing in Syria shortly after the Islamists came to power. The jihadists are seen as a particular threat by religious and confessional minorities. According to media reports, the number of house searches, lootings, harassment of women and executions has increased since the HTS came to power, especially in areas inhabited by a majority of Alawites.

All this did not deter Baerbock from giving al-Jolani the warmest of welcomes–even though he pointedly refused her the bloody handshake as a woman. In an interview on her return journey, however, Baerbock was pleased to note that she had also spoken to the Islamist about “women’s rights” in their “long and intensive conversation.” She also pointed out that the new head of the Syrian central bank was a woman.

Baerbock’s closing of ranks with the supposedly reformed HTS terrorists goes hand in hand with her support for the Israeli Netanyahu regime, which is committing genocide against the Palestinians and is now also bombing parts of Syria, and the NATO war escalation against Russia. Almost two years after the publication of her guidelines, it is clear what “feminist foreign policy” essentially means: imperialist terror, mass murder and war.

Original article: wsws

By Kit KLARENBERG

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

On 18 December, The Telegraph published an extraordinary investigation into how the UK and US trained and “prepared” fighters in the Revolutionary Commando Army (RCA), a “rebel” force that collaborated with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in the mass offensive toppling of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad weeks earlier. 

In an unprecedented disclosure, the outlet revealed that Washington not only “knew about the offensive” well in advance, but also had “precise intelligence about its scale.” Washington’s now-confirmed “effective alliance” with HTS was described as “one of many ironies” emerging from the decade-and-a-half-long proxy war.

The Telegraph suggested this collaboration was inadvertent – simply a symptom of how Syria’s grinding, protracted civil war gave birth to “a bewildering array of militias and alliances, most of them backed by foreign powers.” 

US support of HTS: A ‘necessary’ alliance 

Alliances were fluid, with groups often splintering, merging, and shifting allegiances. Fighters frequently found themselves switching sides, blurring lines between factions. Yet, ample evidence indicates the UK and the US maintained deliberate, long-standing ties with the dominant rebels of HTS.

For instance, in March 2021, President-elect Donald Trump’s former lead Syria envoy, James Jeffrey, gave a revealing interview to PBS, during which he disclosed that Washington secured a specific “waiver” from then-secretary of state Mike Pompeo to assist HTS. 

While this did not permit direct funding or arming of the UN/US-designated terrorist organization, the waiver ensured that if US-supplied resources “somehow” ended up with HTS, western actors “[could not] be blamed.” 

The fungibility of weapons on the Syrian battlefield was something Washington counted on heavily. In a 2015 interview, CENTCOM spokesman Lieutenant Commander Kyle Raines was quizzed about why Pentagon-vetted fighters’ weapons were showing up in the hands of the Nusra Front (precursor to HTS). Raines responded: “We don’t ‘command and control’ these forces – we only ‘train and enable’ them. Who they say they’re allying with, that’s their business.”

This legal loophole enabled Washington to “indirectly” support HTS, ensuring the group did not collapse while maintaining its designation as a terrorist organization – a status complete with a now-rescinded $10 million bounty on leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani, who now goes by his real name Ahmad al-Sharaa. 

Jeffrey rationalized this strategy, calling HTS “the least bad option” for preserving “a US-managed security system in the region,” and thus worth “[leaving] alone.” HTS’s dominance, in turn, gave Turkiye a platform to operate in Idlib. Meanwhile, HTS sent unmistakable messages to their US patrons, pleading:

“We want to be your friend. We’re not terrorists. We’re just fighting Assad.”

‘Safe haven’

Since Assad’s fall, officials in London have markedly taken the lead in legitimizing the HTS-led interim administration as Syria’s new government. The group was added to the UK’s list of proscribed terrorist organizations in 2017, its entry stating HTS should be considered among “alternative names” for the long-banned Al-Qaeda.

While UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared it “too early” to rescind the group’s designation, British officials met HTS representatives on 16 December – despite the illegality of such meetings.

This likely signals an impending, highly politicized western rehabilitation of HTS. Throughout Syria’s dirty war, UK intelligence waged extensive psychological operations to promote “moderate rebels,” crafting atrocity propaganda and human-interest stories. 

These efforts were ostensibly aimed at undermining groups like HTS, ISIS, and Al-Qaeda. Yet leaked documents from UK intelligence reveal how HTS remained intertwined with Al-Qaeda post-2016, directly contradicting media narratives.

In other words, throughout the decade-and-a-half-long crisis, HTS was officially considered on par with the most fundamentalist, genocidal elements in the country. 

British documents also make a total mockery of the common refrain that HTS severed all ties with Al-Qaeda in 2016. A 2020 file described how Al-Qaeda “co-exists” with HTS in occupied Syrian territory, using it as a launchpad for transnational attacks. 

The document warned that HTS’s domination created a “safe haven” for Al-Qaeda to train and expand, fueled by instability. British psyops against HTS spanned years but ultimately failed. Instead, leaked files lament HTS’s growing influence, territorial gains, and rebranding as an alternative government.

“[Al-Qaeda] remains an explicitly Salafi-Jihadist transnational group with objectives and targets which extend outside Syria’s borders. [Al-Qaeda’s] priority is to maintain an instability fuelled safe haven in Syria, from which they are able to train and prepare for future expansion. HTS domination of north west Syria provides space for [Al-Qaeda] aligned groups and individuals to exist.”

British-backed propaganda benefiting HTS

British intelligence psyops attempting to hinder HTS were in operation from the group’s founding until recently. Yet, they appear to have achieved nothing. Numerous leaked files reviewed by The Cradle bemoan how HTS’s “influence and territorial control” had “dramatically grown” over the years. 

Its successes allowed the extremist group “to consolidate its position, neutralize opponents, and position itself as a key actor in northern Syria.” But HTS’s “domination” was secured in part by the group rebranding itself as an alternative government.

HTS-occupied territory was home to a variety of parallel service providers and institutions, including hospitals, law enforcement, schools, and courts. The group’s domestic and international propaganda specifically promoted these resources as a demonstration of an “alternative” Syria awaiting rollout across the entire country.

Ironically, many of these structures and organizations – such as the infamous White Helmets, who also operated in ISIS-run territories – were direct products of British intelligence, created for regime change propaganda purposes. Moreover, they were aggressively promoted by London at enormous expense.

Repeated references are made in leaked UK intelligence documents to the importance of “[raising] awareness of moderate opposition service provision,” and providing domestic and international audiences with “compelling narratives and demonstrations of a credible alternative to the [Assad] regime.” There is no consideration evident in the files that these efforts might be assisting HTS greatly in its own efforts to present itself as a “credible alternative” to Assad.

Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that Syrians in occupied territory would accommodate HTS “particularly if [they are] receiving services from it.” Even more eerily, the documents note, “HTS and other extremist armed groups are significantly less likely to attack opposition entities that are receiving support” from the UK government’s Conflict, Stability, and Security Fund (CSSF). 

This was the mechanism through which Britain’s Syrian propaganda war and organizations like the White Helmets and extremist-linked Free Syrian Police were financed.

These UK-run governance structures and opposition elements, which were allegedly intended to “undermine” HTS, operated in areas controlled by the group safe from violent reprisals for their foreign-funded work, as they “demonstrably provide key services” to residents of occupied territory.

There is also the darker prospect that HTS was well aware these “opposition entities” were bankrolled by British intelligence, and they were unmolested on that very basis.

Coordinated offensive

As The Telegraph‘s report explains, “the first indication that Washington had prior knowledge” of HTS’s offensive was when its RCA proxies were given a rousing pep talk by their US handlers three weeks prior. 

At a secret meeting at the US-controlled Al-Tanf air base close to the borders of Jordan and Iraq, the militants were told to scale up their forces and “be ready” for an attack that “could lead to the end” of Assad. A quoted RCA captain told the outlet:

“They did not tell us how it would happen. We were just told: ‘Everything is about to change. This is your moment. Either Assad will fall, or you will fall.’ But they did not say when or where, they just told us to be ready.”

This followed US officers at the base, swelling the RCA’s ranks by unifying the group with other UK/US-trained, funded, and directed Sunni desert units and rebel units operating out of Al-Tanf under joint command. 

According to The Telegraph, “RCA and the fighters of HTS … were cooperating, and communication between the two forces was being coordinated by the Americans.” This collaboration proved to be of devastating effect in the “lightning offensive,” with RCA rapidly seizing key territory across the country upon explicit US orders.

RCA even joined forces with another rebel faction in the southern city of Deraa, which reached Damascus before HTS. RCA now occupies roughly one-fifth of the country, pockets of territory in Damascus, and the ancient city of Palmyra. 

Hitherto “heavily defended” by Russia and Hezbollah, Moscow’s local base has now been taken over by RCA. “All members of the force continued to be armed by the US,” receiving salaries of $400 monthly, nearly 12 times what Syrian Arab Army (SAA) soldiers were paid.

It is uncertain whether this direct financing of the RCA and other extremist militias that toppled the Assad government continues today. What is clear, though, is that the UK and US supported HTS from the group’s inception, even if “indirectly.” In turn, this covert backing played a pivotal role in positioning HTS financially, geopolitically, materially, and militarily for its “lightning” swoop on Damascus and assumption of government today.

Reinforcing the interpretation that this was the objective of London and Washington all along, following Assad’s ouster, Starmer promptly declared that the UK would “play a more present and consistent role” in West Asia as a result. 

While western and certain regional capitals may celebrate the apparent success of their lavishly funded, blood-soaked campaign to dismantle decades of Baathism, British intelligence had long cautioned that the outcome would grant Al-Qaeda an even larger “instability-fueled safe haven” for “future expansion.”

Original article: thecradle.co