Madness of Blockading Syria’s Regime

Exclusive: The U.S. State Department is trying to block Russian supplies going to Syria’s embattled government despite the risk that collapsing the regime would create a vacuum filled by the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, another nightmare dreamt up by the neocons and liberal hawks, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Does the U.S. government want the Islamic State and/or its fellow-travelers in Al Qaeda to take over Syria? As far as the State Department is concerned, that seems to be a risk worth taking as it moves to cut off Russia’s supply pipeline to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad — even as Sunni terrorist groups expand their grip on Syrian territory.

It appears that hardliners within the Obama administration have placed the neocon goal of “regime change” in Syria ahead of the extraordinary dangers that could come from the black flag of Sunni terrorism raised over the capital of Damascus. That would likely be accompanied by the Islamic State chopping off the heads of Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other “heretics” and/or Al Qaeda having a major Mideast capital from which to plot more attacks on the West.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

And, as destabilizing as the current flow of Middle East refugees is to Europe, a victory by the Islamic State or Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front would open the flood gates, sending millions of desperate people pouring out of Syria and creating a political as well as humanitarian crisis. At that point, there also would be enormous pressure on President Barack Obama or his successor to mount a full-scale invasion of Syria and attempt a bloody occupation.

The human and financial costs of this nightmare scenario are almost beyond comprehension. The European Union already strained by mass unemployment in its southern tier — could crack apart, shattering one of the premier achievements of the post-World War II era. The United States also could undergo a final transformation from a Republic into a permanent-warrior state.

Yet, Official Washington can’t seem to stop itself. Instead of working with Russia and Shiite-ruled Iran to help stabilize the political/military situation in Syria, the pundit class and the “tough-guy/gal” politicians are unleashing torrents of insults toward the two countries that would be the West’s natural allies in any effort to prevent a Sunni terrorist takeover.

Beyond words, there has been action. Over the past week, the State Department has pressured Bulgaria and Greece to bar Russian transport flights headed to Syria. The U.S. plan seems to be to blockade the Syrian government and starve it of outside supplies, whether humanitarian or military, all the better to force its collapse and open the Damascus city gates to the Islamic State and/or Al Qaeda.

In explaining its nearly inexplicable behavior, the State Department even has adopted the silly neocon talking point which blames Assad and now Russia for creating the Islamic State, though the bloodthirsty group actually originated as “Al Qaeda in Iraq” in reaction to President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Then, backed by money and weapons from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other U.S. “allies,” AQI moved into Syria with the goal of ousting Assad’s relatively secular government. AQI later took the name Islamic State (also known by the acronyms ISIS, ISIL or Daesh). Yet, the State Department’s official position is that the Islamic State is Assad’s and Russia’s fault.

“What we’ve said is that their [the Russians’] continued support to the Assad regime has actually fostered the growth of ISIL inside Syria and made the situation worse,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Tuesday. “If they want to be helpful against ISIL, the way to do it is to stop arming and assisting and supporting Bashar al-Assad.”

Yet, the reality is that Assad’s military has been the principal bulwark against both the Islamic State and the other dominant Sunni rebel force, Al Qaeda’s affiliate, the Nusra Front. So, by moving to shut down Assad’s supply line, the U.S. government is, in effect, clearing the way for an Islamic State/Al Qaeda victory since the U.S.-trained “moderate” rebels are largely a fiction, numbering in double digits, while the extremists have tens of thousands of committed fighters.

In other words, if the U.S. strategy succeeds in collapsing Assad’s defenses, there is really nothing to stop the Sunni terrorists from seizing Damascus and other major cities. Then, U.S. airstrikes on those population centers would surely kill many civilians and further radicalize the Sunnis. To oust the Islamic State and/or Al Qaeda would require a full-scale U.S. invasion, which might be inevitable but would almost certainly fail, much as Bush’s Iraq occupation did.

A Scary Fantasyland

As scary as these dangers are, there remains a huge gap between the real world of the Middle East and the fantasyland that is Official Washington’s perception of the region. In that land of make-believe, what matters is tough talk from ambitious politicians and opinion leaders, what I call the “er-er-er” growling approach to geopolitics.

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton joined in that growling on Wednesday at the Brookings Institution, which has become home to neocons such as Robert Kagan and a host of “liberal interventionists,” such as Michael O’Hanlon and Strobe Talbott.

Though she formally endorsed the nuclear agreement with Iran, former Secretary of State Clinton insulted both the Iranians and the Russians. Noting Russia’s support for the Syrian government, she urged increased punishment of Moscow and Russian President Vladimir Putin — aimed at forcing Russia to abandon the Assad regime.

“We need a concerted effort to up the costs on Russia and Putin; I am in the camp that we have not done enough,” Clinton declared. “I don’t think we can dance around it much longer,” she said, claiming that Russia is trying to “stymie and undermine American power whenever and wherever they can.”

Clinton appears to have learned nothing from her past support for “regime change” strategies in Iraq and Libya. In both countries, the U.S. military engineered the ouster and murder of the nations’ top leaders, but instead of the promised flourishing of some ideal democracies, the countries descended into anarchy with Sunni terrorists, linked to Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, now controlling large swaths of territory and engaging in widespread atrocities.

Yet, for Clinton, the higher priority is to come across as super-tough, proving her value to Official Washington’s influential neocons and liberal hawks. Thus, a potential Clinton presidency suggests an even more warlike foreign policy than the one carried out by Obama, who recently boasted of ordering military strikes in seven different countries.

Clinton seems eager for more and more “regime changes,” targeting Syria and even Russia, despite the existential risks involved in such reckless strategies, especially the notion of destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia. The neocons and liberal hawks always assume that some malleable “moderate” will take power, but the real-life experience is that U.S. interventionism often makes matters worse, with even more extreme leaders filling the void.

Where’s Obama?

Now, with Official Washington lining up behind a blockade of Russian assistance to the Syrian government even if that would mean an Islamic State/Al Qaeda victory the great unknown is where President Obama stands.

A source familiar with the back channels between the White House and the Kremlin told me that Obama had encouraged Putin to step up Russian aid to the embattled Syrian government as part of the fight against the Islamic State and that the Russians are now bewildered as to why Obama’s State Department is trying to sabotage those efforts.

As odd as that might sound, it would not be the first time that Obama has favored a less confrontational approach to a foreign crisis behind the scenes only to have neocon/liberal-hawk operatives inside his own administration charge off in the opposite direction. For instance, in 2009, Obama bowed to demands for what turned out to be a useless “surge” in Afghanistan, and in 2014, he allowed neocon Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to start a new Cold War with Russia by helping to orchestrate a “regime change” in Ukraine.

As Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Nuland would presumably be at the center of the recent arm-twisting in Bulgaria and Greece to get those countries to block Russian flights to Syria, which has been a longtime neocon target for “regime change,” a goal that the neocons now see as within their grasp.

Typically, when his underlings undercut him, Obama then falls in line behind them but often in a foot-dragging kind of way. Then, on occasion, he’ll break ranks and make a foray into genuine diplomacy, such as Syria’s 2013 agreement to surrender its chemical-weapons arsenal or Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal both of which were achieved with significant help from Putin. But Obama has proved to be an unreliable foreign-policy partner, bending to the hawkish pressure from many of his subordinates and even joining in their rhetorical insults.

Today, Obama may feel that he has gone as far as he dares with the Iran nuclear deal and that any foreign policy cooperation with Iran or Russia before Congress decides on the agreement’s fate by Sept. 17 could cause defections among key Democrats.

Once the deadline for congressional review passes, Obama could get serious about collaborating with Iran and Russia to stabilize the situation in Syria. By strengthening the Syrian government’s military which has protected Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other minorities and incorporating reasonable Sunnis into a power-sharing arrangement, there would a chance to stabilize Syria and push for elections and constitutional reforms. But that would require dropping the slogan, “Assad must go!”

So, while President Obama is saying little about his Syrian plans, his State Department has moved off on its own aggressive course hoping to finally achieve the neocon/liberal-hawk dream of “regime change” in Syria regardless of what nightmares might follow.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

47 comments for “Madness of Blockading Syria’s Regime

  1. The Lion
    September 13, 2015 at 07:40

    A very simple explanation for the Israel firsters and the Ultra Right wingers in America who CLAIM to be protectors of ISRAEL!

    ASSAD is of little threat to Israel the borders have been relatively peaceful for decades a minor spat here and there!

    Now think carefully ISIS, ISIL what ever you want to call them SIXTY MILES from Jerusalem as the crow flies, what religious land mark do you think ISIS will destroy in Jerusalem first, My guess is the wailing wall!

  2. eugen raduca
    September 13, 2015 at 00:02

    the strategy of the us coalition in Syria is to make Syria a state Islamic which at some point , the …..terrorist….will attack Israel.israel in legitimate defense with the best army in middle east will overrun the terrorist and will be the savior and liberator of Syria . they will aquire …legally a country…..perfect ethnic cleansing …..chaos with a purpose for Israel….by way of deception……lots of traitors in America in top places.

  3. follyofwar
    September 12, 2015 at 06:28

    Well, we’re not called the Empire of Chaos for nothing. How can Washington be against ALL sides in the Syrian debacle?

  4. Joe L.
    September 11, 2015 at 15:56

    I just watched a Reality Check with Benn Swann on the refugee crisis in Europe and I think he summed it up pretty well which is incredibly unusual for US mainstream media –

    • follyofwar
      September 12, 2015 at 07:25

      Thanks for the link, Joe L. How did that brave reporter get that (true) story on TV before the CBS censors nixed it? I wonder if he’s been fired.

    • JohnMM
      September 17, 2015 at 09:39

      Joe L. Thanks, I had never heard of Ben Swann before, but the link prompted me to look further. Looks like he has the ability to bring some much needed truths to a wider audience.

  5. Mortimer
    September 11, 2015 at 13:14

    September 11, 2015

    To they who “Create Reality” –

    this is neither madness nor incoherence

    but follow-thru on The Plan

    they concocted for Bibi back in the late 90’s.

    Many of you here have alluded to the document, “A New Strategy For Securing The Realm.” –

    Why are we contemplating madness or incoherence vis-a-vis THE HISTORY WE ALREADY KNOW ?

    To do so is to play into the Magicians Hand and play the fool or The Fooled.

    We are not fooled. We know they’re fulfilling a Planned Objective.

    I know the voices/reasonings of The Fooled –

    they call into c-span’s Washington Journal

    every morning filled to the brim

    with Large Scale MISINFORMATION that they believe Wholeheartedly.

    My dismay at the ignorance is erased by logging on to this site

    where the majority of comments are from folks who Pay Attention and are aptly concerned.

    Happy New Pearl Harbor day to all of you… .


  6. Mark Thomason
    September 11, 2015 at 13:07

    It is about 1500 miles and three days sailing for the shuttle of three landing ships running from the Black Sea to Latakia, according to the Sea Shipping Calculator I checked on line.

    It might be nice to fly things in, but three days by sea is quite close really, and the established shuttle of ships would get there anything they’d like.

    They are not cut off. They are at most inconvenienced. Really, it is more the insult.

  7. Mortimer
    September 11, 2015 at 11:28

    To they who “Create Reality” – this is neither madness nor incoherence but the follow-thru on The Plan they concocted for Bibi back in the late 90’s. Many of you here have alluded to the document, “A New Strategy For Securing The Realm.” –
    Why are we contemplating madness or incoherence vis-a-vis THE HISTORY WE ALREADY KNOW ?

    To do so is to play into the Magicians Hand and play the fool or The Fooled. We are not fooled. We know they’re fulfilling a Planned Objective.

    I know the voices/reasonings of The Fooled – they call into c-span’s Washington Journal every morning filled to the brim with Large Scale MISINFORMATION that they believe Wholeheartedly.
    My dismay at the ignorance is erased by logging on to this site where the majority of comments are from folks who Pay Attention to what’s really going on.

    Happy New Pearl Harbor day to all of you… .


    • BradOwen
      September 12, 2015 at 09:01

      The ones who are The Fooled are those who believe they can Create Reality from their own, inflated egos…looks to me like The Trickster has struck. There is an old saying; “Whom the Gods shall destroy, They first make mad.” The madness of Narcissism. This World belongs to no one but They who created it. That’s just speculation from a fellow “Modern” though, since we all are guilty of having broken all ties to any possible Force or Powers, beyond our own selves and our puny egos, and our made-up icons that stand in the place of The Real Thing.

  8. Joe Tedesky
    September 11, 2015 at 11:14

    Here we are fourteen years after 9/11, and what have we to show for our revenge? We have the ‘Patriot Act’ which totally destroyed our Bill of Rights, not to mention what it does to the meaning of our Constitution. We have a Homeland Security apparatus that claims to protect us, but at the same time is secretive, and chews up a lot of tax dollars to boot. Not to be outdone the Pentagon not only gets an overly large budget, but often it losses money that it can’t account for. Military men and woman serve too many tours of duty. Our over warred military suffers from PTSD, and for many these wars have ruined their family and social life. Not to worry though, our neighborhood police are using the excess military equipment to keep us safe. What have we done to ourselves?

    If Obama can’t make this government abide by his decisions, then he should either fire these arrogant staffers, or he should just resign. Hillary would do us all a favor, if she would retire with Bill, and enjoy their grandchild. When is enough, enough?

    For over fifty years I have been of the opinion that when Russia and the United States team up, then and only then will there be a true peace for the world to enjoy. Only instead we demonize the only one who seems to make sense, and if by saying that, that makes me a Putin apologize then so be it. This whole seven countries in five years thing is the biggest scam ever pulled off by the shadow government.

    • Joe L.
      September 11, 2015 at 11:36

      Joe Tedesky… Too bad you didn’t live closer otherwise I would suggest that we have a beer together. I agree with all that you have said and I am amazed at how everything is twisted by the US State Department and media. It is funny about Putin because he is supposedly “Hitler” but it was Putin that was talking about “peace talks” in Syria years ago when the US was talking about bombs and “regime change”. 14 years on and where are the success stories? All that I see are failed states such as Iraq, Libya etc. and refugees flooding into Europe from these countries along with Syrian refugees. Then we see a story of the tragedy of a little dead Syrian boy but where are the stories of the dead Libyan children at the other end of our bombs OR the children of Fallujah, Iraq being born deformed due to US munitions using depleted uranium. Now I wonder if the US government, and western governments in general, are going to exploit of the story of the Syrian child to help justify a full on invasion of Syria with the express mission to remove Assad from power. I just wonder if this story of the Syrian child will turn into the “throwing babies from incubators” as George Bush Sr. used to justify war against Iraq (turned out the supposed nurse who told of the story of babies being thrown from incubators was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the US). I am also reminded on this day of the tragedy of 9/11 in New York and I will never forget that morning but today should also be a reminder of US imperialism such as 9/11 in 1973 in Chile where the US overthrew the democratically elected leader, Allende, where I believe a dictator was installed that was friendly to US interests. I also believe that on this day we should also think of the 1/2 Million to 1 Million Iraqis that were “murdered” based on lies that were perpetuated by the US Government and cheerlead by the US media. This is what is in my mind on this September 11, 2015.

      • Steve Naidamast
        September 11, 2015 at 13:08

        Joe L.

        When Adolph Hitler was “Hitler”, he too was actually trying to convince the “Allies” to negotiate peace prior to the initiation of WWII and after it began.

        I have his 7 major speeches that he made to the world from 1933 to 1940 (radio was used to transmit state policy at the time). I have also studied the underlying currents that led him to attack Poland, all of which demonstrate that the US, UK, and Poland were actually the instigators in this terrible atrocity, while France actually wanted to remain on peaceful terms with Germany. Today it is the same, with Neocon lunatics of the West demanding that we go to war in the East.

        Maybe all three of us should meet for a beer; I’ll actually just drink a ginger-ale…

        • Joe L.
          September 11, 2015 at 14:02

          Steve Naidamast… My overall point about Putin is that our governments and media are equating him to “Hitler” which we lionize as the ultimate evil meanwhile Putin is talking about “peace” and our governments are talking about more “war” – War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength… As for that beer, if anyone lived close on Vancouver Island, BC then I would be up for that beer or ginger-ale in your case.

          • Steve Naidamast
            September 11, 2015 at 15:33

            Joe L.

            I understood your point. I was trying to point out that comparing Putin to “Hitler” like the West is currently doing is quite erroneous, historically, since Hitler was doing more to try to promote peace than anyone else.

            His territorial revisionist campaign was begun to rectify the injustices of the Versailles Treaty, which he was trying to do peacefully while everyone knew the treaty to be completely unsustainable given the ridiculous redrawing of national borders; especially those of Poland and Czechoslovakia. In fact, the incident over Czechoslovakia was begun due to the Slovaks hating the Czechs who were as delusional and as dictatorial as the Poles at the time…

          • Steve Naidamast
            September 11, 2015 at 15:35

            Joe L.

            Oh, about that drink; I live over here in New York. I guess we could meet in the middle somewhere, like Cleveland… :-)

        • Joe Tedesky
          September 11, 2015 at 16:28

          Steve. I would be careful comparing Putin to Hitler. People are too one dimensional to get your drift, if you know what mean. I would rather compare Putin to (ready for this??) George Washington. Now, before some of you get highly insulted, I see the comparison through the eyes of both of these men, who didn’t or don’t want to meddle in other country’s affairs. Washington went to great lengths to stay out of other country’s quarrels. Putin has gone on record saying how he would like everyone to get along, and to mind their own business. After all it is the United States and it’s allies who seem to want to dominate the entire planet. How many bases does the U.S. have spread across the globe, and tell me how many bases Russia has. In fact why does our media demonize this one man Putin from Russia. Hardly, ever do you hear our western media even say the word Russia. My point is, are we picking a personal fight with Putin, or are we thumbing our nose at an entire population of Russians? It just seems weird to me how this whole Putin narrative is being portrayed. Then again Donald Trump is a serious candidate for the U.S. Presidency. Reality TV, celebrity bling, and down right stupid has taken over this American society. I hope the average citizen sees through this silliness for what it is worth.

          Joe L. you are so kind for wanting to have a beer with me. I haven’t had a beer in over twenty years, but I’ll tell you what, I will toast you with my coffee…here’s to you & Steve.

        • follyofwar
          September 12, 2015 at 07:10

          Steve – Although he didn’t call Hitler a peacenik, Pat Buchanan made similar points in his great book, “Hitler, Churchill and the Unnecessary War.” That book, along with his following book about the impending crack-up of the US by 2025, helped to get him fired from MSNBC for telling the truth.

    • Bob Van Noy
      September 11, 2015 at 15:29

      Joe Tedesky, I think that the clintons, bush’s and most probably president Obama are fighting for their political lives because”the jig is nearly up”.

    • Bob Van Noy
      September 11, 2015 at 15:36

      Remember the meeting with Putin and bushII in Crawford? I think Putin walked away from that meeting thinking, These guys are crazy; we better rush home and get our act together or they will steal everything we have!

      • Joe Tedesky
        September 11, 2015 at 16:56

        Sorry Bob, didn’t see you here. I hope your right about the jig being up. Also I think you are right about what Putin may have thought in regard to his meeting with G.W. Bush. All this talk about having a beer with someone, wasn’t that the big draw about Bush the younger? Did Putin drink a beer with W., and was that before W. looked deeply into Putin’s eyes and saw his Russian soul? Those were great days, weren’t they. When life was simple before we invaded seven countries. You remember back when it were just two countries we had to invade. Back in the days when revenge seemed justified. Now, it seems hard to believe, but back then George W. Bush had an eighty percent approval rating. God, where were we? Back in the days when a controlled demolition could be blamed on all the Muslims of the world. This was the time when Netanyahu comforted us with his reassurance that Israel was the only friend the U.S. had in the Middle East. I will admit it now, that I still quietly called my French Fries ‘French Fries’….was I being unpatriotic? Lastly Bob, Joe L. is drinking beer, Steve is having a ginger ale, and I am slugging down a black cup of coffee…. so pick your poison and join us!

  9. Tom Welsh
    September 11, 2015 at 11:04

    “Typically, when his underlings undercut him, Obama then falls in line behind them…”

    What a disgracefully pathetic whimpering excuse for an executive. Why doesn’t he fire them?

    • Skip Edwards
      September 11, 2015 at 19:55

      Why didn’t the voters fire Obama? Simple, Romney! We the people are in a no-win situation under this two party oligarchy with no end in sight. Fire them all is the only way to give ourselves a reprieve from this insanity.

    • follyofwar
      September 12, 2015 at 06:58

      Tom – That’s for sure. If Obama didn’t want confrontation with Russia (remember his comment to Medvedev, that was caught over an open mic, that he would be more flexible towards Russia after reelection?), why didn’t he have to stones to fire Nuland on the spot after her “F the EU” comment.

  10. F. G. Sanford
    September 11, 2015 at 06:06

    Visual propaganda masterfully camouflaged by an overlay of seemingly rational dialogue is the current paradigm. European news channels speak in coherent sentences about the tensions arising as Russian advisors are rumored to be assisting the Syrian “Regime”. But the stock footage played for visual impact shows gargantuan Russian hovercraft offloading divisions of crouching infantrymen as helicopter gunships provide suppressive fire. Landing craft crash through the waves, their gaping ramps disgorging columns of tanks which speed across pristine sandy beachheads. Russian fighter jets position themselves, engines roaring, readying for takeoff. Switch to the Bulgarian countryside, where swarms of refugees emerge from the cornfields and race across open fields toward a rusting railroad berm whose tracks have not seen a train for fifty years. A father carrying a toddler trips and falls; the others trample him. None of these clips match the purported geography or the seasonal conditions, but audiences will nevertheless succumb to the visual impact. Everyone remembers Leni Reifenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will”, but her previous Nuremberg rally film is largely forgotten. It was called, “Victory of Faith”. Belief is all that matters. The American economy is based on the ‘petrodollar’. All currency is ‘fiat’ currency. It works because economies have something to exchange. China has tea and rice. Russia has grain and potatoes. South America has fruit and cattle. The Gulf States have oil. But America sells other peoples’ products by making them use ‘petrodollars’. It’s as simple as that. As the ‘petrodollar’ scheme fails, the Euro, the Ruble and the Yuan become a threat. The nature of the propaganda reveals the desperation. None of the preposterous lies makes sense unless examined in the context of – real or perceived – imminent collapse. The destabilization of Europe is no accident. The men behind the curtain really believe that we must have this war. Look at that picture of Hillary, and decide for yourselves. It speaks a thousand words.

  11. RogerT
    September 11, 2015 at 01:00

    If ever regime change was needed, it is for the USA, closely followed by Britain. Both are run by poodles of that abomination of a neo-nazi, warmongering , brutal and apartheid so-called State of Israel. What a total mess they have made of the World and, now, with Russia and China cooperating militarily as well as economically, the continued aggression of our discredited politicians may well lead to a devastating World War.

    Words are clearly not mightier than the sword. The World needs a Robert Parry as President of the USA. How about it, Robert? We can start a fund rolling to provide the necessary support.

    • MarkU
      September 12, 2015 at 12:49

      I disagree with your conception of the situation, how could a country of about 6 million people (and a net recipient of aid) actually be calling the shots?

      As I see it, it is the international bankers who are really in charge of the US, the UK and most of western Europe. It is because most of the aforementioned bankers are Jewish that Israel is treated with the utmost deference.

  12. Boris M Garsky
    September 10, 2015 at 21:15

    Sadly, Europe has proved itself to be totally intimidated by the west. This is a far more serious problem then it appears. Thousands of the refugees seeking asylum are, undoubtedly radical Islamic’s. The Greek Government intercepted an aid shipment for the refugees; it was filled with automatic rifles. Yes, Europe will fall to massive terrorism and NATO will have to intervene. Of course there are two purposes for this move. Weaken Europe so that it cannot act independently from the USA and bring the terrorists to Russia, a very dangerous move. This is why Putin is acting now. The Rothchilds empire is crumbling and desperation brings desperate acts. Iran and Russia will not allow Assad to fall. Europe is something else. I think that Putin understands that the Europeans do not learn from their history. Of course all of this benefits Israel also. This gives ISIL an even greater plum than Israel; it gives a Christian continent to ISIL. Behind the closed doors, the Europeans are imploring Russia to act, and act quickly. Russia will.

    • Duglarri
      September 12, 2015 at 01:04

      Those arms the Greeks intercepted were on their way to Libya, not Europe. These Syrians who are flooding out of Syria are about as religious as you or I- just look at their clothes; the religious ones are the ones staying behind and fighting.

      But they don’t have to be religious to cause a breakdown for Europe. There just has to be enough of them.

    • john
      September 14, 2015 at 09:43

      Obama is the GREAT ENABLER for the caliphate. “Kinda-sorta” fighting the war is just a way of giving arms to ISIL. The caliphate will cover the middle east and Europe if this crap is allowed to continue. O is as much a Christian as he is a Muslim. Well, maybe a lot more Sunni than anything else. Machivelian

  13. david t. krall
    September 10, 2015 at 20:50

    The neo-cons are out of control…which kind of makes them IN control !!!!

    I suspect that (and for a longtime) Obama doesn’t need or want anymore WH jumpers, party crashers or ‘similar events” at this point and is just waiting to “get out out of Dodge” (The WH) …at this point NOT wanting upset his hawks “too much” like IKE around and after the U-2 plane ) “set-up” behind his back…IKE was planning on and anticipated a major deal with the USSR..a major treaty and even considered going to Russia before 1/20/61…and we know what his successor went thru in dealing with and in spite of all the pressures for the “same crowd” regarding CUBA, SE Asia, China and arms treaties with the USSR…and we know what happened to HIM….It is the same thing now with Syria, Iraq, ISIS, AlQuada, CIA/neo-con sectors, etc.,.. and to top it all off, it is the same exact thing regarding the first (of many that JFK had envisioned) and sadly the only arms treaty that JFK lead and fought for and what is now happening with the Iran treaty….it is a fascinating (with variations) repeat and similar confluence of atmosphere and events….and the same self-entitled war-like myopic agenda driven by similar sectors nowin play and very active presently
    hawks, neo-cons lusting for war and using proxy armies with duplicitous agendas, even to the point of raising the level of tension with Russia ( again) just like in Sept. 2013.

    • follyofwar
      September 12, 2015 at 06:46

      David – Going back to Ike, he is much praised for warning us of the growing MIC, but he did little to stop its growth when he had the chance. Plus he did not encounter the rabid dogs of the permanent opposition the way Obama has. (Ike had much more foreign policy clout because of being the commanding general in WWII). I can see Obama doing an Ike and telling us of what has transpired and warning us of what will happen if we don’t change course. Of course, then it will also be too late for him to do anything about it.

  14. Joe L.
    September 10, 2015 at 20:43

    Well it is quite obvious to me at this point that the US is quite literally trying to rule the world but I wonder at what point the rest of the world will have had enough of this BS, and arrogance of the US? “Pride comes before the fall”… Frankly I don’t want to be ruled by any country whether that be the US, China, Russia or any other large country. Enough of this imperialism disguised in humanitarian jargon such as “freedom” and “liberty”. At this point I actually do hope for the decline of the US because US leadership for the world means endless war and death, coups and just outright deception for American corporate and geo-strategic interests. I am Canadian and I actually believe that the whole western world needs to be taken down a few pegs and find our humility again, if it ever existed. I think that all it is going to take to really see things unravel will be an alternate financial system outside our scope of influence such as the BRICS Development Bank and an alternative to the SWIFT system.

    • david t, krall
      September 10, 2015 at 20:57

      I agree !…I feel that super hawkish elements of the CIA/State dept and fellow well positioned neo-cons can be thanked, be given credit and (over !) due recognition for the creation/and/or related “covert” funding, training, support, etc of ISIS and AlQada which really is responsible for this current refugee crises…

    • LCAslia
      September 11, 2015 at 07:20

      It is quite pertinent to say that alternate financial system out side of US influence like Bricks Development Bank might play some vital role for world peace.

  15. Traveler
    September 10, 2015 at 20:15

    We need regime change in the US. Pronto! This country has turned luciferian and has turned neo nazi.

    • Brad Owen
      September 11, 2015 at 05:03

      Putin and BRICS are working on it, thankfully. So is E.I.R.

  16. Ibrahim Soudy
    September 10, 2015 at 18:52

    The LOBBY of The Antisemitic Apartheid Jewish State along with mad men like Cheney and others, coupled with the BANKERS have only two goals in mind:

    – Steeling the OIL where the bankers are making much of their money by recycling its petro-dollars. For that, they need to protect the corrupt Royal Families of the Arab Shaikhdoms. Having the Shia coming together in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia is a no no scenario…….PROTECT THE ROYAL FAMILIES AT ANY COST.

    – Splitting the big countries of the middle east into little areas with no standing armies so that they can all be dominated by ISRAEL (The Sacred Cow where the US is the Cash Cow).

    Is it just me or others noticed that as more and more Syrians and Iraqis become refugees, more and more Americans and Europeans become HOMELESS too?!

    • Ibrahim Soudy
      September 10, 2015 at 18:54

      “stealing” is what I meant to write………

  17. Bill Bodden
    September 10, 2015 at 18:44

    It is truly mind-boggling to observe how so many of the people who promoted the monumental disaster in Iraq in 2003 are in a position to cause this catastrophe to metastasize throughout the Middle East and beyond. If Iraq had won the war and applied the same principles to Bush, Cheney, Blair and their cohorts of war mongers that the US, UK, France and Russia applied against the Nazis in Nuremberg, they would all be dead or in prison. Instead, they are on a vendetta to commit more and greater crimes. World War Three, anyone?

    Lewis Lapham wrote a very thoughtful and relevant essay on “The Road to Babylon” – – in 2002 that should have given pause for thought but didn’t. Lapham’s essay remains relevant even if the geography has changed. Unfortunately, like Cassandra’s oracles, Robert Parry’s and Lapham’s essays will also be ignored.

    • Cassandra
      September 11, 2015 at 03:54

      That’s better! I see my name misused to mean “doom sayer” a lot. I call it as I see it, doom or triumph.

      “Don’t bring that horse in here,” I told them in Troy.

    • Steve Naidamast
      September 11, 2015 at 13:26

      Actually the Nuremberg Trials were a sham that sought to punish the Germans for the same and even more horrendous crimes of the Allies. There are articles that have been written by post-war analysts as well as several jurists who were part of the proceedings. In addition, David Irving has exposed the entire myth of the trials in his “Nuremberg: The Last Crusade”.

      And I know all about his “Holocaust” denying, which was actually blown way out of proportion, mostly the result of his in-depth study on Goebbels.

  18. dahoit
    September 10, 2015 at 17:43

    I guess Shillary is a Steven Douglas lover,”We can be the terror of the world!”
    It’s all stupefying,disaster after disaster,millions dead,displaced,and they want more.Warmongering scum.

  19. Stygg
    September 10, 2015 at 17:34

    “Does the U.S. government want the Islamic State and/or its fellow-travelers in Al Qaeda to take over Syria?”


    • Andrew Nichols
      September 10, 2015 at 21:05


    • Zachary Smith
      September 11, 2015 at 00:24

      My first thought at reading the lead sentence was “DUH”, but in the context of ‘yes’.

      As I predicted back before the Iran deal was finished, Israel was going for the gold in the extortion game. They’ve already sprung the traitor Jonathan Pollard from prison, have been promised 50 free F-35 jets at $100 million dollars each, and pretty obviously a lot of new US activity against Syria.

      In terms of US interests, Obama is acting like a drooling idiot. But his actions make perfect sense if you factor in the demands of a certain little murderous & thieving shithole of an apartheid nation-state.

      If things go as planned, Syria will be destroyed, and the hordes of refugees will indeed inundate Europe. But what’s so bad about that? Europe was threatening to become serious competition for the American Imperium, and some new hell-raising from the south will work alongside the Ukraine mess ‘we’ve’ engineered. Of course there is the risk that Europe will totally fall apart, and that’ll push Germany into the arms of Russia and China, but that’s down the road a piece.

      The important part is that Israel is getting what it wants – again. After a new Syrian government partly depopulates the area with its own murders, all it’ll take is a few artillery shells fired to the south to give the Zionists the green light to grab what they missed in the 1967 War of Conquest – the land and water in the north. Then the remaining Syrians will learn first-hand what the Palestinians already know about being treated like filth.

      • Peter Loeb
        September 11, 2015 at 05:25

        WITH THANKS TO R. PARRY AND Z. SMITH (9/11/15)…

        One factor has been left out:

        The American economy has been in poor shape, latest
        word is “volatile” for the stock market.

        Going to war has often proved a panacea for a troubled
        US economy. FDR did not solve the Great Depression
        as most liberal economists dream. The late political
        economist Gabriel Kolko documented this in his work
        The Depression went away with World War Two and
        sp[ecially with the US Budget of 1941. Suddenly there
        were jobs for everyone. There were profits for industry
        guaranteed. Defense contractors were buzzing. Killing
        solved domestic worries which were buried in US jingoism.

        This administration—and its successor of either party—
        will bask in its abilities to kill those who are constantly
        pictured as bad, bad men. We will be heroically
        “defending our freedom” etc.

        After all, we need (??) to defend Israel’s “security” at all
        costs including armed IDF solders capturing 12-year
        old Palestinian boys in choke holds. (See this writer’s
        previous comments on this topic, video mysteriously
        “deleted” from Utube).

        The current Administration and pundits and politicians
        will boast of their heroism in “defending” poor little

        —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

Comments are closed.