WAR ON SYRIA: NOT QUITE ACCORDING TO PLAN Part 4, The Undoing of the Plotters. By Ghassan Kadi

http://thesaker.is/war-on-syria-not-quite-according-to-plan-part-4-the-undoing-of-the-plotters/

War On Syria; Not Quite According To Plan Part 4: The Undoing Of The Plotters

26057 ViewsSeptember 29, 2015 39 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

With the accelerating events in Syria over the last week or so, this concluding Part 4 had to be revised several times. The acceleration is two faceted; American and Russian-originated.

On the American side, when American Foreign Secretary Kerry made a conclusive statement in the last few days saying that President Assad has to go, but the timing of his departure is negotiable, he formally confirmed that the American green bottle has fallen off the wall. In the blink of an eye, world leaders within the Anti-Syrian Cocktail rallied to shamelessly echo those same words, clearly indicating who is their boss, and clearly presenting that they do not have minds of their own. We shall look at the Russian side later on.

Merkel, Hollande, and even Australian Foreign Minister Bishop made similar announcements, but none was more pleasing to the ears of Syrians more than the one that came out of the mouth of Erdogan himself.

A few days before any of this, and in a recent interview on “Redline” on Sputnik Radio, I was asked by the host Andrew Korybko what game is Erdogan playing now. My response was the name of the game is “game over”.

Not only has the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” fallen apart, but in a twist of fate, all of its key players are having serious problems of their own, and thus all the green bottles are falling off the wall.

The main green bottle we need to watch out for after the USA is no doubt Turkey.

Historically speaking, the strongest regional threat to Syria over the last few centuries came from Turkey, and to date, Turkey continues to occupy the Syrian regions of Celicia and Iskandarun. The Saudis and Qataris are the new kids on the block, with no historic experience and depth. The kingdom and the emirate are likely to disappear off the face of international politics once their oil and gas resources dry out.

Erdogan came to power when the Turkish economy was still lurking in its historic wilderness. Turkey was also weighed down by a number of issues needless to mention issues involving the Kurds.

His popularity at home began to flourish as he managed to make huge advances in bringing in foreign investments and to encourage growth. The economy turned around making of Turkey the sixteenth largest economy in the world. He also made amends with many Kurdish leaders, and even non-Islamists and non-Turkish Kurds began to like him and support him and regard him as a reformist and a man of reason.

After the very long post Ottoman standoff with the Arab World and Syria in particular, Erdogan made serious inroads that brought Turkey back into the Middle East.

When Israel attacked Gaza in January 2009, Erdogan was very vocal against the aggression and signaled that such actions were going to make serious and irreversible changes in the cordial Turkish-Israeli relationship. On that note later on after the Mavi Marmara massacre, he even went to the extent of demanding an apology from Israel.

Many observers back then watched Erdogan with a keen eye, because he looked like the Turkish leader that was going to take Turkey out of its regional isolation that it suffered from since the Ataturk era. This is because even though Ataturk was considered as a huge reformer and nation-builder within Turkey, his legacy left Turkey with no regional friends at all. After all, Turkey had dissociated itself from anything Arabic and Muslim, and even joined NATO to further snub its neighbours not mention their European Union membership aspiration.

Erdogan’s credibility started to get eroded when his many stands against Israel fizzled away without any outcome. This was so obvious after the Mavi Marmara massacre and how his insistence to receive a formal apology from Israel did not yield any outcome at all, nor did it affect Turkey’s relationship with Israel. He backed down without any gain, and to many observers, in this stand, he showed his true substance. But his biggest popular demise began when he decided to partake in the “War On Syria”.

One must not forget that Erdogan is an Islamist. He does not wield a sword in his hand and does not ride on the back of a Toyota truck shouting Allahu Akbar, but his ideology is not at all any different from any ISIS/Al-Nusra fighter. And for that matter, his Islamist supporters will always support him unconditionally.

The long and protracted “War On Syria” however began to take its toll on Turkey and Erdogan specifically, and as the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” was beginning to crumble, Erdogan realized that unless he continued to support ISIS and Al-Nusra despite international outrage, he was going to end up with a Kurdish state at his southern border, albeit not essentially a formal one, but one with significant military power and Western blessing.

So he decided to turn his guns on the Kurds thus creating a huge popularity slump and a parliamentary election loss in June 2015. The upcoming election re-run in November has the potential of him losing more seats and turning into a lame-duck president.

He is therefore now in survival mode and his only obsession is to win the November elections.

After he realized that Syria would not fall, and after facilitating the way for many serious incursions into Syria, the most notorious of which was around Kassab in 2014, his last bid to stay with the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” was his demand for a buffer zone in the north of Syria. His aim was to separate the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds from Turkish Kurds and thereby hamper any opportunity for them to unite. That was to be achieved by driving off the Syrian Kurds, and have them replaced by the many dissident Syrian refugees who flocked into Turkey during the early period of the conflict. By the way, many of those refugees were Islamist fighters, who were in Turkey on standby, waiting to be deployed into Syria by none other than Sultan Erdogan.

According to a recent interview with deputy Syrian foreign minister Faisal Al-Maqdad, when Erdogan’s last plea did not receive the endorsement of his Western allies, he decided to walk away and dump those refugees and send them to the West.

The wave of Syrian refugees flocking into Europe are leaving to Europe from Turkey now, not from Syria. This was denied initially, but once again, the accelerating events of the last few days have made this very obvious to all observers. Even French President Hollande has asked the EU to help Turkey keep the refugees.

By evicting the refugees, Erdogan is punishing his former Western partners, focusing on domestic issues, and clearly giving the message that he no longer wishes to mobilize militants into Syria.

For Erdogan therefore, the “War On Syria” is a game over and he is picking up the pieces and trying to gain as much as possible, and first and foremost, to save his own skin and survive to win the upcoming November 2015 parliamentary elections.

To clinch it beyond any further debate or doubt, Erdogan has reverberated Kerry’s words and declared that the removal of Assad is not necessary at this stage. For Turkey, it is game over, and the Turkish green bottle has also fallen off the wall.

Speaking of enemies of Syria who are in survival mode, Erdogan is not the only one. Two more stand out more than others; The Saudis and the 14th of March Coalition.

The Lebanese 14th of March Coalition, as mentioned several times earlier, this is a very loosely put together coalition of Lebanese Syria haters. What united their passions was their hatred towards Syria, and the combined Prince Bandar Bin Sultan and Saad Hariri funds. Bandar has lost his office and clout, and Hariri is going bankrupt. Without money to feed the thugs in the streets of Lebanon, this coalition is doomed to crumble, and very soon. Admittedly, the more indoctrinated “Lebanese Forces” will not drop their weapons as easily as the hired Hariri thugs, but alone, they will not have much of an impact on the greater picture. Furthermore, their territory does not have common borders with Syria for them to use for smuggling weapons to terrorists.

As a matter of fact, the standoff that is disabling Lebanese presidential elections is mainly because the two main candidates; Michel Aoun (representing the 8th of March Coalition) and Samir Geagea (leader of the “Lebanese Forces” and representing the 14th of March Coalition) have almost equal support and clout. Recently however, the Kataeb Party, ie the political wing of the Lebanese Forces, has proposed a new nominee; a technocrat by the name of Carlos Ghosn, clearly indicating that they are prepared to dump Geagea. This is an early, but a loud and clear sign of capitulation.

With the 14th of March Coalition facing serious predicaments, one more green bottle has fallen off the wall.

The main remaining players are Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The Saudi attack on Yemen, dubbed “Operation Storm of Resolve”, was meant to be quick and decisive. It is increasingly turning into a very costly quagmire. A few days ago, a Yemeni offensive in Ma’arab, according to some reports killed more than 300 coalition soldiers and injured at least as many. As the Saudis are getting more bogged in, the Yemenis are becoming more daring and venturous.

When the Yemeni Army Chief recently announced that the Saudi capital Riyadh and biggest city Jeddhah are legitimate Yemeni targets, he meant business. The next few days or weeks will show whether he is indeed capable of targeting the depths of Saudi Arabia.

The old guards within the Al-Saud are blaming the young deputy Crown Prince Mohamad (son of current king) for the gamble and its failure. There are even some reports about an original secret document allegedly written by a Saudi Prince asking for the King to abdicate and for his Crown Prince and Deputy Crown Prince to be dismissed. It also asked the old guards to reach a consensus about appointing a new king. This document sent just over a week ago has been followed up by another similar letter sent on the 19th of September [1].

The dissent is not only based on the infamous military gambles, but also touches on the serious financial troubles Saudi Arabia is under. It further accuses the King and his close cronies of squandering finances and theft to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

On financial terms therefore, Saudi Arabia does not only have to contend with very low petrol prices, but also soaring costs of wars, dissent and royal theft (if indeed happening). This is making the situation much more untenable. Saudi Arabia is indeed in a serious budget deficit that can only be lifted if petrol prices go up and its expenses are dramatically cut; neither one of which is likely to change soon, and for any such change to save Saudi Arabia, it cannot come soon enough.

As if this was not enough, to make it worse for the Saudi Royals the Iran nuclear deal was the biggest slap on the face they have ever received from their American “friends”. Ironically, when the deal was ratified, the Saudi King was visiting Washington and his Foreign Minister had to sheepishly praise it.

Whilst it is true that the Russian-brokered Saudi-Syrian talks did not go any further than a one-off meeting between Syrian General Mamluk and the Saudi Deputy Crown Prince, the Saudis however do not have a contingency plan. King Salman returned from Washington empty handed. His refusal to resume talks with Syria under the auspices of Russia is only based on obstinance and no more.

This obstinance is not going to give the Saudis any power on the battle field in Syria. As far as their role in Syria is concerned, they are still providing cash, lots of cash, but the battles they had been waging via Jordan have all failed. There has been some recent news that the Military Operations Center in Jordan has shut down because of the failure of the 5th offensive against the southern city of Dar’aa. With the advances of the Syrian Army and Hezbollah in the Qalamoun and Zabadani regions, it won’t be long before they close in and reach the Jordanian borders.

Whilst Saudi Arabia has not formally abandoned the fight in Syria, it has been rendered powerless. The Saudi green bottle has surely fallen off the wall.

As for Qatar, the Johnny-come-lately emirate that is trying to make a stand and become a regional leader, has no backing and clout other than the petro-dollar-god. Qatar has little history, culture, and depth of any substance to warrant giving it a stature of regional leadership. If anything, those leadership aspirations of Qatar are a bit of a joke. But such is the ego of oil Arab sheikhs and princes. They genuinely believe that money gives them substance and enables them to buy anything and anyone. One has to only go to Paris and have a look at the Qatari Embassy; a huge building in the most of prominent positions at the Charles de Gaulle Etoile just opposite to the “Arc De Triomphe”; a genuine reflection of the Qatari ego.

Qatar had to operate in Syria via hired agents, the biggest of which was Turkey and the others are 14th of March gangs in Lebanon. Erdogan is now too busy saving his skin to worry about what Qatar wants, but Qatar may continue to pour money into Lebanon. This inflow of funds alone however will not have a great impact on the events in Syria. It can only further destabilize Lebanon.

Five green bottles have already fallen, and counting.

This leaves the bad boy on the block; Israel.

What would Israel do when the Syrian Army win becomes inevitable is any body’s guess. What is certain is the fact that Iran is now a much stronger nation than it was before the nuclear deal. Hezbollah is much stronger than it was in July 2006. Syria is getting stronger every day with the recent qualitative Russian help. The “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” has broken up and each party is searching to find ways to save its skin and score some gain. What is Israel realistically capable of doing other than accepting the new Levant as it will be shaped after the upcoming Syrian victory? Certainly, Israel can act foolishly and launch a major offensive against Syria, and perhaps even include Iran and Hezbollah, but this will be much more than it can chew.

Back to the Russian side. The Russian initiative has changed many dynamics and aborted a multitude of potential scenarios, including any Israeli interference. It is very clear that Netanyahu came back from his recent trip to Moscow very disappointed. Israeli media and analysts are trying to work out what the real outcome of the visit was. Netanyahu tried hard to present it as a win when the real and obvious outcome is that he received a very clear message from Putin demanding that Israel stays out because Russia is now in charge.

Having gone the full circle, we go back to where we started, back to psychopaths and sociopaths. The enemies of Syria fall in these categories. With elements who hate President Assad for no reason other than he is an Alawite, to those who hate Syria because it refuses to kowtow to America and Israel, to those who hate Syria because it stands in the way of their personal, regional and sectarian ambitions.

The only strong passion that united those widely diverse critters was hatred; nothing but sheer blind hatred. United by that hatred, diverged by failure and self-concerns, those deeply troubled fiends will not accept to go away. Even though they know their time is up, and even though they have totally run out of contingencies and tried all the tricks they had hidden up their sleeves, they continue to refuse to lay down arms and stop financing terrorists who have turned against them.

One can only speculate that upon realizing this, President Putin has decided to break the deadlock. With a “speak hand for me” drive, unlike Western leaders who curse ISIS and then feed it, Putin is walking the talk.

The next few weeks, or perhaps days, will hopefully present a whole new decisive balance of power that will further bolster the many recent gains that the gallant Syrian Army and mighty Resistance have scored thus far, and all the culprits will have no choice other than submitting to the new status quo.

The Russian scenario brings to mind thus far unconfirmed news about another role; Chinese. It has been reported, but not confirmed, that China has sent its aircraft carrier to Syria. If this proves to be true and accurate, then the Chinese role brings in a whole new facet to the ever-changing “War On Syria”. For Russia to act alone is a Russian affair, but if and when China pitches in, it becomes a BRICS affair. Is the BRICS alliance giving NATO a clear and loud message that it is now going to be present, and in a very big way, in the Middle East? Will history record that the “War On Syria” was a pivotal war that practically and effectively ended the New World Order hegemony and changed the geopolitics of the entire globe?

And in the end, philosophically-speaking, no one is immune to the hand of fate/Karma. We have thus far seen Bandar come, ride high, and then vanish. So did the ex-Emir of Qatar and his Deputy Hamad. Not to forget Mursi who did not survive longer than a year in the Presidential Palace. As Erdogan sways and Al-Saud turn against one another, engaged with a war in Yemen with half of the Saudi Army comprised of Yemenis, the collapse of Saudi Arabia does not seem very far.

With over two hundred thousand Syrian men and women and children who were killed, thousands of girls who were raped and sold as slaves and coerced to marry against their will, history destroyed and looted, Syria continues to stand tall, and it will return better and stronger than ever.

With this thought, I keep my fingers crossed and pray for the best.

(1) http://www.almanar.com.lb/wap/edetails.php?cid=21&eid=1309031

THE WAR ON SYRIA; NOT QUITE ACCORDING TO PLAN Part 3: A USA Unable to Bomb Syria. Ghassan Kadi

http://thesaker.is/war-on-syria-not-quite-according-to-plan-part-3-a-usa-unable-to-bomb-syria/

War on Syria; Not Quite According to Plan Part 3: A USA Unable To Bomb Syria

40872 ViewsSeptember 22, 2015 75 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

With all the different components of the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail”, the most lethal is undoubtedly the USA. We should therefore take a deeper look at the military hopes and gambles that the USA took, in desperate attempts, to be able to bomb Syria in order to understand why those several attempts have failed for more than two decades.

In Part 2, we saw how the USA was hoping to be able to bomb Syria in 1991 and later on in 2003 following the first and second wars on Iraq. In this part, we shall see how and why America has to date remained unable to achieve this objective.

We must always remember that the enemies of Syria who collaborated together to wage the war against her were, and continue to be, very diverse in their outlooks and objectives. They were only united by their hatred for Syria and the Assad Legacy that gave Syria independent decision-making and the national pride that comes with it.

The maverick who brought all those elements together was no doubt none but the Saudi Prince Bandar Bin Sultan. After all, he had good relationships with all of the other culprits. As a former long-term Saudi Ambassador in Washington, he had very strong American connections and became a personal friend of the Bush’s. He also had good relationships with the rest of the West and even with Israel. The Islamists were under his payroll, and automatically to him, this meant that they were going to remain under his belt. He bankrolled money to them as well as the anti-Syrian thugs of Lebanon in almost bottomless figures.

Whilst Saudi Arabia and Turkey were from the beginning of the “War On Syria” at odds, each seeking to be the rightful heir of Islamic leadership, and whilst Erdogan grew closer to Qatar which also wanted to rival Saudi Arabia for regional leadership (not so much religious leadership). The rivals Erdogan and Al-Saud put their differences aside and worked together for as long as it was convenient.

Erdogan was more than happy to use Qatari funds rather than his own.

The Islamists did not care who was sponsoring and arming them. They believed in the promise of a God-given victory, and embarked on the “War On Syria” with an “Inshallah” (ie God willing) attitude, hoping and believing that everything will work out fine at the end because God was on their side.

The other NATO nations including the UK, France as well as American allies from as far as Australia, just followed the American rhetoric and all became part of the 83-nation anti-Syrian alliance.

The Lebanese ultra-right wing Christian militia (The Lebanese Forces) had been sitting on the fence waiting to avenge the Syrian presence in Lebanon from 1976 till 2005 and the loss of the 1975-1989 Civil War. Via Saad Hariri, Bandar got the “Lebanese Forces” on his side.

Any military strategist with half a brain would have predicted that such a diverse alliance could not survive the ravages of time. Perhaps the architects of the alliance knew this and hoped for a swift victory; a victory they did not achieve.

If Obama kept one promise, it was about not putting boots on the ground outside the USA even though he had no trouble sending drones and other bombers to different nations. Whether or not this decision was based on financial pragmatism, at least he stuck to it.

Obama was not interested in putting boots on the ground in Syria either, and why should he? After all, his friend and ally Bandar was able to recruit tens of thousands of Jihadists who wanted to fight and die.

In 2011, the Americans were happy to let go of the prospect of physically invading Syria if a proxy war gave them the same result without putting a single American life at risk, and all the while, spending Saudi and Qatari money.

The widely reported sums of money that the US government spent into training fighters and providing some supplies, was just a drop in the ocean compared to what the Saudis and Qataris spent.

No boots on the ground was a policy America wanted to uphold in Syria, but it definitely sought a total and unconditional capitulation of the Syrian Government and the removal of Bashar Al-Assad as President.

The swift victory and toppling of the Assad “regime” did not happen as planned, and a few months into the war, the terrorists demanded NATO air support, and for this matter, America needed to seek a UNSC resolution to permit it to do so.

The long-awaited revenge was nearing. America sought a repeat of the Libyan scenario. The internationally-palatable pretext was to impose a no-fly-zone in Syria, and then to exceed the mandate to target the Syrian Government and President.

This time, not only Russia, but also China vetoed the UNSC resolution twice, on the 5th of October 2011 and then again on the 4th of February 2012. Russia, and China but more so Russia, made it very clear that they will not allow for Syria to be bombed by NATO like Libya was.

Once again, America found itself unable to bomb Syria. America realized that it had to wait and try again with a different approach and justification.

In the beginning of the war, the terrorists infiltrated the areas they eventually controlled. In the early days, they hardly ever took control of any area in battle. It was all done in stealth after months and perhaps years of preparation. Suddenly, the Syrian Government realized that many areas had fallen out of its control.

This was how they initially gained control Homs, Idlib, Aleppo and all other regions without a single bullet fired. The fighting was done in the course of driving them out. The only area in which the terrorists did advance was in the far-east, but that was after the rise of ISIS in 2013. In any event, those areas are virtual deserts with very low population density.

Russia did not only thwart two American attempts for UNSC resolutions to impose a “no-fly-zone”, but later on gave America a much clearer message about the redline nature of Syria. This was an incident that was not at all reported on Western news at the time. It was first published on Al-Manar; the official media voice of Hezbollah.

It must be said that with all the stories, rumours and misinformation that have been spread around throughout the “War On Syria”, Al-Manar has been a benchmark of credibility.

In order of reliability, there are four Arabic media outlets that have been reporting and “leaking” news. Al-Manar had been the most reliable, followed by the Lebanese daily Assafir, then the Lebanese online daily Al-Akhbar, and Al-Mayadin.

Al-Manar has broken many news, and in our role as pro-Syrian activists, Intibah (my wife) and myself have taken upon ourselves the task of translating some key Arabic reports and relevant articles for the English-speaking world.

One of those stories was about the “secret visit” of Bandar to Moscow and his attempts to both bribe and threaten President Putin. Our translation of the story was initially snubbed until it became widely accepted as public knowledge.

Another big story, perhaps the biggest of them all, was a translation of an Al-Manar/Al-Akhbar report that explained the events following the false flag chemical weapons attack that accused the Syrian Army of using chemical weapons in East Ghouta.

As the Islamists began to lose ability to hold ground they took by stealth, especially after the fall of the strategic town of Al-Qusayr in July 2013, the need for American air support became extremely vital and much more so than the time when a UNSC resolution was sought. America knew that any justification was going to be vetoed by Russia.

The justification for intervention therefore had to be very substantial and convincing; a scenario worthy of a false flag, and that false flag was the East Ghouta chemical attack.

Let’s recap those nail-biting days of August 2013. A chemical attack on Syrian civilians was conjured up by Bandar with the help of Mossad. The Syrian Army was accused of the massacre. Photos of dead children were reminiscent of the chemical massacres of Saddam against the Kurds. The Western media news became fixated on the subject, replaying it repeatedly in order to generate a global wave of anti-Assad hostility.

With the anti-Assad media warfare at its peak, Assad was finally elevated in the eyes of the West to the same level of hatred that Saddam “enjoyed” a decade earlier. For the USA, it was THE big opportunity it had been waiting for, and for so long, in order to justify bombing the hell out of Damascus with or without a UNSC mandate. America was finally ready to blast Syria with an unprecedented ferocity that would reflect its hatred, anger and the impatience it exercised in the waiting process.

But again, this was not to happen.

After missing out on being able to bomb Syria in February 1991, in April 2003 (after the invasions of Iraq), and again in October 2011 and February 2012 (after the UNSC Russian/Chinese Vetoes), America was still unable to bomb Syria even after the whole Eastern Ghouta kerfuffle of August 2013.

In fact, in September 2013, America did attack Syria, but this attack ended as soon as it started. When Al-Manar/Al-Akhbar published the news and we translated it into English (1), it was widely discounted. It is still not taken very seriously by everyone, but all evidence on the ground and the changes in the stands of America and its European allies are all indicative that this story holds ground.

America fired two missiles at Syria over the Mediterranean. They were spotted by Russia, and one missile was intercepted and destroyed, and the other was hacked into and diverted into the sea.

Russian diplomacy was quick to report the action of its military to the Americans in an attempt to keep this story hush hush, to prevent further escalation, and to avoid needless embarrassment.

As an outcome, Russia brokered the Syrian chemical weapons disposal deal as a face-saver for America, so that America did not seem like it backed down about bombing Syria.

So once again, America missed out on bombing Syria, and for the fifth time.

With the event over the Mediterranean, America knew that a confrontation with Syria was going to mean a confrontation with Russia.

The crisis in Ukraine that followed was Russia’s punishment (as some put it) over what Russia had done in Syria. But the relentless and determined Putin continued to make it harder for America to intimidate him into submission as time went by.

What is ironic is that even some friends of Syria are unaware of the fact that America has actually been unable to bomb Syria for over two decades. The rhetoric of impending American strikes on Syria never seems to stop.

It must be clearly stated that not unless some serious changes take place, and unless America no longer cares about avoiding a confrontation with Russia, it will remain unable to bomb Syria. Strong as this statement sounds, it is in fact an under-statement when we factor in Hezbollah as will be discussed later.

In the above analysis, we are ignoring two major pertinent factors.

Firstly, we need to remember that ISIS has broken loose and that it has been leading its own destiny for over a year. When America formed the coalition to launch airstrikes in Syria and Iraq, the prime aim was ISIS; not the Syrian government.

When I put this argument forward more than a year ago, and when I emphasized that America is not this time using ISIS as a pretext to hit Syria, the argument was staunchly opposed. More than a year later, we clearly see that America has not used this “opportunity” to attack Syria. However, articles predicting an imminent American attack never stop flowing.

Secondly, there is clear evidence that Syria has given tacit support to strikes against ISIS, and that the USA informs the Syrian government in advance where and when those strikes are going to be made. What President Assad said to RT in his recent interview does not contradict with the above.

Some argue that the raids provide ISIS with support and are used to drop supplies. This argument cannot seriously carry weight. Firstly, you don’t use fighter jets to drop supplies. Secondly, the road of supplies has been open via Turkey and accessible to trucks and there is no need to use air drops. There have been some unconfirmed stories of dropping supplies, but if true, it is possible that those were intended for loyal Kurds and accidentally fell into ISIS hands. Incidents like these, including friendly fire, are not uncommon on the battle ground.

With that said, no one is claiming that America is yet serious about fighting ISIS, and this has been said before and needs to be said again. The only effective way to fight ISIS militarily is to cut off its supply lines first, and then to work in conjunction with the Syrian Army. This is not happening as we know, but what is of pertinence here is that all the speculation about America using the opportunity of striking ISIS to strike Syria is a figment of the imagination of ill-informed analysts, mainly Western. Such concerns and fears are not resonating in the Levant or its media.

The protagonists of this theory are failing to explain the logical role of the coalition. If the fighter jets are not bombing ISIS as they claim, and we know that they are not bombing Damascus or any government institution, so what is it exactly that they are doing then?

If Al-Manar is not reporting it and discussing it, it is not worth considering. This is what I have learned over the last four and a half years.

So just to keep the records straight, it is good to count again how many times has America failed to use any given opportunity in order to bomb Syria. The first was in 1991, then in 2003, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

And speaking of Al-Manar, we must stop to remember Hezbollah and add its weight to the above argument and strategic equation.

The Russian role has been extremely significant in avoiding an all-out American attack on Syria. But it has not been the sole factor.

The other perhaps most important factors that have protected Syria from American attacks are Hezbollah and ironically, Israel. The presence of Israel as a southern “neighbour” of both Syria and Lebanon has fortuitously turned, in this instance, into a blessing in disguise by virtue of reprisal-based deterrence.

The attrition guerrilla-style war that Hezbollah waged against Israel from 1982 leading up to the defeat of the latter and its retreat from Lebanon in 2000 has put Hezbollah in the rank of organizations with highly effective guerilla-style warfare, no more.

However, the ensuing 2006 July Israel-Hezbollah war lifted Hezbollah to a whole new echelon. Not only was Hezbollah able to defeat Israeli forces in ground battle, not only it sank a frigate, but its missiles were able to reach deep into Israel, leaving no corner within Israel safe.

The myth of the undefeatable Israeli army was finally and irreversibly broken. This has created a whole new balance of power in which Israel needs to think more than twice before it enters into any new military gamble that directly or indirectly involves Hezbollah.

Nearly a decade later, Hezbollah has a much larger missile arsenal in terms of count and lethality. Hezbollah now has drones, and guided smart bombs, and has proven their effectiveness in the battle of Qalamoun against ISIS. As a matter of fact, Hezbollah drones have been spotted as far as southern Israel. Furthermore, in any upcoming confrontation with Hezbollah, Israel is fearful that underground tunnels will enable Hezbollah fighters to infiltrate into the Galilee.

America knows well that any serious attack on Damascus will automatically mean that Israel will be showered by hundreds and thousands of rockets, not only by Hezbollah, but also by the Syrian Army which has been sitting tight on its even larger arsenal of rockets. No place in Israel will be left safe.

Israeli ground to air anti-missile defences (ie Patriot Missiles and the like) will be rendered useless when confronting an endless barrage of rockets. The so-called “Iron Dome” shield was not even able to shield Israel from the limited number of rockets fired from just Gaza. In an all-out war with both Hezbollah and Syria, the anti-rocket defence systems will utterly fail.

So to complete a previously made statement, we must say that unless some serious changes take place, and unless America no longer cares about avoiding a confrontation with Russia, and unless it stops caring about protecting Israel, it will remain unable to bomb Syria.

One does not need to be very cynical to say that America may be foolish and/or desperate enough to risk a confrontation with Russia, but it will not dare put Israel in harm’s way. That imminent loss that Israel will suffer will be the direct and unequivocal outcome of any American attack on Damascus, and for as long as either Syria or Hezbollah has missiles to fire at Israel, this is not going to change.

For as long as the Israel lobby is very powerful within America, and for as long as it is able to dictate that Israeli life comes before American life, America will not risk Israeli life by bombing Syria. But here’s the ironic opposite side of this relationship. If hypothetically-speaking America one day finally realizes that its support to Israel is very costly and needless and decides to dump the Israel lobby and liberate itself from its web, then why would America still want to bomb Syria if the initial objective of bombing it had always been to give Israel long-term security?

In the meantime, pundits and cynics remain fearful and apprehensive, watching and trying to read in between the lines in order to be able to predict when will America attack Syria. They can see the American motives for a strike, but they do not see the deterrents that stand in the way. In all likelihood, this is fortunately an attack that America cannot and will not embark upon, not now, and not in the foreseeable future.

With the recent escalations in Russia’s role, all cards are on the table, and the possibility of direct Russian military involvement is looking increasingly plausible. It seems that Russia’s patience with the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf is wearing thin and that Russia has decided to tip the events in a manner to coerce the Gulfies to accept the status quo.

Any speculations and analysis of Russia’s upcoming role can easily turn obsolete overnight as events are moving very rapidly. In any event, it is highly unlikely that Russia would be risking an escalation with the USA. Russian foreign policy makers do not make the short-sightedness brash decisions like their American counterparts do. The most likely scenario is that the USA will sit back and observe what Russia will be doing. On one hand, America hopes that Russia will help Syria crush ISIS, but they will need some win, albeit a diplomatic one.

America will therefore most likely continue with its rhetoric in regard to its demands for the demise of President Assad. It will continue to make threats and insinuate that the military option will always be open, but in reality, it has become a lame duck.

With the Greenback teetering and propped up by “financial easing” (ie printing money), America’s priorities may soon change and focus on other hot zones and/or domestic matters.

As the Greenback sways, one cannot help but remember the nursery rhyme of the ten green bottles sitting on the wall. And even though Foreign Secretary Kerry continues to reiterate that President Assad must go without being able to suggest or enforce any alternative, then we can perhaps safely say that unless America takes that foolish gamble and decides to confront Russia in Syria, then the biggest of all green bottles has in practical terms fallen off the Syrian wall.

In the next and probably final part of this series, we will take a closer look at the dismantling of the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” and how the green bottles have fallen one by one.

(1) h ttp://intibahwakeup.blogspot.com/2013/10/historys-shortest-epic-september-2013.html

THE SAKER INTERVIEWS GHASSAN KADI. 17 September 2015

http://thesaker.is/the-saker-interviews-ghassan-khadi/

The Saker interviews Ghassan Kadi

17625 ViewsSeptember 17, 2015 33 Comments

The Saker: I will begin with a historical question.  Many years ago I had the privilege to work with a most interesting Syrian lawyer whose father had been an influential Syrian personality.  Here is what this friend of mine told me one day:

Arab nationalism in general, and Baathism in particular, was the creation of the European Masonic elites who used their local Masonic brethren to stir up various kinds of nationalisms, including artificially created one such as the anti-Syrian Lebanese nationalism.  The main purpose of this plan was to prevent the emergence of a common Arab identity, especially a Muslim-Arab one.  By stirring up local nationalisms the European colonial powers were implementing the old “divide and rule” policy.  Furthermore, by putting Baathists into power, the Europeans could make sure that the nationalist Arab leaders would be secular and pliable to Europeans demands thanks to the Masonic backchannels of communication and pressure.  

Is this summary correct?  Is the Baathist version of Arab nationalism really a Masonic ploy to keep control over the Middle-East?  Is it true that while Michel Aflaq was nominally a Greek Orthodox Christian, that in reality he was a Freemason?

Ghassan Kadi: Quite frankly, I find your friend’s statement both inaccurate and charged.

To begin with, there is no real difference between Baathism and any other Pan-Arab movement including Nasserism. They are all based on uniting Arabic language speakers. In reality, this argument is quite thin and does not have any historic and/or demographic foundation to underpin it.

Secondly, an Arab identity and a Muslim-Arab identity are two different things that are also ideologically and philosophically at odds. This is needless to say that the term Muslim-Arab identity is oxymoronic because, among other things, it excludes Arab Christians as well as non-Arab Christians (such as Aramaics) who and by virtue of the name of Muslim-Arab identity, do not have a place in which they can be included.

Furthermore, if the Baathist version is indeed a “Masonic ploy”, which I don’t believe it is, how does this make other versions of Arab Nationalism any different?

It is possible that the manner in which your friend perceives Arab nationalism as a conspiracy (and the Arab World is indeed full of conspiracy theories) is indeed explained in his subtle remark that sees Muslim-Arab identity as the “real deal” and that anything else short of this is a diversion from truth. His negative and almost derogatory inference to leaders such as Baathist leaders as being “secular and pliable” to the West implies some covert Islamist mindset.

We must not forget that Arab Nationalism, Syrian Nationalism (as per the Syrian Socialist National Party [SSNP] doctrine), even the Lebanese Nationalism have all emerged in the first half of the 20th Century at a time when nationalism was at its peak in Europe. Nationalism was the then flavour of the month.

I cannot but be an incurable pacifist, and I do not make any apologies about it. Humanity has to rise above what divides it and look at different ways of binding people together rather than creating reasons for them to fight. But when people are drowning, they clutch at straws and they try to find strength in unity and this, I believe, is how passions like nationalism arise, especially when there is an “enemy” to fight and a reason to unite against him.

Back to your friend’s statement, Arabs and Muslims must stop the blame game and take responsibility for their failures without having to blame others. If indeed the Masonic movement plotted against Arabs and turned them against each other, Arabs must look inwardly at the seed of hatred they harbour for each other.

In summary and to put it in very simple terms, I find your friend’s letter to be typical of Islamist rhetoric when trying to take the guise of rationality, deep knowledge and comprehensive vision. This letter is of high significance because it elaborates the charged sentiments that Muslim youth are bombarded with when attempts are made to recruit them.

This letter clearly conveys the message that any political doctrine that is not based on seeking Muslim identity and unity is a deviation from the truth and is part of an anti-Muslim Western plot. And even though it refers to the identity it seeks as Muslim/Arab, the message is very clear.

When Islamist recruiters approach younger and less educated Muslim youth, among fundamentalist teachings and many other charged messages they give them, they often fill their heads with conspiracy theories and stories of injustice that has been inflicted upon them, thereby inflaming anger and hatred for every non-Muslim. This is their guaranteed recipe to send people in the pursuit of revenge.

The Saker: Now that Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein have been overthrown and that only Bashar al-Assad remains in power, with great difficulty, do Arab nationalism, secularism and Baathism have any future, or will they be replaced by religious movements?

Ghassan Kadi: To begin with, to the displeasure of the West, we cannot put President Bashar Assad in the same basket as that of Saddam and Gaddafi. The fact the Bashar is still standing is a testimony of this difference. Unlike Saddam and Gaddafi (whom I shall not totally demonize because they were not the be all and end all of evil as the West describes them), Bashar has huge popular support, both among his civilians and the armed forces.

When Iraq was invaded, few Iraqis stood by Saddam and the same happened with Gaddafi. However, Bashar enjoys a very high popularity rate, and according to reliable estimates, the figure stands at least at 70% and is on the rise. It was that support first and foremost that gave him the longevity that his enemies did not expect him to have.

That said, to say that the age of Arab Nationalism in Syria now is on the decline would be a gross understatement. With all the let downs from Arab “brothers” and conspiracies to destroy Syria and kill its people, the word “Arab” is regarded as synonymous to traitor and enemy of Syria.

The same applies to Islamists. However, we have to be realistic. Without a proper reform of Islam, a reform that will see that all forms of violence are alien to its true message, there will be no guarantee that ISIS will not be able to resurrect itself in one form or another sooner or later. On the short term however, the Syrian Government and its army of loyal citizens hopefully will not allow any over-the-top and politically-correct freedom given to religious zealots that can be abused and allowed to be turned into another disaster.

When Syria rises victorious, if anything at all, this war is bolstering the passion for Syrian nationhood and the unity of Greater Syria. The ideology that is shaping up as the biggest winner is no doubt that of the SSNP.

The Saker:  What is the real role and function of the Lebanese Army today? Does it still have a purpose or has Hezbollah become the de-facto Army of Lebanon?How much cooperation, if any, is there between Hezbollah and the Lebanese Army today?  Can the latter still be of some use to defend the country against external (Israel) or internal (Daesh) enemies?

Ghassan Kadi: The real role of the Lebanese Army is, in practical terms, an ever-changing one. It all depends on who is at the helm. Back in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, its role seemed to be restricted to curbing the PLO as well as street riots.

Historically, the Lebanese Army was seen as the apparatus that protected the elite “Maronite Political Entity”, but it took a neutral side during the Civil War up until the then Army Chief Michel Aoun took it upon himself to fight both Syria and the “Lebanese Forces” in the mid 1980’s.

Many things have changed since, and right now March the 14th Coalition sympathizers allege that the Lebanese Army takes its orders from Hezbollah because at the present time it has good relationships with Hezbollah. On the other hand, “Internal Security” (ie the Police Force) is loyal to Hariri and its ex-chief, Current minister of justice Ashraf Rifi is openly a Hariri man who headed the Sunni militia in Tripoli when those militia were clashing with Alawite militia loyal to Hezbollah.

In any event, the Lebanese Army is not well-equipped, and as a regular army, it is only trained for conventional wars. It does not have an effective air force and it can never win against the far more technologically-advanced “Israeli Defence Force”.

With that said, the Lebanese Army displayed quite a bit of resilience and determination in its small wars against Fateh Al Islam (at the Al-Bared Palestinian camp) back in 2005 and later on against Ahmed Al-Assir’s gang and some Islamist gangs in Tripoli in 2014 and 2015, respectively. It can definitely hold ground against any ISIS incursions and possibly even gain ground from ISIS, but this will all depend on what warfare technology ISIS brings into the battle.

I believe that given its current stature and capabilities, the Lebanese Army can at best have a supportive role to the much more mobile and stealthy Hezbollah who specializes in asymmetrical warfare.

The Saker:  Who killed Rafik Hariri and why?

Ghassan Kadi: In a recent article that was published on The Saker titled “War On Syria; Not Quite According to Plant, Part 2, The Plot, I have provided my take and analysis of this assassination.

Murder needs motive and potential gains. Syria had all to lose and none to gain in killing Hariri. To begin with, it was a slap in the face for Syria given that Syrian forces were still in Lebanon at that time and considered to be the custodians of law and order.

The Hariri murder carries the hallmarks and fingerprints of Mossad and the CIA, not to totally vindicate the Saudis. After all, they are all the biggest beneficiaries.

The murder led to a speedy and unplanned withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon, and in more than one way, paved the road for the “War On Syria”.

After all and immediately following the murder, the demonizing of President Bashar Assad took a level akin to the demonizing of Saddam prior to the invasion(s) of Iraq. Secondly, many parts of Lebanon, especially in the North and North East became open game for anti-Syrian fighters and sympathizers, and those groups played a huge role later on in capturing the very strategic Qalamoun region and linked terrorist in the northern parts of Syria with the South.

Whilst the link of the USA/Israel/Saudi Arabia with the assassination of Hariri is something I cannot prove as such, the pieces of the puzzle fit in very well if we look at them all in their entirety.

The Saker: Who killed Bachir Gemayel? Do you believe that it was really Habib Shartouni or was this a carefully staged provocation?

Ghassan Kadi: All indications are that Shartouni singlehandedly planned and killed Bachir Gemayel. As a matter of fact, at the outset, Inaam Raad the then president of the SSNP of which Shartouni is a member, denounced Shartouni and stated that he acted solo. Later on of course, Shartouni was considered as an SSNP hero.

Gemayel had many enemies, and it happened that Shartouni had access to the building where a meeting was going to be held, and the rest is now history.

But once again, just like in the case of Hariri’s murder that happened more than two decades later, the question is about who was set to gain from Gemayel’s assassination? Definitely not Israel, not America, and none but the “Axis of Resistance”. So whether Shartouni indeed worked alone or not, his action played a significant role in changing the course of events that followed the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and perhaps was significant in turning Israel’s military success on its head.

The Saker: I have always believe that the Israelis had very high level accomplices inside the Syrian government and that they could never have killed Imad Mughniyah without such assistance.  Mughniyah’s widow make exactly the same accusation from her refuge in Iran.  Do you agree with this thesis and, if yes, do you know who was involved and why?  And why has Hezbollah not avenged the murder of Mughniyah yet?

Ghassan Kadi: There is no doubt that corruption was rife in Syria during the days of father Assad. Many corrupt officials and army personnel however were from the old and faithful guards. Hafez Assad was able to wield them to a certain extent, but he could not get rid of them out right without risking political instability.

When Bashar took the reins in the middle of 2000, he tried to clean up, and he did, but neither fast nor deep enough. If there was any reason for a popular uprising in Syria and demands for reform, that was it but that was not at all the case as the West tried to portray the “War On Syria” to be.

It is highly likely that the assassination of Mughniyah involved corruption and a hefty Mossad bribe, but if this was the case, then the culprit would have been very close to President Assad. In such an event, Hezbollah had two choices; either to seek revenge and risk its relationship with the President, or bite the bullet. Nasrallah chose the latter.

That said, it is rumoured that a corrupt official was eventually and conveniently “punished” at the right time without any questions raised.

The Saker:  If Syria prevails in this war against Daesh and their AngloZionist sponsors, do you expect Syria and Lebanon to become one country and fully reunite, or will the Syrians only remain a military presence for the protection of Lebanon from the Zionists and Takfiris?

Ghassan Kadi: If the Syrians and Lebanese wake up and realize that the differences that separate them are a whim and that they are much better off united and seriously wish to unite, then no one can stop them.

Any serious opposition to such a prospect will come from Lebanon, not from Syria. Syrians are taught from as early as school days that Lebanon was snatched away from Syria by the Sykes-Picot Accord that saw Syria divided. In Lebanon however, and a hundred years later, and even though Lebanon has turned into a virtual failed state, there are still many elements that would staunchly stand against any such union and remain strongly adherent to an independent Lebanon.

The Lebanese opposition to any union with Syria will mainly come from what is left of the “Maronite Political Entity” and Hariri’s Future Movement and/or the “Sunni Political Entity” in general.

However, if after Syria prevails and the March the 8th Coalition rises victorious, the dissenting elements will end up as huge losers to the extent that their voice may not have much clout left at all.

In reality, even though the modern history of Lebanon has always been founded on reconciliation and the principle of “No winners and no losers”, the 1975-1989 Civil War did end up with losers, and the losers back then were the “Lebanese Forces” and their leader Samir Geagea was imprisoned for ten years. As a matter of fact, the whole “Maronite Political Entity” was disempowered for the whole ten year period during which Geagea was in jail.

Is it possible to see a much more dramatic repeat of this? I cannot say that it would be too far-fetched.

Any possible reunification between Lebanon and Syria may not happen in one hit, as it were. It may become a work-in-progress. What is important here is for citizens of both states to realize that it is time to lift off the remnants of the big French lie that there is indeed such a thing as an independent Lebanese nation.

The Saker: I am very puzzled and most uncomfortable with the Russian policy towards Egypt.  Why are Putin and Russia so supportive of a regime which came to power by means of a bloody takeover and which has jailed and killed thousands of Egyptian Muslims?  Is this a case of Realpolitik trumping morals?

Ghassan Kadi: Mursi hijacked the Egyptian Revolution, whatever the initial nature of that revolution was, and headed the only party (ie Muslim Brotherhood) that was organized enough to campaign for elections.

His one-year reign was wrought with decisions and decrees that were very quickly turning Egypt into a theocratic state. There were even talks about whether or not the Sphinx and the Pyramids should be levelled. This is needless to say that he allowed Islamist zealots to attack and kill Christian Coptics even inside their places of worship.

Al-Sisi has kept his cards close to his chest for a long time, but he seems to be slowly coming out now. He clearly did not agree that his ancient country should be run by fanatic zealots, and if he imprisoned hundreds of them, then he did what was needed to be done.

There are now some unconfirmed reports that Sisi has decided to send some troops to help the Saudis fight the Houthis, but even if he is, he may just sent a token army unit as he has thus far refused to partake in the Saudi offensive against Yemen despite heavy Saudi pressure and threats of funding cuts. Last but not least, during his recent visit to Moscow, he has finally agreed that he and Assad have a common enemy in ISIS and its affiliates.

Egypt, especially in Sinai, is suffering from almost daily terrorist attacks, and this according to Sisi, as like any other responsible president, is something that ought to be stopped.  If Putin managed to bring Sisi and Assad together, then this in my view is a great achievement; one that is not to be seen as a mark against Russia and Putin.

The Saker: I am having great difficulties making sense of the position of Turkey and the KSA.  For starters, how stable do you consider these regimes to be?  Aren’t they playing with fire when they try to use Daesh against Syria.  Conversely, why do Turkey and Syria hate Assad so much?  Did he not comply with the Turkish demands to cease supporting the Kurds?  As for the Saudis, why would they care so much about Syria?  What are Turkey and the KSA trying to achieve right now and how sincere are their overtures towards Russia?

Ghassan Kadi: You have raised many issues in this question and I cannot give them all enough justice in one single response, but I will try.

The stability of the status of Erdogan is highly likely going to be thrown off balance in the upcoming November parliamentary elections. He has already lost the first round back in June 15, and because neither of the opposition parties was prepared to work with him, his AKP was not able to form government, and hence the need for fresh elections.

After several attacks on Turkish outposts, a declining economy, and Turkish Army attacks on Kurds in both northern Syria and Iraq, he is likely to lose more seats which will turn him into a lame duck president.

The Saudis are not in a much better shape. With the oil price being where it is and a very costly war in Yemen, the Saudis are in deep trouble and there are rumours of dissent within the ranks of the royals themselves.

Certainly, both the Turks and the Saudis have played with fire in using ISIS, and as ISIS declared mutiny, the monster they fed is turning back to bite them.

Erdogan sees in Assad a secular patriot who stands in his way of attempting to reclaim the Ottoman Islamic Empire with him (ie Erdogan) as its head. He may not be planning a military takeover of the Levant, but he certainly wants to be the Muslim Father image and the unrivaled leader in the Muslim World. The Saudis feel the same about Bashar, and more so that they see he turned Syria into an Iranian (ie Shiite) satellite.

But here’s one dividing aspect of the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail”. Each on his own; that is the Turks and Saudis each want to be the unrivaled leader of the Muslim World. United they were when the “War On Syria” took off more than four years ago, but today, they are standing at opposite dipoles each trying to make as many gains as possible before it is all over. But even if they ended up winning the “War On Syria”, their rivalries were going to surface at some stage.

Moreover, Assad did not and would not appease Erdogan by ceasing to support Syrian Kurds who are defending the Syrian homeland.

If indeed Turkey and Saudi Arabia are sincere in their overtures towards Russia now, it would only be out of desperation and the knowledge that America gives promises that it does not honour.

The Saker: What about Iran?  Iif Daesh becomes enough of a threat to the Syrian government, do you see the Iranian overly intervening in Syria?  What about Bahrein and, especially, Yemen.  Do you think that the Iranians have the means, the rationale and the resolve to openly intervene in these countries?  Finally, do you believe that a full scale war between the Islamic Republic and the Saudi Wahabi monarchy is possible?  Likely?

Ghassan Kadi: As far as Syria and Iran are concerned, the two countries have a mutual defence treaty which can be put into action at any time. With the Iran nuclear deal done and dealt with, Iran would be more than able to do this now as it is no longer seen as a rogue state.

Having said that, Iran has been supporting Syria directly and indirectly via Hezbollah as well as on-the-ground military advisors.

Bahrain and Yemen are a totally different story as Iran does not have mutual defence treaties with either.

As far as Saudi Arabia itself is concerned, if push comes to shove and there is no other alternative left, I cannot see that Iran will run away from a fight. Yes, they do have the means, the rational and the resolve.

My guess however is that Iran will sit back and watch the KSA implode. With every month, every week and every day, the Saudis are increasingly coming under many types of pressures and their collapse may be closer than anyone thinks. If things remain unchanged for a while, then short of the KSA making a direct attack on Iranian soil, I cannot see any direct combat between the two powers. Iran knows well that time is on its side and the post-nuclear deal Iran is more powerful than ever.

The Saker: Most commentators are suggesting that there can be no military victory in the war in Syria and that some kind of political agreement between Assad and the so-called “moderate” (non-Daesh) opposition must be made.  But how relevant is this moderate opposition nowadays? Is this moderate opposition only a fig leaf to save Uncle Sam’s face in this bloody debacle and is there anybody with some credibility out there Assad could negotiate with?

Ghassan Kadi: Assad has always said that he will debate any genuine reform agenda with any party that is not involved in killing and destruction. This proviso singles out all militants without any exception. Assad’s acceptance to this is not any different from expressing preparedness to call for an early election; an election that he knows he is going to win with flying colours. Will this indeed be America’s face saver and consolation prize? Time will tell.

The Saker: the examples of Syria and Yemen see to indicate that most of the Arab world is hopelessly submitted to the Saudis, and their US and Israeli patrons.  Is there really no hope of an anti-imperial resistance outside the so-called “Shia crescent”.  Is it possible that a truly progressive Sunni resistance to Empire could emerge which would be much more aligned with the values and ideas of a Sayyid Qutb then of the kind of reactionary Wahabism the Saudis have been trying to export?

Ghassan Kadi: One of Nasser’s biggest mistakes was the execution of Sayyid Qutb because he martyred him and turned him into a hero.

Qutb was a mildly spoken scholar and a highly principled man who faced death very courageously, but underneath this personal façade of his, he was a fundamentalist and one of the founders of what directly and indirectly led to the creation of ISIS et. al. and let us not make a mistake about this.

Put the violence of Daesh (ISIS) and Wahhabis aside for a while and just consider their theological doctrine in detail and you will find that it is identical to that of Qutb.

But the force standing against that fundamentalist form of Islam is not the so-called “Shia Crescent”. This term is a furphy that has been invented and coined by Sunni fundamentalists in order to portray themselves to be in the position of the defensive in a sectarian war they did not chose to have. It is exactly the opposite that is true.

The term “Shia Crescent” is not any different than the term “Russian intervention in Ukraine”. It is a vexatious, malicious, unfounded termed designed to spark sectarianism.

Furthermore, the force that has been at the forefront of fighting Daesh more than any other is the Syrian Army in which Sunnis account for 70%. This is not to discount the fact that Daesh has been actively involved in killing Sunni citizens, Sunni clerics and destroying Sunni Mosques. The term “Takfiri” literally means classifying anyone who does not fully agree with one’s doctrine as a heretic and hence his blood becomes forfeit.

Daesh is therefore not essentially an army of Sunnis intended to protect Sunnis. It is an army of Takfiris trying to convert the whole world, including Sunnis to their doctrine under the pain of death.

If the Muslim World is serious about providing a philosophical anti-thesis that is going to effectively stop and eradicate Sunni fundamentalism, then it cannot be based on a Shiite doctrine otherwise it would defeat its purpose.

The only way to combat ISIS and its doctrine is by reforming Islam on a spiritual level, and forming a secular front to fight it on a military level.

The Saker: what role do you see for Russia in the Middle-East and Arab world?  What can and should Russia do to try to preserve the Syrian government and prevent a US/EU/NATO/Israeli attack on Syria and Iran?

Ghassan Kadi: Syria and Russia need one another in the fight against ISIS as partners. The threat of ISIS is of global reach, and Russia, just like any other state, is not immune to this threat.

Furthermore, both Russia and Syria have a vested interest in a multipolar world that sees the end of American hegemony.

Russia has helped Syria to a great extent and at many levels and capacities. I am not a military expert, but from what I gather, the extra help Syria needs is in the fields of satellite surveillance data, smart bombs and advanced bombers.

Furthermore, whilst it is obvious that Syria has not yet used all of its power, and whilst its arsenal of rockets has not yet been used, little is known about its air defence capabilities. Personally, among many interested parties that I discuss this subject with, there is a consensus that Assad is keeping his defence capabilities close to his chest despite a number of recent Israeli air raids in the last few years. Israel is luring him to show what he has got up his sleeve, but he wants to keep the element of surprise for the big battle, if and when it happens.

To that effect, I would like to think and believe that the Syrian Army has an effective air defence capability that it can effectively use in the event of an all-out escalation with Israel.

Whilst some pundits argue that Syria does not have such advanced ground-to-air missiles and that Russia has let Syria down in this regard, I only need to look back at the surprise element that the Syrian and Egyptian armies presented to the Israeli Airforce when they unleashed their Soviet-built SAM-6 missiles back in the October Yum Kippur war of 1973. If the Soviets were prepared then to supply SAM-6 batteries to Syria and Egypt in 1973 after both countries suffered a humiliating defeat in the 1967 war, I don’t see why Putin’s Russia would not do the same for Syria in 2015 after Syria has gallantly stood tall after more than four years of an 83-nation vicious assault.

As far as directly defending Syria and Iran, Russia does not operate under the American gung-ho modus operandi. Just like Iran will sit back and watch the KSA implode. Russia is not asked to give more than what is required in helping modernize and equip the Syrian Army. And guess what? Syria has enough men to fight for her integrity, and honourable Syrians will die standing before they ask anyone to come and fight their fight.

The other role that Russia can playing and has been playing is one that is diplomatic. Even though the recent Russian inroads towards initiating talks between Saudi Arabia and Syria have not gone further than a one-off meeting, Russian diplomacy is on the rise. Last but not least, Russia has played a big role in the UNSC and thwarted several Western attempts to impose different forms of sanctions on Syria.

If anything, Russia is not escalating its support to Syria at all of the above levels.

As a Lebanese/Syrian, I have one word to say to Russia and her leader; Spasiba.

The Saker: last question – what do you think will happen to the Zionist entity “Israel”?  Do you think that they will succeed in creating their ethnically pure state, the last openly and officially racist state on the planet, or do you believe that Ayatollah Khomenei was correct when he predicted that “this occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time”?

Ghassan Kadi: This is a difficult question to answer simply because what I would personally like to happen is one thing and that what I believe will happen is something else.

As I said earlier, I am an incurable pacifist and I will not make any apologies about it. To this effect, I do not believe that children should pay for the crimes of the parents. Israelis born in the land of Palestine to Zionist migrants are not culpable for the displacement of Palestinians any more than today’s Americans are accountable for the massacres of indigenous American tribes.

However, if second generation onwards Israelis continue to refuse Palestinians the “right of return”, other civil rights and land restitution, then they will need to be forced to comply militarily perhaps, as this would most likely would be the only means. But for certain anti-Israeli leaders and ideologues to talk about “cleansing” and “throwing Jews out in the sea” does not make them morally any better than the Haganah gangs who did the same to the Palestinians in the 1940’s.

That said, there is little doubt in my mind that time is not on Israel’s side and there are many reasons to base this statement on. When the tides turn the other way, and this is only a question of time, given Israel’s history of violence and inhumane treatment of Palestinians, the “revenge” is likely to be immense.

Ideally, the best resolution for any state is for an all-inclusive state, one state, in which all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law.

Jews have always been part-and-parcel of the Levant’s history and they should remain as such. Any attempt to keep them out of the equation is equally wrong as is any Zionist attempt to keep Palestinians (both Muslims and Christians) out of the same yet opposite equation.

With Israeli obstinacy and the allegedly God-given superiority that underpins Zionism, it is highly unlikely that we will see a one-state solution.

As a matter of fact, it is possible that one day the Israelis may accept the one-state solution when it is too late for them to dictate any terms. But they haven’t even yet accepted the two-state solution!!! In any event, a two-state solution is an admission of failure and acceptance that people of different religions cannot live on the same land, when in fact Jews, Christians and Muslims have lived together in peace for many centuries. It was only the introduction of Zionism that created the conflict.

Israel has got to realize that the more it inflicts pain and suffering on Palestinians, the more powerful the retaliation will one day be. But Israel seems to always want to thrive on the false principle that is based on the assumption that if a certain amount of force will not achieve the required objective, then more force will.

Israel is digging itself in, and the more it does, the more enemies it is creating.

If Islamists ever take control of the Levant, God forbid, they will eventually turn against Israel and vow to kill every Jewish man woman and child. To be realistic here again, if Islam is not reformed, and if its violent aspect that is based on misinterpreting its message is not properly and adequately dealt with, then it will be a matter of time before Islamists do achieve this control.

If on the other hand secularism and rationality win and Syria rises victorious and turns into a shining beacon of civility and progress for the entire region, then it will not be able to co-exist with Israel in its present form. Israel will either have to be integrated and thereby losing its Jewish majority (which it will never accept), or it will have to face massive wars and very dire consequences when it is no longer in a militarily superior position.

The Saker: thank you!