ERDOGAN HAS MADE HIS CHOICE. By Ghassan Kadi 26 January 2018

ERDOGAN HAS MADE HIS CHOICE By Ghassan Kadi

26 January 2018 Ironically as Ghassan Kadi was writing this article, he was invited by Ekaterina Blinova of Sputnik for an interview and, in reality, this article is an expanded version of that interview discussing his views about the recent developments in northern Syria.

http://thesaker.is/erdogan-has-made-his-choice/

Erdogan has made his choice

28193 ViewsJanuary 26, 2018 38 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi for The Saker Blog

It seems that Erdogan has already made up his mind, but the speculations about what deals have been and haven’t been done seem muddied, to put it mildly.

In the Levant, the Kurds always lose in the end, and regardless of what alliances they make and with whom, they always end up getting stabbed in the back; or at least abandoned. But when they team up with parties like the USA, and even Israel, what else can they expect?

However, the Kurd’s obsession of having their statehood by any means, and the resistance they face and the unpreparedness of certain parties to work together to ensure that there will be no foreign intervention, they all have their adverse consequences. What we see happening in Syria’s north today is the direct outcome of this.

America had been looking for half an excuse to invade Syria for a very long time, and knowing that it wasn’t able to have a full-on presence that would allow it to carpet bomb the whole nation, it used the Kurdish excuse and the false pretext of creating a “security zone” in order to justify its presence on Syrian soil; against Syria’s wish.

But to do this, America needed allies on the ground, and instead of working together with its natural partner and NATO member Turkey (which happens to be a regional superpower) on common denominators, America’s inability to negotiate and give and take, even with its most ardent allies, repelled Turkey and America had to resort to an alliance with the YPG Kurds. What comes next is more sinister.

It is not clear what was Russia’s initial position on establishing any form of Kurdish autonomy in Syria. As a matter of fact, Syria’s FM Walid Mouallem hinted back in September 2017 that the Syrian Government was prepared to look into a limited Kurdish cultural autonomy (https://arabic.rt.com/middle_east/900959-وزير-الخارجية-السوري-لـ-rt-الإدارة-الذاتية-سوريا-وهذا-أمر-قابل-للتفاوض-والحوار/), but this did not go very far. And long before Mouallem’s remark, President Assad himself hinted back in 2012 that the efforts of the people of Ain Al Arab (Kobani in Kurdish) will not be forgotten. But of course, this does not mean he was hinting at some form of autonomy. Was the Syrian Government pressured to not explore every possible avenue for reconciliation with its Kurdish population? And if so, by whom and why? Surely not by Russia because, Russia had always been sympathetic and understanding of Kurdish fears and aspirations. Who else could have stood in the way of reaching some form of pre-emptive reconciliation between the Syrian Government and Syrian Kurds before events reached the dangerous climax they are at today? Definitely not Iran or Turkey.

Arguably, it can be said that the way the YPG went to bed with America has led to its abandonment by the Syrian Government and all other potential allies outside the American circle of influence, and this cannot be more obvious given the recent history of the YPG. In all honesty however, we must in hindsight ask whether it was possible to avoid this impasse or at least mitigate it. We don’t know. Either way, it is probably already too late to “reconcile” and President Assad himself has recently referred to those Kurds who are under America’s beck-and-call as “traitors”.

Ironically, an ardent opposition of having any form of Kurdish autonomy in Syria was, and continues to be, Turkey’s Erdogan. He is concerned about the snow-ball effect and the possibility of similar Turkish-Kurdish aspirations. And Turkey is a multi-ethnic nation with vulnerabilities that cannot be ignored in this crazy era of human history.

Erdogan had told his American “allies” time and time again that they cannot be strategic allies of Turkey if they want to endorse any form of a formal Kurdish entity; even one that is only nominally cultural. Yet, Obama’s USA did not listen any more than Trump’s. They dug in their heels and continued to intimidate in their presence in Syria not only Syria, but also Russia and most ironically, their ally Turkey.

Syria wants America out of Syria.

Russia wants America out of Syria.

Iran wants America out of Syria.

Turkey doesn’t really care if America is in or out of Syria, but Turkey definitely wants the YPG and any other Kurdish military forces disabled in order to put a stop to any possible Kurdish entity from materializing.

But now that the wolf (aka America) is in, who is going to kick it out before it huffs and puffs and blows the whole region in?

The Syrian Army cannot engage directly against American troops, let alone militia supported by America, without risking a major direct military escalation with America itself. As a matter of fact, America perhaps wishes for this to happen as this will justify a bigger presence.

But hang on, let’s not forget that Russian troops are on the ground in Syria, and the Russians and Americans have thus far succeeded in avoiding direct confrontation for decades. Such indirect interaction is something that both super powers are familiar with, and they know how to do it. But this of course means that Russia cannot directly be engaged in ousting American troops from Syria. On the flip-side, America cannot engage with Russia either in an attempt to, say, oust President Assad.

How about Iran then? Well, Iran is already under American (and Israeli) threats, even without engaging directly against American troops. Iran may choose to engage against America or be drawn into such an engagement, but to do this willingly in order to protect Syrians Kurds is an unlikely scenario.

In reality therefore, only Turkish troops can do the job without creating much international havoc of far-reaching devastation.

Does this mean that there is a tacit approval on behalf of the Syrian Government for the Turkish so-called “Olive Branch” operation? Not at all, and in fact, most unlikely. Is there then perhaps an agreement between Turkey on one hand with Russia and Iran on the other hand on this? Also highly unlikely. However, Erdogan knows well that only he can engage in fighting American cohorts in Syria, and he is doing it with or without any need for support, not even tacit support, from either Russia, Iran or Syria.

Now let’s not forget that Turkey is a NATO member and that it houses the Incirlik airbase. However, unlike back in 1955 when Turkey was desperate to join NATO in fear of the “Communist peril”, America and NATO now need Turkey much more than Turkey needs NATO. To Erdogan, if he had to choose between the potential risks of losing Turkey’s NATO membership as against having a Kurdish state south of his border, he would choose the former.

But to Erdogan, his stand against America is not only religiously and nationalistically based, it is also personal. Apart from his doctrinal fundamentalist and nationalist attributes, he regards America as the nation that hosts and protects his political enemy and rival Gulen; who ironically still enjoys a huge level of support within Turkey, despite all the clampdowns on his supporters after the July 2016 coup attempt.

Erdogan and Trump are now playing chicken with each other, each looking at his opponent to see who is going to back off first. Trump has no idea that Erdogan will not waver and that he will simply not allow a Kurdish state south of his border, even though it is not meant to be on Turkish territory. The truth of the matter is that America has never ever considered its allies as friends who may have common objectives with America, but also happen to have their own interests. America is used to dictating its terms and conditions on its allies without a second thought.

But Trump, like his predecessor before him, does not seem to realize that they have pushed Erdogan to the limit and that he is now taking America to task.

So apart from whether or not there are undisclosed deals between Syria, Turkey, Iran and Russia, the fact that they all agree that none of them wants any form of Kurdish autonomy, lifts Erdogan up to the level of the one and only “hero” who can deal with it as he is the only one who doesn’t give a damn about what happens between him and America. He even seems to be reveling in the attention he is receiving at home by challenging America, as this is bolstering his popularity and further enabling him to target Gulen and America who is held responsible for his political survival by giving him asylum.

But in doing all of this, and to follow up on the previous article (http://thesaker.is/erdogans-karmic-trap/), Erdogan has clearly made his choice as to which side on the Syrian ground he is going to support.

Erdogan seems to be distancing himself from Al-Nusra Front, or is he? Well, on the surface at least, he is pushing the card of the allegedly least radical of all militarized Syrian opposition groups; the so-called “Free Syria Army” (FSA). The original FSA members back in 2011 were mainly defectors of the Syrian Army. Back then, they were the only military force on the ground before all the Jihadis and mercenaries came in. No one can really tell with certainty what percentage of those fighters today are of Syrian Army origin, but what is pertinent here is that Erdogan is not going into Afrin together with Al-Nusra Front fighters, but rather with FSA fighters.

To a Syrian patriot, there is no real difference between the FSA and Al-Nusra Front. However, on the books as it were, the FSA is not a fundamentalist Jihadist organization. And as Astana/Geneva/Sochi talks will resume at some stage, lifting the profile of the FSA at one minute to midnight might give the elusive so-called “moderate Syrian opposition” a last minute mouth-to-mouth resuscitation; courtesy of Erdogan. After all, if push comes to shove, the Al-Nusra fighters that Erdogan wishes to protect can always shave their beards and wear FSA uniforms.

It’s a “clever”, or rather conniving, move by Erdogan, because by supporting and resurrecting the FSA, not only is he distancing himself from Al-Nusra Front, but he is bringing back the “moderate Syrian opposition” to the forefront and potentially giving it a place in the final negotiation process, and this fact, may also be used by him as an un-severed link with his American “allies”, because if he wanted to watch his back just in case he needed America in the near future, he can always argue that he did not send his troops into Syria to support President Assad, but rather to support the opposition.

Whichever way events move on from here, Russian diplomacy will be given the ultimate challenge. The time for muscle power in the skies for Russian bombers is over, at least for a while.

KADI INTERVIEW WITH SPUTNIK. Both Ankara, Damascus Seek to Thwart US-Backed SDF Presence in Syria 26 January 2018

Interview with Ghassan Kadi by Ekaterina Blinova for Sputnik. 26 January 2018 Ekaterina Blinova did a good interview (as usual) with Ghassan Kadi with good questions and thoughtful answers.

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201801261061099728-syria-turkey-us/

Both Ankara, Damascus Seek to Thwart US-Backed SDF Presence in Syria – Analyst

15:15 GMT 26.01.2018 (Updated: 08:04 GMT 06.08.2022)

© Sputnik / Hikmet Durgun

Subscribe

International

India

Africa

Ekaterina Blinova

All materialsWrite to the author

By bringing the allegedly secular Free Syrian Army (FSA) to the forefront of Operation Olive Branch, Ankara is seeking to distance itself from the al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra Front and to legitimize the FSA, comprised of those who instigated the war in Syria seven years ago, political analyst Ghassan Kadi told Sputnik.

"Turkish President Erdogan's objective in northern Syria is simply to prevent the creation of any form of Kurdish autonomy, even if it is under the auspices of America," political analyst of Syrian origin Ghassan Kadi told Sputnik. "This cannot be a decision he coordinated with America, because American and Turkish interests are at serious odds here."

On January 20 Ankara launched Operation Olive Branch aimed at bringing the Syrian cities of Afrin and Manbij, held by the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), under control. The operation has triggered a fierce debate over the legitimacy of the campaign. Washington continues to send mixed signals regarding its attitude to the Turkish offensive. Likewise, reports on casualties are conflicting: while Ankara claims that over 300 Kurdish fighters have been killed, the militia insists that no more than 20 Kurdish troops have died.

Ankara Weaponizes the Forgotten FSA

Observers suggest Ankara's offensive in the north together with the Free Syrian Army will help Syria preserve its territorial integrity, which is challenged by the Kurds.

"Erdogan's only concern is Turkey's integrity, not Syria's," Kadi emphasized, commenting on the observers' view. "By using the FSA, he is achieving two goals: distancing himself from al-Nusra Front (his more radical ally); and bringing back the almost forgotten and allegedly secular FSA to the forefront."

The question then is what the Turks will do next, if they manage to expel the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) from their positions in northern Syria. Will Ankara try to maintain its military presence in the region under the pretext of ensuring security?

According to Kadi, the situation is, as one might imagine, far more complex: "This all depends on who ends up fighting whom, who wins in the end, or, alternatively, what deals can be struck by negotiations."

FSA fighters in Afrin, Syria

© Sputnik / Hikmet Durgun

Damascus, Ankara Have Common Interest in Northern Syria 

The political analyst drew attention to the fact that Turkey "has made it clear that its offensive is not aimed at the Syrian Arab Army (SAA)." He continued that on the other hand, a few days ago, Damascus asked the Kurds to cede their positions to the SAA. Meanwhile, it was reported recently that Afrin's local "executive council" has asked for Syrian government protection against the Turks.

"It's a sticky situation," Kadi highlighted. "Both Ankara and Damascus want to see an end to the US-sponsored Kurdish military presence and so-called 'security zone'. Will Syria and Turkey be able to put their other differences aside and work together on their common objective and avoid war with each other?"

According to the analyst, "if they succeed, and Russia is probably trying to broker such negotiations, then at the end of the operation, Turkey will pull out. However, if the situation escalates into a full-on war, not only will this be disastrous, but its outcome would be highly unpredictable."

New Round of War in Syria to Spell the End of Astana, Geneva, Sochi

Indeed, the developments on the ground have prompted fears that the Turkish Olive Branch military campaign could lead to a new round of war in the region.

"If war starts between Syria and Turkey, there will be neither Astana nor Geneva nor Sochi," Kadi warned. "Both should realize that their common objective now is to halt the American plan and prevent the 'security zone' from coming to fruition. They both seek victory, and perhaps Erdogan will settle for the victories of arresting this plot and taking the FSA to the talks as representative of the so-called 'moderate Syrian opposition'."

The political analyst pointed out that "on the other hand, whilst Syria has all the right to refuse such an outcome or a similar one, pragmatically speaking, it also puts Syria in a winning position. Moreover, if any such 'negotiations' are brokered by Russia between Syria and Turkey, Erdogan will most likely be asked to do a trade-off in which he severs all ties with Al-Nusra."

Dozens of Turkish F-16 jets prepare to take off during Anatolian Eagle exercise at 3rd Main Jet Air Base near the central Anatolian city of Konya (File)

© AP Photo / Selcan Hacaoglu

Why is Turkey 'Resurrecting' the FSA?

Kadi noted that ideally he would personally like to see the Syrian Army launching a counter offensive against both the Turkish Army and the separatist fighters at the same time and restore unconditional national sovereignty on every square inch, but this cannot be done without risking an all-out war with Turkey and possibly America.

The analyst also expressed his concerns about Turkey's "resurrecting" the FSA, de facto legitimizing the force in the eyes of the international community.

He recalled that "the FSA was originally comprised of regular army defectors who were instrumental in launching the 'War on Syria' and the mayhem it generated."

"In reality, the FSA should be decimated and its commanding officers trialed for treason," Kadi stressed. "Seven years later, however, and in comparison to the Turkish Army or Al-Nusra Front fighters, the FSA may manage to portray itself as relatively the lesser evil."

However, if the FSA help Damascus to return control over the Syrian territories held by the US-backed SDF forces, thus dealing a blow to the alleged US plan of creating a 30,000-strong border force in northern Syria and further separatism in the region, the Syrian government and the opposition forces could reach a mutually beneficial compromise. "Such a scenario can potentially benefit all states except the USA of course," Kadi concluded.

The views and opinions expressed by Ghassan Kadi, Ekaterina Blinova are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

HYBRID WARFARE AND ITS TARGET OF ALTERNATIVE MEDIA. By Intibah Kadi 23 January 2018

HYBRID WARFARE AND ITS TARGET OF ALTERNATIVE MEDIA. By Intibah Kadi

23 January 2018

The news of whistleblower media outlet, The Intercept, holding on for three years to an important NSA document, the contents of which lead to understanding which powers were involved in the earlier years of the War on Syria, has brought into question what exactly The Intercept claims to represent. A number of leaks of important documents including from Edward Snowden gave the media site an air of credibility and prestige, with many believing it had the potential to do good in this world. But a report from Mint Press’ Whitney Webb, puts everything clearly into perspective. https://www.mintpressnews.com/intercept-withheld-nsa-doc-that-may-have-altered-course-of-syria-war/233757/  (Webb's article pasted below due to censoring).Not only did The Intercept, publish evidence three years too late, but failed to write about important events around this document and what they meant. 

Webb’s article blew away any remnants of the notion that The Intercept is a vital link in the fight for justice and accountability. Her article firmly places The Intercept in the forefront of its proper context, that is; a Deep State “controlled opposition” apparatus.

In the case of Syria, it is clear that The Intercept, at no stage,  had an interest in the truth and in fact has deliberately obscured facts from seeing the light of day. The author’s mind went back to statements a researcher, Eva Gonzales,  made in mid-2016. She reported that she sent a highly sensitive and explosive piece of research, to the head of The Intercept. The other end was deathly silent. It was an important piece of “whistleblower” material but not for The Intercept evidently and, was clearly too close to the bone. One of the many alternative media outlets approached considered the research very important but expressed unwillingness to “put one’s hand in the hornet’s nest”. She claimed that not a single “alternative media” site felt able to publish it, despite several of their well known journalists telling the author that it was brilliant and important work. Reading her research back then, it seemed unbelievable that The Intercept would ignore it.

Clearly it was dangerous material and, as The Intercept presents itself most suitable for such risky exposes, they were the go-to people for publication. After all, isn’t that what The Intercept portrays itself as; fearless? This was something clearly for their basket. Now, reading Whitney’s piece in Mint Press, it makes sense why The Intercept ignored that submission.

The article was titled, “The Clarion Project and the ISIS “Dabiq” Trail”. It was based on detailed research which implicated a number of players in the USA and Israel in a phony ISIS magazine which was used for a variety of purposes, perhaps surveillance and recruitment. But, what caught my eye was the fact that, given everything pointing to the magazine “Dabiq” being a Clarion Project publication, it contained in one of it’s editions a “threat by ISIS” to a Senator for his writing a support letter to President Assad. https://evagonzalesthewriter.wordpress.com/2016/09/06/the-clarion-project-and-the-isis-dabiq-trail/ The Senator promoted this fact publicly and refers to it often when embarking on his activities in “support” of Syria. 

Following a logical line of enquiry, the writer notes that this Senator pragmatically severed links, just a few days before meeting President Assad, with Ted Cruz (he was on his inner election team). In addition to this, the Senator is linked to the Christian Zionist church which has church planting interests in Syria, and the member of the church who has become extremely active inside Syria was rescued by the Senator from the prospect of having to return home without a visa to Syria. This operative got stuck enroute to Syria with visa approval looking unlikely and claims that the Senator solved the visa problem in one afternoon by telling the President’s adviser that she was his “aide”. Her status as an “aide” was later confirmed by her in a media interview in Syria. 

Possibly, in light of no such position being stated on the original visa application, the Senator and his colleague went to extraordinary lengths to “clarify” this inconsistency, repeatedly stating that she was not an “aide” but a simple caring “housewife”. This is the same Senator named in the Neo-Con Clarion Project’s fabricated ISIS magazine “Dabiq” as an “enemy of ISIS”. The massive community of Christian Zionists of the USA are the most crucial allies of Israel and outnumber many times the population of Israel. Of interest here, they have a greater ability in finding ways to penetrate the barriers into Syria.

Controlled opposition in its many forms, whether from social action organisations to political or environmental ones, from the plethora of media outlets, to online petitions, have left many genuine seekers of the truth reeling, exhausted, disheartened and disempowered as they expend endless energy trying to figure out who is truly an alternative source of information and action and who is not. 

Add to this, the role these outlets play in espionage or projects that go against the interest of a nation the “empire” targets. Naturally, people make mistakes, and alternative media outlets can get things wrong, but something like this report about The Intercept clearly indicates it is a “controlled opposition” project. 

Placing Gonzales’ research about Clarion Project’s fake ISIS magazine with my observations about the Senator’s utilization of a fake ISIS threat,  together with this report on The Intercept by Webb, makes interesting reading when considering the many desperate attempts of Syria’s enemies to breach her barriers.

Mint Press itself, is no stranger to possible espionage and the attempts to discredit it as a reliable source in the alternative media community. In 2013 they fell victim to a dirty scheme at the hands of a purported independent Jordanian (or is he Israeli?) “journalist”. In the Arab world, not just the Western media, this Israel couch surfing “journalist” was ridiculed whilst also, maddeningly hinting that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack at Al Ghouta.  http://www.alquds.co.uk/?p=86582

What the world community of genuine activists and supporters of justice and resistance to the designs of “the empire” need to remember is that, it is a constant battle to keep up with the truth and lies within our movement.  As the writer said in her August 2017 article, NATO has every design on Syria covered and why would it leave the social media movement untouched?  http://thesaker.is/social-media-as-a-tool-of-hybrid-warfare-the-case-of-syria/ Hence it will always be a battle to ascertain where the controlled opposition strikes and what kind of operatives  and projects on the ground are really part of that.

* Interesting to watch in relation to this topichttps://t.co/NA2HFHGHN1

(posted here as many countries portray site as dangerous to open)
The Intercept Withheld NSA Doc That May Have Altered Course Of Syrian War

If this document had been published sooner, it could have dramatically changed the course of the war by exposing the true face of the “moderate rebels” — and potentially saved tens of thousands of lives. That didn’t happen, and no reason has been given by the Intercept for its delay.

by Whitney Webb

October 30th, 2017

By Whitney Webb 

On Tuesday, the Intercept published a hitherto unknown document from the trove of National Security Administration (NSA) documents leaked by Edward Snowden over three years ago. The document was notable as it shed light on the early days of the Syrian conflict and the fact that, for the past six years, so-called “revolutionary” groups aimed at toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have largely acted as proxies for foreign governments pushing regime change.

The document explicitly reveals that an attack led by the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which was intended to mark the anniversary of the 2011 “uprising” that sparked the Syrian conflict, was directed by a Saudi prince. The document proves, in essence, that the armed opposition in Syria – from the earlier years of the conflict – was under the direct command of foreign governments pushing for regime change.

NSA graphic released by The Intercept outlines Saudi involvement in organizing Syrian opposition 

attacks on Syria’s civilian infrastructure.

According to the document, Saudi Prince Salman bin Sultan had ordered the FSA to “light up Damascus” and “flatten” the city’s civilian airport. The Saudis had also “sent 120 tons of explosives/weapons to opposition forces” for the operation. The Saudis, as the document notes, were “very pleased” with the outcome, which claimed at least 60 lives.

The implications of the NSA document are significant. It offers the clearest proof, in the form of official U.S. government documents, detailing the direct relationship between the armed Syrian opposition and foreign governments, and exposing the fact that this relationship existed much earlier than the mainstream narrative on the conflict had previously suggested.

However, the Intercept article regarding the document is unusual for several reasons. First, the report inaccurately claims that the attack launched at the Saudis’ behest did not result in any confirmed casualties. Second, it states that the 2011 uprising in Syria was an organic, “peaceful” movement that led the Syrian government to wage “an open war against their own people” — a narrative that has since been debunked.

Yet, the largest oversight of all is the article’s failure to mention the U.S.’ role in funding the Free Syrian Army, as well as the CIA’s well-documented role in training the FSA and pumping tons of weapons into Syria in order to foment and exacerbate the conflict in its early days. In light of the NSA document’s revelation that the U.S. had been given advance notice of the planned FSA attack – on a civilian target, no less – Washington’s decision to let it proceed clearly suggests that the U.S. was involved in and well aware of the Saudi directives to the FSA. However, the Intercept piece chooses not to mention this crucial context.

Intercept’s three-plus year delay in releasing document

Free Syrian Army fighters clean their weapons and check ammunition on the outskirts of Aleppo, Syria Nov. 14, 2012. Khalil Hamra | AP

That didn’t happen, however, and no reason has been given by the publication for its notable delay. The Intercept has exclusive publishing rights and an exclusive hold on the content of the Snowden leaks, of which this newly released document is a part. Indeed, the Intercept was founded after the Snowden leaks were made public and its first hires were Glenn Greenwald and Lauren Poitras, the only journalists possessing the full Snowden cache. Those documents now belong to the Intercept’s founder — billionaire eBay founder,  — and his for-profit media company, First Look Media.

Examining Omidyar’s connections to the U.S. political establishment offers a plausible reason for the Intercept’s delay in publishing documents so crucial to understanding the situation in Syria. Omidyar was a frequent guest of the Obama White House from 2009 to 2013, garnering more face-to-face visits with Obama during his two terms than did Google’s Eric Schmidt, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, New York Times owner Arthur Sulzberger and even fellow tech billionaire turned major media owner, Jeff Bezos.

Omidyar also directly co-invested with the U.S. State Department, via USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), in opposition groups that played a key role in overthrowing Ukraine’s democratically elected government in 2014 – a U.S.-brokered regime-change operation that shares some notable similarities with the Syrian conflict. His investments with USAID have continued since the Intercept’s founding, helping fund the NGO’s more recent overseas programs aimed at “advancing U.S. national security interests” abroad.

Also worth noting is the fact that PayPal, of which Omidyar is a major owner, has allegedly been implicated in several of the still-withheld NSA documents for its business relationship with the NSA and its role in the agency’s mass spying program. In addition, former Intercept writers have asserted that Omidyar was “shockingly disinterested in the actual journalism” of the paper, suggesting that the Intercept was created explicitly to delay the release of damaging documents from the Snowden cache until deemed acceptable to the U.S. political establishment and others who stood to lose face were the entire cache to have been made public.

Indeed, another interesting coincidence supporting this thesis is the fact that the Intercept published this latest piece only after the U.S. State Department itself began to report more honestly on the nature of these so-called “rebels.” A day before the Intercept’s story on Syrian “rebels” and the Saudis, the U.S. State Department – for the first time – admitted that “moderate” rebels in Syria had previously used chemical weapons, a charge it had categorically denied for years in order to facilitate laying the blame for any and all chemical weapons attacks in Syria on the Syrian government.

In other words, the Intercept released the document, which effectively destroys Washington’s “moderate rebels” narrative with its own internal documents, only after the U.S. government itself began to unravel that very same narrative.

The Intercept did not respond to MintPress News’ request for comment regarding the timing of the document’s release.

Founder’s connections shape Intercept’s journalism

Billionare Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay and The Intercept. Bennet Group | AP

Omidyar’s connection to U.S. regime-change efforts abroad may also explain why the Intercept – until now, that is – has consistently given voice to journalists who have echoed the U.S. establishment regarding the Syrian conflict.

For instance, Murtaza Hussain – the author of this latest Intercept piece – has written numerous stories downplaying the terrorist and Wahhabist elements of the Syrian “rebels.” In the last two years, Hussain has written pieces portraying known Al-Qaeda propagandists, such as Bilal Abdul Kareem, and Al-Qaeda-linked organizations, such as the White Helmets, in an overwhelmingly positive light, failing to mention in both cases the significant evidence tying these entities to known terrorist groups. In another piece, published last August, Hussain gave voice to al-Nusra Front leadership in a lengthy interview that largely whitewashed the group’s Wahhabist leanings and links to terrorist acts in Syria.

Last September, on Twitter, Hussain asserted that Saudi Arabia’s funding of armed factions was not necessarily “good” but that “there is little to indicate they contribute to terrorism.” That last statement has been thoroughly debunked for years, but most recently by Hussain’s own piece on the newly released NSA document.

https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/923028049909682176

Hussain is by no means the only Intercept writer who has taken such a pro-opposition stance regarding Syria. A recent Intercept piece on Syria, published in September, committed glaring factual errors on basic facts about the war, while also mistranslating a speech given by Assad so as to link him to American white nationalists. In addition, the paper recently hired Maryam Saleh, a journalist who has called Shia Muslims “dogs” and has taken to Twitter in recent months to downplay the role of the U.S. coalition in airstrikes in Syria. She also has ties to the U.S.-financed propaganda group Kafranbel Media Center, which has close relations with the terrorist group Ahrar al-Sham.

For a paper ostensibly dedicated to “fearless, adversarial” journalism, it is strange that the Intercept gives voice to journalists who echo the U.S. position regarding the Syrian war while rarely publishing the work of journalists who have challenged prevailing Western narratives on that war — journalists who, as the Intercept itself recently revealed, have been right all along regarding the myth of the Syrian “moderate rebel.” Yet, given Omidyar’s political connections and the paper’s handling of the Snowden cache, this unfortunate decision is unsurprising.

Feature photo | Syrian rebels attend a U.S. military training session in Maaret Ikhwan near Idlib, Syria during the height of the rebel offensive.

ERDOGAN'S KARMIC TRAP. By Ghassan Kadi 17 January 2018

Ghassan Kadi's take on recent developments in Syria regarding Turkish and American agendas.

http://thesaker.is/erdogans-karmic-trap/

Erdogan’s Karmic Trap

26728 ViewsJanuary 17, 2018 53 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi for the Saker blog

The security zone America intends to establish in Syria is doomed to fail sooner or later. How can this assertion be made and what can it be based on? Well, two main things really; history and facts on the ground.

America’s seven-decade long post WWII intensive and consecutive military gambles have all failed, and without a single exception. And even though America has learnt a big lesson in Vietnam and went into Iraq more prepared; not only in terms of fire power, but also in terms of media control and manipulation of public opinion, it also failed there. And to think that it also learned from the mistakes of the USSR in Afghanistan and adopted more lethal and effective military tactics that should work, they also failed. So why should an alleged army of 30,000 odd Kurdish YPG fighters with ill-defined American support achieve what much bigger fighting forces couldn’t?

But not only is this army that America is trying to build and establish much less potent than former similar armies, but it is also surrounded by many more opponents.

So let’s get this right. In comparison to what happened in Iraq in 2003 when America invaded, it had over 150,000 troops, state-of-the-art military hardware, a huge fleet of multinational attack ships and huge array of fighter jets and bombers, a bottomless budget and no real Iraqi army nor any resistance in existence. Yet, in no time, an “insurgence” sprouted from nowhere turning life on Iraqi soil into hell for the armies of the coalition. In short, even though Saddam was toppled, the invasion failed abysmally in achieving its full objectives.

Now, with an army of a meagre 30,000 Kurdish troops supported by America, the odds of winning against a coalition of the Syrian Army plus its allies are much less likely, if not impossible.

Some may argue that Kurds are hardened fighters and that they know the terrain very well. Whilst this is true, we need to stop and look at Syria and its allies because they too, at least most of them, are not any less hardened and locally savvy.

And speaking of America’s support, there’s no telling as to what extent it will be; let alone for how long.

Historically again, America has turned its back many times on its allies in similar circumstances, and the Kurds specifically are not strangers to finding themselves on the receiving end of betrayal by many of their former allies; including the Americans.

The obvious allies of Syria are first and foremost Russia without doubt. Russia cannot afford to accept anything short of a sweeping victory of its operation in Syria. But the Russians are a different breed to their “Western partners” who impose their terms and conditions on the allies. The Russians know that they need to juggle other interests in order to make certain that their efforts succeed.

It was easier then for the Russians to round up Iran and Turkey together in confronting Daesh. This part of the Russian role didn’t need too much diplomacy. But now that the defeat of Daesh is a done deal, other once less important issues take centre stage and can tend to make the situation a bit sticky, to put it mildly.

Almost in every mention of Erdogan in all of my previous articles, I have reiterated that he is both an Islamist and a nationalist. He’s been getting away with both for a long time, but perhaps I had a premonition that soon enough, a time will come at which he won’t be able to wear both hats at the same time.

We must remember that Erdogan and Assad will probably never make up. Erdogan has caused so much devastation in Syria and the blood he spilt is still warm. Syrians are not ready or prepared to forgive him even if he pleads on his knees. With that said, Russian diplomacy has narrowed the gap between Turkish and Syrian interests during the war on Daesh phase.

As the opposing forces are poised to enter a new phase; albeit that of negotiations or fighting or both, the anti-American Empire side remains united in seeking total liberation of Syrian territory and the unconditional restoration of Syrian sovereignty. They all seek the withdrawal of the American presence in Syria and are united in regarding this presence as illegal, and it is. They are all against a Syrian federation and the establishment of a Kurdish state. But this is all about what they have in common.

Simply put, this is mainly where their interests diverge:

Firstly, Syria and Iran do not recognise the existence of the state of Israel, but Russia has good relations with Israel. All three parties remain united though, each knowing and accepting the position of the others. This ideological difference may surface once other more pressing matters are resolved, but at the moment, Russia, Syria and Iran agree to disagree on this.

Secondly, Turkey was prepared to sacrifice its former ideological and trade partner Daesh. This became easier as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) turned against its former member Qatar, and with Turkey siding with Qatar, it became easy for Erdogan to turn his back against the GCC-sponsored Daesh. But Erdogan is not prepared to sever ties with the Turkey-Qatar-sponsored Al-Nusra Front.

Erdogan still believes that he can hold on to the Al-Nusra Front; simply because he is an incurable Islamist.

What he cannot see is that his nationalist and Islamist agendas are finally at odds and that he will soon have to choose one or the other.

As the way out of the “War on Syria” became more complex for the original perpetrators, many former allies and foes had to make very costly and embarrassing decisions. Erdogan doesn’t seem to understand that had it not been for Russia and Russian diplomacy, his nose would’ve been rubbed in the dirt a long time ago.

However, time is closing in for Erdogan to choose. He should be counting his blessings and the fact that Russian diplomacy has given him a face-saver not only by accepting his apology for the downing of the Su-24 in Nov 2015, but also in including him and Turkey as a partner in the joint war on Daesh effort, and thereby absolving him from his former affiliations and business deals with it.

In theory, he should be agreeing to any reasonable resolution Russia seeks in Syria, but the incurable Islamist is simply unable to distance himself from the shackles of what comes with this tag.

So back to the diverging interests, it is true and realistic to say that thirdly and perhaps most importantly, the onus is on Russia to find a resolution that can be based on pertinent common interests of Syria, Iran and Turkey, and one that also serves Russian interests.

Erdogan needs to wise up to realise that he will soon have to choose between being a historic partner in a resolution that will be recorded in history as the first of its kind heralding the beginning of the end of the so-called “New World Order” or, alternatively choose to continue to be affiliated with a bunch of greasy bearded head choppers.

He needs to acknowledge that the peace and security of his area, including that of Turkey, is one that is regional and therefore more expansive than his narrow religious, and grossly sectarian, narratives and inclinations. He must accept that the Sunni approach has already been tried, and that it failed.

The time for Erdogan to wear two hats is coming to a close, if it hasn’t already. Nationalistic views do not match with Islamist views, and if Erdogan sees a fissure in his alliance with Russia and Iran in Syria, he ought to look inside his own head and see that his own ideologies are at war with themselves inside his very head.

Russian diplomacy continues to exercise patience with him, but his window of time is closing and closing fast.

As new lines keep getting drawn in the “War on Syria”, the only wildcard and stick in the mud is Turkey’s Erdogan. It’s a karmic trap that Erdogan had inadvertently set for himself. What is interesting here is that whether Erdogan is aware of this or not, his popularity as the Sunni hero has dropped dramatically in the Muslim street after he reconciled with President Putin. Many of his once great admirers referred to him as a traitor and that he has let them down. He cannot restore his lost popularity without making a 180 degree turn on Russia, and even if he does, he will find it very difficult to rally up an overwhelming Sunni sentiment, especially in the wake of the Saudi-Qatari crisis. If he had half a brain, in other words, he must acknowledge that he has nothing to gain by sticking to his support of Al-Nusra, but much to lose. But will he be able to rid himself of his fundamentalist Islamist ambitions and make rational decisions? Only time will tell.