Whose
Violence and Why?
The Imperialist Violence in Syria, Part 5
- Part
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 - 6 -7
By Kim Petersen and B. J. Sabri
January 15,
2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- As viewed from American, European, and
Israeli angles, a system of united Arab states
presaged a challenge mainly on three issues: the
primacy of imperialism, Zionism, and anti-communism
in their geopolitical agenda. This explains why the
West has consistently adopted anti-Arab policies.
For the imperialist West, accepting the emergence of
unified or even confederated Arab states means
dealing with the largest political entity on earth
sitting on an enormous land mass in excess of five
million square miles stretching from the
Arab-Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean and having
the vastest wealth imaginable.
As a
reflection of American long-term planning, consider
the following: when Syria and Egypt merged in a
union as the United Arab Republic in 1958, Allen
Dulles, Eisenhower's CIA chief, had this to say in a
NSC briefing in 1958:
The United
States agreed that union between Syria and Egypt
would be dangerous to all our interests and if we
remained passive it would expand and would shortly
take in Jordan and the Lebanon and ultimately Saudi
Arabia and Iraq leaving us with a single Arab State
ostensibly under Nasser but ultimately under the
Soviet Union.... In this view, if we were going to
oppose it effectively we must do so very rapidly....
It might be that some parts of Syria might wish to
secede and join Iraq. If there were such an idea,
Iraq should follow it up and could count on the
United States backing.1
We see,
therefore, the United States and the West
manufacturing events in the Arab world to serve
cumulative objectives. As such, in no particular
order, the Zionist rape of Palestine; the US virtual
invasion of Lebanon in coordination with Camille
Chamoun in 1958; the fomenting of ethnic strife
inside Arab states with large ethnic minorities;
Britain-France-Israel's war on Egypt in 1956; the
CIA-organized Baathist coup against Abdul Kareem
Qasim in 1963; Israel's war against Syria, Egypt,
and Jordan in 1967; King Hussein's war against the
PLO in 1970; the Lebanese civil war; Iraq's invasion
of Iran and Kuwait; the Egypt-Israel peace treaty;
the destruction of Iraq in 1991; the 13 years of
sanctions on Iraq; Algeria's civil war; the
suspicious event of 9/11; the US invasion of Iraq in
2003; the partition of Sudan; Israel's repeated
devastation of Lebanon and Gaza; and the destruction
of Libya and Yemen are but a few chapters in the
long road to dismantle and subjugate the Arab
nations.
Within all
these events, other chapters (after WWI) set the
stage for the next phases of the future
American-British-French-European-Israeli onslaught
against the Arab states. Here is how it happened.
Arab states situated in Western Asia: Iraq, Syria,
Jordan, Lebanon, and Palestine, as well as the
Arabic Peninsula have international borders designed
by colonialist Britain and France. This is standard
practice by western colonialism; it divided all of
Africa, the western hemisphere, and some parts of
Asia into colonies, political states, enclaves, and
protectorates. The modern history of what the West
now calls the Middle East—instead of Arabia—to allow
for the insertion of a European settler state in the
body of the Arab lands cannot be separated from oil,
Israel, and geo-strategic location in relation to
competing powers.
When the early
objectives of Britain and France (1920-1950s) in
Arabia (current Middle East) and Arab North Africa
met the objectives of US imperialism in ascendency
after WWII, the results would be devastating—for the
Arabs only—until this very day. The dreadful plight
of the Arab nation states today was caused, to
varying degrees, by the unrepentant West (ends
justifying the means) as well as despotic Arab
rulers and their regimes of the past 100 years.
We can
identify some of the primary objectives of Western
imperialism in the Arab world as follows: 1)
perpetually keeping Arab nations under
direct/indirect colonialist or imperialist control;
2) installing military bases as outposts for
empire's expansions and local control; 3) installing
a Zionist state on Palestine and using it as a
destabilizing factor; 4) imposing mandatory
protection regimes on oil-producing countries; 5)
controlling oil, gas, and other resources; 6)
keeping oil money in Western banks; 6) re-absorbing
oil money through sale of advanced weapons systems;
7) keeping the Arab masses from rebelling against
the status quo through deals with rulers; 8)
employing the Divide and Rule model as a means of
political and physical control; 9) igniting
sectarian and ethnic strife to destabilize
established political orders and forestall progress;
10) impeding the project of Arab unity by promoting
Wahhabism, Muslim Brothers, and Salafism—these
currents and movements vehemently oppose the notion
of one Arab nation, but endorse the notion of one
Islamic nation. (Note: Muslim Brothers and Wahhabism
are forms of Salafism. Salafism can stand alone as
an "Islamist" religious ideology but not as
Islam—the religion founded by Mohammad. (Discussing
the differences among these creeds goes beyond the
scope of this work.)
In writing
about what is happening in Syria, it is necessary,
to recall how the events of the past 100 years have
unfolded. We know that Syria (and all other Middle
Eastern Arab states) exists as a modern state with
its current borders because it was carved out of
pan-Arabia by British-French secret collusion: the
Sykes-Picot Agreement (approved by the Wilson
Administration). After these states became
independent nations, citing Sykes-Picot is relevant
as a reminder of how the Arab lands and peoples have
been divided and individually controlled by various
Western colonialist states. Also, let us not forget
that the Agreement was conceived to allow for the
creation of Zionist state in Palestine.
Notwithstanding the above, considering the
unremitting global objectives of US imperialism and
European vassals, the Sykes-Picot Agreement that
divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire is
now as relevant as ever. In simple words, it adduces
that American, British, and French imperialist
schemes to divide and conquer have become
permanently ingrained in their ideological makeup.
To substantiate our statement, when the United
States and European vassals prepared to attack Iraq
in 1991 consequent to the Iraqi occupation of
Kuwait, ear-piercing Western voices shouted that
Iraq was an artificial state created by
Britain—although as a state, Iraq has been around in
different political forms for the past 6000 years.
Well, simple logic has it that being an "artificial"
or "natural" state is an irrelevant fact vis-à-vis
the crime of occupation.
When Tony
Blair rubbed shoulders with the US to invade Iraq in
2003, imperialist operatives in Europe and the US
summoned the spirits of Sykes-Picot. This how
Britain did it. Besides the spurious charge that
Saddam could hit Britain with his "ballistic
missiles" within 45 minutes of an order, a so-called
scholar, Christopher Catherwood, an advisor to Blair
on Iraq, provided him with another rationale. He
went as far as stating, in not too many words, that
without Winston Churchill's miscalculation to create
Iraq, all that was about to happen would not have
happened.2
Considering the game plan of western colonialist
imperialism, we can understand how Catherwood
reached the conclusion that the events leading to
Iraq's invasion were due to Churchill's folly
instead of plans stipulated by Britain and the
United States. To conclude, Catherwood and thousands
like him want to indoctrinate that Iraq's troubles
did not stem from plans by US neocon imperialism but
from whims of a former British prime minister who
designed its new administrative borders by turning
it from a Turkish province into a state under
British mandate.3
We can state
unequivocally that whatever Sykes-Picot designed has
been converted into a pretext for continuous wars
and intervention in Asian Arabia. It is beside the
point to say that whenever imperialist objectives
target an Arab country, Western historians,
politicians, commentators, blabbering heads, and
so-called experts promptly call in the teachings of
Sykes-Picot with the purpose to help them apply its
core schemes on the designated victim. This happened
in Iraq and Libya (this country was not part of the
Agreement, but after the NATO bombardment of Libya
and the murder of Muammar Gaddafi, Western
imperialists summoned the Sykes-Picot model by
saying that Libya was made out three provinces which
Italy had joined).
Syria is no
exception. That is why a re-invented Sykes-Picot
model aimed at partition is being invoked
frequently.
The history of
Europe and the US in the Arab regions is one of
aggressions, colonialist occupations, and
encroachment. Take for example the European influx
that was granted a "homeland" on the land of
Palestinians without asking the Indigenous residents
and in total disregard of their sovereignty, to
which the United Nations, a body representing the
interests of so-called winners of WWII acquiesced in
1948.
We see Syria
as a chapter in the long list of Western
aggressions—particularly American— around the world.
It is instructive to recall that after WWII, the US
embarked on a series of direct aggressions and wars
in many places: Korea, Viet Nam, Panama, Grenada,
Iraq, Afghanistan, and several more.4
The Soviet Union also was involved in aggression
outside its territory. We also remember that
following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991,
Russia was promised by US administration officials
that NATO would not intrude into former Soviet
territory.5
The US reneged on its word and has been ever since
in an unremitting expansionist mode.
Pointedly, the
United States has an agenda: re-shuffling the
configuration of the existing order of independent
nations to create a new geopolitical arrangement
amenable to its global interests. Also, it is clear
that the US has a plan to redraw borders.6
The US is keen at changing this government or
that regime without scruples or concerns for the
destruction and violence that ensues. The US has a
predilection for domestically cultivated dictators
and collaborators (examples: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi
in Iran, Ngo Dinh Diem in South Viet Nam, Sygnman
Rhee in South Korea. Curiously about Iraq, when the
US failed to install its point man, Ahmed Chalabi,
another point man, Ayad Allawi took his place, and
when this did not take hold, other collaborators
entered the scenes. )
Psychologically, regime change is an American
neurotic fixation whereby the US uses its military
power, directly or through proxy, to put a new
regime in place. Recently, the US has been behind
regime changes in Afghanistan, Haiti, Iraq, and
Libya. Afterwards, the objective grew to Ukraine, a
former Soviet state, and now it is aggrandizing and
moving threateningly toward Russia and China. In its
criminal game to be the sole gendarme of the Arab
states and the world, the US is using killers of all
stripes, creating fake "Islamic" groups to discredit
Muslims, and importing mercenaries through regional
players.
As stated,
Syria is a serious geo-political pawn in the attempt
to build a lasting American Empire. In addition,
Syria is an opponent of the Zionist state. It has
relations with the Lebanese resistance movement,
Hezbollah, Iraq (which, although inserted inside the
US orbit after the invasion, has good relations with
Iran—influencing its cohabitation with the United
States), as well as itself having relations with
Iran which, for ideological and political reasons,
opposes the US and Israel. If Syria were to fall to
western imperialism, it is very conceivable that a
widening encirclement of Russia would be enabled, as
well as control of pipelines and fossil fuels. This
would all be to Russia’s economic detriment–brought
about not by open economic competition, but
militarism. (We will leave China out of the
discussion, although it is important to state that
China is also being encircled and threatened as
well.)
At this point,
what are the interests of the United States, Israel,
France, Britain, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and
Qatar in launching their combined war of aggression
against Syria?
The United
States and Violence in Syria
If one wants
to know what US imperialists are thinking at a given
moment, the shortest way is to read their dedicated
media. In 2013, Robin Wright, a columnist of the
unofficial voice of American Zionism, the New
York Times, joined in the battle to partition
several Arab states with her article, “Imagining
a Remapped Middle East,” and
added a larger map (How
5 Countries Could Become 14)
with notes detailing rehashed arguments proposed by
the Zionist "historian" Bernard Lewis, and by Ralph
Peters, a novelist and a rabidly-frothing military
commentator on Iraqi and Arab affairs. Peters was
the author of “Blood
Borders: How a better Middle East would look.”
(See
his map).
In her
article here above mentioned, Wright presented her
version of Peters' map with unsurpassed
imperialistic clarity. She wrote, "A
different map would be a strategic game changer for
just about everybody, potentially reconfiguring
alliances, security challenges, trade and energy
flows for much of the world, too." [Italics
added]. In essence, from the comfort of her New York
City office, this Zionist decreed—just like
Peters—that thousands upon thousands of Syrians
would become pawns on the imperialist chessboard,
shunted aside, and as is clear seeking checkmate
involves entails genocide, all in the name of
"reconfiguring alliances (alliances between who and
who?), security challenges [security for whom?),
trade and energy for much of the world (but can all
these be achieved without changing borders and the
killing of 250,000 Syrians and over two million
Iraqis before that?)
Let us examine Wright's map. Notably,
she expanded on Peters'
map by partitioning Saudi Arabia into five states
instead of Peter's four. (See Wright's map, compare
it Peters' map, and then compare them to the map
created by
Oded Yinon in 1982 to reflect
Theodor Herzl's idea for a greater Jewish state on
Arab lands. Why Saudi Arabia, America's favorite
ally after Israel, was the primary target designated
by the map? The answer is simple, with Iraq and
Syria no longer relevant on the Arab arena, Saudi
Arabia is rich, has oil, and easily pliable for
American demands. An attentive analysis of Peter and
Wright's articles and related maps would reveal that
the United States was sending a specific message7
whose implied threat was unmistakable: the kingdom
could be partitioned unless the Saudis bent to US
objectives on Syria as they did before in Libya. In
the public realm, there was utter silence from the
House of Saud on the proposed partition of their
country. Since the US calls Saudi Arabia an
ally, then what is the purpose of divulging plans to
partition it? And why partition a homogeneous
country, despite confessional differences, that has
been stable since its foundation in 1932?
While Saudi
rulers remained undisturbed by Peter's plan, Turkey,
reacted with anger, and the US responded with
typical dissociation from Peters' map. In its
editorial, “Carved-up
Map of Turkey at NATO Prompts US Apology,”
the Turkish paper, Today's Zaman, wrote, "The
U.S. State Department assured Ankara that the map
did not reflect the official American view, and
denounced it as unacceptable." For a department used
to deception, the ploy was evident. "Did not reflect
the official American view," the Americans said. Why
apologize for something you had no part in? And nine
years after that phony apology, the pending
partition of Iraq and the still unaborted plan to
partition Syria lends credence to Peters and Wright
as media mouthpieces for what is cooking the US
imperialist oven. The story then is simple: faithful
to its tradition, US imperialism sends trial
balloons before implementation of its designs.
Further, in
comparing Wright's map to that of Peters', we
noticed that Wright focused only on Arab states
(Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Libya), decreased
the size of Jordan, increased Kurdish areas taken
from Syria and Iraq, and, as we stated, increased
the partition of Saudi Arabia from four to five
states. Wright embodied the cynicism of American
Zionist imperialism. In reading her map, we cannot
but notice that she used the Urdu-Persian suffix
"stan" [meaning place or land] to denote the planned
partition of the Arabs. She called regions with
mostly Arab Shiite Muslims, "Shiitestan", and
regions with Arab Saudis assumed collectively to
adhere to Wahhabism, "Wahhabsitan", then we read
"Sunnistan", Alawitestan.
Seeing and
reading about all this redistribution of peoples and
lands, an imperative question arises: based on what
authority did a journalist and a former army officer
decide to re-draw maps and partition nations? The
answer is pragmatic and it is based on our knowledge
of how the imperialism state works: the orders to
partition the Arab nations have come from a
consortium of the decision makers outlining
prescribed goals and agendas. Consequently,
Wright and Peters are spokespersons for the American
imperialist systems and its ruling elites. Unlike
Peters, Wright's proposed partition of Syria, and
the establishment of a Kurdish State excluded
Turkish territory with Kurdish majorities. The
reason is easy to guess. The US does not want to
antagonize Turkey for the time being. This explains
why Turkey is now ready to recognize a Kurdish state
in Iraq but only in exchange for the US promise not
to join parts of its own territory to the proposed
Kurdish state in Iraq.
The larger
geopolitical scenario is this: with a Kurdish state
being imposed on Iraq and Syria, and with Syria
under its control, the US will order Qatar to
proceed with its gas pipeline to the Mediterranean
in a move meant to push the Russian gas out of the
European markets. Ultimately (prior to the Russian
intervention), once Syria vanishes as a cohesive
independent state, the US would finally deal a
massive blow to the Arab resistance against Israel
(i.e., historical Palestine under Zionist
occupation) thus facilitating control of the Arab
world. Syria, therefore, is no more than another
stage in the US (and Israeli) calculation of global
hegemony.
To conclude,
regardless of its political system, Syria is the
only remaining Arab state that is embracing Arab
nationalism, independence, and resistance against US
imperialism and Israel. If Syria were to fall, Arab
aspirations for emancipation from imperialist
control would likely die for a long time to come.
The US intent to dismember Syria is multi-pronged:
1) remove Syria as a threat to Israel, 2) isolate
Hezbollah and prepare it for elimination, 3) carve
out a portion of Syrian territory and make it an
extension to a potential Kurdish state in Iraq,8
4) make Syria a transit station of oil from Syrian
and Iraqi oil fields, and 5) allow Qatar to pass gas
pipes through.
Israel and
Violence in Syria
Talking
about Israel in the Middle East requires separate
treatment. With Syria gone as a centralized state,
Israel is intended to be the master of the region.
It will permanently annex the Syrian Golan Heights
(already annexed by Israel in 1981). Most
importantly, if Syria falls, the Lebanese Resistance
will be exposed, and the Jewish-Zionist occupation
of Palestine will be resolved according to Israel's
liking.9
Europe
(especially Britain and France) and Violence in
Syria
Capitalist Europe has two pathetic features:
obedience to the United States and a keen appetite
to share in the spoils of war and business contracts
with a new Syria (as they did in Iraq and Libya)
under American hegemony. We should mention that the
Eastern regions of Syria have oil deposits that
could rival those of Iraq and Kuwait combined.10
Turkey and
Violence in Syria
Recep
Erdogan and his Muslim Brothers have three
objectives. 1) Revive Ottoman post-WWI claims on the
province of Aleppo.11
2) Revive the Ottoman imperialist posture toward the
Arab countries, over which it ruled more than four
centuries.12
3) See the Muslim Brothers in power everywhere to
vindicate the "Islamic model" invented by his
Justice and Development Party— favored by the US
since it offers a model of submission to religious
themes in tune with Washington designs.13
For the
record, when Assad rejected his proposal to share
power with the Syrian Muslim Brothers, Erdogan
turned against him. Before that, to use Erdogan's
slogan "Zero problems with neighbors," relations and
trade between Syria and Turkey were at their best.14
Indeed Erdogan's ambitions show little restraint as
Turkey has now provoked the military might of
Russia—something not sanely imaginable unless hiding
under the skirt of NATO.
Jordan
and Violence in Syria
The Jordanian
monarchy has one purpose: to survive as a monarchy.
To do that, however, it feels it must appease
Britain, Israel, and the United States before any
others. Meaning that Jordan's monarchs do what they
are told to do. Moreover, if Israel is the paradigm
of a parasitic regime, Jordan is the model for
disgusting regime opportunism. Curtly, Jordan will
work for whoever pays it. From the early days of the
conflict in Syria, Jordan's "king" has changed his
positions several times; yet he was always on the
side of Britain and the United States when forced to
take sides. When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, its
forces invaded coming from Jordan. (This was despite
the fact that during the Iraq-Iran war, Iraq gave
Jordan free oil, not to mention a $12 billion
investment in the al-Aqaba port). Jordan supplied
massive support for the anti-Syrian front through
facilitating military training and the passage of
weapons and armed groups.
SAUDI ARABIA
AND VIOLENCE IN SYRIA
Saudi Arabia's
violence in Syria stems from a complex platform.
There were no specific reason or pressing national
interests for Saudi Arabia to be a major co-player
in the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now
Yemen. So what are the Saudi explanations for the
violence and destruction they are inflicting on
Syria? 1) To be accepted as the "indispensable" ally
of the United States. 2) To destroy what remains of
the concept of Arab nationalism, which, not a long
time ago, was a major force opposing Al Saud and
their relentless efforts to destabilize progressive
Arab regimes. 3) The Saudi rationale for fighting
Iran in Syria is ludicrous, and the irrational
stance against the Arab Alawites, because they mix
Shi'ism with Sunnism, is both criminal and pathetic.
The fact is they want the head of Bashar Assad
because he, during the Israeli aggression against
Gaza in 2008, demeaned them by
calling them “half-men.” 4)
Saudi Arabia used aid as an enticement to make Syria
sever relations with Iran and Hezbollah.
Many factors
caused the open hostility between Saudi Arabia and
Syria. Principal among these: 1) Iran being
acknowledged as a nuclear state and its coming exit
from the sanction regime—this will allow it to
compete with Saudi oil on the international market.
It also means more money to Syria and Hezbollah. 2)
Syria's dependence on Iran for assistance against
Israeli aggression. 3) Syrian ties to
Hezbollah—receives assistance from Iran—as an
anti-Israeli ally. 5) Syria's refusal to align its
regional policy (Iraq and Lebanon) with that of
Saudi Arabia. 5) By spreading Wahhabism, Saudi
Arabia is seeking hegemony over Arab and Islamic
countries including, of course, Syria. 6) Saudi
Arabia's intense animosity toward Syria is old. It
started when Syria refused to back Iraq's was
against Iran. This had a consequence for the
dogmatic Saudis: the friend of my enemy is my enemy.
In addition, Saudi Arabia's intense animosity toward
both Syria (the Sunni controls the economic life,
while Alawites' elite controls the political one)
and Iran (predominately Shiite) is not about
Shi'a-Sunni antagonism as the West likes to
repeatedly state. Instead, it is due to Iran's
appeal (after the Iranian revolution of 1979) to the
Muslim people of Saudi Arabia to rise against the
pro-American corrupt Saudi ruling family. 7) Saudi
Arabia has been actively seeking to partition Iraq,
and it wants to partition Syria to appease its own
goals—weaken its strong neighbors—and US hegemonic
goals.
QATAR AND
VIOLENCE IN SYRIA
First, Qatar
is the unofficial spokesperson of US policy in the
Arab world. Second, from the viewpoint of strategic
or military value, and excluding gas output, tiny
Qatar (barely 4,400 square miles; native population
278,000) should have little regional or
international relevance. We do not disparage any
nation because of size or population count, but on
the chessboard of intentional relations, tiny Qatar
must stop thinking of itself as a giant, just
because its rulers are billionaires. The fact is
that Qatar, a powerless pawn in US hands, speaks and
acts tough because the US installed its Middle East,
North Africa, and Central Asia's CENTCOM on its
territory. Take the gas out; and abolish the
regimes' propaganda outlet, the Al-Jazeera network;
and Qatar will have nothing to show except idiotic
machismo.
Recently,
Qatari foreign minister Khalid al-Attiya roared that
Assad will leave whether by force or by diplomacy.
Well, and who is going to make Assad leave: him, the
Qatari armed forces, ISIS, or Saudi Arabia? Qatar's
quarrel with Bashar Assad is well known. First,
Syria refused the Qatari proposal to allow gas to
duct through Syria in exchange for Syria severing
relations with Iran and Hezbollah. Second, Syria
refused the Qatari request that Bashar allow the
Muslim Brothers to have a political voice in Syria.
(While open political discussion is preferable, the
close relations between the United States and the
Muslim Brother of Yusuf al-Qaradawi go beyond the
scope of this work.) In essence, what applies to
Saudi Arabia vis-à-vis Syria applies to Qatar with
the difference that while Saudi Arabia, according to
some pundits, is being strong-armed to enact a proxy
war on behalf of the United States, Qatar is a
willing executioner of the US agenda. As for the
issue of the Muslim Bothers in Syria, this is only a
flimsy rationalization because the Qatari ruling
family and the country do not adhere to or practice
their ideology—it only uses it in coordination with
the US.
Next: Part 6
of 7
Kim Petersen
is a former editor of the Dissident Voice
newsletter. He can be reached at
kimohp@inbox.com
B. J.
Sabri is an observer of the politics of modern
colonialism, imperialism, Zionism, and of
contemporary Arab issues. He can be reached at
b.j.sabri@aol.com
NOTES
-
Quoted in Malik Mufti,
Sovereign Creations: Pan-Arabism and Political
Order in Syria and Iraq, Cornell University
Press, 1996, p. 100
-
Christopher Catherwood,
Churchill's Folly, Barnes & Noble, New York,
2004
-
For a comprehensive understanding
of how the British colonialist mind works and
how it interprets Arab history, politics, and
power in terms of utility to British and Western
imperialist systems, we recommend the work by
J.B. Kelly: Arabia, the Gulf, & the West.
-
See William Blum, Rogue State:
A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
(Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2000).
-
Walter C. Uhler, “The
Hypocritical United States of Amnesia and Russia,”
Dissident Voice, 15 March 15 2014.
-
See Kim Petersen, “A
Bloody Border Project,”
Dissident Voice, 5 July 2007.
-
American political science
professor James Lee Ray pointed to US government
using the media to convey its foreign policy
objectives in his book, American Foreign
Policy and Political Ambition (2007): “[T]he
media serves as a tool that the government can
use to communicate to the public about foreign
policy issues, as well as persuade the public
and important, influential elements within it
that its policy choices are prudent and their
impacts beneficial.” (164-165)
-
For a comprehensive view, read, “Plans
for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a
'New Middle East”
-
Read: “Syria’s
future: Israel favors fragmentation while Saudis
want reliable counter to Iran”;
“Partitioning
Syria“
by the imperialist think tank: foreign Policy
Research Institute.
-
See map,
also read: “How
the War in Syria is About Oil, not ISIS”
and “Migrant
Crisis & Syria War Fueled By Competing Gas
Pipelines”
-
Christina Lin, "NATO,
Turkey, annexation of north Syria like north
Cyprus?",
Asia Times, 25 November 2015.
-
http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/22243.
(Arab media). Nicola Nasser, “Syria,
Egypt Reveal Erdogan’s Hidden 'Neo-Ottoman
Agenda'”
Global Research, 20 November 2013.
-
Thierry Meyssan, "The
uprising against Brother Erdogan,"
Voltairenet, 10 June 2013. Thomas
Seibert, "Turkey
is a model for every Muslim state, Recep Erdogan
says,"
National, 1 October 2013.
-
Read these two informative
articles:
Erdogan's Syria Policy: Wrong
from the Start
and
Why Erdogan Would Benefit from
Bashar al-Assad’s Fall?
|