Syria: Buyer's Remorse To Come?

Last night after the Lavrov interview I came across a fascinating article at Zerohedge. The article deals with the situation in Syria, and the possibility of blowback against the terrorist enablers: The Anglo-Zionists and the Turks.

Israel Preparing For Possibility Of Syrian State Collapse

Now, we heard rumors of an Israeli invasion of Syria right at the start of the current round of warfare, but that was more in the context of the rumors of a coup against Assad. That was part of the happy talk from the Anglo-Zionist side that things were going their way. For now things do appear to be going very much the Anglo-Zionist - Turkish way—if measured in progress by the terrorist HST. However, that is starting to present a problem for the enablers, if measured by what they were seeking to achieve.

From the Anglo-Zionist side, the goal was to force Assad into becoming a docile, compliant puppet of the Empire and to break his ties to Iran and Russia—or replace him with that form of client state. If that sounds vaguely familiar, like regime change in Iraq, well, nobody said that the Neocons are terribly original thinkers. The Turks had similar aims—a neutered Syrian government—but with a focus on controlling the Kurdish areas along the border. A neutered Syrian government would also help the long term aims of long distance oil pipelines to Europe from Qatar, and the possibility of the long dreamed Kirkuk to Haifa pipeline. Assad’s demands for Syrian sovereignty and his refusal to negotiate with Erdogan until Turkey withdrew its forces from Syria was the fly in the ointment.

But HST success—probably far more than anticipated—is starting to look like another problem. It seems that the purpose of the offensive was to pressure Assad or replace him with a puppet along the lines of Jordan’s Hussein. That purpose did not include turning any significant part of Syria into a jihadist state. A collapse of the Assad regime and its replacement with a Jihadist caliphate would undoubtedly be a blow to Iran and would cramp Hezbollah’s style. But it would also completely destabilize most of Western Asia and present Israel with a major problem. Israel’s policy has long been to foster chaos in the region to prevent any rival power center from arising, but this much chaos on its border, in the wake of over a year of grueling warfare, is not in Israel’s interests.

As for the Russians and Iranians, they appear to be active diplomatically, pressuring Erdogan, who has his own problems arising from this development. Last night Lavrov, asked about Syria by Tucker, responded generally that the Syrian situation is “very complicated.” This morning Alastair Crooke, who maintains good contacts in the region, has a new article out that suggests that Russia will not allow this to go much further, and also pointing to the problems Turkey could be facing:

Erdogan’s Idlib Shock Shadows "Kursk"

Crooke sets out the purpose of the new offensive clearly, along the same lines that we have argued—that this represents a new front in the overall war on Russia, with a focus on the southern front, especially the linchpin of BRICS—Iran:

Syria, however, is a key component to the Israeli-American plan to remake the Middle East. Syria is both the supply-line for Hizbullah, as well as a hub of resistance to Israel’s “Greater Israel Project”. Now that the permanent ‘Anglo’ Security State unreservedly is backing Israel’s ambition to assert regional hegemony, the West has okayed Erdogan’s jihadist insurrection against President Assad. The aim is to split Iran from its allies, weaken Assad and to prepare for the putative Iran overthrow. Reportedly, the Turkish initiative was hurriedly brought forward, to fit with Israel’s ceasefire plan.

Then, in the last part of the article, Crooke places all this in the larger context:

Israeli Intelligence Chief’s lately have begun to scent problems with this ‘clever initiative’ that dovetails so exactly with Israel’s pause in the Lebanon fighting; With the supply route from Syria cut, Israel then – in theory – would be in a position to commence ‘Part Two’ of its attempted onslaught on Hizbullah.

But wait … Israeli Channel 12 reports the possibility that events in Syria are creating threats against Israel “where Israel would be required to act”.

Shades of ‘Kursk’ – rather than Hizbullah being weakened, Israel adds to its military commitments? Erdogan too, may have wrong-footed himself with this gamble. He has infuriated Moscow and Tehran, and is being flailed at home for siding with the U.S. and America against the Palestinians. Further, he has drawn no Arab support (apart from a Qatari studied ambivalence).

That last part is significant. In the earlier attempt at regime change in Syria, Saudi Arabia was a major player. The lack of major Arab support now is a bad sign for the Anglo-Zionists. It’s also a bad sign for Erdogan’s ambitions to position himself as a Sunni leader.

Yes, Erdogan has cards to play in the relationship with Putin (control of naval access to the Black Sea, tourism and energy), but Russia is an ascendant great power and can afford to play some hardball in negotiations with a weakened Erdogan. Iran also has cards to play: ‘You, Erdogan, equipped the jihadists with Ukrainian drones; We can deliver the same to the Kurdish Workers Party’.

Others have also suggested that Erdogan has overreached.

In the background is the bellicose language emerging from Team Trump, some of whom take harshly aggressive and hardline positions. These Israel-Firster and hawkish appointees by Trump likely emit their bluster as much to project an image of Trumpist strength to the American public, as to project a substantive project.

Trump is known for waving a big stick – and when he has played that tune for a little while, he slips in from behind, to complete a deal.

So we have had (from Trump): “If the hostages are not released prior to January 20, 2025, the date that I proudly assume Office as President of the United States, there will be ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East”.

Next, Crooke asks the same question I asked immediately after Trump’s statement—what’s this about “the Middle East”? Did he have some sort of heads up about this new jihadist offensive?

In the ‘Middle East’? To whom exactly is this addressed? And what does it suggest? (No mention of the thousands of Palestinian detainees and prisoners held by Israel)? Sounds more like Trump has sipped at the Israeli Kool-Aid: ‘All problems derive from Iran’; Israel is the innocent adrift a sea of regional malignity.

But if Trump thought that he could delegate negotiations with Russia to the knucklehead Keith Kellogg, while he swooped in to make peace in the “Middle East”, it looks like things are going to become much more complicated in the near future. Nobody—least of all Russia, Iran, and China—will simply make way for Trump, and the lack of Arab support for the jihadist offensive bodes ill for any regional peace that Trump and his Anglo-Zionists dream of imposing.

Trump’s disciples believe Trump will impose his will to achieve ‘quiet’ in the Middle East – and impose on Putin an end to the Ukraine War. They are convinced Trump can ‘cut a deal’ in the form of an offer to Putin that he cannot refuse. (For, ‘the current ‘owners of the world’ are never going to let China/Russia just waltz in, form BRICS and assume the position of World Hegemon’).

It is a return to the old formula of Zbig Brzezenski: Promise Putin normalisation with U.S. (and Europe) and full sanctions relief, and pull Russia back into the western sphere – severed from a besieged China and Iran (with BRICS scattered to the wind under threat of sanctions).

It fails, however, to take account of how much the world has transitioned in the intervening years since ‘Trump One’. Bluster simply doesn’t carry the effect it used to: America isn’t what it was; nor is it obeyed as it once was.

The old Zbig formula might have worked during Trump 1.0—but it was scuppered by the Deep State’s insanely treasonous Russia Hoax. Now Russia and BRICS are learning their own strength. Stay tuned for major developments.