By Ron Paul | RPI | Sept. 11, 2018

Last week, I urged the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor to stop protecting al-Qaeda in Syria by demanding that the Syrian government leave Idlib under al-Qaeda control. While it may seem hard to believe that the US government is helping al-Qaeda in Syria, it’s not as strange as it may seem: our interventionist foreign policy increasingly requires Washington to partner up with “bad guys” in pursuit of its dangerous and aggressive foreign policy goals.

Does the Trump Administration actually support al-Qaeda and ISIS? Of course not. But the “experts” who run Trump’s foreign policy have determined that a de facto alliance with these two extremist groups is for the time being necessary to facilitate the more long-term goals in the Middle East. And what are those goals? Regime change for Iran.

Let’s have a look at the areas where the US is turning a blind eye to al-Qaeda and ISIS.

First, Idlib. As I mentioned last week, President Trump’s own Special Envoy to fight ISIS said just last year that “Idlib Province is the largest Al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.” So why do so many US officials – including President Trump himself – keep warning the Syrian government not to re-take its own territory from al-Qaeda control? Wouldn’t they be doing us a favor by ridding the area of al-Qaeda? Well, if Idlib is re-taken by Assad, it all but ends the neocon (and Saudi and Israeli) dream of “regime change” for Syria and a black eye to Syria’s ally, Iran.





Second, one of the last groups of ISIS fighters in Syria are around the Al-Tanf US military base which has operated illegally in northeastern Syria for the past two years. Last week, according to press reports, the Russians warned the US military in the region that it was about to launch an assault on ISIS fighters around the US base. The US responded by sending in 100 more US Marines and conducting a live-fire exercise as a warning. President Trump recently reversed himself (again) and announced that the US would remain at Al-Tanf “indefinitely.” Why? It is considered a strategic point from which to attack Iran. The US means to stay there even if it means turning a blind eye to ISIS in the neighborhood.

Finally, in Yemen, the US/Saudi coalition fighting the Houthis has been found by AP and other mainstream media outlets to be directly benefiting al-Qaeda. Why help al-Qaeda in Yemen? Because the real US goal is regime change in Iran, and Yemen is considered one of the fronts in the battle against Iranian influence in the Middle East. So we are aiding al-Qaeda, which did attack us, because we want to “regime change” Iran, which hasn’t attacked us. How does that make sense?

We all remember the old saying, attributed to Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanack, that “if you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.” The “experts” would like us to think they are pursuing a brilliant foreign policy that will provide a great victory for America at the end of the day. But as usual, the “experts” have got it wrong. It’s really not that complicated: when “winning” means you’re allied with al-Qaeda and ISIS, you’re doing something wrong. Let’s start doing foreign policy right: let’s leave the rest of the world alone!


Contributed by Ron Paul of Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.


SHARE:

By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | Sept. 7, 2018

You have to feel a little sorry for the folks who voted for Trump expecting him to live up to his promise to bring the troops home and stop killing people.

On Thursday Trump cleared up any doubt about his neocon conversion. Once again he made his supporters—or those interested in nonintervention at least—out to be fools, that is to say any principled supporters left after killing thousands in Syria.

The CIA’s favorite newspaper reported:

President Trump, who just five months ago said he wanted “to get out” of Syria and bring U.S. troops home soon, has agreed to a new strategy that indefinitely extends the military effort there and launches a major diplomatic push to achieve American objectives, according to senior State Department officials.

These “American objectives” reflect those of Israel, which has worked diligently to undermine Syria for decades. The first objective is to replace Bashar al-Assad with a malleable client that takes orders from the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

Second, Trump—channeling Netanyahu—demands the removal of all Iranian troops in Syria. Both the Russians and Iranians were invited into the country to help al-Assad flight the CIA and Saudi Arabia’s bloody Wahhabi-infused terrorists.

Third, Trump wants more illegal US military outposts in occupied Syria.

It was rumored the troops already in Syria would be brought home by the end of the year, but like all things Trump, this promise was flipped one hundred and eighty degrees.

“The new policy is we’re no longer pulling out by the end of the year,” said James Jeffrey, a retired senior Foreign Service officer who last month was named Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s “representative for Syria engagement.” About 2,200 U.S. troops are serving in Syria, virtually all of them devoted to the war against the Islamic State in the eastern third of the country.

Jeffrey said U.S. forces are to remain in the country to ensure an Iranian departure and the “enduring defeat” of the Islamic State.

“That means we are not in a hurry,” he said. Asked whether Trump had signed off on what he called “a more active approach,” Jeffrey said, “I am confident the president is on board with this.”

More like a representative for Syria’s destruction and balkanization, based on the Iraq and Libya models.

James Jeffrey is a Bush era neocon who served as George Bush’s deputy national security advisor. He is a former “principal deputy assistant secretary for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the Department of State, where his responsibilities included leading the Iran policy team and coordinating public diplomacy,” states his bio at the Washington Institute website.

U.S. policy is not that “Assad must go,” Jeffrey said. “Assad has no future, but it’s not our job to get rid of him.” He said, however, that he found it hard to think of Assad as a leader who could “meet the requirements of not just us but the international community” as someone who “doesn’t threaten his neighbors” or abuse his own citizens, “doesn’t allow chemical weapons or provide a platform for Iran.”

Meanwhile, the US is working to make it so.

The Donald was a little more direct in his response to the elected leader of Syria remaining in office. “Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the fucking lot of them,” he said, according to Bob Woodward and his latest book.

Back in May, Israeli Energy Minister and Cabinet member Yuval Steinitz said al-Assad should be murdered. “If Syrian President Bashar Assad continues allowing the Iranians to operate out of Syria, it would be the end of him, the end of his regime,” Steinitz said. “If Assad allows Iran to turn Syria into a forward operating base against us, to attack us from Syrian soil, he should know that will spell his end.”

Of course, if Hillary Clinton had won the election there wouldn’t be much difference. During the campaign, she worked hard to out-do the neocons.

From The Telegraph in 2016:

[James Jeffrey, former CIA and Pentagon liaison] describes a foreign policy more hawkish than that of the current administration. He said there were a “lot of clues” to how Mrs Clinton will behave as commander-in-chief from her time as secretary of state. During that time she championed the intervention in Libya and advocated the arming of Syrian rebels against the regime.

Indeed, there are a lot of clues. Clinton is responsible for killing 30,000 Libyans and the country’s leader, who was brutally raped and murdered. Libya went from one of the richest and most developed countries in Africa to a failed state where competing cutthroat jihadists engage in bloody street warfare. Iraq suffered a similar fate—and continues to do so, as planed—in order to eliminate the risk to Israel and “moderate” (translation: dictatorial) Arab regimes in the neighborhood.

Trump the geopolitical ignoramus is too busy defending his inflated ego and narcissistic personality to be bothered with the finer details and consequences of his decision on Syria, which is in fact a decision made by his national security advisor, John Bolton, and a gaggle of neocons waiting in the wings.

Trump’s love for Israel and his animosity toward Syria and Iran is a product of his Likud-loving son-in-law, who often confers with Netanyahu. Jared Kushner supports the genocide-minded Israeli settlers. He supports the Likud-neocon collaboration to turn the Arab and Muslim Middle East into string of client states with balkanized ethnic and religious minorities engaged in endless sectarian violence, not unlike Iraq and Libya today. If the British gave anything to the Zionists during their “Mandate” in Palestine, it was the conquer and divide strategy. The Israelis turned it into a science.

Trump’s foreign policy hasn’t gone off the rails. It is owned by Israel and the neocons. It’s true, most hate Trump and are actively working to replace him with somebody (Pence) who isn’t suffering from narcissistic derangement, or at least does a better job of hiding it than Trump.

Obama’s strategy in Syria was to hide the truth and pave it over with lies. He is responsible for arming crazed Wahhabi murderers and the sadistic killing of Gaddafi in Libya.

500,000 dead in Syria, 30,000 in Libya, that’s Obama’s legacy.

Despite this, liberals and Democrats love him, same as they respect and fawningly admire the legacy of the war criminal John McCain, who bombed civilian targets in North Vietnam.

Trump’s 180 pivot on Syria is not a surprise. The man has no ideas of his own and was guided hand-in-hand by Jared Kushner into a den of assassins and thieves.

Did we really expect this self-infatuated narcissist to Make America Great Again, bring the troops home, and finally return America to the noninterventionist principles held by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?


Contributed by Kurt Nimmo of Another Day in the Empire

Kurt Nimmo has blogged on political issues since 2002. In 2008, he worked as lead editor and writer at Infowars, and is currently a content producer for Newsbud.


SHARE:

Can We Just Leave Syria Alone?

By Ron Paul | RPI | September 3, 2018

Assad was supposed to be gone already. President Obama thought it would be just another “regime change” operation and perhaps Assad would end up like Saddam Hussein or Yanukovych. Or maybe even Gaddafi. But he was supposed to be gone. The US spent billions to get rid of him and even provided weapons and training to the kinds of radicals that attacked the United States on 9/11.

But with the help of his allies, Assad has nearly defeated this foreign-sponsored insurgency.

The US fought him every step of the way. Each time the Syrian military approached another occupied city or province, Washington and its obedient allies issued the usual warnings that Assad was not liberating territory but was actually seeking to kill more of his own people.

Remember Aleppo, where the US claimed Assad was planning mass slaughter once he regained control? As usual the neocons and the media were completely wrong. Even the UN has admitted that with Aleppo back in the hands of the Syrian government hundreds of thousands of Syrians have actually moved back. We are supposed to believe they willingly returned so that Assad could kill them?

The truth is Aleppo is being rebuilt. Christians celebrated Easter there this spring for the first time in years. There has been no slaughter once al-Qaeda and ISIS’ hold was broken. Believe me, if there was a slaughter we would have heard about it in the media!

So now, with the Syrian military and its allies prepare to liberate the final Syrian province of Idlib, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo again warns the Syrian government against re-taking its own territory. He Tweeted on Friday that: “The three million Syrians, who have already been forced out of their homes and are now in Idlib, will suffer from this aggression. Not good. The world is watching.”

President Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, has also warned the Syrian government that the US will attack if it uses gas in Idlib. Of course, that warning serves as an open invitation to rebels currently holding Idlib to set off another false flag and enjoy US air support.




Bolton and Pompeo are painting Idlib as a peaceful province resisting the violence of an Assad who they claim just enjoys killing his own people. But who controls Idlib province? President Trump’s own Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS, Brett McGurk, said in Washington just last year that, “Idlib province is the largest al-Qaeda safe-haven since 9/11, tied to directly to Ayman al Zawahiri, this is a huge problem.”

Could someone please remind Pompeo and Bolton that al-Qaeda are the bad guys?

After six years of a foreign-backed regime-change operation in Syria, where hundreds of thousands have been killed and the country nearly fell into the hands of ISIS and al-Qaeda, the Syrian government is on the verge of victory. Assad is hardly a saint, but does anyone really think al-Qaeda and ISIS are preferable? After all, how many Syrians fled the country when Assad was in charge versus when the US-backed “rebels” started taking over?

Americans should be outraged that Pompeo and Bolton are defending al-Qaeda in Idlib. It’s time for the neocons to admit they lost. It is time to give Syria back to the Syrians. It is time to pull the US troops from Syria. It is time to just leave Syria alone!


Contributed by Ron Paul of Ron Paul Institute


SHARE: