IN THE aftermath of US-led missile strikes on Syria, the western media has attempted to continue building the case for ‘US intervention.’
However, before the first agitators took to the streets in Syria in 2011, the US was already involved.
The New York Times in its 2011 article, ‘US Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings’, would admit (emphasis added):
‘A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organisation based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks.
‘The work of these groups often provoked tensions between the United States and many Middle Eastern leaders, who frequently complained that their leadership was being undermined, according to the cables. ‘
The financing of agitators from across the Middle East and North Africa before the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ was meant to stampede targeted governments from power — paving the way for US client states to form. Nations that resisted faced — first, US-backed militants — and failing that, direct US military intervention — as seen in Libya in 2011.
After the US funded initial unrest in 2011 — the US has armed and funded militants fighting in Syria ever since.
The same NYT would publish a 2013 article titled, ‘Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From CIA’, admitting (emphasis added):
‘With help from the CIA, Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.
‘The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.’
As the proxy war the US waged against Damascus began to fail, multiple attempts were made to justify direct US military intervention in Syria as the US and its allies did in 2011 against the Libyan government.
This includes repeated attempts to enforce the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine, multiple false-flag chemical attacks beginning with the Ghouta incident in 2013 and the emergence of the so-called ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS) which helped the US justify the deployment of ground troops now currently occupying eastern Syria.
The notion of the US currently ‘contemplating intervention’ in Syria attempts to sidestep the fact that the Syrian conflict itself — from its inception — has been a US intervention.
Long Before ‘Day 1’?
EVEN before the most recent attempt at US-led regime change in Syria, the US has pursued campaigns of violent subversion aimed at Syria and its allies.
In 2007, veteran journalist Seymour Hersh would write in his article, ‘The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?’ that (emphasis added):
‘To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organisation that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.’
Hersh’s words would become prophetic when, in 2011, the US would begin arming and backing militants — many with overt affiliations to al-Qaeda — in a bid to destabilise Syria and overthrow the government in Damascus.
The article would also lay out preparations that — even in 2007 — were clearly aimed at organising for and executing a wider conflict.
Yet, published CIA documents drawn from the US National Archives illustrate how this singular agenda seeking to overthrow the government of Syria stretches back even earlier — by decades.
A 1983 document signed by former CIA officer Graham Fuller titled, ‘Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria’, states (their emphasis):
‘Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf — through closure of Iraq’s pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalisation of the [Iran-Iraq] war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey.’
The report also states:
‘If Israel were to increase tensions against Syria simultaneously with an Iraqi initiative, the pressures on Assad would escalate rapidly. A Turkish move would psychologically press him further.’
The document exposes both then and now, the amount of influence the US exerts across the Middle East and North Africa. It also undermines the perceived agency of states including Israel and NATO-member Turkey, revealing their subordination to US interests and that actions taken by these states are often done on behalf of Wall Street and Washington rather than on behalf of their own national interests.
Also mentioned in the document are a variety of manufactured pretexts listed to justify a unilateral military strike on northern Syria by Turkey. The document explains:
‘Turkey has considered undertaking a unilateral military strike against terrorist camps in northern Syria and would not hesitate from using menacing diplomatic language against Syria on these issues.’
Comparing this signed and dated 1983 US CIA document to more recent US policy papers and revelations of US funding of so-called activists prior to 2011, reveals not only continuity of agenda — but that attempts to portray the 2011 ‘uprising’ as spontaneous and as merely exploited by the US are disingenuous.
Breaking the cycle
THE current stalemate in Syria is owed to Russia’s involvement in the conflict. This began in 2013 when Moscow brokered a political deal preventing US military intervention then — and again in 2015 when the Russian military — upon Damascus’s request — built up a presence within the nation. Today, it is the threat of Russian retaliation that has hemmed in US options and plunged American special interests into increasing depths of desperation.
The recent missile strikes by the US and its tentative holdings in eastern Syria reflect geopolitical atrophy amid a conflict that was initially aimed at quickly stampeding the Syrian government from power back in 2011.
Washington’s inability to achieve its objectives leave it in an increasingly desperate position — attempting to reassert itself in the region or face the irreversible decline of its so-called ‘international order.’ However, a desperate hegemon in decline is still dangerous.
New Eastern Outlook, April 14. Tony Cartalucci, a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, writes especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook.
Want stories like this in your inbox?
Sign up to exclusive daily email
More Stories from Opinion