In its strike on the Syrian Army in Deir al Zour, the US has revealed its determination to partition Syria, using Islamic State as its shock troops in a well coordinated plan with its local and foreign allies.
When the US coalition launched an attack on a Syrian Army base in Deir al Zour at 5pm on Saturday 17th September, they didn't just kill or injure nearly 200 soldiers. As a direct result of the strike, Islamic State fighters were able to take control of the strategic base, from where they can now launch attacks on the airport.
Deir al Zour has been surrounded by IS forces for the last two years, but they have been prevented from taking control of most of the city and its 150,000 inhabitants by the Syrian Army. Life has been sustained there by nightly flights from Damascus, so any threat to the airport is life-endangering. IS has already demonstrated such a threat, reportedly shooting down a Syrian plane only two days after setting up camp on the Syrian martyrs' grave.
The circumstances of the massacre of Syrian soldiers in a well-established and identifiable outpost abutting IS-held territory, while 'under investigation' by the US, are of course only too clear to Syrians and their allies. The US coalition's fight against IS has never been very convincing, by comparison with the rhetoric, so it isn't much of a stretch to conclude now that this multi-named group is actually just a Trojan Horse to facilitate the US agenda. And the much-cited 2102 DIA document tells us what that agenda is - to establish a 'prinicipality' in Eastern Syria.
Interestingly though, suspicion of the US' motives and relationship to Da'esh/IS isn't limited to those outside the Western media's sphere of influence. While the uncomfortable focus on a serious war-crime for which NATO allies were unambiguously responsible was shifted rapidly by that media to focus on an alleged Syrian/Russian strike on an alleged aid convoy, doubts about the credibility of the 'botched strike' story are evidently nagging at some Western commentators and politicians.
This is hardly surprising, even though the consequences of disbelieving the US' story are earth-shattering. Many people must have difficulty believing that with all the high-tech surveillance, precision-guided missiles and special forces on the ground, such a lethal attack undertaken in broad daylight and lasting almost an hour, could really be a 'mistake'. Unlike in other more populated areas of Western Syria, where multiple armed groups are mixed with different civilian populations, or proper surveillance and targeting is made difficult by an urban environment, the Syrian army base targeted by US coalition airstrikes was in the open desert, with IS terrorists the only others in danger of 'collateral damage'.
While those Western 'sceptics' have proffered that some in the US intentionally launched an attack on the Syrian army to break the ceasefire, and avoid the cooperation with Russia in fighting Al Nusra and Da'esh agreed to by Kerry, it is hard to believe US leaders would risk carrying out such a blatant war crime just for that reason. Something far worse is more likely to explain such a desperate strategy, and is far more threatening to Syria's interests.
As pointed out by other observers, the dictates of that 2012 DIA document revealed by Michael Flynn earlier this year were to 'support the establishment of a principality' - or Islamic State - in Hasakah and Deir al Zour in Syria (and Mosul in Iraq, in order to isolate Syria and Lebanon from Iran.) Were it not for this special mention of Deir al Zour, as well as its strategic location and proximity to oil resources, we might have difficulty understanding why the US picked this site to launch a pre-emptive strike on the Syrian army. But if we conclude not only that the strike was intentional, but was well-planned and coordinated with actions of other coalition allies in Syria, the choice is self-explanatory.
Had the ceasefire plan which the US so reluctantly agreed to succeeded, then following the Syrian army's liberation of Aleppo from the terrorists' grip Syrian coalition forces would have been able to move on to the east, expelling IS and other terrorist groups from Al Bab, Raqqa and Deir al Zour, with some coordination if not cooperation from the NATO forces. Such a prospect would evidently be the ruination of the US' plan for Syria, which is now quite clearly to replace the Islamic State 'Straw Man' with its own US directed and anti-Syrian-government militias - the so-called 'Syrian Democratic Forces'.
But as one covert scheme is exposed, so another comes into view.
At this week's UNGA meeting there was a surprising and mostly ignored presence - Turkey's President Erdogan. When Erdogan sent the Turkish Army into Syria on the 24th of August, on the ridiculous pretext of pushing IS away from the border, there was much talk of a disagreement with the US over the Kurds, as well as over the US harbouring of Fethullah Gulen, who Erdogan blamed for the coup. It was also suggested there was some rapprochement between Erdogan and Putin, or even some cooperative agreement with Russia over Turkey's invasion of Syria.
But Turkey's operation in the north-west corner of Syria appears to be entirely in tune with that of the US in the East - in Hasakah and now Deir al Zour. Active Turkish support for terrorist groups in Syria, particularlly Al Nusra and IS/Da'esh is well known, and blindingly obvious to anyone not wearing star-striped blinkers. Those poor dupes, who make up the Western media contingent operating in Gaziantep, could even have seen the IS militant returning from Jarablus, after the Turkish Free Syrian Army took their place - if they had just looked out of the window. ( That they didn't only demonstrates what we already know - that all the 'news' they disseminate around the world is second-hand and carefully selected from NATO-aproved sources.)
Should we conclude then, that not only is the talk of a split between Turkey and the US just for show, but that suspicions Erdogan was somehow involved in his own coup are well-founded?
The cooperation between Turkey and the US since the start of the Syrian campaign has been unambiguous, both in shipping fighters and weapons from Libya and Tunisia into Syria, and in the use of the base in Incirlik. Now we can see that Erdogan's hollow claims to be fighting IS appear also to be shared by the US, though with a difference.
Since the creation of 'Islamic State' as THE global terror organisation, and therefore a pretext to illegally intervene in Syria, there has been a striking contradiction in the US stated policy. From the beginning of the war on Syria the clear but unacknowledged intention of the US has been 'regime change' - supported by a ruthless demonisation campaign against President Assad. While there has been much talk of UN-brokered 'transition', any suggestion that Assad might 'be allowed to stay' has been greeted with hysteria by the Istanbul-based Syrian opposition and Western media.
Consequently it has always seemed strange that the US persists in saying that it is in Syria just to fight Islamic State, and that the 'rebels' it has trained and armed have to point their guns in that direction. No-one in the Western media sphere of influence seems to notice, leave alone question why all the US 'rebel' groups so armed are in the particular area west of Aleppo that the US itself claims to be free of an IS presence. Perhaps that's because it's 'understood' that these 'rebels' are actually dual-purpose, and will turn on Assad once they've got IS out of the way.
Well now the gloves are off.
Because if the US is actually assisting Islamic State against the Syrian army and its allies, then it obviously doesn't want the 'rebels' it has armed to really turn their guns on IS at all. Fortunately for everyone, the leaders of Syria and Russia, Iran and Hezbollah have long ago understood the nature of their enemy, and fought its proxies accordingly. But it increasingly looks as though this will not be enough for justice and good to prevail.
Syria should now 'throw down the gauntlet' to the US coalition allies who massacred its soldiers in cold blood, by demanding that they fully cooperate in the destruction of Islamic State terrorists around Deir al Zour by Russian and Syrian forces, followed by UN assistance in installing a Syrian army garrison in the city to ensure that it remains fully within the Syrian government's control.
If the US fails to swallow this bitter pill, then it will be demonstrated as guilty in sponsoring and assisting a global terrorist organisation in the court of world public opinion. What possible excuse could it make for rejecting this offer?
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider. It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider. Licensed Creative Commons.