Breaking News: Al-Qaeda has officially taken over the Syrian Opposition

As of 29th of August 2017, Al-Qaeda in Syria, rebranded as "Hayat Tahrir Ash-Sham," has taken over Idlib and kicked out rival Ahrar Ash-Sham.

Whereas before other rebels were working with Al-Qaeda, now Al-Qaeda has taken them over. And with the fall of Islamic State in Syria, Tahrir Ash-Sham taunts the Syrian Government with yet another terrorist hub in its territory.

Talks are still ongoing between Turkey, Iran and Russia about creating a fourth de-escalation zone in Idlib Province. But with the Trump Administration backing away from the Syrian quagmire and issuing stiff warnings to Tahrir Ash-Sham, the Syrian Government may be poised to strike at the heart of the Islamist Revolution of Syria.

But Russian priority is still ISIS. Until ISIS is dealt lasting defeat in eastern Syria, Russia will not give permission for Bashar Al-Assad to unleash his forces against Idlib. Until then, Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven and a large army ready for the next battle.

Siege of Deir Ezzor ended

Finally, the siege of Deir Ezzor by ISIS is at an end.

In a matter of months, the Syrian Arab Army has regained enormous swathes of territory from ISIS, from eastern Aleppo to As-Suknah to Deir Ezzor. ISIS now only exists in Syria in Raqqa, the countryside of Deir Ezzor and in the hearts and minds of those who experienced ISIS' tyrannical rule.

There is another half of the Deir Ezzor city to liberate. After that, the Syrian Arab Army is likely to drive ISIS to the eastern bank of the Euphrates River, before finally finishing off the terror organisation for good in Syria.

After regaining control of Deir Ezzor and after the Syrian Kurds have liberated the city of Raqqa, it is unlikely that ISIS will ever return to Syria in territorial form. ISIS will focus on Iraq and the Arabian Gulf, and Syria will have time to recover from the horrors of its civil war.

ISIS offering stiff resistance in Raqqa, crumbling everywhere else

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-raqqa-idUSKBN1AQ1C2

The Syrian Kurdish Commander of the YPG and Syrian Democratic Forces expects that a long battle is to be expected to take Raqqa city from ISIS.

The Syrian Democratic Forces have surrounded the city of Raqqa and have made retreat impossible for ISIS from the city. Though pundits expected the city to fall quickly, ISIS is fighting tooth and nail for every street and building, just as they did in Mosul.

Meanwhile, Syrian Arab Army gains against ISIS are steadily increasing. Areas to north and east of As-Sukhnah are being cleared out, and the current momentum suggests ISIS may be cleared out of Syria by the end of the year.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/deir-ezzor-mother-battles-july-25-2017-video-map-update/

Unlike in Iraq, once ISIS is driven out of Syria, it is unlikely to return, provided Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and his government remain in power. By the end of the year, ISIS is likely to withdraw from eastern Syria back into western Iraq, to launch its next phase: provoking instability in the Arabian Gulf, south of Iraq.

Further concerns are what will happen in Syria should ISIS be defeated, and whether war between the Kurds, Turkey and Syria will break out. In any case, it may be that, with no ISIS in Syria in the future, US military will have no choice but to withdraw:

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-military-force-us-out-syria-army-official-640650

After the war, it is likely Bashar Al-Assad will continue to rebuild his country, with Iranian, Russian, Chinese and Qatari financial assistance - and watch as the terror organization which once plagued his country would be now plaguing the Arabian Gulf. Assad is likely to rule over the nation until the day he dies.

Syrian Arab Army reaches As-Suknah, last fortress before Deir Ez-Zor

For the Syrian Arab Army, the most important victory since Aleppo is within reach.

After securing Aleppo city from Al-Qaeda insurgents, deescalation zones were established between the Syrian Arab Army and the rebels in western Syria. The result has been the bulk of the Syrian Arab Army has been freed up to fight ISIS in Eastern Syria and rescue Deir Ez-Zor city.

Since the beginning of Operation Great Dawn, remarkable success has been made by the Syrian Arab Army against ISIS. The Syrian Arab Army has regained all lost territory in the eastern Aleppo countryside and has forced ISIS out of the majority of Raqqa province, reaching Deir Ez-Zor province for the first time in many years just days ago.

The key battles for control of eastern Syria are currently taking place in the Homs governate. First of such battles was liberating the Palmyra-Damascus highway; second was the liberation of Arak. The third and final battle on the Homs-Deir Ez-Zor highway is As-Sukhnah.

After As-Sukhnah, the last sizable town before Deir Ez-Zor will be taken. ISIS will completely crumble in Syria and be forced east of Deir Ez-Zor city.

Because of this, ISIS are currently fighting tooth and nail to hold As-Sukhnah. Conscription for all males between 20 and 30 have been legislated by ISIS, which will add to the manpower required to hold As-Sukhnah. ISIS have realised that unless they hold As-Sukhnah, their Caliphate will be destroyed.

For the Syrian Arab Army, As-Sukhnah is a great prize on the road to restoring Syrian sovereignty. After linking Deir Ez-Zor city with the rest of government-controlled Syria, no questions will remain about the legitimacy of Bashar Al-Assad's government.

US continues to ignore Russian success in Syria

The uncomfortable truth about the Syrian Civil War is that Russia is helping to end it.

When the Arab Spring first began in 2011 in Syria, protests were quickly absorbed into an armed conflict between Syrian Sunnis from the countryside, backed by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and the rest of Syria, backing Bashar Al-Assad. The reason why Bashar Al-Assad never fell in the 6 years of conflict is because he is too popular with Syrians.

Since 2011, Assad's Syrian Arab Army have maintained a presence in all major cities in Syria except Raqqa in 2014 and Idlib in 2015. Even the inhabitants of Deir Ez-Zor city, populated by Syrian Bedouins, who are normally more receptive to ISIS, have remained allied to Bashar Al-Assad for the entirety of the war.

When rebels started making larger gains against the Syrian government in western Syria, Bashar Al-Assad called on Russia to assist his government in regaining control of Syria. Russia's accomplishments in almost 2 years have been more profound than US gains in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last 15 years.

The Russians learned from the US' mistake in Iraq: regime change leads to terrorism. The Russians, therefore, decided that the antidote to terrorism would be to do an "Iraq War in reverse": strengthen an existing regime, rather than change it. And it has worked.

Since the Russians have entered the Syrian Civil War, the city of Aleppo has been stabilized. Many of the rebels previously holed up in other Syrian areas have been moved into the rebel-held province of Idlib. And, more recently, deconfliction zones were established to enable the Syrian Arab Army to focus more heavily on ISIS than the other rebels. This has resulted in the Syrian Government regaining vast swathes of countryside in Aleppo, Homs and Damascus provinces.

The US has been silent on this. The chemical attacks earlier this year - neither proven nor unproven to be initiated by the Syrian Government - led President Donald Trump to order an airstrike on a Syrian airbase - the first time the US intentionally launched a military attack on the Syrian Government in the war. And Rex Tillerson, who previously said the Syrians should decide who their President should be, began to call for the overthrow of Bashar Al-Assad.

Of course, the US is highly unlikely to engage militarily to remove the Assad regime in Syria. But it does show an attempt to undermine Russian efforts in Syria and focus the west's attention on its own war on ISIS rather than on Russian success in Syria.

However, should the US not learn from Russian success in Syria, they would be unable to end either the Iraq or Afghan conflicts. And with 20 trillion dollars of debt, the US cannot sustain their current foreign policy.

Tillerson: U.S. ready to let Russia decide on Assad in Syria

https://www.axios.com/u-s-ready-to-let-russia-decide-syria-2452572593.html

This is the best news I've heard all year.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has announced that the US is ready to let Russia decide on Assad in Syria. This means that previous statements of regime change by members of the Trump Administration, such as H.R. McMaster, have fallen on deaf ears.

Odds are that relations between the US and Russia will depend on whether or not Bashar Al-Assad is removed. But Russia understands that Bashar Al-Assad is a symbol to the Syrian people: a symbol of stability, protection of minority groups, "sticking it" to America by supporting Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran, and a symbol of secular Arabism. Russia stands to benefit more from Assad staying in power, as other countries will trust Russia to defend them, such as Haftar Al-Khalifa in Libya, the Houthis in Yemen and Iran.

So Assad is very likely to remain in Syria for the foreseeable future. This will mean one less country from which Salafi terrorism will come, and will force the US to score significant victories in the war on terror in other areas, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, this is the worst possible news for the Arabian Gulf. Much of the Arabian Gulf was set to benefit from Bashar Al-Assad being ousted from Syria, and with Assad set to remain in power, the Gulf is set for detonation. ISIS will come to the Arabian Gulf. Shi'ites from the Gulf will be exterminated and driven out. Houthis will win the Yemen war. But, scarily, ISIS may just capture Mecca and Medina.

But today, we can celebrate that terrorism is being meaningfully defeated in Syria. It is worth celebrations for the rest of the year.

Will Trump contain Iran in Syria?

This year has seen enormous advances by the Syrian Arab Army. Firstly, in January, Syria seized the key city of Aleppo. Since then, rebels have been either accepting the open invitation of the government to lay down their arms and rejoin Syrian life, or they have relocated to the province of Idlib, or they have remained, waiting for the Syrian Arab Army to mop them up.

Iran has been using Assad's Syria as part of a Shi'ite crescent from Tehran, Iran's capital, to Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. This crescent is a formidable challenge for the Trump Administration. How does Trump protect Israel if the anti-Israeli Assad government regains control of Syria?

Trump will not protect Israel by overthrowing Assad. Neither will Trump set up a military base in eastern Syria to stop supplies flowing from Iran to Hezbollah. It would take too many men, weapons, allies and money that the US does not currently have in Syria.

More likely is that the US will let the Assad government stay in power, but consolidate air bases in western and north-western Iraq, in the largely Sunni Arab areas. This will do several things. First, it will prevent Iranian weapons from reaching Syria through Iraq, because the US would destroy them on sight. Second, it will prevent Iranian-backed militias from attacking Sunni Arab Iraqis. Third, it will prevent ISIS from returning to Iraq in force, as the US will target them as soon as they are spotted.

Trump will likely contain Iran, but not by battling Iran in Syria, but by working together with the Iraqi government, to curtail Iranian influence there. Like Obama before him, Trump does not want to see the United States get in another quagmire after the two Bush-era quagmires of Afghanistan and Iraq, and unlike in Syria, in Iraq there is support for a continued, minimal US presence.

Afghanistan is the other area which, in the immediate future, will be used to help contain Iran. Afghanistan has an enormous amount of potential resources. Rather than fighting Iran in Syria, Trump is more likely exert pressure to stabilize Afghanistan to make it strong, independent and anti-Iranian. An anti-Iran Afghanistan would go some way to curtailing Iran's dominance in the region.

Trump will also continue to support Saudi Arabia. The US will support the Saudi war on the Houthis - though this is unlikely to benefit anyone in the region, especially Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has additionally shown signs of supporting the Kurds in independence in Syria and Iraq, which would also go a way to containing Iranian influence. However, Trump's hands are tied. If he supports the Kurds too loudly in either Syria or Iraq, he would lose the Iraqi government as an ally. And that would be more disastrous for the US than maintaining the status quo.

All in all, these strategies of containing Iran do not include overthrowing the Assad government in Damascus. This strategy, which is trumpeted so loudly by National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, is likely to fall on deaf ears, as neither James Mattis nor Trump nor Steve Bannon have any desire to be sucked into the unwinnable quagmire of Syria.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Kurdish areas are more likely to be utilized by Trump than overthrowing Assad in Syria.

When will Trump leave Syria?

Syria is a complex crisis.

In the campaign, Trump stated he would 'bomb the s*** out of ISIS,' that he was a fan of the Kurds, that he would 'let Russia fight ISIS' in Syria, and largely Trump has lived up to his campaign rhetoric - with added bombings of the Syrian Government.

Trump has accelerated Obama's bombing campaign against ISIS and has largely used the Kurds to achieve his objectives in Syria. He has welcomed Russia's 'de-confliction zones' initiative, which has freed the Syrian Arab Army to overwhelmingly fight ISIS rather than the rebels in Idlib. While the Syrian Arab Army is stronger than ever as a result of this, ISIS' presence in Syria is weaker than ever.

Why, then, has Trump bombed the Syrian government in the past? Well, one reason would be that the Washington Swamp has been mercilessly targeting Trump no matter what he does, and bombing the Syrian air base near Khan Sheikhoun and changing rhetoric to 'Assad must go' has meant that the Swamp has backed off, albeit only a little.

The other reason Trump has bombed the Syrian government has been to direct the Syrian Arab Army and allies towards ISIS rather than towards US-backed rebels. Obama did the reverse of this during his Presidency: bombed ISIS to target the Syrian Arab Army rather than the Iraqi Army or the Kurdish militias. So far, Trump's strategy has been working - the Syrian Arab Army has been overwhelmingly fighting ISIS and not the Kurds or the Free Syrian Army - but it has risked further confrontation between the US and Russia.

The question that many US citizens are wondering is this: when will Trump leave Syria? The answer is that Trump is likely to leave Syria after a political settlement has been reached through the Astana and Geneva talks. This will mean that Trump will likely leave Syria after either Assad has left office, new Syrian elections are run or the Kurds break away from Syria.

Now, should Assad be forced to leave office, Syrians would overwhelmingly protest for him to return to power, leaving the US and its partners humiliated. Should new Syrian elections take place, most Syrians would write Bashar Al-Assad on their ballots, which would equally humiliate the US and its partners. The third possibility, therefore, is more likely: Assad will remain in control of the majority of Syria, but the Kurds vote for independence from Syria.

This raises concerns of further conflict in Syria, a complete deterioration of Turkish-US relations, or outright defeat of the Kurds by the Syrian Arab Army. Any one of these scenarios would further humiliate the US and their partners.

Ideally, Trump should withdraw his forces from Syria after Raqqa has been seized by the Kurds. With ISIS destroyed from Syria, there is no benefit for the US in remaining there.

Syrian Arab Army reaches At-Tanf border crossing

The Syrian Arab Army has reached the At-Tanf border crossing with Iraq.

This has effectively cut the US-backed Free Syrian Army off from its objective of securing the Syrian-Iraqi border from its bases in northern Jordan. This means that the US will be unable to partition eastern Syria from west, and the Syrian Arab Army will be able to achieve its objective of securing Deir Ez-Zor city.

The Russian planned de-escalation zones have stopped most of the fighting in the west of Syria. Together with securing Aleppo from Opposition forces and letting the last of the rebels in Homs city leave for Idlib, an enormous number of Syrian Arab Army soldiers have been freed for Operation Great Dawn, a campaign to join up besieged Deir Ez-Zor city to the rest of Syria. The results of this campaign have been staggering.

Over the course of the past month, hundreds of square kilometres have been liberated by the Syrian Arab Army. Palmyra is completely secured from ISIS; the Palmyra-Damascus highway has been cleared; border crossings with Iraq have begun to be secured; and, best of all, thousands more troops are arriving at Palmyra as this article is being written.

Though US forces have been allowing ISIS to move its forces from Raqqa and Iraq into Deir Ez-Zor and Homs provinces, the Syrian Arab Army has proven more than a match for ISIS. With thousands more Syrian troops and allies now stationed at Palmyra, we are likely to see the big push for Deir Ez-Zor come to a head. In the next couple of months, it is safe to say Deir Ez-Zor city will be secured by the Syrian Arab Army pushing to reach it.

As Syria stabilizes, the Gulf is destabilizing

As Syria stabilizes, the Gulf is destabilizing.

Much of the investment from the Gulf countries was bent on the overthrow of Bashar Al-Assad, to benefit Qatar in forming a pipeline through the region, bankrupt Russia and usher in a golden age of fossil fuel production for the Arabian Gulf. The overthrow of Bashar Al-Assad would have enabled the Gulf to become more wealthy than ever before after isolating Russia economically through the Qatari gas pipeline.

It is no surprise, therefore, that Russia would willingly risk its economy to stabilize Syria. The US certainly was not prepared to overthrow Assad and, without US support, neither were her allies.

Russia has launched an historic campaign which is reversing the tide of extremism in much of the Middle-East. Their Syrian campaign has caused the most enormous and permanent defeats for Al-Qaeda and ISIS since the beginning of the war on terror in 2001. Once again, as in world war 2, Russia has saved the world from a deadly enemy.

As a result, the Gulf is starting to show signs of destabilization. First was the Gulf's ambitious campaign against the Houthis in Yemen. Next has been the crackdown on Shi'ite protesters in the Gulf, such as the Saudi government's siege on the hometown of Sheikh Nimr An-Nimr and the arrests made against Shi'ite Arabs in Bahrain.

But things reached a new level of destabilization when days ago Qatar was politically isolated by its closest allies in the GCC. This has been as a result of Qatar funding of terrorism and spreading terrorist ideologies in its Al-Jazeera media coverage of the Arab Spring. Wherever there is a terror organisation, you can be sure that Qatar's money is behind them, such as with the Taliban, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and even Shi'ite groups like Hezbollah.

Qatar has greatly annoyed the rest of the Arabian Gulf.

It is commendable that Saudi Arabia has led the isolation efforts towards Qatar. However, most of the benefits to be found in isolating Qatar are wasted by Saudi Arabia engaging in the Yemeni conflict: Saudi has created an Al-Qaeda safe haven right on their doorstep, and that will continue even if Qatar stops funding terrorism.


The main reason that instability is coming to the Gulf is their unstable neighbour Iraq. Iraq is the volcano from which gushes out instability. This is the most significant reason for the barbarism seen in the Syrian Civil War: the chaos from Iraq arrived in Syria, and this is provable by just how rapid Syrian rebel groups fell to ISIS, which is the terrorist organisation that came out of Iraq.

With Syria stabilized and its people unwilling to continue the fighting; with Jordanian king Abdullah too clever to be tricked by instability into doing anything rash; with Iran too strong for instability to reach its borders, the only place left for the Iraqi volcano to gush instability towards is south: to the Arabian Gulf.

What comes next with the Qatar-Gulf crisis is difficult to guess, but it could easily escalate. Most experts believe that sanctions will not go on Qatar, nor will there be an invasion. While it is difficult to see an implementation of sanctions, it is possible that Qatar will experience a regime change, or an annexation by Saudi Arabia. If the Saudis made one foolish error in Yemen, they may do another in Qatar.

Such a move - which, as it is, might be the only way to shut down Qatar's trouble making and meddling in the region - has the potential to flare up tensions in the Gulf, start protests and even trigger an ISIS uprising. Should Qataris protest Saudi occupation or regime change, ordinary Sunni Gulf Arabs may come to their aid, plunging the whole region into a war unlike anything we have seen until now.

This would mean that, as ISIS is being driven out of the Syrian provinces of Aleppo, Hama, Homs and Deir Ez-Zor, it would find a new place to spread its instability and chaos in the Arabian Gulf.

Perhaps Syria has a year left before its war is over. After that, expect things to change radically in the Arabian Gulf.

Operation "Great Dawn" - the end of ISIS in Homs and Deir Ez-Zor

The Syrian Arab Army has just launched an enormous offensive against ISIS around Palmyra called Operation "Great Dawn," and it will signal the end of ISIS in Homs and Deir Ez-Zor provinces.

Operation "Great Dawn" is the largest offensive by the Syrian Arab Army against ISIS for the entirety of the Syrian Civil War. It has been made possible by the inter-Syrian talks in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, in which de-escalation zones were agreed upon, freeing up Syrian Arab Army from fighting Al-Qaeda and their affiliates to focus on fighting ISIS.

The impact of this operation is comparable to the Battle of Aleppo in importance: it will solidify Bashar Al-Assad's control of the majority of Syrian territory and will rescue the besieged city of Deir Ez-Zor from ISIS' hands.

Already ISIS have lost 3000 square kilometers in the space of 48 hours. This goes to show that the Syrian Arab Army, when not besieged by Al-Qaeda, are more than a match for ISIS in Syria.

In the next few weeks of bitter fighting, expect the Syrian Arab Army to regain control of the entirety of the Homs and Deir Ez-Zor countryside, shrinking ISIS' so called Caliphate by 50%. Also expect that the US-backed Syrian rebels fighting ISIS will be cut off from reaching their objective on the Iraqi border.

ISIS will likely be forced into the Raqqa countryside, where they will fight to the bitter end of their Caliphate. This will create more problems for the Syrian Democratic Forces, who have so far had an easy fight against ISIS by letting their fighters out of Raqqa to fight the Syrian Arab Army in Homs and Deir Ez-Zor. But with the Syrian Arab Army out in full-force against ISIS in Homs and Deir Ez-Zor, ISIS will likely retreat to the Raqqa countryside, as battling the Kurds will be easier than battling the Syrian Arab Army.

The conclusion of the operation will likely cut ISIS' Caliphate in half, separating the Syrian and Iraqi halves from each other. This blow will be detrimental to the legitimacy of ISIS, and likely force Caliph Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi from Syria back into Iraq.

Assad's forces move east

It looks like my earlier predictions were right after all.

The next big push by the Syrian Arab Army is headed for Deir Ez-Zor, the city which has been besieged for the last 3 years by ISIS. It is the Syrian city farthest to the east, and is currently separated by ISIS-controlled desert.

While an attack on Raqqa or Idlib would be perhaps easier geographically for Assad's forces, financially speaking, driving east has serious benefits; the main one is oil and gas in Homs and Deir Ez-Zor provinces. Once Assad liberate those provinces from ISIS, the terror state will be enormously crippled.

The benefit of gaining ground in Deir Ez-Zor is akin to the benefit of controlling the city of Aleppo: Syria would be unable to be divided by foreign powers. Had Aleppo fallen to the rebels, a second country may have been formed - with Aleppo retaken by Assad, there is a possible backup plan by western powers to divide Syria east from west. Taking back Deir Ez-Zor would destroy that idea entirely.

Taking back Deir Ez-Zor would give Assad more legitimacy in controlling Syria, as he would then control the majority of Syrian territory and resources. He is currently solidifying control of Palmyra, and preparing the way for the big push east through the Homs province and towards Deir Ez-Zor. I believe this coming stage of the conflict will see enormous progress on destroying ISIS in Syria and ending the civil war.

Is a rift forming between Turkey and the US?

Is a rift forming between Turkey and the US? Of course there is. But this rift did not start with Trump - it can be traced back to the Obama years.

In the Obama years, Turkey put itself on the line by funding and training jihadists to fight against the Syrian Government. Due to a sequence of events, the Turkish project completely failed.

Turkey wanted a Muslim Brotherhood state in Syria as it wants in Libya. But Obama refused to intervene militarily against Assad and, as long as Obama was unwilling to do that and Russia was, Assad would never be overthrown.

What made things even worse for Turkey was Obama's entry into the Syrian Civil War against ISIS. This weakened the Opposition considerably, as most of the Opposition's territory, having fallen to ISIS, ended up in Kurdish hands instead. When Obama waged war on ISIS, he did so using the YPG in Syria, which is a sister organisation to PKK, the Kurdish group which has been warring against Turkey for decades.

Enter Russia. Suddenly there was no way that Turkish-backed rebels were going to oust Assad. Turkey blew up two Russian jets in utter frustration at having so completely lost the Syrian Civil War at all levels.

Not only had Turkey lost a lot more than it gained in Syria, but the Kurds were about to control the entirety of the Syrian-Turkish border. All its efforts resulted in Assad remaining in power, with a likely semi-autonomous Kurdish region in Syria paralleling the one in Iraq. And that Syrian Kurdish region headed by PKK's sister organisation.

So Turkey did the only thing it could do: repair ties with Russia and accept that Assad would stay in power. Russia, unlike America, has a clear vision for Syria: Assad remaining in power to end ISIS' and Al-Qaeda's presence in the country. Turkey got in with Russia, Syria and Iran - and that perhaps with an understanding that Turkey would be allowed to strike the Kurds in Syria.

What happens to the Kurds in Syria is a question up for discussion. Will Assad allow them to remain semi-autonomous? Will they have to give back their land to Assad? Will Turkey, Russia, Assad and Iran turn on the Kurds as part of an arrangement between Turkey and Russia?

With the Syrian Kurds making an assault upon Raqqa as we speak, Trump has cast his lot in with the the Kurds in the fight against ISIS. The result of this is that, once the Syrian Civil War is over, Turkish-American relations are likely to further deteriorate, perhaps to the point of war between the Kurds and the Turks.

If America install a "no-fly-zone" in northern Syria - a possibility - things could get very messy: Syrian Kurds end up semi-autonomous, Syria, Russia and Iran feel outraged, Turkey cuts all ties with America.

I think that, whether war breaks out between Turkey and the Syrian Kurds or not, Turkish-American relations are set to plummet to new depths. It may even cause Turkey to be withdrawn from NATO. It will likely force America to look to its more US-dependent allies - like Iraq and Afghanistan - to fill the void where Turkey used to be.

This will give Trump more reason to prioritize stability in Iraq and Afghanistan: a need for allies in an increasingly anti-American Middle-East.

the Siege of Deir Ez-Zor

The city of Deir Ez-Zor has been besieged for years. It is a city controlled by the Syrian Government, but it is surrounded on all sides by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

But the noose of the siege has tightened.

ISIS made stunning gains against Deir Ez-Zor city in January, taking the airport from the government and preventing Russian and Syrian planes from dropping adequate supplies for the besieged population there. While an ISIS takeover of Deir Ez-Zor city is unlikely, the citizens are suffering awfully.

The Syrian Arab Army, as usual, has been fighting in a professional and efficient manner against the barbarians and have been able to hold them off. The airport is almost retaken and the borders between ISIS and the Syrian Government have almost returned to how they were before January.

It is sad to note that both the Obama and Trump Administrations have let ISIS militants escape from Mosul, who have subsequently regrouped in an attack on Deir Ez-Zor city. This has caused unimaginable suffering for the inhabitants of the city - bedouin Sunni Arabs who support Bashar Al-Assad.

But the Syrian Government - backed by Russian airstrikes - is likely to cause another humiliating defeat for ISIS there. It is very unlikely ISIS will be able to take control of Deir Ez-Zor - more likely is that the Syrian Government is going to push out from the city and retake territory surrounding the city, while the main forces of the Syrian Government push east from Palmyra on the road to Deir Ez-Zor.

I think it far more likely that Bashar Al-Assad will liberate the eastern Deir Ez-Zor province before liberating the northern Raqqa province. Raqqa is completely controlled by ISIS and is thus a more difficult target. Deir Ez-Zor, on the other hand, has an enormous amount of oil in the province, and Assad has managed to hold the city for the entirety of the war and in doing so, has prevented Syria from fragmenting into smaller states.

Assad reclaiming Deir Ez-Zor would truly prove that he is able to rule Syria. I wait in eager anticipation for his forces to win this battle against the cockroaches of ISIS.

Independent investigation into Syrian chemical attack supported by US

I have been watching the Press Conference between Lavrov and Tillerson and have heard from Lavrov that there is a willingness on the part of the American government to pursue an independent investigation headed by the UN into the chemical attack in Syria.

The likely benefits and results of such an investigation are likely to be staggering. Should it prove conclusive that the rebels left chemical weapons there, it would force the western world to support Assad against the Syrian rebels.

If this has been Trump's intention all along, it couldn't be more genius: first, it proves that Trump is not a subservient to Russia. Second, it temporarily gives into the neocon outrage of Assad. Third, it will likely prove Assad's innocence, forcing Trump to apologize, and forcing the western world to support Assad against the rebels.

Has this been all staged by America and Russia to get the critics off their backs? Quite possibly. Time will tell, but I am very optimistic.

Trump says "We are not going into Syria"

Phew. That was close.

We received word that Trump launched a missile strike targeting the Syrian airport from which supposed chemical weapons were launched. Never mind they had no proof; Trump wanted to show that with a red line like chemical weapons, he would react.

As of now, he does not want to go into Syria. But should the rebels stage a false flag and convince Trump it was the Syrian Government, America may do another attack. And that is terrifying.

Yet it is reassuring that Trump only struck the airport. He had the element of surprise, and could have very easily struck Bashar Al-Assad's palace. But he didn't. And for that he deserves credit.

However, Trump's Syria policy now looks not much better than Obama's - though, to be fair, it still is better than Obama's. To Trump's credit, he still won't support the Syrian rebels. But while he wants to defeat ISIS, he still wants to keep political pressure on Assad.

The latter policy is disappointing.

What do I think will happen? Assad will stay in power in Syria indefinitely. There is nothing Trump will do to remove him. If another chemical weapons attack happens, there will be a thorough investigation before another strike on Assad.

I do believe that Trump will focus more on the other conflicts in the Middle-East than he will on Syria. He is unlikely to go into Yemen against the Houthis, though he will still go against Al-Qaeda in Yemen. He will also - thankfully - continue to ignore Libya as it falls under Russian influence. He will push for stability in Iraq and in Syria as higher priority for his Administration than Libya, or than regime change in Syria. He will also go back into Afghanistan in full-force after defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

However, Trump will make his safe zones in Syria. And that is probably where his largest danger lies.

How Trump is being misled on Syria

Earlier today, chemical attacks were purportedly used on Syrian civilians by the forces of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. The more likely option is that the Syrian rebels are getting increasingly desperate due to a lack of victory on the ground and are thus doing all they can to frame the Syrian Government as heartless soldiers who use chemical weapons.

Unfortunately, like Obama and George W. Bush before him, Trump has fallen for the garbage 100%.

As a Trump fan, this is incredibly disappointing. I wanted to see Trump get over the line and become President because Hillary Clinton was set to install a no-fly-zone in Syria, overthrow the Syrian Government and let the entire Middle-East go up in flames. Provided of course she could get through Russia first, which she wouldn't have - it would have been world war 3 over a stupid gas pipeline made by Qatar.

Thankfully, Trump is unlikely to respond by installing a no-fly-zone in Syria. His desire for good ties with Russia, as well as his desire for an 'America first' agenda means that unilateral action in Syria is unlikely to happen. However, there are options:

1) pressure on Russia to remove Bashar Al-Assad. This would come in the form of refusal to remove economic sanctions on Russia. This would only mean that Bashar Al-Assad would be removed and replaced with another Ba'ath Government figure by Russia, with pressure from the Trump Administration. This decreases the likelihood of Syria being able to remain as one country.

2) Safe zones implemented without the approval of the Syrian Government. This is the most likely response by Trump and the rest of his Administration to what they see as a humanitarian catastrophe. Unfortunately for Trump, safe zones without the approval of the Syrian Government is unlikely to work out.

3) Syria will be balkanized. Rather than allow Bashar Al-Assad to regain control of the entirety of Syria, Trump would let the Syrian Kurds and their democratic allies of the SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) hold onto all the territory they have taken off the Islamic State. This would mean that, while the majority of Syria would remain in Bashar Al-Assad's hands, part of Syria would be lost to the Syrian Government either permanently or until Russia replaced Assad with another Ba'ath leader of Syria.


But it is disgusting that Trump would turn his back on a campaign promise to let Russia, Assad and Iran fight ISIS. It is absolutely disgusting that there is not a sensible person in American foreign policy who can clearly see that Bashar Al-Assad is - by far - even having used chemical weapons - the lesser of evils between Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda allied rebels, ISIS and the Syrian Government.

That Trump would continue to deal with backward terrorist-kissing countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar - who are well-known for their obvious connections to ISIS - while condemning Bashar Al-Assad for use of chemical weapons is beyond hypocrisy. It is beyond madness.

All it is is disgusting. Every American politician who has wanted to 'fix' Syria by sighting human rights deserves to be hanged.

Assad's moves in Syria

The Syrian Government, spearheaded by the Syrian Arab Army, have largely played a clever game.

Earlier in the war, the enormous city Homs was the priority, which was captured by the Syrian Arab Army in May 2014. Since then, the even larger Aleppo has been the priority, which was captured by the Syrian Arab Army in January 2017.

Now Assad's forces are moving from strength to strength, getting stronger and stronger against their plethora of enemies. Just recently the Syrian Arab Army moved into rebel-held districts of Damascus after the rebels rejected an offer to move to Idlib.

Against the rebels, Idlib is likely to be the last area of advance for the Syrian Arab Army. Until then, Assad's forces are going to mop up all other smaller areas in which the rebels are holed up. These include the provinces of Aleppo, Damascus, Latakia, Hama, Homs and Dera'a. Once these areas are cleared by the Syrian Arab Army, they will then turn to deal with rebels in Idlib.

Against ISIS, Assad is playing a clever game. For a while, Assad has prioritized other rebels over ISIS (as America under Obama was attacking ISIS), but now that Trump has shown an openness to work with Assad, Assad is more than happy to give ISIS a thumping.

Also, with the rebels no longer holding major cities or major areas - with the exception of the province and small city of Idlib - Assad is freer to attack ISIS more forcefully.

With help from Russian and American airstrikes, the Syrian Arab Army retook Palmyra again. This was a great victory for Assad's forces. As well as this, Assad has been pushing ISIS back from Aleppo province, with great results. Now Turkish-backed rebels, holding a northern section of the Turkish-Syrian border - from Dabiq in the west to Jarabulus in the east to Al-Bab in the south - are unable to advance south without crossing fire with Syria and Russia. The only way the Turkish forces may advance to Raqqa is through the Kurds, which are backed by America. All in all, Turkish forces are hemmed in northern Syria, which is very clever for Assad.

However it is unlikely that Assad will push on into Raqqa province to take it back from ISIS. The reason for this is 1, Trump's Kurdish force are already putting enough pressure on Raqqa; 2, the Government-held city of Deir Ez-Zor is besieged by ISIS' forces. Rather than pushing into Raqqa, it is rather likely that the Syrian Arab Army will move sizeable amounts of its forces into (southern) Homs and Deir Ez-Zor provinces, to push ISIS out of the Syrian oilfields and connect the city of Deir Ez-Zor with the rest of Syria. This would create sizable results for the Syrian Government and reestablish Assad's Government as controlling the majority of Syria.

All in all, Assad's victory in the Syrian Civil War is all but certain. The likely next steps are ISIS defeat in Deir Ez-Zor and rebel defeat in every province but Idlib.

Why I am sick of the lies about Obama in Syria

Reading an article just recently which criticized Trump's plan to ally with Russia and Assad, destroy ISIS and implement safe zones, I am infuriated by the blindness that seems to infect most of the political left regarding Obama's role in Syria.

Again and again Obama is held up as morally superior to George W. Bush and Trump because he refused to put ground troops in Syria, whereas Bush put ground troops in Iraq and Trump will probably do so in Syria.

Firstly, ISIS wouldn't even exist as an entity separate from Al-Qaeda if it weren't for Barrack Obama! Obama is very much responsible for the rise of ISIS in Syria by refusing to implement a cease-fire in Syria unless Bashar Al-Assad, the Syrian President, were removed.

Obama funding any rebels who were against Bashar Al-Assad has caused untold suffering for the Syrian people, because instead of facing American ground troops, the Syrians were for the most part facing ISIS or their equivalent.

Obama did put ground troops in Syria, but his ground troops were ISIS. Even after ISIS took over Mosul and declared a Caliphate, Obama still used ISIS as a hammer to chip away at the Syrian Arab Army. He bombed ISIS everywhere in Syria, except where they attacked the Syrian Arab Army.

Trump sees that America - more specifically, Obama - created this mess in Syria. To end Syrian intervention honourably is to undo the disgusting Obama policy which overran Syria with ISIS and Al-Qaeda, which had threatened the extermination of Christians, Alawites and Druze - until Russia intervened.

Obama in my eyes is guilty of worse war crimes than George W. Bush. And I wish the whole world knew it, rather than slobbering after the Obama Legacy as if it were something special.

How long before Trump leaves Syria?

It is hard to know for sure, but the options are clear.

On the one hand, Trump could escalate the conflict - likely on the side of Turkey and with implicit allegiance from Syria, Iran and Russia - in removing ISIS from Syria completely. It would make sense for Turkish and American forces to attack northern Syria across Aleppo and Raqqa provinces, to proceed in building safe zones in that region taken from ISIS. After the establishment of such safe zones, it would be likely Trump would withdraw from Syria.

Meanwhile Assad, Russia and Iran would move from the central region of Syria to secure Homs and Deir-Ez Zor provinces from ISIS. This cooperation to destroy ISIS could be readily achieved with Turkey already allied with Russia in defeating ISIS.

On the other hand, Trump could leave Syria altogether and leave Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria to fight ISIS. This would make the tangled web less complicated, and perhaps even a deal could be struck between America and Turkey: that Turkey's efforts in Syria would pay for a certain amount of their NATO budget.

Trump certainly does not need to stay in Syria, and in my own opinion, to do so would be economically foolish. With Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia on America's list of countries they are bombing, Syria is just too financially costly a campaign to maintain. Trump exiting from fighting ISIS in Syria would force other players on the ground to take more of the mantle, and consume valuable resources of other players to their own economic detriment - in particular Iran.

It makes more sense for America to focus on fighting ISIS in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan - the coalitions fighting in Syria have already shown an ability to make their own headway in ending the conflict without Washington.

How Trump might implement Safe Zones in Syria

Trump and former democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had very, very different views on Syria.

While Hillary Clinton wanted to wage war with Russia by installing a 'no-fly-zone' in Syria, Trump's own vision for Syria involves cooperation with the parties on the ground to end the threat of ISIS once and for all.

Trump asked the military for a secret plan to be presented to him in 30 days, one to destroy ISIS. His plan for Iraq is clear: ousting ISIS from Iraq (namely Mosul, Hawija and western Anbar province) and protecting Iraqi oil so their economy can recover. Pledging 'strong and firm support' to Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi, Trump has not changed his mind.

His plan for Syria is made more complex by the dynamics on the ground. On the one hand, Trump could theoretically hand ISIS in Syria over to Russia, Turkey, Syria and Iran more fully and withdraw from the conflict. However, ISIS in Syria represents a tantamount threat to Iraq, so there is the likelihood Trump will obliterate ISIS in Syria as well.

Should American forces take control of previously held ISIS territory in the provinces of Deir Ez-Zor, Raqqa, Aleppo and Homs, they would be able to transform those territories into safe zones for Syrian refugees. Ironically, ISIS-held territory would become refugee territory.

After the establishment of safe zones in Syria - with expected coerced funding from the Gulf states - Trump would be able to withdraw his forces from Syria and hand over the safe zones to the watchful eye of Turkey, Russia and Syria.

It is within Trump's interest to end American presence in Syria as soon as possible. This is one way he may decide to do that

Russia, Syria turn attention to Palmyra and Deir Ez-Zor

For more information,see here:

http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/us-and-russian-militaries-sharing-increasing-information-on-isil

Obama's 'degrade, defeat and destroy ISIL' campaign has failed abysmally. The only area where it stands to succeed is Iraq - as for Syria, all Obama has succeeded in doing is push ISIS away from American allies and towards the Syrian Government.

It was Obama's ISIS campaign which succeeded in uprooting the group out of much of Northern Syria and much of Iraq and into an easier battle with the Syrian Government. This caused the Syrian Arab Army to lose all influence in the province of Hasakah - handing it over to the Syrian Kurds so Syrian Government forces could be used elsewhere - and caused over half of the city of Deir Ez-Zor (as well as the surrounding province) to fall into the hands of ISIS.

Even more deadly was when ISIS succeeded in pushing the Syrian Arab Army out of Palmyra, an ancient city located in central Syria. This city fell, followed by Qaryatain, meaning had the government collapsed, ISIS could have taken control of Homs and then Damascus, leaving Obama's 'moderate rebels' holed up in north-western Syria.

Thankfully, Russia intervened to stop the Obama madness. America allying with ISIS will be the shameful part of Obama's legacy in Syria.

Russia started their campaign by putting 'all hornets into one nest' - namely, forcing many non-ISIL rebels into Idlib, securing Aleppo city and liberating much of western Syria. Now Russia and Syria are now in a position to strike back at ISIL, and to strike hard.

Another shameful part of Obama's legacy was in the recapture of Palmyra by ISIS after Russia and Syria succeeded in liberating Aleppo. Obama could have very easily stopped ISIS from regrouping to attack Palmyra, but he didn't, seemingly throwing a temper tantrum at losing the most important battle in the Syrian Civil War: the battle of Aleppo.

But do not expect this to last. New information suggests that not only will Russia and Syria focus on ISIS in Palmyra, but they will drive ISIS out of the region of Deir Ez-Zor, where the Syrian Government still maintains control of part of the city.

This is particularly pleasing because attacking the province of Raqqa, from a military perspective, is unwise for the Syrian and Russian forces. It is always better to attack an enemy from a weak spot. Unlike Raqqa, ISIS does not completely control the city of Deir Ez-Zor. This is why Deir Ez-Zor is a wiser launch-pad for the Syrian Arab Army and Russian airstrikes.

The operation to retake Deir Ez-Zor could take months, but at the conclusion of the battle, ISIS would suffer its worst defeat thus far in Syria. In Deir Ez-Zor and Homs provinces, the latter where Palmyra is located, there are a plethora of oilfields from which ISIS used to make money. While no longer able to trade with Turkey, it is at least a resource which ISIS can utilize in continuing their war on the world.

Due to increased ISIS boldness, Russia and Syria are likely to speed up their movements to oust ISIS from Palmyra and Deir Ez-Zor. It will be one of the most spectacular battles in the war on terror yet, matching Aleppo in restoring the legitimacy of Bashar Al-Assad and his government.

Greatest Blunders on Syrian War Propaganda

I would like to outline some of the greatest blunders by those reporting on the Syrian Civil War.


1) the Syrian Civil War was a war about western democracy

The Syrian Civil War was never about democracy coming to Syria. From the beginning, weapons were sent by America, with the funding of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, to Turkey for anyone who was prepared to fight Bashar Al-Assad - even then Islamic State of Iraq, who was operating in Syria under the guise of Jabhat An-Nusra. Since Bashar Al-Assad maintained high popularity with urban Sunnis, Christians, Druze and Alawites, the only ones who were willing to fight Assad were largely Sunnis from the countryside, funded with extreme ideology of Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

2) Bashar Al-Assad's overthrow benefits Israel

Unlike the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the overthrow of Bashar Al-Assad does not benefit Israel in the slightest. The Israeli-Syrian border is one of Israel's quietest borders - had ISIS and Al-Qaeda been able to overthrow the Assad government, their extremist Sunni forces would have turned on Israel and caused the Syrian-Israeli border to become even worse than the Lebanese-Israeli border, where Hezbollah regularly spar with Israel.

Since the death of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, most of Sunni attention has been directed against Shi'ites and Iranian influence and not against Israel. What is perhaps even worse for Israel is that, if Bashar Al-Assad were overthrown, a Sunni power would again be against Israel, putting to sleep the Sunni-Shi'ite conflict in the Middle-East and refocusing the Arabs on Israel.

3) Al-Qaeda's Syrian Affiliate is the future of Al-Qaeda

The puff pieces by the mainstream media about Al-Qaeda in Syria are pathetic. Al-Qaeda in Syria, now Jabhat Fateh Ash-Sham, is still only the second most influential rebel group in Syria - ISIS remains the most influential rebel group. Though controlling much of the countryside rather than urban centres, ISIS monopolize on the Syrian oil and have control of extensive regions in Homs, putting them closer geographically to Damascus than Al-Qaeda.

More to the fact, in Syria, Al-Qaeda is suffering a string of defeats even worse than those inflicted on ISIS. This is especially true in Eastern Aleppo.

4) Obama wants to degrade, defeat and destroy ISIS in Syria

While wanting to degrade, defeat and destroy ISIS in Iraq, Obama's war on ISIS policy in Syria has been about moving ISIS away from Iraq, northern and eastern Syria and into territory held by the Syrian government - this is why Obama has not allied with the Syrian Government against ISIS. Obama has been using ISIS in Syria like a hammer to chip away at the Syrian Government - he did not want it defeated but rather used it to try and overthrow the Assad Government.

Had Obama caused ISIS capitulation, Assad would have benefitted, as he is the only one prepared to fight ISIS in the Arab regions of Syria. But in hitting ISIS away from Iraq and leaving the door open for them to regroup in western Syria, such as in Palmyra, Obama was able to put pressure on the Syrian government to further his policy.

Such use of a terrorist organisation more extreme than Al-Qaeda for political gain is very disappointing. Even worse is that the mainstream media does not pick up on this.

Why the attempted coup in Turkey was good for the region

The attempted coup in Turkey has been seen largely negative in the Western Media. On the one hand, the Western Media shames the attempted coup as a war on democracy. On the other hand, Erdogan's brutal crackdown on those responsible for the coup is also seen as undemocratic and pushing Erdogan closer to dictatorship.

This is all rubbish.

The Western Media is not even news - it's propaganda. Erdogan's previous election was undemocratic. If one were to examine the polls before the Turkish election and what transpired during the election - mass power outs blamed on a cat, for example - it is obvious to see that Erdogan won as a dictator would: through rigging the election in his favour.

But the second point, in seeing the attempted coup as unhelpful for democracy is nullified by the point I made before: Erdogan is no longer the democratically elected ruler. An attempted military coup against him hardly makes him more democratic when he rigged the previous election in his favour.

But the attempted coup in Turkey has had a profound impact on Turkish foreign policy. Before, Erdogan vehemently supported the overthrow of Bashar Al-Assad, and when Russia entered the conflict, Turkey shot down two of Russia planes and caused Russian casualties. Putin implemented harsh measures on Turkey, cutting all trade between the two nations and focusing even more on defeating the Syrian rebels.

The result of this was that Turkey ended up isolated, economically worse for wear, and prone to attacks from Kurdish militia and from ISIS. The result was the attempted coup.

Now, Erdogan's foreign policy has changed dramatically. Wanting to repair ties with Russia, Turkey decided to pursue new objectives:

1) end the Syrian Civil War with an Assad victory, and
2) end the dominance of the Kurds and ISIS in Syria.

This means that both Syria and Russia are likely to turn a blind eye to Turkey waging war on the Syrian Kurds. When the Syrian Civil War ends, Turkey will punish the Kurds and end their autonomy in Syria gained through Obama's ISIS policy.

While Turks killing Kurds is regrettable, it is better than the alternative of continued aggression against the sovereign nation Syria. Thanks to Turkey and Russia, the majority of the Syrian conflict is about to reach a stable and peaceful end.

Why the Syrian Civil War is NOT a Sunni-Shi'ite war

Don't believe the Media when they tell you the Syrian Civil War is a Sunni uprising against a Shi'ite minority government.

It is rubbish. If the majority of Syrian Sunnis rose up against the government, much more of Syria would be in the hands of the rebels.

The truth of the Syrian Civil War is that it is a minority of Sunnis uprising against everyone else in Syria. The Sunni rebels are largely from the Syrian countryside, and by no means do they make up the majority of the Syrian Sunni population.

Something which must be understood about Syria is that it is run by a secular government. It is not yet a democracy, but the government is secular. This has meant that many Sunnis are secular and hate the rebels more than the Alawites that rule them. They hate Shari'a and do not believe it should be applied in the 21st century.

The best way to prove this is to see how many Syrian Arab Army soldiers who have fought for the government were Sunni. The truth is the majority of Syrian Arab Army soldiers are Sunni Arab Muslims. The Alawites get much of the commanding power in the Syrian Arab Army, but that the Sunnis still fight under them after nearly 6 years of civil war is testimony to this fact:

The Syrian Civil War is NOT Sunni-Shi'ite.

However, this war is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Ironically, Iran (the Shi'ite power) does maintain alliance with two majority-Sunni Arab states - Syria and Palestine. It is Saudi Arabia whose doctrines pursue such an anti-anyone-but-Sunni rhetoric, as is consistent with the teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahhab. Iran does not pursue such sectarian policies to the same extent.

Certainly Shi'ites from Afghanistan and Iraq have fought for Syria on the side of the Syrian Arab Army, but the same can be said for America fighting on the side of Al-Qaeda in Syria: Americans may not be Salafi jihadists, but they still are fighting against the Syrian government due to political reasons.

The Iraq War, on the other hand, is largely a Sunni-Shi'ite battle, one which will define the future of the Middle-East decisively when the conflict is over. If, as I anticipate, the Shi'ites win for good in Iraq, anti-Shi'ite power will be weaker than ever in the Middle-East.