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.