Playing with Scorpions: Turkey and the Syrian rebels

Every nation that plays with scorpions gets stung by them.

Since the fall of the Shah of Iran, jihadist rebels have been the US' main proxy force in the Middle-East. In the 1980's, the US helped fund the mujahideen to overthrow the Communist regime in Afghanistan. During the Arab Spring, jihadist rebels were used in the wars in Libya and Syria to defeat regime forces.

But during each of these wars the jihadist rebels ended up turning on their main backer - the United States - and her allied nations. Funding the mujahideen in Afghanistan was largely responsible for 9-11 and directly resulted in the rise of Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. The Taliban, the regime dominant in Afghanistan from the 1990's until now, allied with Al-Qaeda and turned its weapons on neighbouring Pakistan, who largely smuggled rebels next door.

But Libya and Syria in the early 2010's were a particularly worrying combination. After the overthrow of Moammar Al-Qaddafi, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton organised the plunder of Libya and sent Qaddafi's large munitions reserves and jihadist rebels from Libya into Syria, via Turkey. This resulted in an increasing amount of bloodshed in Syria and also contributed to the drastic rise of ISIS in neighbouring Iraq, next door. To borrow a phrase from Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad, "Terrorism is like a scorpion, if you put it in your pocket, it will sting you."

For Turkey, the worst may be yet to come. Since the Russian intervention in 2015, Syrian rebels have been defeated, province by province, and moved into Idlib, a Syrian province bordering Turkey. As Russian, Iranian and Syrian forces defeat the rebels in Idlib, more and more of these rebels are finding themselves in Turkey. The attempted coup in 2016 against Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan highlights the level of instability faced by Turkey through its support of jihadist rebels.

But intriguingly, Turkey has decided to double down on its jihadist approach. It has decided not to turn on the Syrian rebels within its own borders and is, instead, using the Syrian rebels to further its own geostrategic aims. This has largely nullified the jihadist threat to Turkey - at least for now.

Turkey has been using the rebels to invade Kurdish-controlled areas in Syria, greatly weakening the United States' influence there. But once Russia has liberated the remaining half of Idlib from Syrian rebels and once the United States has withdrawn its troops from eastern Syria, Russia and Syria will not tolerate the remaining Syrian rebel presence in Kurdish areas, and will move to push Turkey out of Syria.

Fortunately for Turkey, the arrangement in Syria has not been one-sided. Both Presidents Putin and Erdogan have their own strategies involving compromise in Syria for larger geostrategic goals. For Russia, Turkish cooperation in Syria means that Turkey will have a freer hand in intervening in both Libya and Yemen. These interventions give the defeated rebels another destination that doesn't involve instability in Turkey from Syria.

For the United States, turning a blind eye to Turkish malevolence in Libya and Yemen has distinct advantages. Jihadist rebels used in Libya not only increases the likelihood for stability in Turkey; it also means that, although Israel would lose an Arab ally in Haftar, Egypt would be forced to remain dependent on the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel in the face of a Libya strongly supported by Turkey.

In Yemen, Turkey-backed rebels from Syria and Libya would very likely take Sana'a from the Houthis, which would give the US a key win over Iran in the region. Even in the likelihood that the rebels would turn on the UAE in Southern Yemen and, as in Libya, weaken Arab autocracy, the UAE and Saudi Arabia would be forced more than ever to back US interests in Iraq and help drive Iran out of Iraq for good.

However, there is one major problem for the United States in letting Libya and Yemen fall into Turkish hands. Even should the US gain more hegemony in driving Iraq away from Iran, Saudi Arabia would be very likely to erupt in instability, pitting the rebels Saudi Arabia once funded in Syria against its own Mohammed Bin Salman. In the ensuing chaos, Saudi Arabia would become as unrecognizable as Syria has been, and the US and Israel in particular would see the true colours of Turkey at last.

Will Egypt, UAE and Saudi Arabia recalculate their views on Bashar Al-Assad?

The rumbling of the Turkish war machine in support of the GNA in Libya is likely to have an increasingly profound impact on the region.

Chief among these is in Syria. In a previous article it has already been suggested that a Russian-Turkish grand bargain is in the works, giving Turkey Libya and in exchange Syria and Russia being allowed to clear Idlib of rebels loosely backed by Turkey:

https://jwaverforgotten.blogspot.com/2020/05/libyas-place-in-cold-war-2.html

Should this grand bargain between Turkey and Russia be fulfilled, Egypt's Abdul Feteh As-Sisi would be unable to invade eastern Libya to support his ally, Haftar Al-Khalifa, as he would receive no support from Russia and only lip-service from the United States. This would have an impact not only on Egypt, but on the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia as well, who have previously backed Haftar.

This autocratic Sunni wing of the Middle-East - Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt - would be caught on the back foot and would have to shift its regional alliances to counter the growing Turkish threat. First and foremost, they would be more likely to turn their attention to Syria and change their collective stance on Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.

Although at differing stages Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have called for President Assad to step down, both Egypt and Saudi Arabia have had regime changes in favour of the UAE's autocratic policy. For Egypt, Abdul Feteh As-Sisi coming to power restored Egyptian ties with Syria. For Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman has at times suggested that President Assad could stay in power, provided that there were a reduction in Iranian influence.

Iranian influence is waning in the region largely due to President Trump's approach to the regime. Wide-scale protests in Lebanon and Iraq show that US sanctions on Iran are working and, eventually, point to regime change unfavourable to Iran at least in Iraq. Because of this, the nations of the autocratic wing of the Middle-East might be more concerned with containing Turkey than containing Iran.

For Egypt, this lends itself to a military solution in Syria, on the side of Russia and Syria and against Turkey. Correspondingly, for Saudi Arabia and the UAE, this would mean defending Egypt's military moves diplomatically from potential United States' sanctions.

The reason President Sisi would want to intervene in Syria would be to show to its people that, in some way, it is prepared to defeat Turkish influence in the Middle-East. In fact, it is even likely that Russian President Vladimir Putin is well aware that a Turkish-controlled Libya would propel the autocratic wing of the Sunni Middle-East to align more closely with its own vision for Syria.

This realignment would seal the fate of the Syrian rebels in Idlib. Egypt would lend Bashar Al-Assad the legitimacy he needs to return to a member of the Arab League, and Egypt would also be intervening in a war nearing its end, rather than beginning a new war to its west in Libya. It would also show Israel that President Sisi is not merely a puppet and is capable of fighting with pro-Palestinian nations like Syria.

But most of all, it would be an important distraction for Egypt from Libya being controlled by a Turkish ally. Egypt would also reap the rewards of humiliating Turkey in a war more and more likely to be won by Russia and President Assad.

Turkey's bold gamble

President Erdogan is threatening war with the United States' backed Kurds "in a matter of days."

The risks are high for Turkey in carrying out an offensive, but they are much higher if they do not. The YPG is the Syrian arm of the PKK, whose purpose is to bring down the Turkish government, allow the Kurds to break from Turkey and create their own state. If Turkey does not carry out this offensive, they will be left with an insurgency that stretches over the majority of their southern border.

It is entirely possible that in the Astana talks, the condition for the Russians and Iranians halting an advance on Idlib was a military incursion by Turkey into part of north-eastern Syria, held by the Kurds and the US. Though the terrorist hoard in Idlib poses grave security threats to Russia, Iran and Syria, a US/Kurdish presence in Syria poses an existential threat to Turkey, Iran and Syria. For Turkey, the threat is more immediate and military in nature; for Iran and Syria, the threat is financial, not military. North-eastern Syria holds much of Syria's oil - should Syria and Iran fail to obtain this oil, both economies will be doomed to break - something the US is counting on in its Iran containment policy.

But Russia - with the help of Turkey, Iran and Syria - holds almost all of the cards in Syria. This is why the offensive on Idlib has stalled in favour of a Turkish offensive in north-eastern Syria: Idlib will inevitably fall back into Syrian government hands, but not before Turkey tears territorial gains from the US and YPG for its own use.

https://ahvalnews.com/turkey-syria/turkey-will-carry-out-military-offensive-ne-syria-expert-says

According to an expert on Ahval news, should Erdogan go ahead with his military offensive, the likely target is Tel Abyad. Unlike Kobane or Qamishli, the population in the area surrounding Tel Abyad is 80% Arab, does not have much of a US presence and additionally would split the two YPG-held Kurdish enclaves in half: Kobane and Qamishli. It is a powder keg which would either result in complete Kurdish and US capitulation, or a bitter fight which would destroy Turkish-US ties.

https://www.tolonews.com/business/first-export-shipment-set-lapis-lazuli-route

What is worse for the US is Turkey has just agreed to being a major player in a new economic corridor for Afghanistan. The Lapiz Lazuli route will see large portions of Afghan goods pass through Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia to Turkey, and from Turkey onwards to Europe. This is geostrategy at its best: Turkey helping the US where they need it more - Afghanistan - then threaten their interests we're they need it less - Syria.

Ironically, Turkey is helping Trump supporters who have long complained about being stuck in Syria and want the United States to withdraw. To a large percentage of supporters, President Trump's Syria policy betrays the America First slogan he ran on. Should Turkey force the United States to withdraw from Syria, such a rebuke will force the Trump Administration to better calculate their foreign policy in the future.

Idlib: the Battle of Berlin in Syria

Turkey, Iran and Russia failed to reach a deal on Idlib's fate earlier in the week in a conference in Tehran.

Iran, Russia and Syria are all poised to throw their might into what will likely be the hardest and bloodiest battle of the war. It will also be the last significant battle in the Syrian civil war.

In this battle, the Syrian Arab Army, backed by the Russian air force and Iran, will seek to clear out Idlib of all "terrorists" left in Syria. These terrorists range from those affiliated with Al-Qaeda and those part of the National Liberation Front, supported by Turkey.

What is likely to happen?

1) Al-Qaeda in Syria will be obliterated. One of the outcomes reached from the Tehran conference was the designation of Hayat Tahrir ash-Sham as a terrorist organization by Turkey. This group, previously affiliated with Al-Qaeda, will therefore receive no protection from anyone on the ground - except perhaps the US, following a chemical attack purported by the Syrian government.

2) Turkey will cooperate closer with Russia and Iran than ever. Though the Idlib operations will strain and test the Astana Peace Process, Turkey is highly unlikely to make good on its threat to withdraw from it. Instead, cooperation will be paramount and more essential than ever.

3) Rebels allied to National Liberation Front may be moved from Idlib to fight another day. Though Hayat Tahrir ash-Sham and Al-Qaeda will be obliterated in Idlib, the rebels who have allied themselves to Turkey and the National Liberation Front may indeed be moved from Idlib to elsewhere in a Turkish-Russian-brokered deal. Either they will go to Turkish-occupied Syria or to Turkey directly. Yet instead of being sent home, these rebels are likely to fight in the next stage of the conflict.

4) War between the United States and Turkey will begin. The differences of policy between Washington and Ankara will be more apparent than ever. For Turkey, it is damage control for a Syria policy gone horribly wrong; for the United States, it will be using the north-eastern part of Syria as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Russia.

With the destruction of Idlib as a deconfliction zone, Turkey would have no choice but to turn on the United States to shore up its position for the end of the Syrian war. In this way, after the battle for Idlib, rebels allied to the National Liberation Front may be used by Turkey to fight the Kurds and the Americans in north-eastern Syria, especially should the Iranians and the Syrians be unable to wage war with the Americans directly.

5) The Americans will be forced out of Syria. After the battle for Idlib, should the Syrians or the Iranians attack across the east of the Euphrates, the United States would not hesitate to decimate their forces as they did to the Russian mercenaries 12 months ago. But the Turks, allied with the remnants of the Syrian Opposition, will not be so easily swayed. Though the United States and Turkey have been allied for decades, their differences over the Kurds in Syria will end their alliance and pit them against each other. Turkey and the United States will go to war with each other in Syria, and the Americans will be forced out - very likely by President Trump himself.

6) Syrians will be especially grateful. Russia taming the Turkish juggernaut to help kick the US out of Syria, while also freeing Idlib from the control of jihadists, will leave Syrians very grateful to Russia for years to come. Idlib is the last part of heavily populated Syria to be in the hands of the Opposition - once Idlib province is retaken, governance will be restored in all major urban areas of Syria and Syria will be rebuilt by Russia, China, Iran and Turkey.

Washington Swamp wants to leave Afghanistan, escalate Syria

President Donald Trump has been battling the Establishment in Washington, to "drain the swamp." In foreign policy, his record has been mixed.

The US staying in Syria after the destruction of ISIS has been, undoubtedly, orchestrated by the Washington Swamp - it is highly unlikely that the President supported the move. But, to Trump's credit, he has stopped the funding of Salafi terrorism in Syria and has instead pinned his hopes on the Syrian Kurds.

But the Swamp is still not satisfied. It would prefer to see Bashar Al-Assad removed and a "democratic government" put in its place, like those in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. That such a move would require war with Russia, Syria and Iran is of little concern to the Washington Establishment.

The reason we know that the Establishment would prefer Bashar Al-Assad removed from office is because many Establishment candidates in the 2016 election - Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton - ran on a platform of a "no-fly-zone" in Syria which, according to most experts, includes regime change in Syria and war with Russia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmE9Jj-rEVs

Not only so - but nearly all Establishment Media worldwide has been pushing the false narrative that Bashar Al-Assad's forces are mass-murderers, and the rebels who fight against them are largely freedom fighters. This narrative is so terribly false as it is dangerous, and has given the international community a false picture of what is happening on the ground.

However, though the Establishment wants to escalate war in Syria, it also wants to pull out of Afghanistan. US forces have been in Afghanistan for nearly 17 years and, unlike in Iraq, have never been pulled out of the country. While President, Barrack Obama tried to withdraw troops from Afghanistan - only for the Taliban to seize large amounts of territory and ramp up its insurgency. A complete pullout from Afghanistan would be a disaster for the US.

What escalating Syria and withdrawal from Afghanistan have in common is that both moves would benefit terrorism. Since the 1980's, Afghanistan has been the centre of the Al-Qaeda network and, despite pressure from the international community, the Taliban is still closely allied to Al-Qaeda. In Syria, the main military opposition to Bashar Al-Assad is Al-Qaeda fighters in Idlib.

Of the two conflicts, it is Syria rather than Afghanistan which the US should pull out of and it is Afghanistan which should be escalated. Thankfully, in Afghanistan, President Trump has escalated the conflict, but withdrawal from Syria is still unaccomplished.

But with Turkey given the green light by Russia to invade Kurdish Afrin, it is more likely than ever before that Turkey and the US will go to war in north-eastern Syria. And should that happen, it would be the US, not Turkey, that would be forced to withdraw from Syria.

Turkish invasion into Kurdish Afrin just the beginning

Today, Turkey launched the long-anticipated operation into the northwestern Syrian province of Afrin, a small part of the enormous territory held by the Syrian Kurds. But this operation is just the beginning of larger scaled operations in northern Syria by the Turkish military.

The Syrian Kurds greatly threaten President Erdogan's hold over Turkey, so much so that, with the entry of Russia into the war, President Erdogan has been forced into recalculating his Syrian policy. Though publicly denouncing Bashar Al-Assad and demanding his removal from office, privately, Turkish opposition to Assad has softened considerably.

https://sputniknews.com/politics/201701281050105764-turkey-syria-russia-iran/

Today, it is US policy, not Russian policy, that directly threatens Turkish interest in the region, and that because the US is funding the Syrian Kurds after the destruction of ISIS in Syria. Though Bashar Al-Assad is secular and not Islamist, he leads the Syrian Arab Republic, which favours the Arabs over the Kurds. But the US-supported "Syrian Democratic Forces" are largely Kurdish, and many of these fighters are allied to the YPG, which has been waging war against the Turkish government for decades.

Sentiment in Turkey is perhaps best expressed by MP Metin Kulunk: "Syria will become a second Vietnam for the US." This sentiment will likely embolden President Erdogan into not only launching an invasion of Afrin, but also to take control of Manbij and force the Syrian Kurds to the eastern side of the Euphrates River.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201711161059157430-syria-second-vietnam-for-us/

Turkish ambition may not be limited to west of the Euphrates, either. Neither Russia, Syria nor Iran are thrilled with a long-term US presence in northeastern Syria. They see, rightly, that this undermines the territorial sovereignty of Syria, but any attacks on the northeastern enclave by Russia, Syria or Iran would be seen as an act of war on the US.

Turkey, on the other hand, is a NATO ally. Turkish occupation of territory controlled by the Syrian Kurds, though further damaging US-Turkish relations, would hardly result in a conflict between the two nations. It would force the US into abandoning the Syrian Kurds and making an exit strategy from Syria, which is a shared goal of Russia, Syria, Iran and Turkey.

As the Turks seek to remove the US-Kurdish presence from Syria, this may give Russia, the Syrian government and Iran the green light they need to invade the rebel-held province of Idlib. Idlib is largely under the control of Al-Qaeda, but has also served as a dumping ground for rebels from other regions in Syria. With the US-Kurdish threat to Turkey and Syria removed, Russia, Syria, Turkey and Iran would be able to quietly negotiate for the Syrian government to militarily recapture Idlib.

Such an outcome would mean that the US would be humiliated for its ambitions in Syria, and Turkish control of Kurdish Syria would help Turkey save face for having lost Al-Qaeda-held Idlib to the Syrian government. With Turkey firmly controlling northern Syria and the rest of Syria in the hands of Bashar Al-Assad, no further roadblocks would exist for Turkey, Russia, Syria and Iran to seriously negotiate a political settlement for the ending of the Syrian civil war.

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.