Quote:2. This forum champions free speech. In this regard, its founders� role models include Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, and certain framers of the United States Constitution. 

Quote:

[B]Elijah J. Magnier‏ [/B]@ejmalraiFollowFollow

@ejmalrai

Intel assessments should be solid proof!!! These people are making fun of the world.Saudi Oil Attack Photos Implicate Iran, U.S. (citing intelligence assessments to support the accusation) Says; Trump Hints at Military Action

7:57 pm - 15 Sep 2019

Quote:Damage At Saudi Oil Plant Points To Well Targeted Swarm Attack

Saturday's attack on the Saudi oil and gas processing station in Abqaiq hit its stabilization facility:

The stabilization process is a form of partial distillation which sweetens "sour" crude oil (removes the hydrogen sulfide) and reduces vapor pressure, thereby making the crude oil safe for shipment in tankers. Stabilizers maximize production of valuable hydrocarbon liquids, while making the liquids safe for storage and transport, as well as reduce the atmospheric emissions of volatile hydrocarbons. Stabilizer plants are used to reduce the volatility of stored crude oil and condensate.

Soon after the attack U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went into full 'blame Iran' mode:

Secretary Pompeo @SecPompeo - 21:59 UTC · Sep 14, 2019
Tehran is behind nearly 100 attacks on Saudi Arabia while Rouhani and Zarif pretend to engage in diplomacy. Amid all the calls for de-escalation, Iran has now launched an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply. There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen.
We call on all nations to publicly and unequivocally condemn Iran's attacks. The United States will work with our partners and allies to ensure that energy markets remain well supplied and Iran is held accountable for its aggression

Abqaiq lies at the heart of the Saudi oil infrastructure. It processes more than half of the Saudi oil output.

biggerThe U.S. government published two detailed pictures of the attack's result.

bigger
biggerThe pictures show some 17 points of impact. There are cars visible in the second more detailed picture that demonstrate the gigantic size of the place. The targets were carefully selected. At least 11 of those were egg shaped tanks with a diameter of some 30 meter (100 foot). These are likely tanks for pressurized (liquidized) gas that receive the condensate vapor from the stabilization process. They all have now quite neat holes in their upper shells.
The piping to and from the egg shaped tanks shows that these were configured in groups with double redundancy. Two tanks beside each other share one piping system. Two of such twin tanks are next to each other with lines to their processing train. There are a total of three such groups. Damage to any one tank or group would not stop the production process. The products would be routed to another similar tank or group. But with all tanks of this one special type taken out the production chain is now interrupted.
Two processing areas were hit and show fire damage. At least the control equipment of both was likely completely destroyed:

Consultancy Rapidan Energy Group said images of the Abqaiq facility after the attack showed about five of its stabilization towers appeared to have been destroyed, and would take months to rebuild - something that could curtail output for a prolonged period."However Saudi Aramco keeps some redundancy in the system to maintain production during maintenance," Rapidan added, meaning operations could return to pre-attack levels sooner.

The targeting for this attack was done with detailed knowledge of the process and its dependencies.
The north arrow in those pictures points to the left. The visible shadows confirm the direction. The holes in the tanks are on the western side. They were attacked from the west.
The hits were extremely precise. The Yemeni armed forces claimed it attacked the facility with 10 drones (or cruise missiles). But the hits on these targets look like neither. A total of 17 hits with such precise targeting lets me assume that these were some kind of drones or missiles with man-in-the-loop control. They may have been launched from within Saudi Arabia.
There is no information yet on the damage in Khurais, the second target of the attacks.
The U.S. and Israel are able to commit such attacks. Iran probably too. Yemen seems unlikely to have this capability without drawing on extensive support from elsewhere. The planing for this operation must have taken months.
A Middle-East BBC producer remarks:

Riam Dalati @Dalatrm - 22:44 UTC · Sep 15, 2019
17 points of impact. No Drones or missiles were detected/intercepted. Saudis & Americans still at loss as to where the attack was launched from. #KSA seriously needs to shop elsewhere & replace the Patriot or reinforce it with a web of radar operated AA guns like the Oerlikon.
A source familiar with #Aramco situation told us earlier today that it was a "swarm attack", a mix of > 20 drones and missiles, at least half of which were "suicide" drones. #USA & #KSA, he said, are 'certain' that attack was launched from #Iraq but 'smoking gun still missing'
They are also 'fairly certain' that #IRGC was behind the operation because, even though the missiles used were identical to those of the #Houthis, an inspection of the debris found in the desert revealed a 'couple of new updates' and a 'distinctly better craftsmanship'

The Wall Street Journal reports of the damage:

The strikes knocked out 5.7 million barrels of daily production, and the officials said they still believe they can fully replace it in coming days. That would require tapping oil inventories and using other facilities to process crude. One of the main targets of the attack was a large crude-processing plant in Abqaiq.
...
"It is definitely worse than what we expected in the early hours after the attack, but we are making sure that the market won't experience any shortages until we're fully back online," said a Saudi official.
...
Even if Saudi officials were successful in restoring all or most of the lost production, the attack demonstrates a new vulnerability to supply lines across the oil-rich Gulf.
Tankers have been paying sharply higher insurance premiums, while shipping rates have soared in the region after a series of maritime attacks on oil-laden vessels, which the U.S. has blamed on Iran.
...
Khurais produces about 1.5 million barrels a day and Abqaiq, the world's biggest crude-stabilization facility, processes seven million barrels of Saudi oil a day, turning crude into specific grades, such as Arabian Extra Light.

The repairs at Abqaiq will likely take weeks, no days. Brent crude futures rose by 19.5 percent to $71.95 per barrel, the biggest jump since 14 January, 1991:

Aramco gave no timeline for output resumption. A source close to the matter told Reuters the return to full oil capacity could take "weeks, not days".Riyadh said it would compensate for the damage at its facilities by drawing on its stocks, which stood at 188 million barrels in June, according to official data.

U.S. President Donald Trump was way more careful in attributing the strike than his Secretary of State.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - 0:50 UTC · Sep 16, 2019
Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked. There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!

Any direct attack on Iran would result in swarms of missiles hitting U.S. military installations in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Saudi water desalination plants, refineries and ports would also be targets.
It is doubtful that Trump or the Saudis are ready to risk such a response.
The attack on Abqaiq was not the last one and all Saudi installations are extremely vulnerable:

Yemen's Houthi rebels said oil installations in Saudi Arabia remain among their targets after attacks against two major sites slashed the kingdom's output by half and triggered a surge in crude prices.The Iranian-backed rebel group, cited by the Houthi's television station, said its weapons can reach anywhere in Saudi Arabia. Saturday's attacks were carried out by "planes" using new engines, the group said, likely referring to drones.

Middle East Eye, a Qatari financed outlet, reported yesterday that the attack was launched from Iraq by Iran aligned forces in revenge for Israeli attacks in Syria. The author, David Hearst, is known for slandered reporting. The report is based on a single anonymous Iraqi intelligence source. Qatar, which is struggling with Saudi Arabia and the UAE over its support for the Muslim Brotherhood, would like to see a larger conflict involving its rivals east and west of the Persian Gulf. The report should therefore be disregarded.
Saudi Arabia has no defenses against this kind of attacks. The U.S. has no system that could be used for that purpose. Russia is the only country that can provide the necessary equipment. It would be extremely costly, and still insufficient, to protect all of the Saudi's vital facilities from similar swarm attacks.
Attacks of this kind will only end when Saudi Arabia makes peace with Yemen and when the U.S. ends its sanctions of oil exports from Iran. It is high time for hawks like Pompeo to recognize that.

Quote:

Will London, Paris and Tel-Aviv be sanctioned by Moscow and Washington?

by Thierry Meyssan

The confrontation which recently occurred in Lattakia may result in a complete global redistribution of the cards. There are two reasons for this, the second of which is being hidden from the Western world. First of all, it cost the lives of 15 Russian soldiers; secondly, it not only implicates Israël, but also the United Kingdom and France. This is potentially the most dangerous crisis in more than 60 years. We now have to find out whether President Trump, currently in the middle of his election campaign, is capable of supporting his Russian counterpart, in order that the United States and Russia may sanction the colonial powers as they did in 1956, during the Suez crisis.
[/FONT]

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 25 SEPTEMBER 2018 DEUTSCH ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΆ ESPAÑOL FRANÇAIS ITALIANO PORTUGUÊS РУССКИЙ TÜRKÇE

[/FONT]

Moscow, 20 September 2018 - the Chief of Staff for the Israëli Air Force, General Amikam Norkin, arrives in a hurry to present his version of events. Once these proofs were checked and compared with other recordings, it transpired that Israël was lying straight-faced.On 17 September 2018, France, Israël and the United Kingdom carried out a joint operation against Syrian targets. During the brief moments of combat, a Russian reconnaissance plane was brought down by Syrian 'friendly fire'. Study of the recordings shows that an Israëli F-16 had flown hidden behind the Ilyushin Il-20 in order to confuse the Syrian Air Defences.The destruction of a Russian military aircraft by the fault of Israël, during a joint operation by the United Kingdom, France and Israël, caused consternation in all the chancelleries. Since the start of hostilities in Syria seven years ago, if there were a 'red line', it was that the different protagonists should never endanger Russian, US, or Israëli forces.We are sure about very little of what actually happened, except that :
a British Torpedo took off from Cyprus to land in Iraq. During the flight, it violated Syrian air space in order to scan the Syrian defences and make the allied attack possible.
less than an hour later, four Israëli F-16s and a French frigate, L'Auvergne, fired on targets in the Syrian governorate of Lattakia. The Syrian air defences protected their country by firing their S-200s against the French and Israëli missiles.
During the battle, an F-16 used a Russian Ilyushin Il-20 as a shield. The Ilyushin was flying a surveillance mission over the area, localising jihadist drone launch sites. The Syrian defences fired a missile, aiming for the thermal signal of the Israëli aircraft. Theoretically, therefore, it could have destroyed the Russian plane by mistake.This is, however, implausible, because S-200 missiles are equipped with a reconnaissance system able to distinguish between friendly and enemy targets, which the Russian Minister for Defence successively confirmed, then denied. In any case, the Ilyushin was destroyed, without our knowing for certain how, or by whom.The cowardice of the British and French leaders led them to censor all information concerning their responsibility in this operation. London made no comment, and Paris denied the facts. Neither the BBC, nor France-Television dared to mention the subject. For these two countries, more than ever, the reality of external politics is excluded from the democratic debate.

Immediate interpretation of the events

We do not know if the destruction of the Russian aircraft (causing the death of the 15 men on board) can be blamed on the Israëli pilot - which seems highly unlikely - on the Israëli army, or on the alliance which carried out the attack.On the answer to this question hangs the possibility of conflict between four nuclear powers. The situation is therefore extremely serious. It has no precedent since the creation of the Russian Federation, at the end of 1991.The British-French-Israëli aggression is the response by these three countries to the Russian-Turkish agreement signed only a few hours earlier at Sotchi. It came into play after the US refusal, at the beginning of September, to bomb Syria under false pretences, and the sending of a US delegation into the Arab world in order to express its disagreement with the British-French initiatives [1].The Sotchi agreements were signed by Turkey under intense pressure from Russia. In Teheran, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had refused to sign the Memorandum concerning the withdrawal of the jihadist and Turkish forces in Idlib. This had not pleased President Vladimir Putin, who answered first of all by reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria [2] and, furthermore, by underlining for the first time the illegitimacy, under international law, of the Turkish military presence in the country. Ten days later, a very unsettled Mr, Erdoğan accepted an invitation to Russia.The Sotchi agreement, while distancing Turkey a little further from NATO with its energy contracts, forced Ankara de facto to withdraw from a part of the territory that it occupies, allegedly to better protect the pseudo-« rebels » gathered in the governorate of Idlib [3]. Besides this, Turkey only has one month in which to confiscate the heavy weaponry of its friends from Al-Qaïda and Daesh in the demilitarised zone [4].This agreement was obviously unacceptable for London, Paris and Tel-Aviv :
in the end, it plans for the disappearance of the jihadists as an army, while London has been supervising, training and manipulating them for decades [5] ;
the end of the dream of a French mandate over Syria and of the creation of a new French colony in the North of the country, under the phoney name of Kurdistan (Kurdistan is legitimate only within the frontiers which were recognised by the Sèvres Conference, in 1920.) In other words, not in Iran, nor Iraq or Syria, but only in what is now known as Turkey [6]).
the end of the regional domination of Israël, faced with a stable Syria under Russian protection.

Mid-term interpretation of the events

The British-French-Israëli military alliance has not entered into action since the Suez Canal crisis in 1956. At that time, Anthony Eden, Guy Mollet and David Ben Gourion joined their forces in order to humiliate the Arab nationalists, particularly the Egyptian Gamal Abdel Nasser, and to re-establish the British and French colonial empires (« Operation Musketeer »).This is exactly what happened with this new attack : as was confirmed by the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, none of the targets under attack were linked in any way to Iran or Hezbollah. This British-French-Israëli action had nothing to do with the international struggle against the jihadists in general and Daesh in particular. It also had no connection with the overthrow of the Syrian Arab Republic or its President, Bachar el-Assad. Its main objective was to kill military scientists, in particular the rocket specialists from the Institute of Technical Industries in Lattakia.This is therefore the resumption and continuation of the policy of targeted assassinations waged by Israël for the last twenty years, successively against the Iraqi, Iranian, and now Syrian scientists. It is one of the pillars of colonial policy : to prevent the submitted populations from attaining the same level of education as their masters. In former times, the Westerners forbade their slaves from learning to read under pain of death. Today, they eliminate their scientists.This policy was relaunched with the British-French-US bombing of 14 April 2018, in which the only target destroyed was the Scientific Research Centre in Barzeh [7], then with the breakdown of the 5+1 agreement with Iran (JCPoA) which forced the country to close its nuclear physics faculties (May 8, 2018).It was a joint initiative : the jihadists destroy the past, the Westerners destroy the future.

Long-term interpretation of the events

Since the deployment of Russian troops in Syria, on 13 September 2015, to help Syria in its fight against the terrorists, the allies of the United States have understood the impossibility of carrying out the US plan without risking a world war. With the arrival of Donald Trump at the White House, they have progressively questioned their war objectives, abandoned the plans of the « Friends of Syria » and fallen back on their respective historical strategies [8].It is this logic that led them to reform the alliance which provoked the Suez crisis, and it is this same logic which pushed Germany to distance itself from them.At the beginning of the First World War, the British, French and Russian empires decided on the partition of the world which they would implement as soon as they had gained victory. The treaty was negotiated by Mark Sykes, Georges Picot and Sergueï Sazonov. During the course of the World War, however, the Tsar was overthrown by the Bolcheviks, which meant that the areas of the world originally reserved for the Russian empire were once again up for grabs. Finally, at the end of the World War, only the part of the plan relative to the Middle East was applied, under the name of the « Sykes-Picot » agreement.The return of Russia to the international game obviously brings into question the British-French colonial sharing of the Middle East. The foreseeable clash has just occurred, either accidentally or deliberately, with the destruction of the Ilyushin Il-20 during the joint British-French-Israëli military operation.

How to react

The bewilderment of the international community in the face of this brutal awakening of a century-old conflict can be measured by the Twitter silence from the White House.During the Suez crisis, the Israëli troops engaged were twice as numerous as all the British and French forces together. The total number of coalition forces was about 250,000 men. This was therefore a very large-scale operation compared to that of Lattakia. But it remains true that the two sequences work from the same diplomatic logic, and may lead to the same developments.During the Suez crisis, in the middle of the Cold War, the Soviet Union threatened the United Kingdom, France, and Israël with a nuclear riposte if they refused to withdraw from Egypt. At first, NATO supported the Europeans in threatening Moscow with a World War, before changing its mind. In the middle of the Cold War, therefore, the United States temporarily supported the USSR in order to halt the European folly.For Washington, allowing the Europeans to pursue their plans was the equivalent of pushing all the Arab nations into the arms of the Soviets. Apart from that, it simply was not feasible to accept the French-British intervention at the same time as they were denouncing the repression of the Hungarian revolution by the Warsaw Pact.President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Vice-President Richard Nixon launched a monetary attack against the pound sterling, sent their naval and airborne forces to interfere with the British-French-Israëli complex, and forbade the use of French military material financed by US funds.International peace was preserved thanks to certain third parties such as the Secretary General of the UNO, Dag Hammarskjöld (who was assassinated three years later, and was posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace Prize); the Canadian Minister for Foreign Affairs Lester B. Pearson (who also received the Nobel Peace Prize); and the leader of the non-aligned nations and Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru.The Suez crisis profoundly upset not only international political life, but also the national reality of the United Kingdom, France and Israël.
Circumventing the European vetos at the Security Council, the UNO General Assembly called for the withdrawal of the invaders and created the first United Nations intervention force.
In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons demanded the end of colonial politics to the profit of the promotion of the economic interests of London via the Commonwealth.
In France, the Communists, the Gaullists and the Poujadists (including Jean-Marie Le Pen) united against the Centrists and the Socialists; a configuration that has never been seen since. Six years later, President De Gaulle considered that by recognising the independence of Algeria, he would put an end to military collaboration with the colonial state of Israël and restore the policy of friendship and collaboration with the Arab peoples, which had always characterised France, apart from its colonial period [9].The position of the Western powers concerning the aggression on Lattakia is all the more difficult because, in violation of their agreement with Russia, the Israëlis only informed Moscow of their operation a long time after it had begun, and only one minute before they began firing. As for the Pentagon, they affirmed that they had not been warned at all. But let us not forget that the Israëli-Russian mutual non-aggression pact in Syria only exists because Israël is the US arsenal for the Middle East, housing (with Italy) the stocks of US weaponry for the entire region. If Israël truly did not inform the Pentagon of its actions in advance, then it can not benefit from US protection, and consequently the mutual non-aggression pact may be called into question by Russia.The Russian response depends on the position of the White House, which we do not know for the moment. It must be guided by a desire to lessen tension, if possible, and also to maintain dissuasion by punishing the guilty party or parties as soon as the Kremlin names them. It is not necessary for Russia to make this sanction public as long as the chancelleries concerned are informed.

The Russian response

Russia has the choice of seeing in the destruction of their aircraft nothing more than a mistake by an Israeli pilot, or by the Israëli army, or again, by all three of the states implicated (the United Kingdom, France and Israël). The Russian Minister for Defence, Sergueï Choïgou, telephoned his Israëli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman to inform him that he held Israël responsible for the accident, and reserved the right to riposte. A little later, President Putin declared « This is a series of tragic events, because our plane was not shot down by an Israëli aircraft ». He was careful to distinguish this situation from that of the deliberate destruction of a Sukhoï 24-M by Turkish fighters in November 2015. We are therefore heading towards the public designation of Israël as the sole responsible and a secret sanction against the three states involved.The Israëli chargé d'affaires in Moscow, Keren Cohen Gat, was summoned by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, while in a knee-jerk reaction, Israëli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to shovel the responsibility for the accident onto Iran. An Israëli delegation, led by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Amikam Norkin, rushed off to Moscow with unprecedented haste. They contested the claims of the Russian Minister for Defence, affirmed that Israël was innocent, and that all the blame belonged to the negligence of the Syrians.President Donald Trump, a great admirer of Richard Nixon's foreign policy, was thus provided with the perfect occasion to finish with the British-French-Israëli support for the US deep state. However, in the middle of his election campaign, he can not afford to give the impression of supporting the Russian rival while he beats up his allies. He is therefore seeking a way of presenting his internal public with this major change of direction. From this perspective, during an interview with Hill TV, he condemned the US engagement in the Greater Middle East which was decided by his predecessor George Bush Jr after the attacks of 11 September 2001.On 23 September, the spokesman for the Russian Ministry of Defence, General Igor Konashenkov, presented the synthesis of Russian intelligence and the information transmitted by Syria and Israël.
He accused the Hebrew state of having deliberately violated the mutual non-aggression agreement of 2015 by not giving Russia advance notice of its attack and by lying about its targets.
He accused it of having endangered civilian flights present in this zone of the Mediterranean, and of being responsible for the destruction of the Ilyuchin Il-20.
He denounced its non-assistance to the Russian soldiers when their plane stalled.
He also accused General Amikam Norkin of lying by pretending that the Israëli jets had already returned to Israël when the Russian plane stalled and crashed.
Finally, he deflected the accusations of amateurism laid at the door of the Syrian Anti-Air Defence System.However, he abstained from publicly blaming the United Kingdom and France, who were nonetheless just as concerned by his remarks against Israël.In case the White House should find an acceptable narrative of the facts for its electors, Russia could forbid the United Kingdom, France and Israël from making any intrusion into the maritime, terrestrial and aerial space of Syria without the authorisation of Damascus. London and Paris would have to cease their threats of bombing under whatever pretext at all (false chemical weapons) and withdraw their special forces. This measure would be valid for all protagonists in general, except for the United States and, in Idlib, for Turkey.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation
Pete Kimberley

" class="" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; width: 15px; height: 15px; background-image: url("http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-s...88"); background-position: 0px 0px;"> ] ] &notes=The%20confrontation%20which%20recently%20occurred%20in%20Lattakia%20may%20result%20in%20a%20complete%20global%20redistribution%20of%20the%20cards.%20There%20are%20two%20reasons%20for%20this,%20the%20second%20of%20which%20is%20being%20hidden%20from%20the%20Western%20world.%20First%20of%20all,%20it%20cost%20the%20lives%20of%2015%20Russian%20soldiers;%20secondly,%20it%20not%20only%20implicates%20Isra%C3%ABl,%20but%20also%20the%20United%20Kingdom%20and%20France.%20This%20is%20potentially%20the%20most%20dangerous%20crisis%20in%20more%20than%2060%20years.%20We%20now%20have%20to%20find%20out%20whether%20President%20Trump,%20currently%20in%20the%20middle%20of%20his%20election%20campaign,%20is%20capable%20of%20supporting%20his%20Russian%20counterpart,%20in%20order%20that%20the%20United%20States%20and%20Russia%20may%20sanction%20the%20colonial%20powers%20as%20they%20did%20in%201956,%20during%20the%20Suez%20crisis.] ]


[1] "Who wants to relaunch the war in Syria?", by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Al-Watan (Syria) , Voltaire Network, 4 September 2018.[2] "Joint Statement by Iran, Russia and Turkey dealing with Syria", Voltaire Network, 7 September 2018.[3] "The battle of Idleb is pushed back", Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 22 September 2018.[4] "Memorandum on Stabilization of the Situation in the Idlib De-escalation Area", Voltaire Network, 17 September 2018.[5] See the second part of Right Before our Eyes. From 9/11 to Donald Trump, Thierry Meyssan, Soon publish by Progressive Press.[6] "The Kurdistan projects", by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 5 September 2016.[7] "The fiasco of the bombing raid on Syria", by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 24 April 2018.[8] "Finding a way out of the war against Syria", by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 11 September 2018.[9] « Conférence de presse de Charles De Gaulle, extrait relatif à Israël », Réseau Voltaire, 27 novembre 1967.


[/FONT]

Quote:Will the war in Syria never end? Will the international proxy war and stand-off between Russia, the United States, Iran, and Israel simply continue to drift on, fueling Syria's fires for yet more years to come? It appears so according to an exclusive Washington Post report which says that President Trump has expressed a desire for complete 180 policy shift on Syria. Only months ago the president expressed a desire "to get out" and pull the over 2,000 publicly acknowledged American military personnel from the country; but now, the new report finds, Trump has approved "an indefinite military and diplomatic effort in Syria".

The radical departure from Trump's prior outspokenness against militarily pursuing Syrian regime change, both on the campaign trail and during his first year in the White House, reportedly involves "a new strategy for an indefinitely extended military, diplomatic and economic effort there, according to senior State Department officials".
This even though one of the Pentagon's main justifications for being on Syrian soil in the first place the destruction of ISIS has already essentially happened as the terror group now holds no significant territory and has been driven completely underground.
But most worrisome about the Post report is that sources said to be close to White House policy planning on Syria suggest that Trump has made a commitment to pursuing regime change as a final goal.
Crucially, the report describes that "the administration has redefined its goals to include the exit of all Iranian military and proxy forces from Syria, and establishment of a stable, nonthreatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community."
Of course, there's the glaringly obvious issue of the fact that the most powerful top competing "alternatives" to the current government in Damascus include groups like Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, which currently holds Idlib and is under direct allegiance to al-Qaeda chief Ayman al Zawahiri (as recently confirmed in the US State Department's own words).

[URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump"]Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
[/URL]
[URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1036740691211284480"]
[/URL]


President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province. The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed. Don't let that happen!
3:20 PM - Sep 3, 2018

• [URL="https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1036740691211284480"]
  87.2K[/URL]
  
• [URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1036740691211284480"]
  43K people are talking about this[/URL]
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy







The shift stems from the White House's re-prioritizing the long held US desire for the complete removal of Iranian forces from Syria. There's reportedly increased frustration that Russia is not actually interested in seeing Iran withdraw, despite prior pledges as part of US-Russia largely back channel diplomacy on Syria.
However, the Post report quotes a top Pompeo-appointed official, James Jeffrey, who is currently "representative for Syria engagement" at the State Department, to say that U.S. policy is not that "Assad must go" but that immense pressure will be brought to bear, and in terms of future US troop exit, "we are not in a hurry".
"The new policy is we're no longer pulling out by the end of the year," Jeffrey said while noting the mission would largely shirt ensuring Iranian departure. He also indicated to that Trump is likely "on board" on signing off on "a more active approach" should there be direct confrontation with either Iran or Russia.
It goes without saying that such a significant policy shift makes the possibilities of just such a confrontation or perhaps "provocation" over Idlib all the more dangerous considering it now appears Trump may now be looking for an excuse to act, which would provide the usual convenient distraction from problems at home.

Quote:[FONT=&amp]A few days ago, Israeli jets violated the Lebanese airspace (not the usual "routine recognition flight" as claimed by Israel's official spokesperson), with the aim of bombing a Hezbollah convoy (as usual, trucks loaded with weapons) heading from Syria towards Lebanon, according to a well-informed source. The Syrian Army fired a ground to air missile, an old SA-5 (S-200) against the Israeli jets over the sky of Lebanon, to divert attention from the moving target. This Syrian act represented a direct threat felt by the Israeli command to the Israeli jets who managed to shoot the missile down. The Israeli Air Force ordered the jets to return to base for evaluation. One hour later, Tel Aviv ordered Israeli jets to fly over the occupied Golan Heights and target the static Syrian military position as retaliation, disregarding the Hezbollah convoy.

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]The Syrian Command did not decide within minutes of their presence to target the Israeli jets over Lebanon that particular day. That decision had been made during a meeting of the Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian leadership to agree on progressive measures against Israel to make it understand the message. 10 days ago or more, Syrian anti-aircraft batteries fired upon Israeli jets violating Syrian air space. Days later, Syria shot down an Israeli drone. Last but not least, Syria launched an SA-5 (removed from service by Russia decades ago) against the Israeli jets.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Hezbollah has used this style (which can be called "snowballing") in every battle or war with Israel to avoid burning bridges and to test the enemy's reaction. So today, this same style is implemented in Syria where Hezbollah's experience is not only increasing but is also accessible and integrated with the Syrian High Command. To fight Israel, the frontier barriers between Lebanon and Syria have been lifted- probably for good.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The first message is obvious: in any new confrontation or war between Hezbollah and Israel said the source , the sky over Lebanon and the borders with Israel and Syria will form one single front. The second message and the most important one is tells Israel that the Syrian Army is on a high about its victory: Russia secured deconfliction and de-escalation zones, al-Qaeda is contained for the moment, and ISIS (the "Islamic State" group) is left with a minute amount of territory, surrounded in the north-east along the Syrian-Iraqi borders.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]At the moment, the powers of the Syrian army appear almost unlimited, with over 200,000 men (army, national forces and allies included) who are mostly well-trained and experienced fighters. These will certainly allow Damascus, after 6 years of devastating war, to engage when necessary against Israel in any future battle regardless of the consequences. Syria is determine to free the occupied Golan Heights and will stand next to Hezbollah and vice versa in any future war.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Russia has announced that it has updated the Syrian air defence system. The message reaches Israel that this system may come into use at any time, at Syrian discretion. Russia also stressed that it was not interfering in any Syrian-Israeli war and therefore (with a subtle mixed message!) would not mind if Damascus used Russian missiles to defend itself, in the same way Israel does against Syria and Hezbollah under the title of "self-defence and national security."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]As for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, he is confident of the effect of the Russian presence to preserve the unity of Syria, and trusts that Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who have stood with him during the war will help him recover the entire Syrian territory. Assad eagerly awaits the moment he will stand by the "axis of the resistance"(which he is part of) if threatened. What Assad did in 2006 by opening his weapon stores to Hezbollah can now be seen as a small gesture belonging to the past: in the next battle with Israel, Assad will engage the entire Syrian army as part of the battle, to fight the war side by side with Hezbollah (Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah).
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]As for Israel, it will continue to try to keep to the algorithm of "open skies" and try to eliminate the very existence of separate Lebanese airspace. Syria will maintain in readiness its decision to strike Israeli jets (when these are within the reach of the Syrian air defence system), and will engage with these jets even if the likelihood of shooting them down is weak.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The decision has been taken: if it comes to war, Syria and Lebanon will wage full-scale, all-out war against Israel.

This is a political and military decision arising from the Syrian leadership and its allies. This decision reflects Damascus's unwillingness to give the left cheek to Israel (as it has done in the past) whenever it breaches the security of Syria and makes its land and its air space vulnerable, including the Lebanese air space that is now part of the balance. Israel, for its part, considers that any future war against Hezbollah will include the entire Lebanon and Syria with all its allied forces operating in the Levant. But Syria is in a good state not seen for more than six years and therefore can realistically and explicitly consider any threat to Lebanon to be a threat against Damascus.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Israel understood the new rules of engagement and fired its rockets from inside the occupied territories of the Golan Heights,not from the Syrian or the Lebanese skies. That does not mean Israel will not try again, but now its leaders know that the "promenade" is over. Thus Israel immediately declared it had "no interested in escalating," following the Syrian missile launching.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]This also indicates that Israel is [/FONT][FONT=&amp]is not ready. This is not only because of the unpreparedness of the internal front and Hezbollah's accumulated warfare experience in Syria, and the overt presence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Syria (which became known for its operational presence with its modern armed drones and ground forces), but because Donald Trump is unwilling to engage in any war in the Middle East: neither on behalf of the Kurds (for their independence) nor for the Arabs and Israel (who desperately want to see Iran and Hezbollah defeated).[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The old war in Syria is nearing completion after long six years, and with it comes a new equation and difficult days for Israel. Tel Aviv will continue screaming loudly against Iran and Hezbollah. But its actions will be limited to security operations and sporadic strikes, because there are those who have their finger on the trigger, ready to retaliate and gathering more strength. Certainly, when Nasrallah said "there are hundreds of thousands men waiting to fight Israel if war is waged", he knew he had reached a united front with Syria and all its allies willing fight together as one body. Certainly Assad and Nasrallah will aim to recover the Syrian and Lebanese territories under Israeli occupation: they now increasingly have the means.[/FONT]

Quote:[FONT=&amp]Al-Tabqa Dam is where the US blocked Russia and Damascus from advancing towards Raqqah

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]The battle of Raqqa is maturing as planned under US-EU leadership[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Published here: http://alrai.li/sdb9xv3 @AlraiMediaGroup[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Key words: US, U.S., Syria, ISIS, Kurds, Russia, Iran.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Damascus Elijah J. Magnier: @EjmAlrai
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The partition of Syria is finally materialising with the United States Special Operation Forces (SOF) landing, in a joint operation with the "Syrian Democratic Forces" (SDF), near al Tabqa dam. These forces aimed to control the dam, and in consequence the flow of the Euphrates from Jarablus to the city of Raqqah, and closing the road on the "Islamic State" group (ISIS) from the northwest.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Simultaneously, the US-SDF forces have blocked the advance of the Syrian Army and its allies, supported by the Russian Air Force, stopping these from heading towards the ISIS stronghold in Raqqah and drawing the line of the new "safe zone" that will be occupied by the US forces and will therefore be their future "safe haven", thus beginning the partition of the north of Syria.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The UK and France are expected to take part of the battle of Raqqah (in the next months) so it becomes a Western victory over ISIS, the group that once occupied territory larger than the UK and is now in continuous retreat on all fronts in Iraq and Syria. Donald Trump is anxiously waiting to declare a global victory over the terrorist group. Trump may be unaware that terrorism cannot be defeated: ISIS is the "unintended consequence of the US invasion of Iraq" and the US invasion of Syria will create a worse blowback than ISIS.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]But history repeats itself: America will not finally be able to push away ISIS from Raqqah and deliver the city to the Syrian Army or the authority in Damascus or to Turkey, anxious to take part of the battle of Raqqah (Turkey has been excluded from both Mosul and Raqqah battles).
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The US plan would be to deliver the city of Raqqah to local Arab tribes, under Kurdish control. Again, learning from history is an essential element in counter terrorism: the US disregards the fact that occupying cities is the wrong policy and one which leads the US administration to sink into the Middle Eastern quagmire once more. As Wright (2016) rightly acknowledges "America's own contributions to the dire situation in the Middle East and its involvement since 9/11 has been a long series of failures, responsible for the unfolding catastrophe[i]".[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp][/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The Raqqah Arab tribes have resentment against the Kurds, unpopular in the area: Kurdistan Iraq is not the same as "Kurdistan Syria" or "Rojava" as the Kurds like to call it. Moreover, there are Syrian Kurds fighting among ISIS and al-Qaeda (Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham), others loyal to Damascus and other tribes who are against the US since its invasion of Iraq. It is not difficult to have dormant allies working for diverse groups. The US is heading towards a wasp's nest, preparing for the military battle but not to the governance of the area they wish to occupy.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Various sources in Damascus have different opinions about the US presence. First of all, there is no doubt that all belligerents in Syria, though they will for certain not unite among themselves, will have the same objective: hit the US forces, as in Iraq 2003-2011.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]"The US is pushing ISIS towards either the Syrian desert, Palmyra or the Iraqi borders before closing it off from al-Bu Kamal, allowing ISIS to spread and continue existing. The US forces did close al-Tabqa road, forcing the exodus of ISIS toward the Syrian Army and Iraq. The victory of the Syrian Army forces in Northeast Aleppo, recovering thousands of square kilometres in ISIS territory pushed the Americans to accelerate the pace and triggered that landing close to Tabqa dam and control the Tabqa airport. Moreover, this military success coincides with wide military attacks by al-Qaeda and its allies (including US vetted groups) on various fronts starting from Damascus to north Hama and Daraa.

These attacks were supported by the Euphrates shield', Turkey's proxies, the Free Syrian Army' (US vetted) and other groups financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar", said a decision maker source in Damascus.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The attack failed to meet its objectives: Damascus pushed its forces beyond what was occupied by al-Qaeda and its allies, advancing into territory in al-Ghaboon never recovered before. And in Hama the counter attack is successfully recovering lost land and taking the initiative, a demonstration of the strength and capability of reorganisation of the Syrian Army and its allies after absorbing the first wave of the attack.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp][/FONT]
[FONT=&amp][/FONT]


[FONT=&amp]According to sources, the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey fear the link between Tehran (long borders with Iraq), Baghdad (borders with Syria), Damascus and Beirut, once defined by the Jordanian Monarch as a "Shia crescent". This could be one reason among many as to why the US decided to cut the road on Russia and its allies and prevent it from lifting the siege of Deir-ezzour. Had the Syrian Army advanced beyond al-Tabqa dam, ISIS would have gathered strength around Raqqah to fight back, and Russia and its allies would have sent reinforcements to Deir-ezzour, preventing the expansion of US plans in Syria. Damascus agreed to change the constitution and offer a federation in the northeast of Syria but not for Washington to use the Kurds as an excuse for occupying it.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Obviously all forces are happy to hit ISIS because it is the weakest force on the ground. The group has lost all regional support, and is defending the cities it is occupying. ISIS is still capable of military initiatives and sporadic attacks here and there, but these insurgency attacks have no longer any strategic objective.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said "the battle of Raqqah would begin in the coming days", without specifying what would be the next step after ISIS and without stating which force will run the city.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The battle around Raqqah began several months ago but the battle of the city of Raqqah itself has not yet fully matured. Europe has yet to enter it with the US. But the dispute remains: Do Kurdish forces enter the Arab city, clean it, lose many militants in the process, but without ruling it? Do the Arabs tribes of the region accept the Western presence (French/American/British) on their soil and the conviviality with the Kurds?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The answers to these questions are not available today because any reaction against the United States in a large, programmed and continuous manner requires time to prepare, organise and finance. And the US has never landed in Middle Eastern cities from Beirut to Iraq without losses. Its administration cannot afford such losses and won't be happy to see the return of soldiers in black bags for no strategic purpose.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]There is, however, another opinion: "let the US come to Syria and eliminate terrorism if that is the intention. When the US forces landed in Iraq in 2003, they triggered what is known today as ISIS. To fight the insurgency, the US successfully created the "Awakening force" made of Sunni tribes to stand against the group. The departure of the US forces allowed the group to expand to Syria and other countries. If the US can stop the slaughtering and the sectarianism, then its presence is important".
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]This approach is controversial and lacks factual support: the intention of the US in Syria is still largely undeclared and unknown. Are the US forces going to push ISIS towards the cities controlled by the Syrian Army and towards Iraq so they can watch the struggle from afar? The aim of the US, after all, is not to take the pressure off Russia and Iran.
This leads to the conclusion of an intended partition of Syria between Turkey and the US influence zones in the north, and then to watch the ongoing war against al-Qaeda and what is left of ISIS in other parts of the country until a political solution mature.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Al-Qaeda is expected to fail to reconsolidate its grassroots, especially since its military offensive in recent days has failed. The multi-front clash left many killed on the battlefield and will certainly have a negative blowback against the group in the area under its control, mainly the city of Idlib and rural Aleppo and Latakia.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Russia is more determined than ever to avoid sinking in the Syrian mud and to reach the end of hostilities. Would it be a possibility for Russia to live with the US on the same territory (Bilad al-Sham) similar to the situation in Berlin after the World Word II or will Moscow support the insurgency?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Too early today to answer this question, but the Syrian saga is far from over. It is continuously shape shifting and reshuffling its allies.
[/FONT]
[i][FONT=&amp] Wright Lawrence, The Terror Years: From al-Qaeda to the Islamic State, Alfred A. Knopf, 2016.[/FONT]