A Recycled Plan For Syria

Syrians and non-Syrians posing as Syrians flood into Europe. The pictures of the refugees and migrants show many young men fleeing for their lives. In fact, 75% of the migrants are men. These are hundreds of thousands of Syrian men who fear for their lives and safety, yet leave their women behind, and cannot face the 20,000 or so men of ISIS. Assad could use these men to fight ISIS if ISIS were the only problem, but there are many different pieces to the anti-government forces.

It is not hyperbole to call Syria a mess in need of a plan. Syria does lie in pieces like a destroyed Lego playset, but the four-year-olds in charge of U.S. foreign policy are unable to figure out how to put it back together.

Forget putting Syria back together. They have a better, older plan.

Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institute has a plan to chop up Syria into little statelets. O’Hanlon pushes it further in this WaPo Oped. Same thing in DefenseNews. Why bother retaining Syria when we can carve out rump states and create security and sovereignty for these small micronations? It would be a patchwork of sorts, but one that has ISIS organizing and ruling over people. That would include a small barbarian state that the USG would just have to learn to deal with to get its way. These city-states or micronations would allow for peace within the borders. It would allow a sorting. No mention if the new states would allow for the refugees and migrants to return home.

This all sounds familiar. I wrote on this concept in a remaking the Middle East by breaking up Syria post two years ago. It is far older and reveals the fact that American foreign policy is guided not by its domestic interests, but by the interests of its wealthy clients who know how to grease the wheels in Washington. AIPAC is one such interest group that the media is discussing more than normal with the Iran deal fight. AIPAC is amazingly clever at hiding its influence, power, and effect on American foreign policy. The best summation of their methods is early in the article.

From the way it supports candidates for public office to its advocacy on Capitol Hill to its ongoing ad campaign attacking the Iran nuclear deal, AIPAC scrupulously abides by federal disclosure laws while managing to leave as few fingerprints as possible. It’s the transparency equivalent of the billionaire who breaks no laws but uses quirks and loopholes in the tax code to ensure he doesn’t pay Uncle Sam a penny.

This is one of the top lobbying firms in the beltway for geopolitical issues. The most favorable description of them is a billionaire who plays by rules yet uses every available legal option to hide its moves. The rest of the article describes the other odd ways they have avoided the rules that many other foreign policy advocacy groups or simple political action committees follow. Using Jewish U.S. Citizens as volunteers for the cause for one-on-ones with politicians, AIPAC can get around lobbyist rules and avoid negative labels. Forget dual loyalty accusations; this is probably behind the push for open borders in America. They can get what they want, and because they are hard to define as a PAC or foreign advocacy firm, they can keep it a secret.

It is a good secret because the Syrian break up plan that is being pushed by O’Hanlon resembles Oded Yinon’s plan for the Middle East from the 1980s. The money quote that echoes on down to today is:

The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.

Small states by dissolving the current states sounds like the O’Hanlon plan for resolving the ongoing tragedy in Syria. Does ISIS’ control of territory get formalized and recognized? ISIS is a manifestation of Sunni Iraqi Arabs’ desire for safety, security, and sovereignty. Does a legitimized ISIS then return focus on Iraq? Iraq is far more suited for partition, and top political figures have stated the possibility of a three state solution (Kurd/Sunni/Shia). The Yinon plan explicitly mentions each larger nation that saw an Arab Spring insurrection: Syria, Egypt and Libya.

The questions mount in this Yinon ’80s concept channeled through O’Hanlon’s fresh idea. Will Syria’s Christians have a tiny ethno-religious state like Israel? The Yinon explicitly stated how Lebanon was a collection of states with heavy Christian demographics. Is this a positive that could become a land of refuge for the Christians of the Middle East? Slim chance, but it can become a strong one as long as it reinforces the right to Israel’s existence. Why does ISIS never say anything about Israel? Shaking up the Middle East does help America by removing antagonist states and also breaking up larger states that are centralized and can switch from patronage, wrecking the USG empire.

Ever wondered why the mightiest air force in the world cannot bomb ISIS to death? This is a group in the open desert with 20,000 and maybe 50,000 troops. ISIS serves this plan. The Russians are accusing the US of knowing ISIS locations but not bombing ISIS.

America needs ISIS to weaken Assad enough to depose him and create this quilt of micro-states. This is why the US war against ISIS goes nowhere. The moral posturing of American leaders disgusted by Assad is thrown in the trash the moment it leaks that America holds back against ISIS because they want Assad gone. They do not want that message out there, which is why O’Hanlon has to sell you on this patchwork of little safe spaces for Syrians.

O’Hanlon’s plan is being ripped by others. This is the disgusting residue of the War Party’s desire to break and fund jihadis. The ideological drive is too strong to admit the mistake and change our support from jihadis and freedom fighters to Assad and other dictators of the classic strongman mold. O’Hanlon is a mouthpiece for the War Party. His careeris full of cheerleading on the war machine no matter where it wants to go or who it wants to bomb. O’Hanlon is just the messenger for our War Party and its geopolitical strategy. The desired objective flows from interest groups to policy think tanks to the media to you to make a quick little comment on social media to pretend you have a say in policy.

It is not just Israel pulling our foreign policy in one direction. The Qataris and Saudis wanted a pipeline through Syria, and Assad said no. With the implementation of a generation-old political goal of Israel’s and an economic goal of oil clients who recycle oil earnings into U.S. dollar assets possible, this is a geopolitical move with too many dollars and too much pressure behind it. Assad just stood in the way and forgot that he was not a true sovereign in this system. Refugees and migrants may destroy Europe. Syria’s micro-nations may end the war but leave ISIS and other jihadi elements in charge of them to implement the Caliphate. Hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced, but at least Israel gets legitimacy, the Gulf kingdoms get their pipeline, and the American military complex gets contracts.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

2 Comments

  1. Russia has hundreds if not thousands of it’s putative citizens that have gone to fight for ISIS, so Russia fighting IS in Syria is in RU interests. Putin is acting so and we should get out of the way and shut up.

  2. Your analysis is probably correct.

Comments are closed.