Reports | 25 05 2020
The stated aim of the international coalition is to lay siege to ISIS and marginalize it. Al-Nusra, as well as the rest of the jihadist organizations, were also subjected to the Coalition's strikes, which numbered less than five! However, and despite these strikes, ISIS itself still not only lays siege to Kobanî; but has also recently expanded to the countryside east of Homs, swept most of the gas fields, and threatened to overrun the T4 Military Airport. Despite the regime having regained some of these losses, ISIS forces still surround the Airport's location. Al-Nusra with other jihadist and fundamentalist forces—in concert with other non-jihadist military factions as well—put an end to the presence of both the Front of Syrian Revolutionaries and the Hazm [Determination] Movement in the Idlib and Zawiyah mountain region.
The US strikes had the effect of bringing ISIS, al-Nusra and parts of the Islamic Front closer together, with other factions joining these forces in turn. Some sources say that ISIS has again become active in the Eastern Ghouta [Damascus countryside]. There are, according to the opinion of many analysts, therefore other objectives of these "slow" strokes, which seem to cover ISIS' expansion—even increasing the strength of the many other jihadist factions. It is known that al-Nusra has a strong presence in the Kalamoon, in Daraa, in Quneitra as well as in Damascus and Hama.
The United States, France and the rest of the coalition, quietly and intently watched along as ISIS and al-Nusra nibbled up the majority of the Free Syrian Army [FSA] factions. Both organizations continue to wipe the FSA out. It is, therefore, only normal for any observer with a minimum concern for knowledge and accuracy, to ask: How do ISIS, al-Nusra and the rest of the jhadist movements continue to receive money and arms?! And why do the rest of the military factions fail to do so?
Obama was merely observing the expansion of ISIS and al-Nusra. But for what purpose? Is it even possible not to question what is happening, as the world had been watching for years, and is still watching now?
One cannot fathom all that is happening without understanding the entire American strategy regarding ISIS and her sisters. More than two months of war against them with very meager results to date clearly demonstrate that ISIS and al-Nusra were, in fact, positioned to help reorder regional regimes' affairs and bring them closer in line with US policy; and that, without escalation with either the Russians or the Iranians. The Americans, therefore, wish to rehabilitate the regime via the jihadis so as to make the regime part of any political solution. They also aim to persuade the opposition and all the formations of the Syrian Revolution, that it neither is a revolution nor an opposition; and that they should seek to wholly comply with the will of the Master of the White House, by letting go of all "daydreams" of an imminent departure of the regime. The objective behind allowing ISIS' and al-Nusra's expansion and survival seems, therefore, to be bringing Syria closer to a Lebanon or Iraqi-style regime. The aforementioned opinion seems to be supported by leaks of a political conference on a sectarian basis to stop the war and commence a transition. There also are those who talk of a new Geneva round, as well as a Russia "1" round of talks.
The course of decline for non-jihadist military factions is steadily continuing. This decline is deepening in all of Syria's cities in favor of the jhadists; meaning that this not merely a natural process of continued decline, but rather part of a well-thought process. The Revolution's decline, the failure of the opposition, and the regime's violence can no longer offer sufficient reasons for this expansion. There is, however, another reason that we believe is part of the US strategy—the destruction of any Syrian national identity and, thus, making Syria part of what is happening in Her neighborhood. This will, in the long run, satisfy Turkey, Iran, as well as Saudi Arabia and Israel, of course: This sectarian "cleansing" taking place—and ongoing—in Syrian cities, as well as the heightened pace of immigration among secularists, leftists, and liberals, clearly indicate how Syria is being pushed into the American "Iraq" political option.
Is this what the Americans, benefitting from the regime's brutality and the opposition's stupidity, truly want?! Judging by the US intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now in Syria it becomes clear that the U.S. does not look for more than sectarian regimes here and there. This may facilitate the task of controlling the entire region, making it open and ready it for continuous wars, and helping to sow fear and complete mistrust between the peoples of this region.
In the midst of this senseless war the country will be destroyed even further, thereby subjecting any future system—one of the objectives of the Alliance. The real goal is to, once and for all, end the idea of revolution of the minds of all the peoples of the region. Revolution is not an intellectual exercise, of course. Rather, it is the product of multiple factors—basically economic, but also political, ideological and others; it is probably this realization that prevented Obama from any serious military action four years ago.
Obama, then, with his few and ineffective strikes, more resmbling scenes from a movie, is actually using ISIS and al-Nusra, and overseeing their expansion. He does so to force the opposition into a political solution which would probably be of a sectarian nature, only to marginalize—but not end—these jihadi factions after it has been reached. They may still have certain functions, in sabotaging revolutions and countries—exactly what U.S. leaders said exactly about ISIS and all other jihadisms.
Opinion articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Radio Rozana.