MIDDLE EAST: 100 YEAR AFTERMATH OF BRITISH - FRENCH “COLONIAL – IGNORANCE”

CENTENNIAL ANNIVERSARY OF THE 
SYKES–PICOT AGREEMENT

In May 2016 it will be 100 years since the signing of a document which went down in history under the title “the SYKES–PICOT Agreement” (by the names of two diplomats—a FRENCHMAN FRANÇOIS GEORGES-PICOT and an ENGLISHMAN MARK SYKES). It defined the borderlines between the zones into which the ASIAN territories of the OTTOMAN EMPIRE were divided after the World War I. 

Today hardly anybody shows interest in this topic. It is regarded mostly as a closed case file, or a historical fact. But if you take a close look at the current developments in the MIDDLE EAST, you will notice the echo of that deal. Threads of history do not break but stretch through the decades.

Here is the historical background: none of the independent ARAB states currently depicted on the world map existed before the World War I. Instead, there were either FRENCH protectorates (e.g., MOROCCO and TUNISIA, with ALGERIA being an integral part of FRANCE), or BRITISH protectorates — countries in the southern part of ARABIA and provinces of the OTTOMAN EMPIRE. The later-formed ARAB countries participated in the World War I as colonies. ARABS were drafted to the so-called labor corps. They participated in combat operations (e.g. 80 thousand EGYPTIANS died at the WWI fronts).

Map of the mandate of Syria and Lebanon from 1920

Leading EUROPEAN states, and, first of all, BRITAIN and FRANCE, engaged in a fierce fight for these strategically important and rich in natural resources regions, located on the juncture of three continents. After long negotiations, a secret agreement between the governments of GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, RUSSIA and ITALY was signed on May 16, 1916. The agreement defined the spheres of interests of its parties in the MIDDLE EAST. GREAT BRITAIN was allocated control of the areas roughly comprising the territory of the modern JORDAN, IRAQ and small areas near HAIFA and ACRE. FRANCE inherited the southeastern part of TURKEY, NORTHERN IRAQ, SYRIA and LEBANON.

The tsarist RUSSIA, although it entered a number of military agreements with the Entente on the division of the OTTOMAN EMPIRE, decided against claiming any ARAB lands.

After the October Revolution, RUSSIA ceased its participation in the negotiations.

MIDDLE EAST UNDER THE RULE OF GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE

Thus, according to the SYKES–PICOT Agreement, after 400 years of the TURKISH domination, the ARABS of LEBANON, SYRIA, TRANSJORDAN and PALESTINE found themselves under the rule of BRITAIN and FRANCE.

But that did not put an end to the dispute between the two powers. They continued reshaping the map of the region against the backdrop of powerful anti-colonial protests of the local population. As English Prime Minister GEORGE LLOYD admitted, circumstances of that time required something more sufficient than secret agreements to preserve the positions of the countries involved. Then the mandate system was established under the Covenant of the League of Nations.

PAST AND PRESENT  

Just pay attention to the explanation of this phenomenon: the peoples who inhabited these territories were considered “not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world.” It sounds so familiar.

One hundred years later, the Western block continues harping about the inability of ARAB peoples to govern their lands and sets out on a mission to preach to them about genuine democracy. Is it not an outright (as it was the case at the beginning of the 20th century and even today, in 2016) intervention in the domestic affairs of other sovereign states?

These are attempts to impose recipes on them from outside, promote concepts of a regime change under one pretext or another. Before, it was done under the slogan of “humanitarian interventions,” now these entities are trying to do it under the slogan of struggle against violent extremism. Where in fact, only the peoples of the countries of the region, as of any country in the world, have the right to decide their own fate. This is an indisputable principle of the international law.

Let us travel back in time to the beginning of the 20th century. Disputes between BRITAIN and FRANCE competing for this region would not cease even after the PARIS Peace Conference. Sometimes we perceive archives as just a pile of papers, but they can describe events, people and countries in an expressive and vivid way. A curious phrase once uttered by a FRENCH prime minister somehow stood out and is worthwhile to recall. When asked what part of SYRIA and for how long FRANCE is planning to occupy, he answered, “The entire SYRIA and forever.”

Background Information: FRANC AND SYRIA

Click below to read entire report: 

FRENCH COLONIZERS HAVE NOT ACCEPTED THE LOSS OF THEIR COLONY

After a long haggling during the SANREMO Conference, held in ITALY in April of 1920, the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council determined to allocate the mandates for the administration of the territories of the current IRAQ and PALESTINE to BRITAIN , and the mandates for the territories of the current SYRIA, LEBANON and current TURKISH HATAY Province to FRANCE. These resolutions were approved by the League of Nations on September 29, 1923.

Background Information: TURKEY AND HATAY

Click below to read entire report: 

TURKEY IS POPULATING THIS DE FACTO STATELET NEXT TO HATAY WITH TURKIC SETTLEMENTS, ESPECIALLY CHINESE UYGHUR TURKS.

BRITISH AND FRENCH “COLONIAL IGNORANCE” – THE CAUSE OF CURRENT SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST ?

The borderlines dividing the former provinces of the OTTOMAN EMPIRE were drawn to meet the interests of colonizers, while centuries-old traditional borders separating the territories of different groups of population were disregarded. It led to an onset of a whole range of ethnic and religious conflicts. The catastrophes the MIDDLE EAST has to deal now with were, so to say, pending catastrophes.

BALKANISATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST

Just a short historical note. At that time SYRIA was split into six dwarf states regarded as sovereign countries: the State of DAMASCUS, the State of ALEPPO, the State of ALAWITES, the State of JABAL DRUZE, the State of GREATER LEBANON and the SANJAK of ALEXANDRETTA. Could it be then that the plans to break SYRIA down into a number of smaller states were taken off the shelf in one of these archives? The logic behind that is easy to discern. 

It is easier to manipulate a split country. It is easier to compel it to take unfavorable and even dangerous for its people decisions. Maybe a renowned Orientalist scholar BERNARD LEWIS was guided by these ideas when he proposed his famous plan envisaging the breakup of LEBANON into several microstates, IRAN into 4-5 parts, PAKISTAN into 3-4 parts, SYRIA into 4-5 parts and SUDAN into two parts. His plan for SUDAN has actually materialized.

Background Information: BALKANIZATION OF SYRIA

Click below to read entire report: October 2015 we wrote:

BEWARE OF A SYKES-PICOT 0.2 AND REMEMBER THE 15 YEARS CIVIL WAR IN LEBANON

Just one hundred years has passed since the signing of the SYKES–PICOT agreement—a rather short span of time to compare to the span of human history. Perhaps it would take to look back in history to understand the root causes of some mind-boggling attitudes and approaches exercised by many EUROPEAN countries with respect to the current events in the MIDDLE EAST.

Today it would be reasonable to point out that since the MUSLIMS comprise 20% of the population of our planet, its welfare will largely depend on the trends prevailing in the ISLAMIC world.

BECHIR BEN YAHMED, Editor-in-chief of Jeune Afrique stated his opinion in the issue of the magazine published on 12/02/2016 that three major factors will determine the fate of the ARABIC and ISLAMIC world as a whole in the next two years: oil prices, termination of the Civil War in SYRIA and the future of DAESH (the so-called ‘Islamic State’), which continues to control significant areas of SYRIA and IRAQ. If the international community manages to uproot this terrorist organization, Sunni Islam will fizzle following the emasculation of its two masterminds—SAUDI ARABIA and DAESH, Mr. YAKHMED noted. He thinks that it is too early to predict what policy the current rulers of the Kingdom of SAUDI ARABIA will pursue. Whether they will act in a more sober way or remain opportunistic.

Background Information: SAUDI ARABIA AND WAHHABISM

Click below to read entire report: 

THE THEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL PACT BETWEEN THE SAUD CLAN AND THE WAHHABISTS

Many political observers believe that the current situation is akin to a civilizational war between the Christian/Secular West and the Islamic Caliphate. Some argue that NORTH AMERICA, EUROPE and RUSSIA are natural allies in this struggle and need each other more than ever before. “Together they can withstand the hydra of pan-Islamism with its countless heads (DAESH, AL-QAEDA, JABHAT AL-NUSRA, SALAFIS, MUSLIM BROTHERS, and others), and stabilize the MIDDLE EAST, the cradle of Islamic fanaticism, and can stabilize EUROPE.” By deliberately overthrowing GADDAFI’S and MUBARAK’S regimes and having wedged war against ASSAD, the US destabilized the situation in NORTH AFRICA, the MIDDLE EAST and EUROPE. But today the US and RUSSIA are uniting  in order to strengthen the position of President of EGYPT AL SISI, to enable him to crush DAESH terrorists in SINAI and LIBYA and to achieve a political settlement of the SYRIAN crisis. And if the West is really striving for this alliance, it must recognize RUSSIA’S “near abroad” (i.e., UKRAINE, BELARUS, CRIMEA, CAUCASUS and CENTRAL ASIA) as a traditional zone of its influence.

An assessment provided in The Times is noteworthy as it dwells upon the ideas voiced by many political analysts. The article published on 17/02/2016 says, “B. OBAMA made many mistakes during the last Arab revolutions and gave V. PUTIN an opportunity to become the winner in the SYRIAN conflict that turned for us into a disaster, as now the West can play only the role of a spectator.” In most likelihood the US will be doing its best to avoid a third world war or a direct East - West confrontation, which could be interpreted as defeat.

This is what the current situation in the MIDDLE EAST looks like a hundred years after the signing of the SYKES–PICOT Agreement.

Adapted by Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring from the original Article written by Veniamin Popov, via NEO

WHERE IS TURKEY POLITICALLY HEADING ?

TURKEY, BETWEEN IRAN AND SAUDI ARABIA

The new international openings towards IRAN introduce a possibility of economic cooperation between ANKARA and TEHRAN, two regional powers so far divided

The lifting of sanctions against IRAN by the UNITED STATES and EUROPE could introduce a new commercial and political balance in the MIDDLE EAST, namely in SYRIA.

When it comes to the resolution of the SYRIAN conflict, TURKEY and IRAN, historical rivals in the region, are on opposite positions. While ANKARA has worked for some time on overthrowing SYRIAN president BASHAR AL ASSAD, TEHRAN, in line with RUSSIA, moves in the opposite direction.

TURKEY, moreover, is in disagreement with the UNITED STATES because of WASHINGTON'S collaboration with the KURDISH Democratic Party (PYD) in the fight against ISIL, but is also part of the anti-ISLAMIC State (ISIL) coalition. Since July, it allowed WASHINGTON to use the INCIRLIK military air base for its air strikes against ISIL.

(If TURKEY is really part of the anti ISIL coalition is debatable, for TURKEY clearly seems to have a double edged sword policy on this issue.)

While tensions with MOSCOW have risen, after TURKISH aviation shot down a RUSSIAN military jet on 24 November, in the recent confrontation between Iran and SAUDI ARABIA after the execution in RIYADH of SHIA SHEIKH NIMR AL-NIMR, TURKEY tried to maintain a position of balance between the two ISLAMIC powers.

Tension between SAUDI ARABIA and IRAN has the potential to deepen the problems already existing in the region. It is therefore important to act sensibly and leave the doors to diplomacy open. The region does not need new conflict, but agreement and collaboration. TURKEY is ready to take any action to overcome problems between the two countries, TURKEYS foreign minister emphasized in a recent public address.

ANKARA, A SYRIA HOSTAGE?

Since the beginning of the civil war in SYRIA, the policy of the TURKISH government has been to favor the SUNNI MUSLIM side. Turkey supported a government with a MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD majority. When this failed, an unspoken alliance was established with SAUDI ARABIA and QATAR.

TURKISH MIDDLE EASTERN policy has been taken hostage by SYRIA. Consequently TURKEY has befriended countries whose policies agree with those of ANKARA in SYRIA, and made enemies of all the others.

Now, many think that ANKARA'S alliance with RIYADH, just when IRAN is entering a new economic and political phase, could drag TURKEY into a dangerous situation, affected by religious sectarianism.

Background Information: 

TURKEY’S SECTARIANISM

click here:

Turkey would make a significant contribution to the resolution of the SYRIAN crisis if it could bring itself to rise above the sectarian considerations that have dictated its regime change policy in SYRIA.

THE "STRATEGIC" RELATIONS BETWEEN TURKEY AND SAUDI ARABIA

The change of leadership in SAUDI ARABIA,

in January 2015, has led to a new configuration of the SUNNI power in the MIDDLE EAST. TURKISH President, RECEP TAYYIP ERDOĞAN, visited King SALMAN BIN ABDUL-AZIZ AL SAUD three times in one year, giving his support to the SAUDI military campaign in YEMEN. At the end of December both countries, considering "the critical period the region was crossing" and their "brotherhood, friendship and strategic partnership", have agreed the formation of a "superior council for strategic cooperation".

An agreement which held major significance when ERDOĞAN, returning from RIYADH, said that TURKEY and ISRAEL, an historic enemy of IRAN, "need" each other.

Background Information: 

ISRAEL AND IRAN

click here:

ARE IRAN AND ISRAEL REALLY ARCHENEMIES, OR IS IT JUST A FACADE? 

This announcement came after a much discussed preliminary agreement was reached in mid-December to renew diplomatic ties between the two countries, interrupted in 2010 after the military intervention by ISRAELI military on the TURKISH ship MAVI MARMARA.

If ERDOĞAN'S approaching of King SALMAN was aimed at increasing cooperation in solving regional issues, then the SAUDI-IRANIAN crisis has complicated TURKEY'S regional plans, especially those in SYRIA.

Trio Infernale

The military efforts of RIYADH to put pressure on TEHRAN don't seem to have produced the desired effect. Nor did the attempt to diplomatically isolate IRAN, in the wake of the attacks and protests made against SAUDI representatives after SHEIKH NIMR AL-NIMR was condemned to death. "The results achieved by the SAUDIS in urging their allies to break diplomatic ties with IRAN are a long way from damaging TEHRAN", says FEHIM TAŞTEKIN, a MIDDLE EAST expert journalist at RADIKAL daily. "Only BAHRAIN, SUDAN, SOMALIA and DJIBOUTI broke ties with IRAN. TURKEY only recalled the IRANIAN ambassador to ANKARA as a warning.”

In this context WASHINGTON'S position is fundamental. According to TAŞTEKIN, "The UNITED STATES found that cooperating with IRAN in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN was useful and they were forced to include TEHRAN in the talks in GENEVA and VIENNA, in order to overcome the deadlock in SYRIA.”

THE TURKEY - IRAN RELATIONS

Despite being difficult, relations between ANKARA and TEHRAN should necessarily remain of mutual understanding, for the sake of economic and commercial interest above all.

Background Information: 

TURKEY AND IRAN

click here:

PROFOUND STRATEGIC RIVALRY

Iran is the second country after RUSSIA from which TURKEY buys natural gas, which covers almost 20 percent of its energy consumption. After the crisis with RUSSIA, TURKEY is exploring new alternative suppliers, even though interruption of supply of natural gas from RUSSIA (64 percent of ANKARA'S requirement) does not seem imminent.

The most optimistic forecast believes that the positive effect of lifting sanctions on the Iranian economy will as also be felt in TURKEY. The volume of trade and the amount of oil bought by ANKARA is expected to rise. In the past, about half its requirements came from IRAN; under the sanctions, the oil import from IRAN went down to about 31 percent.

The new opening to IRAN could have positive effects on the building industry, which has been in serious difficulties for some years in the MIDDLE EAST. The slowdown in the sector in LIBYA, IRAQ and RUSSIA would encourage entrepreneurs to look for IRANIAN projects.

According to the local press the first contacts have already been made four months ago. "TURKEY has been close to IRAN during the period of the sanctions with about 200 companies investing in various sectors', says BILGIN AYGÜL, chairman of the TURKISH-IRANIAN Labour Council. He foresees a turnover between the two countries to reach $30 billion within a few years.

Could an increase in IRAN'S influence become a disadvantage for TURKEY? According to AHMET KASIM HAN, of the Research centre for economy and foreign policy (EDAM), it depends on the decisions ANKARA will make.

Han believes that TURKEY could become important to TEHRAN for delivering natural gas towards EUROPE, and adds that "there is no doubt IRAN will be more self-confident in the region. In SYRIA as in YEMEN, however, rivalry between TURKEY and IRAN will be inevitable, although it will be in most likelihood a 'controllable tension' unless they decide to stay only on one side. Maintaining their position in SYRIA, taking a position against IRAN in IRAQ, openly supporting SAUDI ARABIA... It will all depend on which decisions are made.

Adapted by Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring (GAM) from the article originally written by Fazıla Mat via  Balcanicaucaso.org

TO BE OR NOT TO BE - TURKISH – SAUDI GROUND INVASION IN SYRIA

MUNICH PUTS STAMP ON TIGHTENED US-RUSSIAN MILITARY COOPERATION IN SYRIA

Via DEBKAfile’s

At the end of hours of debate in MUNICH, US Secretary of State JOHN KERRY announced early Friday, Feb. 12, that the US, RUSSIA and other powers had agreed to a “cessation of hostilities” in SYRIA’S civil war to take place next week and immediate humanitarian access to besieged areas.

RUSSIAN Foreign Minister SERGEI LAVROV added: The cessation would go into effect in due course but, he stressed, “terrorist” groups would continue to be targeted.

Possibly for the first time in his diplomatic career, KERRY termed an international document he initiated “words on paper” because, he said, “the proof of commitment will come only with implementation.”

The document was signed by 17 nations, including SAUDI Foreign Minister ADEL AL-JUBAYR for the SYRIAN opposition and IRAN’S top diplomat MUHAMMED JAVAD ZARIF in the name of the ASSAD regime.

LAVROV listed the terrorist groups that will continue to be targeted as the ISLAMIC STATE and JABHAT AL-NUSRA, an AL-QAEDA affiliate in SYRIA. Since JABHAT members are integrated in many non-jihadi rebel groups, DEBKAfile’s analysts infer enough caveats in the paper to be used as carte blanche for RUSSIA, SYRIA, IRAN and HIZBALLAH to carry on fighting the ASSAD regime’s enemies, even after the ceasefire goes into effect.

Image DEBKAfile's

The nub of the MUNICH accord was therefore the parties authorized to name the terrorists. This was spelled out as follows: “The determination of eligible targets and geographic areas is to be left up to a task force of nations headed by RUSSIA and the UNITED STATES.”

This puts the entire agreement in the joint hands of the US and RUSSIA. LAVROV emphasized, “The key thing is to build direct contacts, not only on procedures to avoid incidents, but also cooperation between our militaries.”

The MUNICH accord therefore provided the framework for expanding the existing US-RUSSIAN coordination on air force flights over SYRIA to cover their direct collaboration in broader aspects of military operations in the war-torn country.

LAVROV mentioned a “qualitative” change in US military policy to cooperate with RUSSIA in continuing the fight against the ISLAMIC STATE, but it clearly goes beyond that.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that this collaboration has been in place since December, when Presidents BARACK OBAMA and VLADIMIR PUTIN concluded a secret pact for working together to end the SYRIAN war.

This pact was first revealed by DEBKA Weekly as setting out a division of military responsibility between the two powers: The AMERICANS took charge of areas east of the EUPHRATES, leaving the RUSSIANS responsible for the territory west of the river. The MUNICH accord provides this pact with a formal framework

A glance at the attached map shows the specifics of their arrangement:

The RUSSIANS military is in control of all the land in southern, central and western SYRIA, including DAMASCUS, the southern town of DARAA, HOMS, HAMA and LATAKIA in the center and ALEPPO in the north.

THE MUNICH ACCORD FOR ENDING HOSTILITIES IN SYRIA PROVIDED A RUBBER STAMP FOR THE HOSTILITIES TO CONTINUE

The US military has control of the KURDISH towns of HASSAKEH and QAMISHLI in the north, the ISIS de facto SYRIAN capital of RAQQA and the border regions between SYRIA and IRAQ. The SYRIAN-TURKISH border district is divided between the RUSSIANS and AMERICANS.

Therefore, behind the diplomatic bombast, the MUNICH accord for ending hostilities in SYRIA provided a rubber stamp for the hostilities to continue, amid the ramping up of US military intervention in the war, both by air and on the ground, in close collaboration with RUSSIA.

Neither KERRY nor LAVROV referred to the massive refugee crisis building up primarily on the locked SYRIAN-TURKISH frontier, indicating ANKARA’S exclusion from the MUNICH deliberations and the big power planning for SYRIA’S future.

SYRIAN PROXY WAR – NEXT STEP GROUND INVASION?

THE SYRIA PROXY WAR AGAINST THE ISIS HAS REACHED ITS CLIMAX

MILITARY ESCALATION, TOWARDS A US-NATO SPONSORED GROUND INVASION?

WASHINGTON’S strategy consists in spearheading a broader regional war by inciting TURKEY and SAUDI ARABIA to do the “dirty work for us”.

Until recently, SYRIAN Government Forces together with their allies (RUSSIA, IRAN, HEZBOLLAH) have been confronting so-called “opposition rebels” largely composed of “moderate” terrorists and mercenaries, with US-NATO intelligence and special forces operating covertly within their ranks.

The AL QAEDA affiliated terrorists and the Islamic State (ISIS) forces are supported by US-NATO and their PERSIAN GULF GCC allies. TURKEY and SAUDI ARABIA, in close liaison with WASHINGTON have played a central role in the recruitment, training and financing of the terrorists.

So far, this proxy war has unfolded without a direct confrontation between US-NATO allied forces and SYRIAN government forces, which are supported militarily by RUSSIA and IRAN.

A major transition is now occurring in the conduct of the war on SYRIA. The terrorists are being defeated by SYRIAN government forces with the support of RUSSIA. The proxy war (under the formal banner of the “war on terrorism”) has reached its climax.

New Phase: The Role of TURKEY and SAUDI ARABIA

TURKISH forces are now directly involved in combat operations within SYRIAN territory.

In turn, SAUDI ARABIA, which is a State sponsor of terrorism has announced that it will be dispatching troops to SYRIA, allegedly with a view to combating the ISIS terrorists, which just so happen to be supported by SAUDI ARABIA.

Background Information: SAUDI ARABIA IS ISIS

WAHHABIST SAUDI ARABIA CAN’T FIGHT ISIS BECAUSE THEY ARE ISIS

SAUDI ARABIA - ORIGIN OF WAHHABISM

SAUDI ARABIA’S Brigadier. General AHMED AL-ASSIRI, stated on behalf of RIYADH that SAUDI Forces:

“Will fight with its U.S.-led coalition allies to defeat ISIS militants in SYRIA, however, he said WASHINGTON is more suitable to answer questions on further details about any future ground operations.” AL ARABYIA

What is the significance of this statement? The proxy war against ISIS is over?

A new proxy war with TURKEY and SAUDI ARABIA directly involved in ground operations is unfolding with US-NATO pulling the strings in the background. RIYADH has confirmed that a joint TURKISH-SAUDI military coordination body has also been set up.

SAUDI ARABIA is now planning to invade SYRIA on the orders of WASHINGTON:

“The kingdom is ready to participate in any ground operations that the coalition (against Islamic State) may agree to carry out in SYRIA,” …

ASSERI said SAUDI ARABIA had been an active member of the U.S.-led coalition that had been fighting Islamic State in SYRIA since 2014, and had carried out more than 190 aerial missions.

“If there was a consensus from the leadership of the coalition, the kingdom is willing to participate in these efforts because we believe that aerial operations are not the ideal solution and there must be a twin mix of aerial and ground operations,” ASSERI said. (REUTERS, February 4, 2016)

The shift would be from air to ground operations implying the deployment of SAUDI troops inside SYRIA.

“Talking Peace”, Planning the Next Phase of the War on SYRIA

In recent developments, SAUDI ARABIA’S Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister MOHAMMED BIN SALMAN was in BRUSSELS at NATO headquarters “to discuss the SYRIAN civil war”. This meeting was an initiative of the PENTAGON rather than NATO. It was intended to plan the next phase of the war on SYRIA.

Of significance, Crown Prince BIN SALMAN met behind closed doors with US Secretary of Defense ASHTON CARTER.

Meanwhile in MUNICH, JOHN KERRY and SERGEI LAVROV were discussing the implementation of a nationwide “cessation of hostilities” in SYRIA.

Under the PENTAGON’S questionable scenario, confrontation on the ground in the war theater will be between SAUDI ARABIA and SYRIA government forces, which are respectively supported by US-NATO and RUSSIA-IRAN.

JUST WARMONGERING OR FULL WAR IMMINENT?

Reports confirm that the US-NATO sponsored terrorists supported BY SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR, TURKEY, have in large part been defeated. Are they being replaced by conventional SAUDI, TURKISH forces, coupled with more US-NATO special forces which are already on the ground inside SYRIA?

Under this evolving scenario, there is also the danger that TURKEY and SAUDI ARABIA forces acting on behalf of US-NATO could be involved in military confrontations with both RUSSIA and IRAN, opening up a dangerous pandora’s box, a door towards military escalation.

SAUDI ARABIA Brig. Gen. AHMED AL-ASSIRI also sent a veiled threat to IRAN  ”saying that if TEHRAN is serious in fighting ISIS, then it must stop supporting “terrorism” in SYRIA or YEMEN”. (AL ARABYIA)

WASHINGTON’S strategy in this regard consists in spearheading a broader regional war by inciting TURKEY and SAUDI ARABIA to do the “dirty work for us”.

Thus one should raise the question, is this US sponsored war ultimately directed against RUSSIA and IRAN? And where does CHINA stand in this equation?

Adapted by Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring from the original article written by  Michel Chossudovsky via Global Research

SAUDI ARABIA AND THE ISIS

As long as the rogue state of SAUDI ARABIA is involved, the GENEVA talks on SYRIA are doomed to failure.

The pro-government RUSSIAN media often explain the failure of the talks in GENEVA by the success of the military intervention of RUSSIA enabling the advance of the SYRIAN army.

Worthwhile to mention is the fact that the delegation of ‘opposition’ forces, before coming to GENEVA, spent a week in SAUDI ARABIA being coached on how to behave.

SAUDI ARABIA IS THE BIRTHPLACE OF WAHHABISM, WHICH CONSTITUTES TWO-THIRDS OF THE IDEOLOGY OF ISIS.

In 1744 MUHAMMAD IBN ABD AL-WAHHAB was exiled from his native town of UYYAUNA where he preached a return to the pure beliefs of old times. He arrived in DIRIYAH, another small town whose people were poor, notwithstanding good soil. The city was known for its orchards and fig plantations, its emir and a bandit named MUHAMMAD IBN SAUD. The two Muhammad’s discovered they were meant for each other.

WAHHABISM rejects the deifying of MOHAMMED and condemned MUSLIMS who prayed at the graves of the saints, criticizing the custom of marking the grave with names, denounced everyone who was not a SUNNI MUSLIM and even some SUNNI groups (including the SULTAN and CALIPH in ISTANBUL) as heretics. This provided a political and religious justification for a jihad against other MUSLIMS, especially SHIITES, including the OTTOMAN EMPIRE.

By 1792, when IBN WAHHAB died, the SAUDI-WAHHABI forces had conquered the city of RIYADH (the current capital of SAUDI ARABIA), HARZH and KAZIM. In 1803 they captured the holy city of MECCA and destroyed the tomb of the Prophet and the Caliphs! That’s when the ISLAMIC STATE came into being.

So make no mistake: as long as the rogue state of SAUD ARABIA exists, talks involving Islam will fail.