By now, it is common knowledge among researchers and journalists focused on the Syrian crisis that the plan to destroy the Syrian government was not merely hatched in 2011 at the beginning of the physical crisis itself, but that it was part of a much older plan to eliminate all resistance to the world finance oligarchy. Indeed, not only did the plan go back further than 2011, its beginnings could be seen going all the way back to the 1980s.
One window into the coming destabilization came two years after the United States had invaded and destroyed Iraq for the same reason. Notoriously pro-war propagandist Christiane Amanpour sat down for an interview with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, during the course of which she alluded to the fact that the United States was planning on his overthrow.
CA: Mr. President, you know the rhetoric of “regime change” is headed towards you from the United States. They are actively looking for a new Syrian leader. They’re granting visas and visits to Syrian opposition politicians. They’re talking about isolating you diplomatically and perhaps a coup de’ tat, or your regime crumbling. What are you thinking about that?
BA: I feel very confident, for one reason. Because I was made in Syria. I wasn’t made in the United States. So I’m not worried. This is [a] Syrian decision. It should be made by the Syrian people. Nobody else in this world. So, we don’t discuss it in Syria.
CA: What would happen, do you think, if there was an alternative to you? Who is the alternative to you?
BA: It could be any Syrian. Any national Syrian. And we have a lot. I’m not the only person who’s eligible to be President. We have a lot of Syrians. So we don’t have any problem about that. But no Syrian would be able to be President if he’s made anywhere outside our borders. This is a Syrian principle. [emphasis added]
So, already, in 2005, the United States “regime change” mechanism was moving against the Syrian government so openly that Amanpour felt comfortable enough to bring up the issue to the Syrian President in a nationally televised interview.
The United States began openly discussing the possibilities of economic, diplomatic, and military action against Syria in 2005 as well, most notably after Syria severed all cooperation with the CIA and the United States military. For instance, in an article published in The New York Times entitled “Syria Stops Cooperating With U.S. Forces And C.I.A,” Douglas Jehl and Thom Shanker wrote,
Syria has halted military and intelligence cooperation with the United States, its ambassador to Washington said in an interview, in a sign of growing strains between the two nations over the insurgency in Iraq.
The ambassador, Imad Moustapha, said in the interview on Friday at the Syrian Embassy here that his country had, in the last 10 days, “severed all links” with the United States military and Central Intelligence Agency because of what he called unjust American allegations. The Bush administration has complained bitterly that Syria is not doing enough to halt the flow of men and money to the insurgency in Iraq.
Mr. Moustapha said he believed that the Bush administration had decided “to escalate the situation with Syria” despite steps the Syrians have taken against the insurgents in Iraq, and despite the withdrawal in recent weeks of Syrian troops from Lebanon, in response to international demands.
He said American complaints had been renewed since February, when a half-brother of Saddam Hussein, who was once the widely feared head of Iraq’s two most powerful security agencies, was handed over to the Iraqi authorities after being captured in Syria along with several lieutenants. The renewal of complaints caused Syria to abandon the idea of providing further help, he said.
“We thought, why should we continue to cooperate?” he said.
Bush administration officials said Syria’s stance has prompted intense debate at high levels in the administration about new steps that might be taken against the Syrian government. The officials said the options included possible military, diplomatic or economic action. But senior Pentagon and military officials cautioned Monday that if any military action was eventually ordered, it was likely to be limited to insurgent movements along the border.
“There’s a lot of discussion about what to do about Syria and what a problem it is,” said the administration official, who works for a government agency that has been involved in the debate.
Relations between Syria and the United States have been souring for months, and some Bush administration officials said Syria’s level of cooperation had been dwindling even before the latest move.
Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon spokesman, said there have been occasional low-level military-to-military communications along the border. He said the Defense Department had received no official notification of a change in that status, nor that the status of American military attachés in Damascus had been altered.
The American officials declined to provide an on-the-record response to Mr. Moustapha’s statements on halting intelligence cooperation, citing the delicacy of the issue.
American intelligence officials have said Syria has provided important assistance in the campaign against Al Qaeda since the Sept. 11 attacks. In recent months, senior Pentagon officials and military officers say, cooperation between the two nations has included low-level communications across the border between captains and field-grade officers of the American-led alliance and their Syrian counterparts.
Two years later, veteran journalist Seymour Hersh would write in his article, “The Redirection,”
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
“Bolstering” “Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam” is exactly what took place in 2011 with the United States, NATO, GCC, and Israel arming, funding, directing, and deploying such terrorists against the Syrian government. As can be easily seen, however, that deployment was no mere reaction or immediate strategy but, instead, that it was a long-term plan hatched years and prepared for decades prior to the day when blood started to flow across the country.
Brandon Turbeville writes for Activist Post – article archive here – He is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 1000 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.
Support us at Patreon. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Steemit, and BitChute. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.
“Supporting Sunni extremists”? It is as if the US only elects and appoints leaders with half a brain.