For a long time, Russia and the United States have differed on strategies in Syria, and have seen one another deliberately trying to undermine the other’s efforts. Russian Chief of Staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov sees such an effort by the US coming out of the base at the al-Tanf border.
In a new interview Gen. Gersimov accused the US of using the Tanf base as a “black hole” for former ISIS militants to be trained by the US as new Islamic militant factions, which are then sent out to destabilize Syrian government territory.
The Tanf base has long been something of a mystery, with the US going to great efforts to establish the base there, at the three-way border between Jordan, Iraq, and Syria,installing a rebel faction with virtually no presence elsewhere in the base, and attacking Syrian forces that get anywhere near the area.
At one point the US was presenting the base as their southern anti-ISIS base of operations, but with ISIS expelled from virtually all of its Syrian territory, Tanf is sitting on the verge of what is very much mostly Syrian government territory.
It’s not uncommon for the Russians to accuse the US of “backing ISIS” or former ISIS like this, and indeed, the CIA arms smuggling operations gave ISIS so much fire-power it’s hard to blame them.
Still, while the US has repeatedly tried to train up rebel factions of their own, and that would make some sense for what they’re using Tanf base for, it would be very unusual for them to accept former ISIS knowingly, as the previous efforts have long made a big deal about “vetting,” even if the vetting wasn’t always particularly successful.
It does, however, fit with previously articulated US strategies for Syria during the Obama Administration, which was to keep the war going by propping up enough rebels to prevent Assad’s victory, but never so many they’d win either.
Since President Trump took office, statements on Syria strategy have always instead focused on “winning,” even if it isn’t always clear what they would mean. If what the Russian commander says is true, however, the US strategy may still be one of permanent war.
Trump hates to lose . We have invested a lot of time money and effort in declaring Assad is bad and Assad must go . It does not matter if Assad protects Christians , minorities and may be the most legitimate leader .. Syria and Russia have to put pressure on the United States to leave . But I don’t believe the United States will leave Syria even if Russia agrees to leave . Maybe if Iran promised to leave . But than ISIS would probably be strong enough to prevent Syria from running the show .
Bomb them to smithereens!!
There is nothing new to this. The US has from the beginning been deeply involved in the terrorist insurgency, knowingly supporting the worst among them when that was the only choice of terrorist available. In Syria, the US has for years been a state sponsor of terrorism, openly so even as it indulges in Orwell-speak tactics to describe what it is doing.
This is news only because the USA finally acknowledges arming, training, and giving logistical support to ISIS, and it’s now reported in the MSM. CIA/Mossad has been doing this at least since 2011. There’s even a picture out there of John McCain hanging out with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2015.
The US strategy in Syria has always been to provide an opportunity to do a “Libya” on Syria, for the purpose of degrading the Syrian military so they can not be an effective actor against Israel in a war with Iran.
The US supported ISIS and Al Qaeda mostly as an excuse to accuse Assad of “killing his own people” in order to justify a US/NATO attack in the same manner as Libya. This is proven by the THREE UN Security Council Resolutions introduced early in the conflict by the US which contained Chapter 7 language in them. Russia and China vetoed those, having been burned by Libya.
Since then, the US strategy has been to push bogus “chemical attacks” to try to get a war with Syria going. Russian intervention has prevented that.
Now the goal is mostly to commit “mischief” in Syria while trying to figure out a new way to get a war going with Syria.
Since the goal of degrading Syria’s military was primarily to help Israel abd specifically to help them attack Hizballah in Lebanon, Israel has now turned to trying to get the US to join it in a direct attack on Hizballah, the main target of all these maneuvers.
I suspect the militants in al Tanf will be used to counter the rise of Hizballah in Syria near the Golan Heights. Israel is terrified that Hizballah will construct another defensive line there in addition to the one in southern Lebanon which could be used to fire missiles into Israel.
There may be other reasons as well. The US may still hold on to the hope that somehow they can get a direct air campaign against Syria going. If Israel attacks Lebanon again, that war may be extended into Syria if Hizballah is claimed to be a threat inside Syria.
This is also the reason for the renewed emphasis on the presence of Iran inside Syria. It’s entirely intended to justify an Israeli and/or US/NATO attack on Syria.
One way or another, Israel and the US will get their war on Syria and Hizballah, and then on Iran.
If what you’re saying is true then why didn’t President Obama launch an attack on Syria when they crossed the red line an barrel bombed his people. I mean at that point Russia wasn’t even involved in the Syrian civil war and it would’ve been much easier to act at that point. It seems like you’re spinning a story to fit your narrative but, don’t leave out the facts. If America really wanted to get rid of Assad they had the assets and could’ve did it quite easily before Russia got involved. When Obama didn’t act he lost credibility abroad and at home so please spare me the conspiracy theories in reality Obama wasn’t going to have another Iraq on his hands like the previous administration when they removed Saddam Hussein from power. Look at the timeline no spin just facts.
Where the hell were you when Obama was within hours of launching an attack on Syria over the bogus “chemical weapons attack in 2013?”
The only thing that stopped him was some push back by Congress and Putin – hint: he works in Russia! – getting Assad to give up his chemical weapons.
The entire “chemical weapons” nonsense by Obama was directly intended to justify starting a war with Syria using the “he’s killing his own people” “humanitarian” excuse that Obama used in Libya.
Just facts.
What to believe the guy who removed his post saying the U.S.Airforce was gonna fly across the whole country of Syria to bomb Hezbollah which is so incredibly dumb it defies logic or what actually happened which is Obama never bombed Assad and lost credibility and influence with our middle East allies and allowed Russia to become a major player in the middle East by show casing it’s weapons of destruction that already has beared fruit with Turkey and the Saudis buying anti- missile systems. No spin just facts.
What is red line ? Who creates these lines? Who puts the words into the mouth of the politician ? Who ask those ‘gotcha” questions? Who funds them ? By the way can these Red liners differentiate red from blue ? No they can’t .They will see stars.
So cut to the chase- Red line was invented as cause and means to wage war on Assad . It failed .
Supporting Taliban has been US policy for years. Periodically it has been withdrawn and extended depending on the confluence of the events
Now ISIS is being moved to Afghanistan by USA. None other than Afghanistan has blamed USA for flying these fighters to Afghanistan. BBC has documented the events surrounding the USA -UK guaranteed escape of ISIS with weapons from Syria.
Look I don’t click on links and I don’t do interviews. Nothing I said was incorrect.If indeed what you’re saying is true and some special power is controlling the president of the United States and makes him say what they want which is just insane, why didn’t he bomb them when it was supposedly crossed? You make all these points about the red line but it was crossed and he didn’t react and it benefitted our adversaries so what point are you trying to make? I could see if Obama chose to bomb them but he didn’t and it worked to Assad’s advantage because he’s still in power. On this site America is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Last time I checked didn’t matter if it was a Russian or American jet that dropped bombs they both killed people. I’m starting to think this isn’t really an Anti-war site but, something a little more sinister. Enemy sympathizer propaganda maybe.
Once again, your utter BS about “he didn’t react to it” is just ignorant beyond belief. Obama was WITHIN HOURS of launching the war. What part of “reacting” does not clearly indicate?
He was ONLY stopped because of Congressional push back and Putin.
We need better trolls here.
“I’m starting to think”
Well, that would be a change for the better if it was true. But the content following it indicates that it isn’t true.
who crossed red lines? Not Assad. It was ISIS. It was the country that made it look like Assad did .
Not Russia . It is US. It keeps on doing it .
Let’s visit another area
“Analysts believe this visit sends a strong signal to Tehran over how the NCRI is gaining momentum through a growing consensus in Congress over the necessity of adopting a policy of regime change vis-à-vis Iran. This time last year Iran’s ruling clerics appeared determined on weakening or dismantling the PMOI/MEK. Only a year later, the tides have turned and it is the Iranian opposition that is now on the offensive.
A senior delegation of United States Senators travelled to Tirana, the capital of Albania, today, August 12, 2017, to meet the Iranian opposition leader Maryam Rajavi, who heads the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senior-us-senators-meet-iranian-opposition-leader-in_us_598f68fae4b063e2ae058020 ”
How was the tide turned? How did the tide turn? Answers are by foreign pressures – sanctions, consensus in congress and visits to terror outfits
https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/foreign-policy/no-fsa-al-qaeda/
Hey anti-war how about this for a headline Russia is arming the Taliban in Afghanistan. Maybe someone could write a story about that too. I mean why not be fair and balanced tell both sides of the story.
You mean like this one? Or this one? Or this one?
I stand corrected.