ISIL War:

In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act

Rasa - There is no moral difference between a US Stealth bomber and an ISIL suicide bomber. They both kill innocent people for political reasons.

News ID: 425270

Date: 23 November 2016 - 23:37

RNA - Here, it’s not that hard to see why Iran’s Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei says the US government has no plan whatsoever to uproot the terrorist group of ISIL. They want the problem to stay in Iraq and Syria for the foreseeable future.

The reality is telling. The actions of the US-led coalition did not prevent the terrorist group from expanding its territory in the early days. Their suspicious air strikes in Syria and Iraq later have been counterproductive and ineffective, in a sense, pro forma actions. The reason for such ineffectiveness lies perhaps in the fact that the globalist criminal syndicate has other goals besides defeating terrorism.

It offers a chilling exhibit: The US coalition air strikes against ISIL are greeted with cheers from “moderate” rebels which have long established close ties with Al-Qaeda. As a consequence of such a disastrous policy, Iraq and Syria are in a very difficult and bitter situation. Worse still, the US wants to “liberate” Raqqa to make it a de facto capital for its “moderate” goons.

One of the sad ironies of the US-led war on ISIL is that it's only a political agenda. It only began after the United States and its allies largely ignored it – and supported ISIL - for almost five years. Their denial in the face of an urgent, planetary threat provides some potent imagery for how the devastation caused by their bogus ISIL war might look now that they have a new war-party president.

The Donald Trump disaster could equally hit many communities on the front line of the ISIL war struggles the hardest. Scenes like the “paid” militarized response – deployment of missiles, troops and equipment along the Syrian border regions with Turkey, Jordan and the Mediterranean - against the alleged “Iranian-Russian aggression” could be the new normal under Trump if his pledge to expand the ISIL war is matched with increasingly thuggish policing.

It’s little wonder, then, that Trump’s election has left Syrian advocates reeling. But as concern turns to anger and resistance, it’s worth recalling that there are significant limits on what Trump can do to hold back action on the real war on ISIL in Syria.

The anti-terror war led by Iran, Russia and Syria will carry on regardless, as the ineffective US-led coalition will remain uncompetitive. Washington and its regional allies could ramp up new regime change efforts irrespective of the military gains by allied forces. But international support for these military gains has a momentum that’s not solely dependent on who occupies the White House.

Some of the loudest noises coming from the Trump camp suggest that his administration will withdraw from the ISIL war pledge altogether. Since this process takes little time, it would be to the benefit of the Syrian people. So it's welcome news.

That would set the US apart from every other nation on earth that wants ISIL defeated and peace returned to Syria and Iraq. There would be no clearer way to also signal that Iran and Russia were right to support the Syrian government. And it’s not a given that a majority of the world community would favor Iraq and Syria remaining as unitary states.

Alternatively, the Trump administration might choose to adhere to Washington’s international commitments without formally abandoning support for “moderate” rebels and the hopeless agenda for regime change in Damascus. Even in that case, the Trump wrecking ball won’t be able to destroy everything in its path.

There are strong signs that the United States and its allies are no longer able to wreck Syria’s ongoing anti-terror war campaign. Many other countries have suggested that they will stick to their international commitments with or without the United States in supporting Syria - one being China. There is precedent here, too: When the US abandoned the Iraqi government forces in Mosul, Tikrit, Fallujah and Ramadi, the rest of the world, particularly Iran, continued to support Baghdad’s ISIL war anyway.

Faced with terrorism threats and a worsening refugee crisis, most countries – EU member states in particular - now realize that taking on ISIL and other terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria is in their own self-interest. Ultimately, the countries that lead the way in the real war on ISIL and Al-Qaeda will be remembered in history as the true friends of Iraq and Syria. If the Trump administration follows the path of isolation and takes Washington in the opposite direction, the big loser will be the United States itself.

847/940