Syria

The Winners, the Losers, What the Hell Happened, and Where Do Things Go From Here

Well, it has been a long few weeks. I clearly pissed someone off, took a cyber beat down, and required a bit of time to get back on-line. That said, I consider it a badge of honor and confirmation that I was getting a little too close to truth for someone’s comfort. And by someone, I’ll just say I know a few things about cyber warfare and the attack went well beyond a standard run of the mill ransomware attack. This was a destructive attack designed to destroy my equipment, not just encrypt a drive. Further, the nature of intrusion leads me to believe the offender was working at a state level of sophistication. Take it for what it’s worth. The information war continues.

With that out of the way, let’s get down to business because A LOT of seismic geopolitical events have taken place since my last post. First and foremost on that list is the coup in Syria and the broader implications for the Middle East, which I am going to address tonight. Wow…just wow! You already knew Israel had a strategic plan in play that was kicked off by October 7^th that targeted the elimination of Hamas/Gaza, Hezbollah/Southern Lebanon, and the Iranian government with the West Bank as icing on the cake. Syria kind of fell into the gray zone of necessary to suppress, but not necessary to take out due to a lot of potential blowback. Notwithstanding the cautionary voices, a decision was made to undertake the gamble through a combined effort by Turkey, Israel, Ukraine, and the US. Arguably, Europe and NATO were also involved in as far as they were told to rubber stamp the coup and dutifully complied. I’m not going to waste time debating that point. All parties listed were intricately involved for their own interests, which occasionally overlap. However, this was impossible without the US effectively green lighting this very risky operation. What is done is done. Now let’s look at the implications.

Up ending regimes is a dangerous game folks and honestly, the US has entered into these policy adventures far too lightly. Being that I was on ice with my computer, I had the luxury of observing without comment. It’s my assessment that though the operation achieved spectacular temporary success, it was still a desperation move to undermine Russia in any way possible and the long term concerns were shelved. Further, despite the fact this operation and the “benefits” of it have been primarily attributed to Israel and Turkey, the truth is not as clear cut. The bigger play at hand was to create a lifeline for Ukraine and it appears to have failed, just like the Kursk offensive. Let me explain.

Ukraine is collapsing and reaching a critical state. NATO is throwing caution to the wind and executing every plan it has in its playbook regardless of the cost to try and salvage the situation. It is no secret Ukraine’s military has been on its heels and losing critical territory and irreplaceable soldiers by the day. If Russia cannot be weakened by somehow destroying or diluting its combat power, you can write Ukraine’s epithet now. For context, prior to the operation in Syria, Ukraine backed by NATO launched an ill-fated offensive into the Kursk region of Russia in what proved to be a failed attempt to pull Russian forces away from its main axis of advance. Russia did not take the bait, accepted territorial loss, enveloped the Ukrainian forces, and has since all but annihilated at least a division worth of men and equipment. This was a disaster for Ukraine and instead of diluting the Russian main axis of advance, it weakened Ukraine’s defenses in critical areas allowing rapid Russian advances across what was territory previously impenetrable for Russia. As a result, the Kursk operation accelerated Ukraine’s defeat leaving Kiev and Washington in even more desperation. This brings us to the overthrow of Assad. As much as Turkey and Israel were eager to see Assad deposed and to cut up Syria’s sovereign territory to create buffer zones, the primary purpose of this operation was to embroil Russia in a distant conflict that would siphon critical combat resources away from the primary front in Ukraine without risking another Kursk disaster. Despite Syria being a painful loss for Russia, Russia in true cold calculating fashion, cut its losses and opted not to become decisively engaged in propping up a weak and failing proxy. The Western calculus was that Russia would not and could not sacrifice its strategic air and naval bases in Syria, so would be forced to commit forces to back Assad. However, Russia appears to have sidestepped the conflict, let the takeover transpire, and opted to directly engage the new governing power directly in an attempt to negotiate either a continued military presence or peaceful withdrawal. Believe me, this is NOT what the CIA had in mind when it rolled the dice. There is a very real possibility that Russia will still retain its bases, but I think Russia has already decided that for now, it will cede this territory. Yes, this can certainly be spun as a defeat for Russia, even a strategic defeat, but a deeper analysis shows this was not the case. This may be triage, but not a catastrophic defeat for Russia. In fact, Russia may actually benefit in that it can now consolidate and concentrate its forces and attention to Ukraine and the European theater of war without the Middle East distractions. Further, with Russia stepping out of the fray, they brilliantly left a jihadist soup sandwich for the remaining powers to deal with and/or clean up.

Let me be clear here, toppling Assad in exchange for a hard line Islamic government in Syria benefits no one aside from perhaps Turkey and a motley group of radical Islamists, but there are shades of winners and losers. The US knew this and that is why even after a decade we never pushed the Syrian civil war beyond a simmer to a full boil and instead, used it as a cause for continued occupation in the region. It was only after we were pinned on the ropes in Ukraine that such a dangerous policy was authorized. To break this down in more detail, let’s look at these shades of winners and losers.

The headliner here is that our Kurdish proxies are the biggest losers. They were the bargaining chip we sacrificed and will, over the coming months, be pushed out of most of the territory they currently hold, be disarmed, and in many areas annihilated by Turkish military action. The US may voice protests to this, but are both unable and unwilling to upset a critical NATO ally necessary for countering Russia. This will enable Erdogan, who has been clear that his desire and goal is to re-establish a modern Turkish caliphate, to remake Syria as a client state run by a proxy government. Even this has negative consequences for Turkey though. Despite increasing prestige in the Islamic world as a rising power, the inverse is true across Europe. The more “caliphatesque” Turkey appears, the further it will move from the European sphere. Effectively annexing Syria only reinforces the point that Turkey is not compatible with joining the EU despite this being dangled for years. Thus, Turkey’s moves to control a greater segment of the Middle East only moves it further east and polarizes the conditions working against it for greater European integration.

As a close second, Iran is seen as the loser. However, despite losing what amounts to a proxy state buffer against Israel, it may actually work out for the better when it comes to Iran. Backing a distant proxy force isn’t cheap. Backing a distant proxy force engaged in a major conflict though can bankrupt even a wealthy nation. As I warned, Israel was going to win this phase and Hezbollah was going to take a thumping despite the biased analysts telling you how Hezbollah was going to turn Israel into rubble (cough cough Scott Ritter). That just was never realistic despite their desire to see Israel taken down a notch. This much has occurred. Now that this reality is clear, Iran is faced with the hard reality that they are never going to generate the necessary combat force on Israel’s borders necessary to overwhelm and defeat the Jewish state on its home turf. The fight must now turn to deterrence and standoff munitions. This requires and expensive technological undertaking to build up the military resources necessary to fight this type of long range war of attrition. With Syria now out of the picture for the foreseeable future, Iran can better focus internally and prioritize its financial capital toward more fruitful military expenditures. This forced shift in resourcing over the long run will better serve Iran even if the initial setback in prestige will sting for some time.

Then, as stated prior, there is the real loser, Ukraine. Ukraine provided needed drones and personnel to support this operation. Already severely understaffed, Ukraine cannot afford any loss of personnel on the front, but endured the loss betting that it would yield big dividends if Russia was pulled into the conflict. Like Kursk, this fell flat and failed hard. Not only did Ukraine spread itself even thinner, but Russia ultimately consolidated its forces. This also revealed previously undisclosed Ukrainian alliances and networks that can no longer operate in the shadows. With the recent spate of sinkings of Russian cargo ships, it should be clear to Moscow that the war has now spilled beyond Ukraine’s borders and the rules have once again changed. Expect an appropriate response in the traditional cold Russian fashion in the near future. Those that cut deals and double-crossed Moscow will not be forgotten and will be eliminated in due time. Top on this list will be Turkey. Turkey, despite enjoying a recent run of being able to benefit from playing Russia and NATO off against each other, overplayed its hand. Moscow is willing to make deals and look past prior offenses, but this move by Turkey will require a very high toll to be paid. Russia will defeat Ukraine and then will turn its sights on bringing Ankara to heel…unless…Ankara cut a side deal with Russia to allow the bases to remain, which is unclear at the current moment. My guess is this toll taking will occur across multiple fronts, but the primary plays will be to undermine oil and gas transit revenues for Turkey. Russia must win the war in Ukraine first, but then will be free to deal with the weasels across the Middle East that thought they could profit from the conflict by cutting out Russian oil and gas to the European markets and making deals with the West. Make no mistake, Russia will ruthlessly deal with its market share being undercut by nations like Turkey once Ukraine surrenders. This will be the consequences of the seismic shift in geopolitical power as it becomes clear Russia was able to not just endure the attacks, but defeat NATO, even if by proxy. Oh, and in case you are wondering, if Ukraine doesn’t surrender, we get WWIII and all lose together in one big radioactive firestorm.

Now to perceived winners. Israel is currently being seen as a winner in this, but that would be very shortsighted. If Israel thinks that eliminating what amounts to a semi-incompetent government and Iranian proxy force in exchange for an even more hostile Sharia style Islamic Caliphate allied with a far better armed and far more competent NATO ally is wise, they are fools. Israel has enjoined nearly unhindered policy freedom to attack Iran and its proxies, which Israel views as an existential threat under the prior status quo. With a new government in Syria, Israel cannot make the same claims for unfettered violations of territorial sovereignty and attacks on its neighbor. Further, despite payoffs and behind the scenes deals with the new government, once it consolidates power, the new government will not be easy for Israel to control. This government will naturally gravitate toward Turkey, forge strong ties, and rebuild its military strength. In doing so, Israel acting in its normal paranoid fashion will attack it, alienate it, and create a new and bigger threat on its border. The difference this time is that this threat will have firm unhindered logistical support from Turkey, which Israel cannot attack without severe consequences that could completely rupture the entire geopolitical order and destroy NATO by turning its member states against each other. Further, one should not rule out a latter alliance with Iran, if rapprochement can be achieved between Ankara and Tehran. This would be especially likely if Israel began to pressure Syria militarily. Under those conditions Turkey would be under immense pressure to provide support for its proxies or risk losing them to Iran despite their religious differences. If anyone tries to tell you this can’t or won’t happen you shouldn’t listen to them for geopolitical advice. I only have to point out that Hamas is a Sunni organization. Iran might not have been willing to go to a full war for Hamas, but they certainly were willing to put differences aside when it came to confronting Israel. Considering this, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if what Israel helped create here doesn’t turn into a far greater adversary that aligns all of its enemies in a way never before possible under the leadership of a state somewhat immune from the same type of “terrorist state” casting that Iran has fallen victim to. Again, you can’t easily cast Turkey, a critical NATO ally in the war against Russia, as a terrorist state and allow Israel to attack it. The problems don’t end here for Israel. This will absolutely lead to Iran modifying its strategy in the region in ways that forces Israel into even costlier and more distant wars. Yemen will receive far more aid and support now, but will also suffer more attacks and destruction at the hands of Israel. Iraq will also be reinforced with much better long range strike capabilities that include newer drones and missiles capable of reaching Israel. As this regional power balance re-aligns, this is also going to create new pressures on countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia now faced with a rising Islamic power that sees the royal family in Saudi Arabia as a stain on Islam despite its support to ISIS. There will be a point that money won’t save the Sauds and the fundamentalists it created come for it all.

As for the US, save the victory lap. We are now in the midst of once again flipping the ISIS is bad, ISIS is good script back to ISIS is bad, so that we can continue to justify maintaining our foothold in the region. With ISIS now the de facto Syrian government and Iran effectively pushed out, aside from massive hypocrisy, we have no purpose to remain in Syria. We may try to say we need to protect the Kurds, but becoming embroiled in another war in the Middle East against our former terrorist proxies is not a politically viable selling point with the new Trump administration taking power in just under a month. Further, the new government in Syria will need and demand its oil resources be returned to it. The US has been conveniently stealing this oil for years to “deprive” Assad of needed revenue, but that argument can no longer stand. Failure to accept that new reality will risk a new conflict and a serious rift with Turkey the US can ill afford.

I can’t help but wonder if there was another angle here with what we call the Deep State too. I’m not confident that anyone believed Assad’s government would collapse as fast as it did. Assuming this, I think the belief within the CIA was that this would serve two purposes. The first was to force Russia to dedicate precious and scarce resources to a futile conflict in Syria while the second was creating a pretext to force the incoming Trump Administration into committing to further occupation of Syria in its forever war strategy. Remember, this is exactly what they did in 2016 prior to Trump assuming office when the CIA aided the same ISIS proxies to seize vast amounts of territory across Syria and Iraq. It worked in 2016, but it doesn’t seem to be working this time. Not only did the CIA play the American people, Trump, and the political game wrong, but their analysis was heavily flawed as usual, and Assad’s military folded without a fight. This in part is the result of an agency overwhelmed, poorly led, and staffed by egotistical fools trying to play God with the world. They have bitten off more than they can chew, lost the initiative, and are now in a reactionary mode where each move is forced faster and faster leading to worse and worse decisions. This negative feedback loop leads to ever worsening calculations based on rapidly deteriorating options. I use the Tetris example once again. One brick out of whack, no problem, but if you get 3 or 4, the game quickly overwhelms you with an exponential pile up as one bad choice leads to catastrophic failure. Unfortunately, the “fix” for the failure to create the forever war in Syria, will likely be conspiring with Israel to complete its next war phase by attacking Iran. With Hezbollah defeated and the bonus of having Syria flipped, Israel is now free to fully focus on destabilizing Iran and creating the conditions that will either topple the Iranian government or force it into a decisive conflict. I believe Israel will now go after Iran’s nuclear facilities and government officials using more bogus pretexts. They will continue to provoke Iran into a war Iran cannot win because Iran does not control the escalation ladder. The US will back Israel blindly, which one way or another will suck us into a major war. I’ve said it over and over, the game we are allowing Israel to play will create a major devastating war for the region that will have dire consequences for the US too. In fact, I now believe Iran has made a strategic shift due to the policies we have allowed Israel to carry out and is trying to buy time as it races to develop its own nuclear weapons. If Iran fails to obtain nuclear weapons, the government will face the same fate as the governments in Syria, Libya, and Iraq. The race is now on.

As a last point, it shouldn’t be overlooked that it isn’t accidental the war in Ukraine circled back to Syria. In fact, it had its genesis in Syria as much or more than any specific NATO encroachment despite the fixation on Europe proper. Remember, the color revolution in Ukraine was a direct tit-for-tat covert response to Russia blocking Globalist interests in Syria that revolved around gas and oil pipelines coming from the Pars Gas/Oil field in the Persian Gulf. In short, neither Iran nor Russia was interested in letting Syria, their proxy or client state respectively, allow Gulf nations to siphon off gas and oil claimed by Iran to be sold to Europe undercutting the Russian oil monopoly. This placed then President Assad in an impossible position. He could neither betray his sponsors nor ignore the demands of nations like Saudi Arabia, the US, and Turkey. The result was a new covert war to topple the Syrian government using ISIS proxies, which Russia successfully prevented. This so infuriated the Globalists, Russia was deemed enemy number one and a campaign was launched to undermine Russian interests within its sphere of influence. Thus, Kiev was identified as a vulnerable target for regime change and the rest is history. Never forget the classic nexus to energy politics underpinning much of what you seeing transpire as it is impossible to untangle the overlapping interests without this perspective. To this end, perhaps there is one winner after all, the oil companies.

That’s all for now folks. More to come soon, so strap in as things dramatically ramp up in advance of Trump’s inauguration.

D.t.Y.

12/26/2024