by Kevin Barrett (Main Stories, Crescent International Vol. 48, No. 9, Rabi' al-Awwal, 1441)
Turkey’s decision to invade Syria — and Donald Trump’s decision to get out of the way — has opened up a whole new world of possibilities for the region, both positive and negative. On the positive side, the Syrian Kurds, who hurled rotten potatoes and obscene insults at US troops fleeing the scene, are now realigning with Damascus. If the Kurds give up their pathetic Zionist-inspired pipe dream of an independent Kurdistan, and accept the legitimate authority of the sovereign Syrian government, the long-term outcome could favor peace in the region: Syria reestablishes control over all of its territory, including the regions richest in such natural resources as oil and gas, agricultural land, and water; while Turkey declares victory, backs off, and lets Damascus rein in the Kurds and other destabilization agents.
This best-case scenario rests on many assumptions, some of them dubious. It assumes that Turkey, facing military difficulties, will recognize Syrian sovereignty and abandon its hope of permanently occupying Syrian territory. It assumes the Kurds will submit to Damascus and abandon their anti-Turkey insurgency. It assumes Ankara and Damascus will re-establish relations and find a way to help the 3.6 million Syrian refugees in Turkey, along with millions elsewhere, return to their homes and restart their lives. And it assumes that Damascus, Baghdad, and their allies, presumably with help from Turkey, will successfully continue on their path to victory over Da‘ish and other foreign-supported mercenaries of destabilization.
Erdogan’s decision to invade Syria — like his earlier decision to support the US-Zionist-instigated War of Syrian destabilization — represents a departure from Turkey’s “no problems with neighbors” policy that worked so well prior to 2011. Such acts of aggression against sovereign states violate international law. They contribute to an environment of lawlessness that fosters ever-increasing war and chaos. The only real winners in destabilization scenarios are the Zionists and their imperialist allies — and even they only win temporarily, at tremendous cost in blood and treasure and human suffering. Let us hope and pray that Turkey has learned its lesson and is planning to admit its mistake, work with Syria to solve the Kurdish separatist problem, and ultimately bow to Syrian territorial sovereignty.
The primary strategic lesson from the Syrian debacle is simple: those of us who would like to see the Islamic world reunited as a single Ummah — meaning all politically aware Muslims — should strive for reunification peacefully. The Zionists and imperialists who sponsored the war on Syria took advantage of naïve Muslims’ legitimate wish to erase national borders established by the 1916 Sykes-Picot imperialist carve-up of the Muslim East. Turkish participation in the ill-fated war on Syria was driven in part by the pan-Islamist designs of Erdogan’s former chief advisor Ahmet Davutoglu, whose ideas inspired Erdogan to seek a Turkish-run “safe zone” on the Syrian side of the border — a step toward more expansive neo-Ottoman boundaries. And demented Da‘ish and its atrocious allies are even more upfront (and even more unrealistically extremist, not to mention counterproductive) in their rejection of Sykes-Picot.
Unfortunately, the Muslims’ legitimate desire to reunite the Ummah has been hijacked in service to the exact opposite goal: further balkanization of the Muslim heartland along ethnic and sectarian lines, as laid out by Zionist strategist Oded Yinon. Turkey was lured into the war on Syria by the Zionist neocons whose 9/11 false flag was designed to implement Oded Yinon and “take out seven countries in five years” as reported by General Wesley Clark. Syria, one of the “seven countries,” had to be “taken out” so the neocon Zionists could “finish off” the list by overthrowing Islamic Iran. As former US National Security Council member Gwenyth Todd explained on my radio show, the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and subsequent attack on Syria, were all designed to surround Iran with US forces and bases in preparation for the mother of all regime-change wars. But as Allah (swt) tells us in the Qur’an, “…they plot and plan and Allah plots, and Allah is the best of planners” (8:30). The neocon-Zionists’ plan backfired, strengthening Tehran’s position in the region and surrounding Iran with US forces and bases incapable of waging a successful war of aggression. Instead, the Americans’ outposts in the region have become big, juicy targets for the latest generation of Iranian missiles. The once-great US Navy has become a fleet of sitting ducks. Like US bases in South Korea and Japan that were originally designed to cow North Korea and China, US bases in the Muslim East are now little more than expensive encampments of voluntary hostages. The prospect of thousands of Americans dying quickly in the event of all-out war dissuades Uncle Sam from going along with the Netanyahu-neocon plan to attack Islamic Iran.
Trump’s withdrawal from Syria is an admission of defeat. The Americans have lost in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria. The 9/11 wars have failed. Whether their aim was a “new American century,” or the real purpose was to pave the road for long-term Zionist domination of the region, the illegal wars of aggression launched on the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center have boomeranged against the warmongers. Today the bankrupted US empire is collapsing on all fronts, while the colonial-apartheid Zionist entity busily rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic, deep in denial about the fact that its position in the emerging multipolar world is unsustainable.
And yet the Islamic pole of the multipolar world is weak and divided. From Colonized Palestine to Kashmir, from Syria to Burma, from Sudan to East Turkestan, Muslim lands are being invaded, occupied, plundered, and subjected to genocidal ethnic cleansings. Roughly one-quarter of the world’s people are Muslim — a proportion that is expected to rise to almost one-third by 2050 — yet Muslims do not enjoy diplomatic and military power in proportion to their numbers. The result is that the Muslim-majority lands are easy pickings for such predators as Modi and his Hindu fascists, the genocidal Buddhists of Myanmar, the equally genocidal Zionists, and of course the Western-dominated riba banking elite behind the West’s grand larceny of Muslim energy reserves. Even China, which sends Han settlers into East Turkestan and seeks domination of the Muslim Silk Road, cannot resist taking advantage of Muslim weakness.
The only remedy for weakness through disunity is strength through unity. Those who imagine they are fighting for a “caliphate,” or a neo-Ottoman pan-Islamic dispensation, should consider the lessons of their war on Syria and realize that they have been following the wrong path — a fake path toward ostensible Islamic unity that dead-ends in further disunity. If enough of the important players learn the lessons of the Syrian misadventure, give up on military mayhem, and resolve to work patiently for voluntary Islamic union on the basis of non-sectarianism (including political and social equality for non-Muslims, as set forth in the Constitution of Madinah and the Covenants of the Prophet) they and their successors may insha’allah one day succeed in re-establishing a united Muslim Ummah as the world’s political and spiritual center of gravity.