Why is the U.S. Waging War in Syria?
May 4, 2016
On April 25, President Obama announced that the U.S. would send 250 more troops to Syria. But why is the U.S. military engaged in Syria, a nation where we have no national interest and with whom we are not at war?
Why is the U.S. waging war in Syria? Why are U.S. troops in a country where the United States has no national interest? Who are we fighting for? Why is the U.S. training, funding, and arming rebel groups that are fighting to overthrow the democratically elected government of Syria? Why is the U.S. waging war on ISIS, a group that is armed and supported by our allies?
If you take U.S. policy in Syria at face value it makes no sense whatsoever. To understand what is going on in Syria requires grasping the fact that there is a secret Zionist policy being applied to divide and conquer the nation, but this is an utterly destructive policy that will only increase terrorism and instability in the region.
Just before President Obama announced that the United States would be sending 250 more soldiers to fight in Syria, he said we are living in the most peaceful time in human history. “We are fortunate to be living in the most peaceful, most prosperous, most progressive era in human history,” Obama said in Hannover, Germany, on April 25.
Obama went on to say that the Islamic State (ISIS) organization, which is openly supported and armed by our allies, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, is the “most urgent threat” facing the West. So, why is the Obama White House playing such a duplicitous game in Syria?
As Obama said:
Right now, the most urgent threat to our nations is ISIL, and that’s why we’re united in our determination to destroy it. And all 28 NATO allies are contributing to our coalition — whether it’s striking ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq, or supporting the air campaign, or training local forces in Iraq, or providing critical humanitarian aid. And we continue to make progress, pushing ISIL back from territory that it controlled.
And just as I’ve approved additional support for Iraqi forces against ISIL, I’ve decided to increase U.S. support for local forces fighting ISIL in Syria. A small number of American Special Operations Forces are already on the ground in Syria and their expertise has been critical as local forces have driven ISIL out of key areas. So given the success, I’ve approved the deployment of up 250 additional U.S. personnel in Syria, including Special Forces, to keep up this momentum. They’re not going to be leading the fight on the ground, but they will be essential in providing the training and assisting local forces that continue to drive ISIL back.
The first thing to grasp about Syria is that the so-called civil war would be over tomorrow if Obama and his allies were to stop supporting the rebels that are trying to overthrow the Assad government in Damascus. ISIS would also cease to exist if Obama were to demand that the U.S. allies that are supporting it to stop. If Obama were serious about ISIS (or ISIL) being “the most urgent threat to our nations”, why would he allow his regional allies to support it and keep it armed with U.S. weapons?
John Kerry seems completely preoccupied with regime change in Syria, where there is no U.S. national interest whatsoever. “As long as Assad is there, the opposition is not going to stop fighting him, one way or the other,” Kerry said on May 3. The opposition he refers to is armed and supported by the U.S.
The war that the U.S. has waged by proxy in Syria has fragmented the nation in line with the Zionist Yinon Plan to “Balkanize” the Arab states, i.e. to break them up into ethnic statelets as was done in Yugoslavia. The Syrian government (red) is currently trying to oust the U.S.-supplied rebels (green) from Aleppo, Syria’s largest city and commercial center. ISIS (black) controls a large stretch along the border with Turkey, across which men and weapons freely flow to the terrorist group that is “the most urgent threat” facing the West, according to Obama. ISIS and anti-Assad rebel groups also control Syrian territory along the border with the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
THE YINON PLAN is the Israeli strategy to dominate the Middle East. It was written in the early 1980s when the Likud party came to power. The Yinon plan calls for the “dissolution of all the existing Arab states” by breaking them up into small ethnic enclaves. This is exactly what U.S. military intervention had done to Iraq and Syria.
The U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, as part of the “War on Terror”, has resulted in an unprecedented increase in terrorism in all three nations and around the world. This indicates that either the U.S. policy is utterly counter-productive due to incompetence or, more likely, that a secret Zionist policy is at work.
The dissolution of Iraq and Syria is exactly what the Israeli strategy for the region has called for since the early 1980s. If the nations of Iraq and Syria are partitioned into ethnic enclaves, as Israeli military leaders are now calling for, there will no longer be a nation of Syria, which will allow Israel to keep the Golan Heights, which it occupied in 1967. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, recently declared that Israel will never leave the water and mineral-rich occupied Golan Heights.
The Rothschilds own the largest oil company in Iraqi Kurdistan and, along with Rupert Murdoch and others, an oil company in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. The legal challenges they face to exploiting the mineral resources of the Golan Heights would vanish if Syria ceased to exist as a nation.
The United States is certainly not waging war in Syria for any noble cause or U.S. national interest. The evidence and results indicate that the U.S. is waging war in Syria in order to advance the Zionist strategy of breaking up the Arab states into weak ethnic statelets, but this is a policy that will only increase terrorism, not defeat it.
Support Christopher Bollyn’s efforts to expose the deception of our time.
Donate here or by PayPal to firstname.lastname@example.org
Note: Due to the transfer of information from the original website to this updated format, some article post dates may differ from the date they were originally published. However, most articles contain the actual publish date at the top of the article.