US paratrooper on security duty during a mission to train Iraqi forces (Photo: US Department of Defense. Source: Wikicommons)
21st Century Wire says…
In southeastern Syria, the region around al-Tanf has quickly become a focal point for the ongoing conflict in the region. Near to both the Iraqi and Jordanian borders, al-Tanf is currently the location of a contingent of US-led coalition forces, supposedly there for the purpose of providing training to ‘anti-ISIS’ militias, but also anti-Assad militias too – the fabled ‘moderate rebels’. Not surprisingly, the US-led coalition has unilaterally imposed a self-styled ‘deconfliction zone‘ around their camp in al-Tanf and claim to be defending their position from ‘pro-Syrian forces’, otherwise known as the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and allied militias. It has been reported by mainstream media outlets that coalition members represented at al-Tanf include not only the United States but also the British SAS, and also possibly Norway too.
Although coalition forces are also present in other parts of Syria, including the area around Raqqa, an ISIS stronghold, the last few weeks have seen coalition forces striking Syrian military targets on at least three occasions near the coalition training camp close to al-Tanf – including incidents on May 18th, June 6th and June 8th. It is now being reported that the US is supplying “truck-mounted long range missiles” to its forces near al-Tanf, in a move that risks immediate escalation in the already-tense situation, and despite diplomatic efforts by Russia to calm the situation. All this comes as the US and its Kurdish proxy militia, the SDF, mount their attack on the ISIS stronghold Raqqa in Northeast Syria. The US has also seized the opportunity to invade more Syrian territory after an alleged sarin gas attack on April 4th that prompted President Trump to launch a missile strike on a Syrian airbase in retaliation.
In the following segment filmed two weeks ago, 21WIRE editor Patrick Henningsen speaks to RT International about the recent US strike on Syrian forces near al-Tanf. Henningsen explains how the US are taking advantage of the tension to secure its own territory inside of Syria:
US and Britain: A Policy of Deception
One could easily be confused by the narrative that is being spun by the US, Britain, and compliant mainstream media in both countries. Less than two years ago, in 2015, then British Prime Minister David Cameron ruled out sending British ground troops into Syria. In mid-2016, however, it emerged that British special forces were engaged in combat in the country. Between 2013 and 2015, former US President Barack Obama said on at least 16 occasions that there would be ‘no boots on the ground’ in Syria, but then changed his mind in late 2015 when US Special Forces were deployed into Syria.
President Trump’s statements are no less contradictory. On April 11th 2017, soon after his initial missile strikes on the Syrian airbase, Trump said that the US was “not going into Syria”; the current situation at al-Tanf simply contradicts that statement.
Since that time, both Britain and the US have been slowly ramping up their presence in Syria, ostensibly to fight ISIS. But by repeatedly striking at Syrian government forces – the single most effective fighting force against ISIS – the US and Britain are actually helping ISIS to achieve its objectives.
Note the mismatch between the US-led coalition’s presence in Syria and how it’s presented to the public. Not only do they claim to be fighting ISIS while at the same time indirectly helping them, but they also call their attacks on Syrian army targets ‘defensive’ – even though the Syrian military has never attempted to attack any coalition forces. And it is similarly ironic that these strikes against the Syrian military have occurred in what the coalition calls a ‘deconfliction zone’, where supposedly no conflict is allowed. According to security analyst Charles Shoebridge:
“These are self-declared [US occupied] zones of ‘deconfliction.’ What they really mean there is that they are not allowing other people to enter these zones, notwithstanding that this is part of a sovereign country, Syria… What they mean is that actually conflict is allowed, and military forces, as long as they are American, British and their ‘rebel’ allies. They are not agreed deconfliction zones. Syria doesn’t agree to them. Russia, which of course has established de-escalation zones elsewhere in the country, hasn’t agreed to this. Consequently they really are, as [Russian Foreign Minister] Lavrov or his spokesman said, effectively unilateral zones.”
And not only is the narrative confusing, it is also not given the highest priority among mainstream headlines, with many other prominent stories conveniently serving to occupy the public while the situation in al-Tanf escalates. In a week that saw Congressmen shot at and injured at a baseball practice, a massive tower block fire in London taking at least 17 lives, and the UK election aftermath continuing to be unresolved, one could easily remain unaware of the escalating situation around al-Tanf in Syria. With the US-led coalition now directly and deliberately attacking Syrian forces, what has been a proxy war is suddenly growing more dangerous, and the prospect of a direct conflict between nuclear-armed powers looms ever closer.
As former British Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford remarked during a recent conversation with 21WIRE, the British military has neither Syrian approval to be in Syria, nor international approval from the UN, nor even legislative approval from its own Parliament. The same applies to the United States; although the US Constitution gives the power to declare war exclusively to Congress, the US now has quite a long history of entering wars or using deadly military force without Congressional approval under the flexible guise of an ‘Authorization of Force.’
More on this story from Newsweek…
Two Syrian army tanks destroyed in a battle against ‘moderate rebels’, Azaz, Syria (Photo: Christiaan Triebert. Source: Wikicommons)
Russia has demanded that the U.S. stop attacking forces that support the Syrian government as they overtake positions held by the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) on the country’s border with Iraq.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reportedly made the comments Saturday on a phone call with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, responding to three U.S. air strikes in the past few weeks against forces battling ISIS and other insurgent groups on behalf of Russian-backed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The Pentagon has argued that the pro-Syrian government coalition, which it describes as Iran-backed militias, has breached a “deconfliction zone” declared by the U.S.-led international coalition in southern Syria but not recognized by Moscow or Damascus. Lavrov criticized the U.S.’s moves, and the pair reportedly agreed to cooperate more closely in the future.
“Lavrov expressed his categorical disagreement with the U.S. strikes on pro-government forces and called on him to take concrete measures to prevent similar incidents in future,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement, according to Reuters.
While the Syrian army and its allies, which include Russia, Iran and various pro-government militias, advance toward the besieged eastern city of Deir Al-Zour, held by ISIS since 2014, the U.S. has deployed Special Forces to train anti-Assad rebels near the southern region of al-Tanf. Both factions are involved in the battle against ISIS but differ on Syria’s political future, with the former insisting that Assad remains in power and the latter mostly advocating for his removal.
READ MORE SYRIA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire SYRIA Files
Sabba – Before our countries invaded and utterly destroyed free and sovereign nations such as Iraq, Libya or Syria, there was no Iraqi or Libyan or Syrian refugee/migrant in the West.
Nostalgia and British Politics
Labour is gaining power by marketing nostalgia
So, seventy-five per cent of Brits realize that it is those immoral interventionist wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya that have contributed to the terror that now haunts their country.
But ‘interventionist wars’ is just a politically correct term for Israeli-driven global conflicts promoted by the worldwide Zionist lobby: AIPAC in the USA, CRIF in France and the LFI/CFI in Britain. So the next question is unavoidable. How many of these Brits, who obviously know the truth about Britain’s ‘interventionist wars’, also grasp who it is who triggers these genocidal conflicts?
Today’s British election results provides us with a clear answer.
Theresa May has been made a fool by the British voter while Jeremy Corbyn, who was subject to constant smearing by the same lobby that pushed us into Iraq, Libya, Syria and even Iran, came out as the big winner.
The conclusion is inevitable: the more the Jewish and Zionist institutions (BOD, JC, Jewish Labour Movement, LFI etc.) rubbished Corbyn, the more the Brits loved him. The more the Daily Telegraph pointed at Corbyn’s ties with so-called ‘Holocaust deniers’ the more the Brits saw him as a genuine human being and an entirely suitable Prime Ministerial candidate.
This should not surprise us. Exactly the same dynamic led to the election of Donald Trump in the USA last November. The more the Jewish institutions and media castigated Trump as an ‘anti-Semite,’ the more Americans saw him as a their liberator.
The truth of the matter is that Trump is far from being an anti-semite. On the contrary, he is, as some Jewish journalists pointed out, probably the ‘first Jewish president.’ The same applies to Corbyn. He is certainly no ‘racist’ nor an ‘anti-semite.’ No, his crime is all-too-obvious: He thinks Jews are ordinary, people like all other people. He refuses to buy into the ‘chosen people’ mantra.
I have been anticipating Corbyn’s imminent success for more than two weeks now, but how did I know? Simple, the Jewish Chronicle and the Guardian of Judea changed their tone. They began to accept the possibility that Corbyn may well take up residence in 10 Downing Street for a while. Pretty much, out of the blue, somehow, they decided to make friends.
Corbyn performed very well in this election. But he could have won it just by pointing at the lobby and the people behind the institutional smear campaign against him. He could have done what Trump did and performed what the Jewish press refer to as ‘dog whistling.’
He could have chastised the Israeli Sayanim within his party – after all, the evidence was fully documented. He could have taken a stand and stood for his party comrades who were victims of the Jewish Labour purge. But he didn’t. Corbyn isn’t Trump. Being an overwhelmingly nice person, he turned the other cheek – something I myself find frustrating, probably due to my own Jerusalemite origin.
In my new book Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto I point out that for working people, utopia is but nostalgia. It was Trump’s promise to ‘make America great again’ that secured his election. Similarly, the surge in popularity of Jeremy Corbyn, an old-style Lefty who speaks about a unity that goes beyond sectarianism and identity politics is due to the nostalgic impact of his message, that yes, once upon a time, we were united by the Left.
Is it really a coincidence that, in Britain, it is Labour that is gaining power by marketing nostalgia while Theresa ‘conservative’ May is punished for her attempt to frog-march Britain ‘forward’ into the brutal and merciless hands of murky City mammonites and New World Order merchants?