President al-Assad’s [Full] interview with Charlie Rose of American CBS News
What kind of Journalist is this man? His disgracing serious Journalists. This journalist is trying to demonize Assad… by telling he talked to some refugee’s and they were afraid to talk to him because of reparations from the Syrian army, and while Assad makes him retract and then he goes on “barrel bombs” which are primitively done and while Assad refutes it the stupid journalist is trying his damnedest to prove Assad wrong. Thank God Assad is more educated and aware of the American propaganda that they are trying to make Assad a dictator. I would suggest that you listen to the video or read the transcription…
Damascus, SANA – President Bashar al-Assad made an interview with the U.S. CBS News. Following is the full text:
Question 1: Mr. President, thank you for allowing us to come here. We asked for this interview because your country’s been at war for four years. It is a humanitarian crisis, perhaps the worst on the planet right now. 200,000 Syrians have died, four million refugees, ten million have left their homes, life expectancy is down, 50% of your country is occupied by hostile forces. It’s become a battleground for outside forces. What’s next? Because we have seen since I last visited you the rise of ISIS, we have seen Hezbollah in here, we have seen the United States becoming increasingly concerned about ISIS, so much so that the President, and especially the Secretary of State, have said that there’s a need for a negotiated settlement.
President Assad: Actually, the beginning of your question is exaggerating the number a little bit, but that’s not the issue. I always invite the media and the West and the officials to deal with those numbers not as spreadsheets and numbers and counter; actually it’s bereaved families who lost their dear ones. It’s a tragedy that’s been going through, every Syrian family lost someone, lost their livelihood, and so on. Whether it’s a few thousands or hundreds of thousands, it’s a tragedy. What’s next? Actually, every conflict should end up with dialogue, with a political solution between the different parties, and that’s what we have been doing in Syria for the last two years; dealing directly with the militants, and we succeeded in making some reconciliations.
Regarding the rise of ISIS, in the context of events in Syria during the last four years, ISIS didn’t rise suddenly. It’s impossible for such – bigger than what we call an organization and smaller than a state – to appear suddenly with all these resources, financial resources, human resources, without support from the outside and without being prepared gradually or incrementally for a long time before the sudden rise during last summer. So, the rise of ISIS is not a precise word because it didn’t happen suddenly; it was a result of events that happened at the beginning of the conflict that we mentioned in our statements many times, but no-one in the West has listened to. If we want to mention the statement of Kerry regarding the dialogue, I would say that we have in Syria so far is only a statement, nothing concrete yet, no facts, no new reality regarding the political approach of the United States towards our situation, our problem, our conflict in Syria. But as a principle, in Syria we could say that every dialogue is a positive thing, and we’re going to be open to any dialogue with anyone including the United States regarding anything based on mutual respect, and without breaching the sovereignty of Syria, and as a principle I would say that this approach, the new approach of the United States towards not only Syria, towards anyone, to make dialogue regarding any issue, is a positive thing, but we have to wait for the reality.
Question 2: What kind of communication is there between your government and the American government?
President Assad: There’s no direct communication.
Question 3: None at all?
President Assad: No, no.
Question 4: No kind of conversation about what kind of settlement might take place, no conversations about how to fight ISIS?
President Assad: Nothing yet. That’s why the United States-
Question 5: Nothing yet?
President Assad: Nothing yet. Till this moment, no.
Question 6: Would you like to have that happen?
President Assad: Any dialogue is positive, as I said, in principle, of course. Without breaching the sovereignty of Syria, especially regarding the fighting of terrorism. The way we defeat terrorism, that’s an important issue for us at this moment.
Question 7: But the question is what are you prepared to do? It is your country that is suffering. What are you prepared to do in terms of negotiations? If part of that is to see a transition government, of which you would give up power, would you be willing to do that?
President Assad: Anything regarding the Syrian internal politics should be related to the Syrian people, not to anyone else. We’re not going to discuss with the Americans or anyone what are we going to do regarding our political system, our constitution, or our laws, or our procedures. We can cooperate with them regarding fighting the terrorism and making pressure on different countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Qatar and some of their allies in Europe that support the terrorists politically and financially and by military means.
Question 8: This cannot end militarily. Do you agree with that?
President Assad: Yeah, definitely. Every conflict, even if it’s a war, should end with a political solution.
Question 9: But then draw me a roadmap that you have for a political solution. What does it look like?
President Assad: You have different levels. You have the internal levels, you have the regional, you have the international, and you have different means at the same time. The most important part is the local. The local part should have two things: a dialogue between the Syrians about everything; the political system, and any other details that could be beyond this, about the future of the country, of course. Second, make direct dialogue with the militants as we did during the last two years in order to give them amnesty and to give up their armaments and go back to their normal lives.
Question 10: When you say militants, who do you mean?
President Assad: Some of them are terrorists, some of them are people who were implicated by the events for different reasons, so, whoever carries a gun and tries to destroy the public infrastructure or attack the people or cause any harm or breach the law in Syria. That’s the militant.
Question 11: But so much of the power is in your hands to engage in the process. I mean, if they demand that you step down before they negotiate, that’s unacceptable to you.
President Assad: By the militants, you mean?
Question 12: No, I mean by the United States, and Russia, and parties to the conversation.
President Assad: No external party has anything to do with the future of Syria, with the constitution or president or anything like this. We’re not going to discuss it with them. This is a Syrian issue. Whenever the Syrian people want to change their president, it should be changed right away, in the same day… even if we exaggerate, it should be through a political process, through a constitutional process. That’s how we change presidents, not through terrorism and external intervention.
Question 13: Some say that ISIS was the best thing that happened to you, and that even some of the things that you have done have benefitted ISIS, that because of what ISIS has done and because of your fight against the moderates in your country who, in terms of the Arab spring, wanted to see more democracy here. That you, in the effort to crush them, allowed ISIS to grow.
President Assad: Let’s go back to what President Obama said in one of his interviews recently; when he said that the moderate opposition in Syria is illusive. That’s very clear by President Obama, and we always said there’s no moderate opposition. So, the rise of ISIS wasn’t sudden, again. The evisceration, the amputation, eating the hearts of the victims started from the very beginning, and even beheading started from the very beginning of the conflicts. It started with what they called moderate opposition, then it continued with al-Nusra, then with ISIS. So, what happened with those three, including ISIS, they attacked military bases, they killed our soldiers, and they destroyed our economy. According to this logic, how could that be the best thing that happened to me? In what logic? To lose? To destroy the country? To kill your supporters and to kill others, and to kill civilians? In what sense could that be the best thing that happened to me or to the government? That’s illogical, that’s unrealistic, that’s unpalatable.
Question 14: Again, I come back to the idea of how, now, with the new reality of ISIS, how it’s changed the circumstances. As they have gained in strength, what new changes do you see in attitude towards you and staying and the Syrian government?
President Assad: Regarding the West, you mean?
Question 15: Yes.
President Assad: I think the West has changed its calculations after the rise of ISIS, but that doesn’t mean that they changed their approach to the conflicts in Syria, in Iraq, and in our region. I don’t think they’ve learned the lesson well, and that, as a result, will not change the course of events, because, the very beginning of the problem, from the Western perspective, is to change the system or the president or the government that they don’t like, and they’re still moving in the same direction. That’s why nothing concrete has changed yet; only the appearance and the priority. Their priority is to fight ISIS, but that doesn’t mean that their priority is to get rid of ISIS.
Question 16: How can you see the United States cooperate with Syria regarding ISIS?
President Assad: There’s no direct cooperation.
Question 17: But how do you see the future?
President Assad: The future, you mean. In the future, there must direct dialogue to fight terrorism, because the terrorism is on our ground, on our soil, they cannot defeat it without our cooperation, without having our information, because we lived with this and we know the reality and how to defeat it.
Question 18: Most people believe there is cooperation unofficially, and it goes through Iraq, and that somehow Syria knows when airstrikes are taking place by the United States, because they get that information from Iraq.
President Assad: From another third party, not only Iraq. More than one country told us that they’re going to start this campaign.
Question 19: How does that work?
President Assad: What do you mean?
Question 20: You do you get information?
President Assad: In the campaign?
Question 21: Yes.
President Assad: How does it work on the ground regarding ISIS?
Question 22: Yes. How do you get information, about American airstrikes, so that it can coordinate with what you’re doing, so that they’re not bombing Syrian troops.
President Assad: Through a third party, and it was very clear that their aim is to attack ISIS, not the Syrian Army, and that is what happened so far.
Question 23: A third party means Iraq, and who else?
President Assad: Iraq, another country, Russian officials.
Question 24: Russian officials, Iraqi officials?
President Assad: Iraqi officials.
Question 25: Communicate to you the American intentions?
President Assad: Exactly. In the details that I mentioned now.
Question 26: What’s the level of that information? Is it just about airstrikes, is it about other activities on the ground that are taking place?
President Assad: No, no details, only the headlines, and the principle that they’re going to attack ISIS in Syria and Iraq during the next few days. That is what we have heard, nothing else.
Question 27: When you shot down an American drone, did you know it was an American drone?
President Assad: No, because any drone, any airplane, any aircraft, will not tell you that “I’m American.” So, when you have a foreign aircraft, you shoot it. These are the rules, the military rules.
Question 28: How much of benefit are you getting from American airstrikes in Syria, reducing the power of ISIS?
President Assad: Sometimes it could have local benefits, but in general if you want to talk in terms of ISIS, actually ISIS has expanded since the beginning of the strikes, not like some Americans want to sugarcoat the situation as to say that it’s getting better, ISIS has been defeated, and so on. Actually, no, they have more recruits. Some estimate that they have 1,000 recruits every month, in Syria and Iraq, they are expanding in Libya, and many other Al Qaeda-affiliated organizations have announced their allegiance to ISIS. So, that’s the situation.
Question 29: How much territory do they control in Syria? ISIS controls how much territory, 50%?
President Assad: It’s not a regular war, you don’t have criteria. It’s not an army that makes incursions. They try to infiltrate any area when there’s no army, and when you have inhabitants. The question is how much incubator they have, that is the question; how much hearts and minds they won so far.
Question 30: How do you measure that?
President Assad: You can’t measure it, but you can tell that the majority of the people who suffered from ISIS, they are supporting the government, and of course the rest of the Syrian people are afraid from ISIS. I don’t think they win; I think they lost a lot of hearts and minds.
Question 31: They’ve lost a lot?
President Assad: They have lost, except the very ideological people who have Wahhabi states of mind and ideology.
Question 32: Explain to me why are people fleeing to go to refugee camps in Jordan and Turkey. What are they fleeing from? The Syrian Army?
President Assad: No, those camps started being built before there was any real conflicts in Syria, so it was premeditated to be used as a humanitarian headline and title, to be used against Syria to be a pretext a military intervention. That’s how it started. Later, they started giving incentives to people to flee there. Now, the majority of those, they fled because of the terrorism, and I’ll give you an example. In the elections, the presidential elections, most of the refugees in Lebanon, for example, and even in Jordan, they voted for the president, not against the president. That’s a concrete indicator, you cannot ignore it. So, they did not flee the Syrian Army; if they fled from the Syrian Army, they will be in the other-
Question 33: I have interviewed some of them in the Jordanian refugee camps, and they were fearful of the Syrian Army. And they were fearful of repercussions if people knew they were being interviewed, so they were reluctant to give their name and where they were from, but they had fled in fear of the Syrian Army.
President Assad: That could happen. Of course, you have different kinds of people, you have different perceptions, you have that perception. We don’t say that everybody fled just because of the terrorists. Some people fled just because of the situation, not from the Syrian Army not from the terrorists, they want to go to a safer place. So, they have different reasons for the refugees.
Question 34: There is another number that is alarming to me. It is that 90% of the civilian casualties, 90%, come from the Syrian Army.
President Assad: How did you get that result?
Question 35: There was a report that was issued in the last six months.
President Assad: Okay, as I said earlier, the war is not a traditional war, it’s not about capturing land and gaining land; it’s about winning the hearts and minds of the Syrians. We cannot win the hearts of the Syrians while we are killing Syrians. We cannot sustain four years in that position as a government, and me as a president, while the rest of the world, most of the world, the great powers, the regional powers, are against me, and my people are against me. That’s impossible. I mean, this logic has no legs to stand on. This is not realistic, and this is against our interest, as a government, to kill the people. What do we get? What is the benefit of killing the people?
Question 36: Well, the argument is that you… there are weapons of war that have been used that most people look down on. One is chlorine gas. They believe that it has been used here. They said that there is evidence of that and they would like to have the right to inspect, to see where it’s coming from. As you know, barrel bombs have been used, and they come from helicopters. The only people that have helicopters are the Syrian Army. And so, those two acts of war, which society looks down on, as-
President Assad: Let me fully answer this, this is very important. This is part of the malicious propaganda against Syria. First of all, the chlorine gas is not a military gas, you can buy it anywhere.
Question 37: But it can be weaponized.
President Assad: No, because it’s not very effective, it’s not used as a military gas. That’s self evident. Traditional arms are more important than chlorine, and if it was very effective, the terrorists would have used it on a larger scale. Because it’s not very effective, it’s not used very much.
Question 38: Then why not let somebody come in and inspect and see whether it was used or not?
President Assad: We allowed.
Question 39: You’d be happy for that?
President Assad: Of course. We always ask that a delegation, an impartial delegation, to come and investigate, but I mean logically and realistically, it cannot be used as a military. This is part of the propaganda, because, as you know, in the media, when it bleeds, it leads, and they always look for something that bleeds, which is the chlorine gas and the barrel bombs. This is very important, the barrel bombs, what are barrel bombs? They say barrel bomb as a bomb that kills people indiscriminately, because it doesn’t aim. This is not realistic for one reason: because no army uses a bomb that doesn’t aim, and the proof to what I’m saying is that, you don’t talk about the shape of the bomb to call it a barrel or cylindrical or whatever. The state-of-the-art drones, American drones, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, in Yemen, with state-of-the-art precision missiles have killed more civilians and innocents than killing terrorists. So, it’s not about this bomb that doesn’t aim, that kills people indiscriminately; it’s about the way you use it.
Question 40: But you’re acknowledging then that you do use it? You do use barrel bombs?
President Assad: No, no. There’s no such thing called barrel bombs. You have bombs, and any bomb is about killing, it’s not about tingling people.
Question 41: Most people understand what a barrel bomb is. I mean, they understand how it’s put together, what’s put inside of the barrel, and they understand how it’s dropped from helicopters.
President Assad: No, we have had a very good military industry for years, for decades, in Syria. We don’t have to make bombs, very primitive ones, very malicious ones. This bomb, this term, was used only to demonize the Syrian Army. That’s it. This is part of the propaganda.
Question 42: If barrel bombs were used by the Syrian Army, would you order the Syrian Army to stop using barrel bombs?
President Assad: Again, what is this term, what is the barrel bomb? I mean do you describe the missile that you have by-
Question 43: It’s a bomb that inflicts terrible civilian casualties.
President Assad: Any bomb and missile and even bullet is made to make casualties, but not civilian. There’s no military means made in order not to kill. But how you use, it’s again about the way you use it, it’s not about the bomb. I mean, if you want to talk about casualties, that’s another issue. Every war is malignant, every war is bad. You don’t have benign war. That’s wars are bad because you always have casualties. That is not related to certain kinds of bombs or bullets or whatever. This is completely another issue.
Question 44: So in fact, are you denying that barrel bombs are being and inflicting great casualties.
President Assad: Again, I always say, we use a bomb, we use missiles, we use everything, we use bullets. You don’t describe what we use by the shape, whether it called barrel, spherical, cylindrical missile, you don’t describe it this way. You use armaments, if you have casualties, it’s a mistake that could happen in every war, but you aim always to kill terrorists, not to kill your people, because you have support by your people, you can’t kill them.
Question 45: But you acknowledge that they come from helicopters, barrel bombs.
President Assad: This is a technical issue, a military issue. How to throw-
Question 46: But only one-
President Assad: No, no. You can throw bombs by any airplane. You can throw them by missile. You don’t have to use helicopters, you can use them anyway you want.
Question 47: But, if I hear you correctly, you acknowledge that barrel bombs are being used, but they’re like other bombs in your judgment, and they are not necessarily any different than other weapons. That is what you seem to be saying.
President Assad: We don’t have a bomb that is called barrel bomb. This came from the media, we don’t have it. What you call our bombs, that is related to the media. And that is used by the militants, then adopted by the West, in order to demonize the Syrian Army. We don’t have something barrel bombs that kill indiscriminately. If you have a strong bomb or weak bomb, or whatever, I mean you could call it whatever you want. I mean, we have regular bombs, traditional armaments. That’s what we have.
Question 48: What do most people consider barrel bombs more brutal than others?
President Assad: You have to ask the one who created that term, as I said, for the media, for the propaganda. This is part of the propaganda. If you want to refute the propaganda that’s been going on for four years, you have many things to refute.
Question 49: You have often spoken about the danger of a wider war in the Middle East. Let me talk about the parties involved, and characterize how you see them. Let me begin with Saudi Arabia.
President Assad: Saudi Arabia is an archaic autocracy, medieval system that is based on the Wahhabi dark ideology. Actually, I say it’s a marriage between the Wahhabi and the political system for 200 years now. That is how we look at it.
Question 50: And what is their connection to ISIS?
President Assad: The same ideology, the same background.
Question 51: So ISIS and Saudi Arabia are one and the same?
President Assad: The same ideology, yes.
Question 52: The same ideology.
President Assad: It’s the Wahhabi ideology. Their ideology is based on the books of the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia.
Question 53: So you believe that all Wahhabis have the same ideology as ISIS.
President Assad: Exactly, definitely. And that’s not just by ISIS; by al-Qaeda, by al-Nusra. It’s not something we discovered or we try to promote. I mean, they use the same books to indoctrinate the people.
Question 54: What about Turkey?
President Assad: Turkey, let’s say, it’s about Erdogan. He’s a Muslim Brotherhood fanatic. That doesn’t mean that he’s a member, but he’s a fanatic.
Question 55: President Erdogan is…?
President Assad: A Muslim Brotherhood fanatic. And he’s somebody who’s suffering from political megalomania, and you think that he is becoming the sultan of the new era, of the 21st century.
Question 56: You think he could stop the border if he wanted to?
President Assad: Yes, of course, definitely. He doesn’t only ignore the terrorists coming to Syria; he supports them logistically and militarily, directly, on daily basis, and if you take the example of Kobani, what you call Kobani, we call it Ayn al-Arab, the city where the Kurds were fighting ISIS and where the campaign started, the American military campaign started there. It took them four months to liberate that small city, not only because the airstrikes were cosmetic as we said, but because of the direct support of the Turks to ISIS.
Question 57: They were supporting them directly?
President Assad: Directly.
Question 58: You were quoted as saying that the Syrian Army could have eliminated ISIS in Kobani in three weeks.
President Assad: Actually, similar cities with the same terrain and the same size were liberated in a few weeks, without even using the airstrikes.
Question 59: Why have you spent more time attacking Aleppo than Raqqa?
President Assad: We didn’t attack Aleppo. We try to get rid of the terrorists everywhere.
Question 60: Were they terrorists in Aleppo, or were they moderates?
President Assad: In Aleppo? No, you don’t have any moderate militants in Syria.
Question 61: No moderate militants in Syria? So the definition of a terrorist is what?
President Assad: Of terrorism? Whenever you hold a gun, and kill people, and destroy public buildings, destroy private properties, that’s terrorism.
Question 62: So, anyone who opposed your government in Syria, and used military tactics, was a terrorist.
President Assad: With military tactics, or without?
Question 63: Using weapons to-
President Assad: The word opposition, everywhere in the world, including your country, is a political opposition. Do you have military opposition in the United States? Would you accept it? You wouldn’t, and we wouldn’t. No-one accepts military opposition.
Question 64: It’s one thing to say to say there’s military opposition. It’s another thing to call them terrorists.
President Assad: Military opposition is terrorism. Whenever you hold a gun, a machinegun, and you try to destroy and kill and threaten, this is terrorism, by every definition in the world. It’s not my definition. Whenever you want to make opposition, it’s going to be political opposition, like your country, you have the same criteria, we don’t have different criteria from the one you have in the United States or in Europe or anywhere else.
Question 65: If there’s a negotiation, would you accept as part of the negotiation and share power in Syria with anyone who is in opposition to you now, whether they are moderates, whether they are terrorists, but if in fact they lay down their arms and say we want to be part of a future government, a transitional government, in Syria?
President Assad: Whenever they lay down their arms, they’re not terrorists anymore.
Question 66: Even ISIS?
President Assad: ISIS will not. This, how to say, virtual. For ISIS to lay down their arms, this is virtual, because their ideology is they want to fight and to be killed and to go to heaven, to go to paradise. That’s how we look at it. They won’t negotiate anyway. So, we don’t have to answer something which is virtual, not realistic. The realistic one is that many of the militants laid down their arms and are working with the government now. This is reality. I’m not talking about what is going to happen in the future. That is happening, and that is part of the reconciliations. Some people are interested in politics, they can take that track, and some people are interested only to going back to their normal lives and work any job, not being part of the politics. Of course we are open. Whenever there is political opposition, we are fully open to deal with them.
Question 67: As you know, Secretary Kerry has called you a brutal dictator. Secretary Kerry! Other people have said worse. Does that bother you? Is that an accurate description of you?
President Assad: You want the rest of the world to know the reality, of course you won’t be happy to hear something that is a far cry from the reality, but at the end, this kind of description to an official wouldn’t be really important unless the Syrian citizens said this word. And because the Syrian people still support you, it’s a dictator, killing your people, and have the support of the people. It’s a contradiction.
Question 68: It’s interesting to have that conversation, but with respect, it is said that there was a time, several years ago, in which you were in a very difficult place, and some people thought the government might fall, even suggestions that you were planning to leave, and then the Iranians came in, and Hezbollah came in, and the tide began to turn. Is that a fair appraisal of the circumstances? Because if it’s true, it means that the Syrian people were not supporting you, because before foreign forces came in, you were about to lose.
President Assad: First of all, the Iranians never came in during the conflict. Never.
Question 69: General Suleimani was here, in Damascus.
President Assad: He’s always here, for decades. This kind of cooperation, like you say, no we have-
Question 70: He was here for the same reason that he is in Iraq right now. He was advising Hezbollah and-
President Assad: You have cooperation, as America, with different countries. You send experts, you have a kind of cooperation. That’s different from sending troops. Is that correct? Different, sending troops is different from having cooperation on higher levels.
Question 71: It doesn’t matter where they came from. If they are under your command, so to speak, I mean if you are giving direction to Hezbollah… but the central point I want to-
President Assad: No, what you mentioned, I mean your question implied that Iranians are fighting in Syria. That’s completely incorrect. Not correct, definitely. If they come here, we would announce, we don’t have a problem. We have the right to bring allies to fight with us. At the same time, we announced that Hezbollah is in Syria, we didn’t deny this. So, why deny Iran and not deny Hezbollah? We don’t.
Question 72: But my argument with you, and you are an artful debater, my argument is, and I’m asking questions, I have no position here, my question is: if the Syrian people supported you, why when the so-called Arab spring came, were you almost about to lose power until outside forces came in. It’s self evident that the Syrian people were not supporting you if you were facing that kind of-
President Assad: If you have a real Arab spring today, neither Iran nor Russia, not even Hezbollah can help you. The difference in the situation that you mentioned earlier, between the beginning of the crisis and today, is that we are more gaining support by the Syrian people, because they discovered the truth. At the very beginning, many people weren’t… I mean the vision wasn’t clear for many Syrians. Now, it’s very clear, and we have support even from many people in the opposition against terrorism. So, the main factor, why the situation has changed, is not Iran or Hezbollah; it’s the Syrian incubator, the Syrian population. That was the difference. Hezbollah is not a big army. It cannot play that role all over Syria.
Question 73: But the game on the ground didn’t change until they came here.
President Assad: No, that’s not true.
Question 74: So you didn’t need them?
President Assad: No, we needed them, of course. That’s alliance, we need them. They play an important part. But what has changed, the balance that you mentioned, when you talk about 23 millions in Syria, when you have Arab spring, let’s say a few thousand fighters from Hezbollah wouldn’t change the balance. What has changed the balance is the incubator that moved toward the government. That is what has happened.
Question 75: Here is what is also clear, that even though Secretary Kerry has suggested you are part of the problem or part of the solution, and they want you to be part of the solution, but they have not yet changed their mind that you have to agree to share power or give up power. They don’t want you in power.
President Assad: First of all, they didn’t try to make negotiations or dialogue with us, so they don’t know what we want.
Question 76: That’s why I’m here. See, that’s why I’m here, to have you tell me what you want, that’s exactly why I’m here. Tell me what you want.
President Assad: What we want is whatever the Syrian people want. As I said, as a president, to stay or not to stay-
Question 77: But the Syrian people supporting you, you have a relationship with them, you know what they want. So what do you want?
President Assad: Now, we want, in such circumstances, we always ask for two things: first of all, dialogue. Second, sharing, sharing of power, by any political entity that represents Syrian people, not a political entity that has been forged in the United States, the CIA, or in France, or in Qatar. By patriotic Syrian opposition that represents the Syrians. And we have it, we have in Syria-
Question 78: So what do you mean by sharing power?
President Assad: I mean if you want to go back to constitutional procedures, they should go to elections, they can share in the parliament, in the local administration, in the government, in everything, and to be part of the decision in the government, like any country.
Question 79: You, and your father, have held power in Syria, for how many years? The combination, of you and your father, how many years?
President Assad: Is it a calculation of years, or public support? There’s a big difference. Years, it doesn’t matter how many years, the question is-
Question 80: Well, it does matter.
President Assad: No, what matters for us is do the Syrians support these two presidents? Doesn’t matter if they are father and son. We don’t say George W. Bush is the son of George Bush. It’s different. He’s president, I’m president, he had support from that generation, I have support from these generations now. That is the question. It doesn’t matter how many… it’s not the family rule, as you want to imply.
Question 81: It’s not?
President Assad: No, it’s not. It’s not a family rule. It has nothing to do with me being president. When he died, I was nothing. I was just in the army. I wasn’t, let’s say, a high-ranking official.
Question 82: You know your family much better than I do, but conventional wisdom is after your older brother died, your father wanted you to come back, because he wanted you to be able to assume power when he left.
President Assad: Actually, the reality is the opposite; he wanted me to stay as a doctor and go back to London and I refused. That’s the reality.
Question 83: He didn’t want you to come back?
President Assad: No, never. He didn’t want me to be part of the politics.
Question 84: Then why did you become part of the political process when you were a doctor?
President Assad: We live in a political family, we live in a political environment, and in the army, I’m a doctor in the army, and the army during the history of Syria has made the history and the reality in this country.
Question 85: Because he was such a significant political figure in the Middle East, would he have done things differently, if he was President of Syria today?
President Assad: That’s a virtual question, I cannot answer on his behalf. That’s a virtual question, nobody knows.
Question 86: You think he would agree with what you have done?
President Assad: Definitely. He wouldn’t allow the terrorists to take over, wouldn’t obey or submit to external intervention. And he would have defended his country like he did during the Muslim Brotherhood. The same happened on a smaller scale in the eighties, late seventies, early eighties, when the Muslim Brotherhood started assassinating, killing, and destroying, and burning, and he fought them. That is his mission as a president. That’s what you have to do. To leave terrorists killing your people, that’s your mission?
Question 87: Is it a fair appraisal of what you believe, that everything must be done, and the ends justify the means to stop terrorism in Syria, as you define it?
President Assad: No, it’s not the ends justify the means, this is a Machiavellian principle. You should have values and principles. You have constitutions, and you have interests. So according to your values, you have to defend your people, the population, the Syrian citizens, you have to defend your country. For your interests, you have to get rid of terrorists. So, that’s how we think, not only in a Machiavellian way.
Question 88: Tell us what the Russians want. They are a strong ally of you. What do they want?
President Assad: Definitely, they want to have balance in the world. It’s not only about Syria; it’s a small country. It’s not about having huge interests in Syria, they could have it anywhere else. So, it’s about the future of the world. They want to be a great power that has its own say in the future of the world.
Question 89: And what do they want for Syria?
President Assad: Stability. They want stability and a political solution.
Question 90: And what does Iran want.
President Assad: The same. Syria and Iran and Russia see eye-to-eye regarding this conflict.
Question 91: And what is your obligation to both of them?
President Assad: What do you mean, obligation?
Question 92: What you owe them.
President Assad: Yes, I know, but they didn’t ask for anything. Nothing at all. That’s why I said they don’t do that for Syria; they do it for the region and for the world, because stability is very important for them, because if you have conflicts here, it will burn somebody else there. If you want to talk about terrorism, terrorism has no boundaries. It sees no borders, no political borders. It’s much more difficult to take any procedure to face it due to the internet, which is difficult to control. When you have ideology, it could cross everywhere, it could reach Russia, it could Turkey, anywhere. So, they have the same interest. Russia, and Iran, and many other countries that support Syria, not because they support the president, not because they support the government, but because they want to have stability in the region.
Question 93: Let me present an alternative argument which the Untied States may very well believe, that they support you because they had a longstanding relationship. They support you because they want access to Lebanon. They support you because it’s part of the larger conflict between Sunni and Shi’a.
President Assad: You mean the Iranians or the Russians?
Question 94: The Iranians, and because they’ve supported you militarily and financially.
President Assad: No. The way the Iranians look at the Shi’a-Sunni issue or conflict, is that this is the most detrimental thing that could happen to Iran.
Question 95: To Iran? This conflict is the most detrimental thing?
President Assad: Anything related to Sunni-Shi’a conflict is detrimental to Iran. That’s their point of view, and that’s how we see it. We agree with them. So, actually they are going the other way. They want always to have reconciliation, unification between the Muslims, because that’s very good for Iran. They don’t want to be part… they don’t look at the issue in Syria as a part. They know that Saudi Arabia, the Wahhabis, they want to instigate this conflict, in order to bring more of the Muslims to their side.
Question 96: As you know, there are many people who look at the Middle East today beyond Israel, and say within the Islamic world, it’s all about the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and choose your sides.
President Assad: That’s what the Israelis want to promote.
Question 97: No, some analysts look at the Middle East today and say, it is a competition between Iran on the one hand, Shi’a nation, Iraq, Shi’a, you here, Sunni majority, and Saudi Arabia. These two are mortal enemies, fighting for influence in the Middle East.
President Assad: That’s not precise for one reason, because it looks like Iran wants to attack the Sunni and Saudi Arabia wants to attack the Shi’a. It actually started with Saudi Arabia after the revolution in Iran in 79. So, it didn’t start from Iran. Iran never interfered in any other nation’s internal issues, including Syria. We have good relations with them, they never tried to interfere. Actually, it’s Saudi propaganda. I mean the whole issue of Sunni-Shi’a conflict is a Saudi initiative and propaganda. It’s reality, but because of the Saudis, not because of the Iranians.
Question 98: But in Syria, they are on opposite sides, Saudi Arabia and Iran are on different sides.
President Assad: That’s what Saudi Arabia wants to promote, and that’s what ISIS wants to promote, and that’s what al-Nusra wants to promote. In their political discourse, they always mention the sectarian issues.
Question 99: I’m now talking about how you see, here, the region and what is happening now. One, is the rise of ISIS here, the rise of ISIS and affiliated groups in Iraq. When you look at Iraq, Iranians are supporting Shi’a militia in Iraq, and they’ve been a very effective fighting force. The United States is engaged in airstrikes. They just had an airstrike yesterday in Tekrit which the Iranian militias have captured, correct.
President Assad: Not everything is correct. It’s not only Shi’a militia who are fighting. Many others joined, so it’s a mixture now.
Question 100: What’s the possibility of Iranian-American cooperation?
President Assad: Regarding fighting ISIS?
Question 101: Yes.
President Assad: I don’t think anyone trusts or believes that the American administration wants to really fight this kind of terrorism, because, I mean if you look at the airstrikes in Syria and Iraq, the whole 60 countries launch much less airstrikes than only the Syrian Army does on the daily, much less, so they’re not serious. Second, they only attack the northern part of Iraq. I mean, they attack the terrorists in the northern part of Iraq, not the rest of Iraq. Why did they join now? They want to get part of the cake, if there’s a victory against the terrorists, just to say that we fought terrorists and we defeated ISIS? Where were they during the last few months? They suddenly wanted to attack?
Question 102: So what do you think Iran wants in Iraq?
President Assad: They want to get rid of the terrorists, definitely, and to have stability.
Question 103: How long do you think that will take?
President Assad: Nobody has any idea, because you know, you have support from the outside, you have the support of the petrodollar, of ISIS, and many extremists in Iraq, and in Syria. So, how long that support will continue, we cannot tell.
Question 104: When you look at the future, and you look at the battle ahead, what the end result to Syria? How much of this can Syria take? How much of the conflict that is here today can the Syrian government withstand? How much, the Syrian country, the civilian loss? Will there be anything left in Syria?
President Assad: Of course, Syria is still here. It’s not the first kind of crisis that we’ve been facing here in history.
Question 105: But nothing like this.
President Assad: No, during the history, you have many similar crises. Damascus and Aleppo have been destroyed many times, but, I mean, it’s about the population. The Syrian population are determined to survive and to protect their country, and to rebuild it. How much do we tolerate? That is about the potent power that every population has, and the Syrian people proved that they have strong potential in that regard. Anyway, we don’t have any other option. What option do we have? Whether we suffer, whether we pay a high price or a lesser price, what options do we have but to defend our country, but to fight terrorism. We don’t have any other option.
Question 106: I asked the question because many asked it; what’s the cost to Syria, what it’s going through, and how to put the pieces together? Whenever there is finally, an end this, how will you put the pieces back together, and who will put the pieces back together?
President Assad: There’s a misconception in the West that what’s happening in Syria is a civil war. This is where you can ask that question. What is happening in Syria is not a civil war. When you have civil war, you should have, how to say, clear lines separated between different sects or ethnicities or different components. That’s not what we have. What we have are terrorist-infiltrated areas, and people are suffering from the fighting and from the terrorism of those terrorists. So, you don’t have division in the society now. You don’t have the sectarian issue now. Actually, you’d be surprised if I tell you that the sectarian situation in Syria today is better than the sectarian situation, let’s say, before the crisis. People are more unified now regarding the conflict, regarding the unity of the sects, religions, and so on. So, we cannot talk about how can you rebuild, let’s say, the society. The society is suffering from the humanitarian aspect of the problem, but it’s not divided anymore, and that’s very important, and that’s why we’re assured, that, I mean, even this conflict, which is a very bad conflict, as you say, every cloud must have a silver lining, and this is the silver lining in this crisis, that the population is more unified now. So we don’t have a problem as long as the society is unified and homogenous, regardless of some dark part of this society, ideological corners in our society that support the Wahhabis, support ISIS, and support the extremists, but this is not the general situation in our society.
Question 107: Why do you think that they, people in the West, question your legitimacy?
President Assad: This is intervention in Syrian matters. I don’t care about to be frank, I never care about it as long as I have the public support of the Syrian people, that’s my legitimacy. Legitimacy comes from the inside. But why? I will tell you why, because the West is used to have puppets, not independent leaders or officials in any other country, and that’s the problem with Putin. They demonize Putin because he can say no, and he wants to be independent, and because the West, and especially the United States, don’t accept partners. They even accept followers. Even Europe is not a partner with the United States. Best to be very frank with you. So, this is their problem with Syria. They need somebody to keeping saying yes, yes, and a puppet, a marionette, and so on, somebody they can control by remote control.
Question 108: There are those who argue that you feel now that you’re militarily stronger, that the advent of Hezbollah and Iranian advisors and American airstrikes and coalition airstrikes, that you feel militarily stronger, and therefore you’re less willing to negotiate.
President Assad: Any war can deplete the strongest power, even the United States. When you go to war, you will be depleted in every sense of the world, and we are a small country, we’ll be depleted more than a great country. So, you cannot say that you are militarily powerful, this is again the reality, but you can say that you are politically powerful, because when you win the hearts and minds of the people, more support from the population, this is where you become more powerful. So, what we achieved militarily, not because we are stronger militarily; because we have more support.
Question 109: And how much do you believe you may have some opportunity to win the minds and hearts of the Syrian people because they fear ISIS more than anybody?
President Assad: We cannot ignore this reason.
Question 110: Then ISIS has changed the circumstances?
President Assad: We cannot ignore that factor, we cannot ignore it. We don’t say no, this is a factor, but there are other factors. When you’re transparent with the citizens, with the people, when you’re patriotic, you work for their interests, they will support you even if they disagree with you politically. So, we don’t have support now from the traditional supporters. We don’t have support because they don’t oppose us. We have opposition who oppose our government in many aspects; economy, politics, political systems, and so on. But they know that we are working for this country, and when you have a war, it’s time for unity, not time for division for recriminations and so on. That’s why I said we can have more support, and we already had it recently.
Question 111: What circumstances would cause you to give up power?
President Assad: When I don’t have the public support, when I don’t represent the Syrian interests and values.
Question 112: And how do you determine that?
President Assad: I have direct contact with the people.
Question 113: So, you determine whether they support you?
President Assad: No, I don’t determine; I sense, I feel, I’m in contact with them, I’m a human. How can a human make a direct relation with the population? I mean, the war was a very important “lab” for this support. I mean, if they don’t support me, they could go and support the other side. They didn’t. Why? And that’s very clear, that’s very concrete.
Question 114: Some have argued to me that the majority of Syrians support neither the government nor ISIS.
President Assad: Some that don’t support either? If you don’t, I mean this is like saying that ISIS is like the government. I don’t think that this is realistic. Even people who oppose the government, they oppose ISIS, that’s how we look at it.
Question 115: That’s the question, isn’t it? Even those who oppose the government oppose ISIS, and the question is, how do you bring those two together, and what are you prepared to do, and what are they prepared to do, and how will you get those people that have a vested interest here, like the Russians and the Iranians and the Americans, to-
President Assad: Because very simply, they cannot put the government and ISIS on the same level, so it’s not difficult for them to choose. They didn’t choose… I mean, not to support the government doesn’t to support ISIS. It means automatically they’re going to be with the government against ISIS, but not with the government in other issues. It’s opposition, I mean, you have points of view, but as I said, it’s not time for division. Now, you support the government. When you get rid of ISIS, then you oppose the government in your own way, you use political means. But you cannot compare a government with the terrorists.
Question 116: Which raises the question: can you destroy ISIS without coming together with a united plan, a common purpose?
President Assad: On the local level, you are correct. You cannot destroy terrorists, not only ISIS, you have al-Nusra Front, which is as dangerous as ISIS. You cannot destroy them unless you are unified as a society. But, again, ISIS now is not the Syrian case. ISIS is in Syria, Iraq, and Libya. So, it’s not enough to be unified on the local level; it’s on the regional level and on the international level, something we don’t have yet. That’s why defeating terrorism is going very difficult because of that situation.
Question 117: Something we don’t have yet. So, that’s the question: you don’t have it yet, and how do you get it? Because that’s the future.
President Assad: You are talking about more than one party. You are talking about the international parties, first of all the United States, regional parties, first of all Turkey which is our neighbor and plays a very negative role, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, and the local parties. We would like to see this cohesion in fighting terrorism, but how can we convince them? We tried, maybe not directly, because we don’t have any direct channels with them, but that’s how it should be. If they could see the reality and the future in clearer vision, they would make dialogue with every country including Syria, not because they support the Syrian President or the Syrian Army, we don’t need their support internally; it’s about only fighting terrorism. You need to make dialogue. You cannot kill them and defeat them from the air. That’s a foregone conclusions.
Question 118: That’s true in Iraq or here, you can’t do it from the air.
President Assad: Anywhere, no you cannot.
Question 119: Do you want to see another conference, like the Geneva conference that failed?
President Assad: Yes, that’s the aim of Moscow conference. The next one.
Question 120: That’s it?
President Assad: Yes.
Question 121: And what might happen there?
President Assad: that depends on different parties. I mean, I cannot talk on behalf of every party. For us as Syria, you should have principles, to agree about, let’s say, some principles like unification of Syria, denouncing terrorism, something like this, and then-
Question 122: Sharing power?
President Assad: Sharing power, that’s in the constitution anyway. I mean, sharing power is about how much grassroots you have, how much of the Syrians you represent. You don’t come and share power just because you want to share power. You should have public support.
Question 123: You have to be a forced to share power.
President Assad: Exactly, exactly, you have to represent them. So, maybe if we reach a conclusion and we reach agreement in Moscow, it could be as preparation to go to Geneva 3, for example, but it’s still early to tell.
Question 124: I came here after Secretary Kerry made his remarks. My impression once I got here is that when you heard those remarks, you were optimistic. The State Department backed a little bit, and said we still think there needs to be a new government, but you were optimistic after you heard that. You believe there is a way for your government and the American government to cooperate and coordinate?
President Assad: That’s not the main point. I mean, regarding that statement. I think the main point, we could have a feeling, and we hope that we are right, that the American administration started to abandon this policy of isolation, which is very harmful to them and to us, because if you isolate a country, you isolate yourself as the United States from being influential and effective in the course of events, unless you are talking about the negative influence, like making the embargo that could kill the people slowly, or launching a war and supporting terrorists that could kill them in a faster way. So, our impression, let’s say, we are optimistic, more optimistic. I wouldn’t exaggerate. That at least when they’re thinking about dialogue, doesn’t matter what kind of dialogue, and what the content of the dialogue is, and even doesn’t matter what their real intentions are, but the word “dialogue” is something we haven’t heard from the United States on the global level for a long time.
Question 125: But you just did, from the Secretary of State: we need to negotiate. That’s dialogue.
President Assad: Exactly, that’s what I said. I mean, that’s why I said it’s positive. That’s why I said we’re more optimistic. I mean, when they abandon this policy of isolation, things should be better. I mean, when you start dialogue, things will be better.
Question 126: Why don’t you reach out to Secretary Kerry and say, let’s talk.
President Assad: Are they ready to talk? We are always open. We never closed our doors. They should be ready for the talks, they should be ready for the negotiations. We didn’t make the embargo on the United States. We didn’t attack the American population. We didn’t support terrorists who did anything to the United States. Actually, the United States did. We always wanted to have good relations with the United States. We never thought in the other direction. It’s a great power. Nobody, not a wise person would think of having bad relations with the United States.
Question 127: But can you have a good relationship with a country that thinks you shouldn’t be in power?
President Assad: No, that’s not going to be part of the dialogue as I mentioned earlier. This is not their business. We have Syrian citizens who can decide this, no-one else. Whether they want to talk about it or not, this is not something we are going to discuss with anyone.
Question 128: Mr. President, thank you.
President Assad: Thank you.
The Middle East oil/nuclear puzzle
by Pepe Escobar
US Secretary of State John Kerry may be starting to enjoy the brinkmanship, as he says it’s “unclear” whether the US and Iran would reach a political framework nuclear deal before the end of this month.
Loud applause may be heard in corridors ranging from Tel Aviv to Riyadh.
As negotiations resume in Lausanne, the fact is a potential nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 (US, UK, France, BRICS members Russia and China, and Germany) is bound to open the possibility of more Iranian oil exports – thus leading oil prices to fall even further. As of early this week, Brent crude was trading at $54.26 a barrel.
Assuming the US and the EU nations that are part of P5+1 really agree to implement the suspension of UN sanctions by the summer (Russia and China already agree), not only will Iran be exporting more energy – that should take a few months – but also OPEC as a whole will be increasing its oversupply.
The EU badly wants to buy loads of Iranian energy – and invest in Iranian energy infrastructure. Beijing, a key yet discreet member of the P5+1, is also watching these developments very carefully.
Whatever happens, for China this is a win-win situation, as Beijing keeps actively building up its strategic petroleum reserves profiting from low prices. And even as oil prices also remain under pressure from the strong US dollar – which makes oil way more expensive if you are paying with a different currency – that’s certainly no problem for China, with its mammoth US dollar reserves.
The oil price war essentially unleashed by Saudi Arabia has hit Iran with a bang. The country may be down, but not out. There were no good options for Tehran except to try to keep its market share by offering the same discounts – especially to Asia – the Saudis are offering.
Tehran has been under a tsunami of nasty Western sanctions for years, which limit its ability to export oil and increase production. It’s extremely difficult for the Iranian governments to reduce the gap of the expected revenue based on previous high oil prices.
Now the name of the game among major oil producers is to keep market share at all costs. Iran can’t escape it – as it needs to keep in check at all times the fear of oversupply and its desire to increase production. Some oil producing countries are definitely keeping upcoming oil supplies out of the market. The result is Iran will have serious trouble going for more production and more exports while trying to regain its pre-sanctions market share.
Wanna buy a Middle East condo?
While a sort of undeclared “oil war” is still far from reaching an endgame, the nuclear front promises some eye-popping breakthroughs.
Powerful – if sometimes conflicting – ‘Empire of Chaos’ factions in Washington are actively entertaining the dream of transferring US military assets from the Middle East to Europe to keep ratcheting up the pressure on Russia, under the pretext of the “aggression” on Ukraine.
That might happen only after “control” of the Middle East is somewhat shared between Turkey, Iran, and to a much lesser extent, the House of Saud. For the notoriously wobbly “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff” Obama administration’s foreign policy, this development would be a key rationale behind the push for a successful P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran to be reached this summer.
Iran has already cultivated – and blossomed – its own sphere of influence. It’s the Turkey-Saudi case that is way more complicated.
As much as Ankara is well aware of the fierce catfight for regional power between Tehran and Riyadh, it tries to maintain good relations with both.
Crucially it’s in Syria that Ankara and Riyadh are almost on the same “Assad must go” page. Almost – because in fact a pro-Muslim Brotherhood Turkey-Qatar alliance has found itself for four years in direct competition with a Salafi-boosting House of Saud.
Anyway, when Turkey’s President, also known as ‘Sultan’ Erdogan, visited the new Saudi King Salman in early March, they reached an understanding; they will both turbo-charge “support” – weaponized and otherwise – for the Syrian opposition. Problem is there is no credible Syrian opposition; virtually everyone that knows how to fight has migrated to the fake Caliphate of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.
What this means in a nutshell is once again a Sunni against Shi’ite set up; a classic Divide and Rule gambit that is the perennial House of Saud priority.
The ’Empire of Chaos’, in theory, should but be pleased. But it’s not. The Obama administration’s objective – on the record – is “[prioritizing] the Islamic State, not Assad.”
But that may also change in a heartbeat. New Pentagon supremo Ashton Carter has just admitted, “the forces that we train in Syria, we will have some obligation to support them after they’re trained.” But that would also “include the possibility that, even though they’re trained and equipped to combat ISIL, they could come into contact with forces of the Assad regime.”
No wonder Damascus is weary, and will wait for US “actions” before any possible negotiation with Washington. One day Kerry says talks with Damascus are necessary to end the Syrian civil war. The next day he repeats, “Assad must go.”
Osama’s pal plays paranoia
As for a no-fly zone over northern Syria – heavily pushed by Erdogan, and a wet dream of neo-cons in Washington – it won’t fly. One extra reason for Ankara to stay away from this new Saudi anti-Iran push.
To complicate things further, power within the House of Saud remains diffused. Both the CIA and BND – German intelligence – agree, and there have been constant rumblings in Washington that the House of Saud eventually should go.
The House of Saud still has not understood that Syria is not the main “threat” against them. They are freaking out about their border with Iraq – as well as their borders with Yemen and Bahrain. On top of it they picked a fight with Russia via the oil price war. The Saudis say they are pumping only 9.5 million barrels of oil a day out of their 12.5 million barrels a day; Moscow is essentially saying they are pumping their entire capacity.
If the oil price war delights the Russia-demonizing ‘Masters of the Universe’, they are at the same time deeply enraged because it is decimating the US shale oil “revolution”. What’s left for masses of unemployed US workers? Find a job in Saudi Arabia. Still one more reason for the ‘Masters of the Universe’ to dump the House of Saud anytime they feel like it.
Predictably, House of Saud paranoia remains the norm. Former Saudi intelligence capo di tutti i capi (and former great pal of Osama bin Laden), Prince Turki, is on overdrive, charging Iran with being “a disruptive player in various scenes in the Arab world, whether it’s Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Palestine or Bahrain”; accusing Iran of “expanding its occupation of Iraq”; insisting “the enemy” is both Assad and ISIS/ISIL/Daesh; and last but not least unequivocally blasting any possible nuclear deal with Iran.
What’s even more worrisome is that King Salman brought Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to Riyadh – rushing to meet him at the airport – to confirm a key strategic, secret nuclear agreement before any Iran/P5+1 deal is clinched. The bottom line: the House of Saud does not trust the American nuclear umbrella anymore. They are making their own nuclear power play with the help of nuclear power Pakistan. The connection does exist, but remains extremely mysterious.
No need to outline the upcoming maze of ominous consequences. Demented nuclear Wahhabis, anyone?
ISIS: Saudi-Qatari-Funded Wahhabi Terrorists Worldwide
by Ramtanu Maitra
The sudden emergence of another organized militant Islamist-terrorist group, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), aka the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or simply IS, along the Iraqi-Syria borders, was not really “sudden” at all. A series of West-organized military actions, particularly the Iraq invasion of 2003, invasion of Libya in 2011, and arming and facilitating the passage of Islamists and terrorists, in the garb of freedom fighters, to Syria to dismantle the Assad regime, has served to bring together thousands of hard-core Islamic terrorists, from as many as 50 countries, who have for years been funded and indoctrinated by the Saudis, Qataris, and Kuwaitis, with the “kill them all” Wahhabi-Salafi vision of Islam, to establish what ISIS calls the Islamic State.
That state currently encompasses a swath of land stretching from the outskirts of Baghdad in the east, to the outskirts of Aleppo in Syria, bordering Lebanon and Turkey, in the west. Estimates of the number of fighters that might be affiliated with ISIS vary from more than 10,000, to as many as 17,000.
While many policy errors have contributed to creating this horror, there is one center of evil with the intention of spreading such brutal sectarian warfare, which destroys civilization and nation-states alike. This center is in London, often dubbed “Londonistan,” for its role as a center for incubating international terrorists. As we review the history of the creation of ISIS below, keep in mind the reality that we are dealing here with a London imperial project being carried out through Saudi Arabia, other Gulf States, and sundry British tools.
Setting Up Sectarian War
Although this large group of Wahhabi-Salafi terrorists in Iraq and Syria, who are killing Shi’as, and grabbing large of tracts of land for setting up a Wahhabi-Salafi Caliphate, has been much better organized and trained over the decades, it is not altogether different from the London-organized, Saudi-funded, and Pakistan-trained mujahideen in the 1980s, who showed up in Afghanistan to drive out the invading Soviet military. While the objective of the mujahideen brought in by Western powers was to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and then become terrorists-for-hire, ISIS is busy setting up a Caliphate in Southwest Asia.
It is perhaps because of this distinction that the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, told reporters on Aug. 24, on his way to Afghanistan, that he believes ISIS is more of a regional threat, and is not currently plotting attacks against the U.S. or Europe. He also pointed out that there is no indication, as of now, that ISIS militants are engaged in “active plotting against the homeland, so it’s different than that which we see in Yemen.” In Yemen, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has attempted attacks against Western countries.
There is no doubt that the threat that ISIS poses, as observed by General Dempsey, is a regional threat, and is primarily directed against Iran, Iran’s allies, and Shi’as in general. But it also poses a serious threat to all Arab monarchies and countries such as Lebanon.
The objective of ISIS became evident from its actions in Iraq and Syria. It is clear that the staunchest promoters of anti-Shi’a ideology, which is aimed at undermining Shiite Iran, are the Saudi monarchy, the Qatari monarchy under the al-Thanis, and the Kuwaiti monarchy under the al-Sabahs. These monarchies are exporters of the Salafi-Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam, which does not accept Shi’as as Muslims, and considers them to be heretics who should be annihilated in order to purify Islam.
Saudi Fears and Coverups
Nonetheless, the rise of the ISIS and its military prowess, seen in its securing a large tract of land not too-distant from the Saudi Arabian borders, has evoked an existential fear in the House of Saud. In addition, the presence of thousands of Western jihadi fighters who could raise hell upon their return to their home countries, has also made the Americans, the British, the French, and some other European governments—friends of the Saudi-Qatari-Kuwaiti axis—a bit uneasy. In order to assuage their Western friends’ fears, the Saudis have begun a propaganda campaign to convince others that they do not fund ISIS.
The West, with its vested interest in Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Gulf nations, has continued to defend Saudi Arabia; U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry went on record praising the Saudi Kingdom for donating $100 million to the UN Counter-Terrorism Centre. Riyadh is also spewing out the lie that the ISIS militants are not adherents to Wahhabism. In a statement to the Aug. 23 London-based Saudi news daily Asharq al-Awsat, a spokesperson for the Royal Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in London said:
“Saudi Arabia wants the defeat and destruction of ISIS and other terrorist networks. Terrorist networks are as abhorrent to the government and people of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as they are to the governments and peoples of the rest of the world…. There have been suggestions that ISIS followers are members of some sort of Wahhabi absolutist sect. Indeed, certain UK media outlets often refer to Muslims within Saudi Arabia as Wahhabists. The unsubstantiated use of this invented connotation must end because it is untrue. Wahhabism is not a sect of Islam.” ****(But it is a sect and a very bad one at that)
“Muhammad [Ibn] Abd Al-Wahhab was a scholar and jurist of the 18th century who insisted on the adherence to Qur’anic values and the teachings of the word of God as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad,” the statement added. The Saudi spokesperson criticized Western media attempts to draw comparisons between Wahhabism and extremist ideology. ****(Wahhab was not a scholar but a shrewd man who knew how to manipulate the Quran and everything in Islam, the teachings of the Prophet have nothing in common with the teachings of the screwed Wahhab)
But some Western news media are not buying these denials by Riyadh and Washington about the Saudi-Qatari-Kuwaiti connections to ISIS. The British weekly The Spectator, on Aug. 21, alluded to the common ideology of the Saudi and ISIS Wahhabists: “Saudi Arabia is a close ally of Britain and a keen customer of our killing machines, and like most of the Arab states is hostile to lunatic elements like ISIS and Hamas. Yet they are part of the problem; like many Islamists, including those in Britain, the Saudis are happy to condemn ISIS in what they do but not their basic ideology, largely because it mirrors their own.”
The article pointed out that “the Saudi hostility to ISIS could even be described in Freudian terms as the narcissism of small differences. ISIS is dangerous to them because for those raised in the Saudi version of Islam, the Islamic State’s even more extreme interpretation is not a huge leap.”
Wahhabi ‘Peaceniks’ of Yesteryear and Today’s ISIS
In 1744, Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab swore a traditional Muslim oath, in which they promised to work together to establish a state-run according to Islamic principles. Until that time, the al-Saud family had been accepted as conventional tribal leaders whose rule was based on longstanding, but vaguely defined, authority. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab labeled all those who disagreed with him heretics and apostates, which, in his eyes, justified the use of force in imposing both his beliefs and his political authority over neighboring tribes. This in turn led him to declare holy war (jihad) on other Muslims (neighboring Arab tribes), an act which would otherwise have been legally impossible under the rules of jihad.
In 1802, the Wahhabis captured Karbala in Iraq, and destroyed the tomb of the Shi’ite Imam Husayn. In 1803, the Wahhabis captured the holy city of Mecca. The Ottoman Turks became alarmed, and in 1811, dispatched Muhammad Ali, the Ottoman ruler of Egypt, to challenge the Wahhabis. He succeeded in re-imposing Ottoman sovereignty in 1813. Nearly a century later, in 1901, with Wahhabi help, Saudi emir Abd al-Aziz al-Saud recaptured Riyadh. Al-Saud’s sovereignty over the Arabian peninsula grew steadily until 1924, when his dominance became secure. At that point, the Wahhabis went on a rampage throughout the peninsula, smashing the tombs of Muslim saints and imams, including the tomb of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima. Saudi Arabia was officially constituted as a kingdom in 1932.
In Newsweek July 8, Lucy Westcott wrote, “The Islamist militant group ISIS has been destroying Iraq’s Shiite mosques and religious shrines as it continues to put pressure on the country and further its extreme agenda. The AFP reported that four shrines that commemorated Sunni Arab or Sufi figures have been destroyed, while six Shiite mosques were demolished. The destruction seems to have been limited to Iraq’s northern Nineveh province, including militant-held Mosul. One local resident told Al-Arabiya that members of the group had also occupied the Chaldean cathedral and the Syrian Orthodox cathedral, both in Mosul, removing their crosses and replacing them with the black flag of the Islamic State.”
There is another hallmark that ties Wahhabism with ISIS like an umbilical cord. Human Rights Watch reported recently that Saudi Arabia has beheaded 19 people since the beginning of August. Some confessions may have been gained under torture, and one poor defendant was found guilty of sorcery. Beheading of Kafirs (in Arabic, a slur to describe non-believers) is also the high-profile act of both ISIS and al-Qaeda under Sheikh Osama bin Laden, another group that was a beneficiary of Saudi money and wide-ranging Gulf support.
ISIS beheaded the American journalist James Foley recently in Iraq; while another American journalist, Daniel Pearl, was beheaded in 2002 in Pakistan. In both cases, videos of the beheadings were widely circulated to rev up emotions among the Wahhabis.
The Financing of ISIS
In 2011, in Syria, when President Obama, Prime Minister David Cameron, and President François Hollande joined forces to remove Syria’s elected President Bashir al-Assad from power, and thus deal a body blow to the Russians and the Iranians, who acknowledge Assad’s legitimacy, not-so-militant groups within were bolstered by attaching them to well-trained Salafi-Wahhabi terrorists from a number of countries. While the Western countries were quite generous with arms, and worked with the neighboring countries to facilitate entry of arms into Syria, the bulk of the money came from the Salafi-Wahhabi bastions of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait.
Despite denials issued from Riyadh and Doha to quiet gullible Westerners, the funding of various Sunni groups seeking to establish Salafism and Wahhabism in a number of countries has long been well-documented. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), for example, who is keen to see Assad, and the Russian influence over Syria, vanish altogether, praised the Saudis and Qataris for financial help lent to the Syrian “rebels,” in a discussion on CNN, in January 2014,
“Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar, and for our Qatari friends,” the Senator repeated at the Munich Security Conference in late January. McCain praised Prince Bandar bin Sultan, head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services and a former ambassador to the United States, for supporting forces fighting Assad in Syria. McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had previously met with Bandar to encourage the Saudis to arm Syrian rebel forces.
But McCain was a bit off the mark. At the time he was bloviating on CNN, the “rebel” power in Syria was already firmly in the hands of ISIS—now an enemy of the U.S. Indeed, in Syria, where the moderate Friends of Syria (those who, according to what the White House conveyed to the American people in 2011-13, were the recipient of arms thanks to American and other Western largesse), Jabhat al-Nusra (a faction of al-Qaeda), and ISIS worked together in the early stages of the West-orchestrated and Saudi-Qatari-Kuwaiti-funded anti-Assad militancy. These groups used to carry their flags together during militant operations against Damascus; but that changed, and the Salafi-Wahhabis, having seized arms and ammunition from their earlier collaborators, became the powerhouse.
Now, it is evident that ISIS has enough killing power to loot and extort funds to sustain itself, and even grow.
How Saudi Money Created Foreign Wahhabi Terrorists
In 2010, Britain’s news daily The Guardian citing Wikileaks, Dec. 5, 2010, quoted U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying that Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT)—but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money. Both the Afghan Taliban and the LeT espouse the Wahhabi version of orthodox Islam. “More needs to be done,” wrote The Guaridan, “since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups, says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”
“Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide,” she said.
Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. The cables highlight an often ignored factor in the Pakistani and Afghan conflicts: that the violence is partly bankrolled by rich, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them. The problem is particularly acute in Saudi Arabia, where militants soliciting funds slip into the country disguised as holy pilgrims, set up front companies to launder funds, and receive money from government-sanctioned charities.
In other words, a small fraction of the Saudi money may have gone directly to ISIS, but it is definitely Saudi money that armed and trained terrorists in Russia’s Chechnya, Dagestan, North Ossetia, Ingushetia; in Pakistan; along the Afghanistan-Pakistan borders; in the Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan belt in Central Asia and also in Europe, particularly in Britain’s Londonistan. These militants have come in droves to the Syrian theater with their expertise to boost ISIS’s killing power.
In short, the Saudis have shipped money, sermons, and volunteers to Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Russia’s North Caucasus, just as they’re doing now in Syria. In Chechnya, Saudis such as Ibn al-Khattab, Abu al-Walid, and Muhannad (all noms de guerre) indoctrinated, armed, and trained militants who mired the Chechens in an endless war that killed some 160,000 people, while forcing Chechen women into Saudi-style isolation, and throwing Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, and North Ossetia into turmoil. Many of these jihadis are now on full display in the Syria-Iraq theater on behalf of ISIS.
In Afghanistan, Saudi money, and the Pakistani military, backed by Saudi money and support, have created a relatively small, but hardcore, Wahhabi capability in a number of provinces. Although these Afghan Taliban were not notably visible in either Syria or Iraq, they have helped facilitate movement of Saudi-funded Wahhabi terrorists coming down from the north to participate in the Caliphate-formation war in Iraq and Syria.
In Pakistan, myriad Saudi-financed Wahhabi and anti-Shi’a terrorists are growing in strength, and trying establish inroads into the Pakistani military; while in Afghanistan, the Saudi- and opium-funded Taliban, spewing Wahhabi venom, are trying to seize power again. In addition, Saudi money is also being distributed to build bases in several nations for recruitment and training of jihadis for future operations. It is evident that such a widespread operation cannot be carried out in stealth for years; it is therefore fair to assume that such base-building is done in collaboration with the targeted nation’s intelligence community. These recruits remain available for use by the mother-nation. This became visible when the Libyan Islamic Fighters Group (LIFG) was used to dismantle the Libyan state and kill Colonel Qaddafi. Pakistan and Britain are two important centers where the Saudis operate hand-in-glove with those nations’ intelligence apparatus.
Britain in the Spotlight
Take, for instance, the recent beheading of the American photo-journalist James Foley by a British jihadi working with ISIS. Whether the British jihadi actually carried out the execution, or not, it was evident that ISIS was keen to project its strength, boasting that it has muscle in developed countries, such as Britain. And, indeed, it has.
The identified British jihadi was a product of the East London Mosque, situated at the heart of Londonistan, in the borough of Tower Hamlets in East London. Londonistan is a world unto itself, where British intelligence recruits and trains Saudi-funded radical and criminal Sunni Muslims to kill and assassinate, and then deploys them wherever needed to serve the “Empire’s interest.”
Tower Hamlets is where the Shi’a-hating radical Saudi cleric and head Imam of Mecca, Sheikh Adel al-Kalbani (who last year was refused entry into Britain) went to meet local council leaders for a “private meeting” in 2008. He was the guest of the Mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman, a fanatic Islamist who heads the Saudi-funded Jamaat-e-Islami in Britain. According to a Bangladeshi journalist, Tower Hamlets has been converted into the “Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets” under the mayor. That statement was right on the mark.
On Aug. 9, The Guardian reported that some 20 Asian youths had gathered around the Tower Hamlets gates, where a black flag, resembling that of ISIS, was hoisted. The flag was subsequently taken down by a Catholic nun.
Tower Hamlets is one of many centers where the Saudis breed their Wahhabi recruits. In 2013, when Sheikh al-Kalbani was denied entry to the U.K., followers of radical hate preacher Anjem Choudary, spokesman for the Islamist group Islam4UK, led a demonstration in London in May against Shi’a Muslims, three years after Islam4UK was officially proscribed, on Jan. 14 2010, under the U.K.’s counter-terrorism laws. In other words, the proscription of Islam4UK is a paper job to cover up that group’s activities.
It is also evident that the Saudi funding for Wahhabi-indoctrinated jihadi fighters has not gone to waste. Among the ISIS foreign fighters, the Londonistan-created jihadists are the largest and most dominant group. The Telegraph, in an Aug. 21 article, “More British Muslims fight in Syria than in U.K. Armed Forces,” cited Khalid Mahmood, the Member of Parliament from Birmingham, another recruiting and training center of Londonistan, saying that “1,500 British Muslims have gone to wage jihad since 2011, as opposed to the 400-500 the government estimates and the 650 serving in the British armed forces.”
“The Saudi Arabian princes, the people that we’re doing business with every day, because of the petro-dollar arrangement we have with them, they’re still funding ISIS. Their money is going directly to ISIS as we speak,” Mr. Papantonio said. “So, (ISIS has) this huge armament stash that (the U.S.) gave them, they have this propaganda machine that we gave them, and they have money coming from the Saudi Arabians.”
The “back-story” of U.S. involvement in the very creation of ISIS is undeniable, Mr. Papantonio said. “In the 1980s—(Pres. Ronald) Reagan and (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld—the U.S. funded anti-Soviet rebels and provided huge weapons supply to (Osama) bin Laden and Al Qaeda,” when they were fighting America’s “Cold War” enemy the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
“Al Qaeda, then after that, if you remember the history, merged with ISIS, and then together, the next step was ISIS and Al Qaeda, pushed to overthrow (Col. Muammar) Gadhafi in Libya and to reassert this strong “Islamic” regime. And for them doing that, the U.S. provided more money, more arms, more air strikes and more moral support for ISIS.
“Then the Al Qaeda-ISIS group, recovered huge amounts of U.S. weapons that we left behind in Iraq. I mean tons and tons of weapons. It’s disgusting when you start seeing what they drove away with and carried away,” Mr. Papantonio continued.
But Mr. Obama’s international problems are even deeper than just ISIS. He is facing a “triple-headed monster” in international affairs, according to Dr. Gerald Horne, who holds the John J. and Rebecca Moores Chair of History and African American studies at the University of Houston. “The way it’s been described is the so-called Islamic State, on the Syria-Iraqi border, the Ukraine-Russia-crisis that’s exploding as we speak, and the alleged threat from China, where the United States has been buzzing the coast of China in recent days, leading to confrontations between the air forces of both nations, with—according to press reports—the planes coming within 30 feet of each other, which is quite dangerous,”
Libya and Syria: Two Wars Against ISIL/Daesh, Two Different Western Reactions
By: Andrew Korybko
The Western reaction to the Libyan government’s request for anti-terror assistance is the polar opposite of how it responded to Damascus’ similar requests. While the West seems intent on sabotaging Syria, it appears to be going out of its way to accommodate Libya. ***(the west is accommodating the illegitimate terrorist Hassi’sregime which holds captive the capital of Libya, when Egypt and the National Congress democratically elected last summer asked from the UN to lift the ban for arms so that the National Libyan army can fight the terrorists, the USA and Britain vetoed against the lift, and forcing the legitimate government to sit down with the terrorists and try to unite.. So estimating the way of the Anglo-American axis want Libya by all means to install ISIS/DAESH as the legal government.)
Libya and Syria are both facing severe challenges from ISIL, yet the US is once more playing favorites at the expense of the latter. Despite terrorism in Libya obviously being the more pressing threat to Europe’s security, no unilateral intervention against ISIL is even being considered at this point, showing that the West is eager to respect the unpopular legitimate authorities’ desire to empower its armed forces instead.
On the flip side of things, the US and its allies have repeatedly disrespected the popular government in Syria by unilaterally bombing its territory for months, despite ISIL there not being an immediate threat to European security interests, and haven’t even considered for a moment that the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) is the most valuable weapon in the country’s war on terror. This blatant hypocrisy in anti-terror approaches can be clearly attributed to ulterior interests and insincerity in fighting ISIL in Syria.
Big Differences Equal Bigger Hypocrisy
Libya and Syria both have their situational differences, but when compared amongst themselves, the North African state is arguably weaker and less prepared to fight against ISIL, yet it is the Libyan government’s interests that are being accommodated by the West and the Syrian government’s that are being ignored and even countered by them. Here’s a back-to-back comparison that most vividly illustrates their differences:
The legitimate government was voted into office during the summer general elections, with only 18% of the electorate deciding to take part. Since then, the authorities were kicked out of the capital and now reside in the far-flung eastern city of Tobruk near the Egyptian border, *****(it was not kicked out as the Russian Journalist writes but left Tripoli due to security reasons such as to avoid kidnapping, assassinations and blackmail by the defeated party which was the Muslim brotherhood together with Daesh, Libyan Dawn and other terrorist entities. The National Congress has secured most of the East and South of Libya, so I do not understand why the Journalist is trying to manipulate the truth) by the having ceded many major population centers to the terrorists *****(also this is not true, other than Tripoli being held hostage by Western Terrorists, Misurata and Derna are the hub of importing terrorists from the West and Middle East the rest of the cities are free from being terrorized on daily basis. So when he says “ceded major population he means 3 cities which one major city is held hostage) as they retreated. This has left ISIL with unhindered control over much of the country’s coast, raising fears that it might try to directly attack Europe in the future. The group even went as far as to say that “you have seen us in Syria, now we’re right here, just south of Rome.” *****(Isil/Daesh is contained in the 2 cities which are DERNA AND MISURATA in Tripoli its the Muslim Brotherhood, the alleged group that warned Europe were WESTERNERS AND IT WAS NOT IN THE SHORES OF LIBYA BUT QATAR. Claiming that Isil/Daesh “controls over much of the country’s coast, raising fears that it might try to directly attack Europe in the future” is a BLATANT LIE, causing panic for no reason. I have no idea where this Russian Journalist is getting his information but through this article he has manipulated the truth about Libya to the core.)
Nonetheless, the Libyan authorities have rejected outside military intervention against this seemingly imminent international threat, and the Western community has complied. Tobruk is now requesting that the arms embargo on the country be lifted and that an international blockade be imposed to prevent arms from entering areas where the government has no control. Although no decision has been made as of yet, *****(decision has been made the US and UK vetoed it so the west is not listening it wants to install the Muslim Brotherhood by force)the West is listening with open ears and appears ready to abide by the Libyan government’s recommendations.
Syrian President Bashar Assad was re-elected during the June presidential election, winning 88.7% of the vote with a 73.42% turnout. Since then, the government solidified its control over the capital and its surroundings, and engaged in successful offensives against the terrorists in the northern and southern reaches of the country. Although ISIL does infest large parts of eastern Syria, the group is not as immediate or direct of a threat to the West as its counterparts in Libya are.
The SAA has insisted that it can handle the terrorist problem on its own, provided that its neighbors do their legal part in preventing the free passage of terrorists and weapons into the country. This has of course not happened, nor has the government’s opposition to unilateral foreign strikes been respected. Throughout the past four years, the West has placed weapons sanctions on Syria, while countries like Russia that provide it with anti-terror material support have been slurred for ‘supporting a dictatorship’.
The Right Way To Fight Terrorism
After having read about the West’s completely divergent ways of responding to terrorism, one may now wonder what the proper method is. Believe it or not, it’s actually the way that ISIL is being dealt with in Libya that represents the right way to handle the situation, although the West’s response is extremely hypocritical since this proper method isn’t being applied in Syria, which actually has better and more stable grounds for its application (as was seen above). To avoid any confusion, here are the characteristics that make the current (key word) Libyan approach the right one:
* Respect for the will and decisions of the democratically elected government
* Eagerness to assist as requested in preventing external elements from aggravating the situation
* Belief that empowerment of the national armed forces is the most effective front line solution
Be that as it may, the West’s attitude to Libya’s War on ISIL may very well change (and rapidly at that), but as it stands, it represents the most effective and legal way to handling terrorism all across the world. The question is, why doesn’t the West behave this way towards Syria?
The ‘Anti-ISIL’ Masquerade
Objectively speaking, there’s nothing that prevents the West from confronting terrorism in Syria according to the same legal and effective guidelines that it’s currently (key word) practicing in Libya. If it was serious about combating ISIL, it could follow the SAA’s recommendations, since it already has an over four-year-long track record in directly fighting terrorists. The weapons sanctions imposed on the popular and democratically elected Syrian government can be immediately lifted, and Turkey and Jordan, which are definitely threatened by ISIL, could step up their border control and make sure no terrorists or weapons pass through to Syria. The so-called ‘anti-ISIL’ coalition could halt its unilateral and uncoordinated strikes in Syria and await further instructions from Damascus, but none of these simple and logical steps are being taken.
The reason that the ‘anti-ISIL’ coalition isn’t doing any of these things is because it’s actually a regime change coalition (RCC) disguised in misleading and convenient ‘anti-terror’ rhetoric. None of its members want to see ISIL completely destroyed right now, otherwise they’d assist the SAA in making that happen and wouldn’t’ have provided (at the very least) the situational and early material assistance that made the group’s creation possible. Instead, the aim of their bombings is to destabilize Syria even further and provoke the SAA into firing on the RCC aircraft, which would then create the pretext for an all-out regime change bombing campaign modeled off of the 2011 War in Libya.