Putin’s intervention in Syria disrupts Washington’s regional imperial agenda – neocons infesting Obama’s administration on the back foot, flummoxed on what to do next.
– Stephen Lendman
Their reaction awaits. Expect endless propaganda war, as well as increased support for ISIS and other takfiri terrorists.
London’s Guardian got it backwards suggesting Moscow’s intervention was “more provocative than decisive” – the same notion proliferated by other media in lockstep with the US-NATO coalition led by the US, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel.
The Guardian said “(r)egional powers have quietly, but effectively, channelled funds, weapons and other support to rebel groups making the biggest inroads against the forces from Damascus” – allied with Washington’s plan to weaken and isolate Iran.
Saudi Arabia supports the region’s vilest elements, cold-blooded terrorist killers – its Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir boldly asserting “(t)here is no future for Assad in Syria.” If he doesn’t step down, Riyadh will get involved militarily to remove him “from power.”
European Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Julien Barnes-Dacey called Moscow’s intervention “a massive setback for” America and other nations wanting Assad ousted.
Riyadh-based King Faisal Centre for Research and Islamic Studies associate fellow Mohammed Alyahya said the Saudi view throughout the conflict is “Assad must go,” echoing calls from Washington, Britain and other nations opposing him.
Prevailing anti-Putin propaganda claims his intervention means more instability and bloodshed – polar opposite the free world’s view. It’s a vital initiative to end conflict, maintain Syrian sovereignty, help its people, as well as free the region and other countries from the scourge of terrorism. It’s already making a difference, causing consternation in their ranks.
Neocon Washington Post editors expressed concern over Russia’s intervention, saying it may shift the balance of power in Assad’s favor, disrupting Obama’s plan to oust him, opening a new phase of war.
US strategy is in disarray, analysts saying as long as Moscow and Tehran provide support, Assad can survive indefinitely. Four-and-a-half years of Obama’s war to oust him failed. Expect Plan B to pursue endless regional wars and instability.
If Russia can curb or defeat ISIS and other takfiri terrorists in Syria, Washington will suffer a major defeat, its entire regional imperial project disrupted.
It’s unclear what it plans next. Expect new efforts to counter Russia’s intervention, partnered with Israel and other rogue states.
Moscow wants terrorism defeated and a political solution in Syria. Washington wants endless regional wars and instability – ousting all independent governments, replacing them with pro-Western ones, no matter the cost in human lives and suffering. Which agenda do you support? Which one deserves universal praise?
Paul Craig Roberts’ new Clarity Press book, titled “The Neoconservative Threat to World Order” explains “the extreme dangers in Washington’s imposition of vassalage on other countries…” – neocons in Washington risking nuclear war to achieve their objectives.
His “book is a call to awareness that ignorance and propaganda are leading the world toward unspeakable disaster.” Top priority for free people everywhere is confronting America’s imperial agenda and defeating it once and for all.