The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEric Margolis Archive
How Far Are We from War with Russia Over Syria?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

OK you Russians! No more gentle American diplomacy! No more Mr. Nice Guy! So thundered US Secretary of State John Kerry last week.

Right on cue, the usually overwrought US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, blasted the Russians as ‘barbaric’ for their bombing campaign in Syria. She made no mention of the US using B-52 and B-1 heavy bombers as well as killer drones in Afghanistan. The lapdog US and British media were quick to run anguished pictures of Syrian babies but we saw narry a picture of an injured Afghan child.

Noble Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama, ducked and left Washington’s growing anti-Russian jihad to his aides while he flew off to Israel for the state funeral of the Shimon Peres, by now sainted by media as Israel’s ‘man of peace.’ In fact, Peres was the father of Israel’s nuclear weapons programs.

Under Peres’ auspices, Israel secretly offered nuclear warheads and then Jericho missiles to the embattled South African apartheid government. This was ironic because Israel has been insisting that Iran – which does not have nuclear weapons – will proliferate them around the globe.

Back in Washington, just about everyone is now ignoring lame duck Obama and doing their own thing. Recently, the Pentagon, which has no use for Obama, likely sabotaged joint US-Russians plan to end the bloody Syrian civil war by bombing a Syrian Army camp and killing close to 100 Syrian troops. ‘Ooops, sorry, a mistake’ explained the Pentagon.

More Russian warplanes are on the way to Syria. Ominously, Moscow just warned the US not to attack Russian military forces. Hillary Clinton’s supporters keep urging a so-called US-imposed ‘no fly zone’ in Syria, which is code for the US Air Force blowing Syria’s and Russia’s warplanes out of the skies and going after command control of Syria’s anti-aircraft systems. Which could be code for World War III.

Part of the reason for this intensified bellicosity is that Syrian government forces, backed by Russian air power, are making important if bloody progress in their siege of rebel-held sections of Aleppo.

At the same time, Turkey is decreasing its five-year old support for Syria’s rebels, including the al-Qaida allied Nusra Front (new relabled Jabhat Fateh al-Sham). The Saudis and Gulf emirates, who are financing much of the civil war, are hard up for cash. All sides in this bitter five-year old conflict are exhausted and war-weary. Once lovely Syria lies in ruins. For the extreme Sunni insurgents their best hope is direct US military intervention. They are waiting for the hawkish Hillary Clinton.

Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, claimed this week that Washington is protecting the Nusra Front as its ‘Plan B’ for Syria. He also asserted that the US will install Nusra in Damascus in the event that President Assad’s government falls. But the majority of Syrians and all its minorities would be bitterly opposed to being ruled by fanatical Wahabi Islamists.


This writer believes the US has long aided ISIS and still sees it as a potent weapon against the Assad government. Why else would it take the US and its Arab and Kurdish foot soldiers so long to move against ISIS strongholds at Raqqa and Mosul– which are, as this writer knows, only a taxi-ride away? ISIS is a rag-tag bunch of 20-something amateur Rambos, not the Wehrmacht.

One likely answer is that imperial Washington is totally confused over whom to support and how to do it. The bewildering fracas between Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, Arabs, Yazidis, assorted Christians, ISIS wildmen, egged on the US, Israel, Turkey, Russia, France, Britain, Lebanon, Jordan, the oil Arabs is just too much for Washington’s ill-educated, or often downright dim policy makers.

This writer has long believed that certain elements in Washington helped create ISIS as a potentially useful tool against non-obedient Mideast regimes, notably Syria and Libya. Israel, which whispers a lot into Washington’s ears, did the same thing by encouraging the growth of Hezbollah and Hamas as enemies of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Today, they are Israel’s toughest enemies, not the utterly corrupt regimes that run the Arab world.

The bright idea to overthrow Syria’s recognized government goes back to that Father of Disasters, George W. Bush. He planned to attack Syria with Israel. Bush was restrained when no suitable Syrian opposition group could be found to install in power. The Sunni opposition was mainly Muslim Brotherhood, a name that spooked Washington. So Washington waited until 2011 to ‘regime change’ disobedient Syria.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Syria 
Hide 23 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. dearieme says:

    I have no reason to doubt that stupidity and ignorance inform US foreign policy. But I frequently can’t even guess at motive. Why the Iraq Attack? Why the war on Syria? What the devil is it all about?

    • Replies: @eD
    , @anti_republocrat
    , @KA
    , @MMM
    , @RobinG
  2. Renoman says:

    Let the Russians do it! The whole thing is just a seething shit hole, why would the Yanks want to get involved in that mess?

  3. Rehmat says:

    John Kerry is not only a Zionist clown (his younger brother Cameron Kerry, a practicing Jew, has confirmed that their grandparents were Jewish) but also ZERO in past US-Russian history.

    Both United States and Soviet Russia fought against Nazis to SAVE JEWS. Both countries lived under the so-called COLD WAR without attacking each other. American finally destroyed USSR with the help of Afghan Muslim fighters.

    YES – Eric Margolis, the US and Israel created, funded and have been protecting ISIS in Iraq and Syria. They also gave birth to Boko Haram and al-Shabaab to reconquer African continent.

    Bashar assad is not going anywhere as long as he is supported by Syrian Army, Hizbullah, and Iran no matter what the US and Russia conspire.

    The idea of regime change in Damascus is not the brainchild of Dubya George Bush but Benjamin Netanyahu during his premiership. He also came up with the plan how to pull a huge terrorist event in the United States in his book, Uprooting Terrorism, many years before the 9/11.

    • Replies: @Marcus
  4. eD says:

    “I have no reason to doubt that stupidity and ignorance inform US foreign policy. But I frequently can’t even guess at motive. Why the Iraq Attack? Why the war on Syria? What the devil is it all about?”

    One possibility is that these people in Washington are quite dim, but very, very good at staying in power. This has been the case with numerous kleptocracies throughout history.

    The other possibility is that there is an absolutely brilliant plan for total world domination that we just can’t see.

    • Replies: @anti_republocrat
  5. @dearieme

    Jill Stein says, “US foreign policy is a marketing strategy for selling weapons.” While that is undoubtedly true, a more robust description of what drives US foreign/military policy would be the following:

    1) profits for arms manufacturers and other military contractors, 2) career enhancement for military brass, civilian employees of the CIA, Pentagon, State Department, and militarist thinktanks, 3) attendant high paying jobs guaranteed by ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) for “US persons” that keep those employees loyal to the system, 4) pork for politicians and 5) blockbuster movies and sensational headlines to sell media (and also to contribute to the necessary fear and jingoism).

    For the most part this is unconscious. Only the most depraved sociopath would back policies that have killed millions of people just for financial enrichment. Once in a great while somebody will carelessly talk about needing a threat in order to justify the Pentagon budget, but most often some other reason is given. Sometimes the wars are justified to promote democracy, stability or R2P. But those enlightened goals have never been achieved. Then there’s the limited hangout of war for oil. But a country’s oil production always falls while it is being attacked, and often when it’s over the contracts don’t go to the invader. Even the relatively depraved goal of achieving or maintaining hegemony does not occur. We certainly don’t control Libya or Ukraine, and it doesn’t look like we’ll be getting our way in Syria, either. Yet these are all perfectly acceptable rationales for intervention, regardless of the number of times they have not been achieved in the past.

    The only thing required of a politician, pundit or general is that he/she support the interventionist policy. The rationale isn’t important, so whether or not it’s successfully achieved isn’t important either. What’s important is whether the previously agreed upon policies are supported. Besides, the whole purpose of the military is to fight wars and you don’t spend 30 years in a career you don’t believe in.

  6. @eD

    No need for a brilliant plan or a vast conspiracy. All that’s necessary is for people to act on their own short term self-interest with no regard for long-term consequences. The military stars (with a few exceptions as Seymour Hersh has pointed out) and spy suits push for war and covert ops because that’s their mission, and the more they’re involved in, the faster they’re promoted. Arms manufacturers and their shareholders bribe Congress to keep it going to make a buck. Pundits, journalists and State Department folks are selected for their loyalty to the policies. Besides, they know if they oppose the policies they’ll soon be out on their ass, jobless. These latter will state unrealistic goals for the policies that are never achieved but which many of them actually believe, in their own arrogant stupidity. For example, I suspect Susan Rice and Samantha Power actually believe in R2P, that it’s a wise policy to bomb people to protect their human rights. Madeleine Albricht certainly thought it was “worth it.” There are few so fanatic as converts to a cause, and Power, Irish by birth, is now a fanatic American jingoist.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  7. Sven says:

    [Pick one handle and stick to it or use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise your comments may get trashed.]

    One never knows what Margolis really thinks. But he is always careful to give the impression that he is really is “in the know.”

    The Syrian war he terms a “bloody civil war”, as if there were such a things as a non-bloody war and as if the Syrian war is not a “civil war” but rather an invasion by outside forces.

    Then too he makes an equation between the US attacks on Afghanistan and the bombing of the Russians. The Russians don’t kill wedding parties deliberately with drones, and the intention of the US in Afghanistan is entirely evi, and also their presence there is entirely illegal and based on lie after lie, whereas the Russian presence is by invitation of the twice-elected Syrian gov’t. and the intention is to preserve that government’s stability in the face of the forces unleashed by the US and its jihadist proxies, and to prevent the growth and spread of these proxies into central Asia.

    To hear a voice of courage and integrity, listen to Paul Craig Roberts’ remarkable latest interview at

  8. Dan Hayes says:

    Power “is now a fanatic American jingoist”: the understatement of the year! I was shocked/appalled watching Power’s recent UN performances. She acted unhinged – a completely over-the -top Irish banshee. For the uninitiated, I strongly recommend that you monitor her performances via the internet. I guarantee that you will wonder how this cretin is permitted to represent our country. Send this creature back to Ireland to haunt old church yards this coming Halloween!

    • Replies: @Tom in AZ
  9. Rehmat says:

    Samantha Power is a ‘turncoat Ziocon’. Before she married an Israel-First Zionist Jew academic – she suggested in 20o2 that Washington should invade Israel in order to save Palestinians from the ZionNazis murderers.

    “It seems to me at this stage, and this is true of actual genocides as well and not just major human rights abuses which we’re seeing there, you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line,” she said. That meant taking the billions of dollars “serving Israel’s military” and investing it instead in the state of Palestine and a “mammoth protection force.” Power also noted that taking such a step “might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial important.”

    After becoming US-Israel ambassador at UN, she became a top critic of UNHRC special envoy for Palestine, Dr. Richard Falk (Jewish), over his anti-Israel reports.

    On June 13, 2013, Professor Kevin MacDonald described Samantha Power’s moral bankruptcy by saying that “Power strikes him a typical careerist who, despite her earlier spasm of moral consistency, realized that the way to fame and fortune was to make Jewish connections and completely ignore what she said about Israel’s human rights abuses.”

  10. KA says:

    When you ignore all possibilities that might have inspired the Clinton Kagan Power Rice Carter and Breedlove genre ,you are left with most implausible argument which is personal growth in careers Quite a while back I read the lament of a sane State Dept ex-official in NYT . He quit and he shared this thought with the scribe that the best and surest way to advance in pentagon ,defense,state department and be courted by the political kingmaker is to show extreme bellicosity against peaceful solution and extreme adherence to militarism as first response .
    The premise is implausible to us because we still think that the wold is run by honest ,logical,sane people with moral and ethical fabric . That’s the way primary school and some lowly government departments are run but not the departments where Power Rice Blumenthal Anne Marie Slaughter or Clinton move around .

    If there were modicum of safety and tranquility in Libya, C.inton would be repeating that line of achievement to the voters all the time . Failure doesn’t count to the media who sees no anomaly in allowing same fake players to do same dishonest job in another part of the globe with potential of equally stupidest result . This is why her journey to Syrian grave as peacemaker does not arouse any discomfort among the moderators or the misty eyes liberals or antiabortionist conservatives .

  11. “ISIS is a rag-tag bunch of 20-something amateur Rambos”

    Yes but once they are entrenched in a modern city it takes massive destruction to dislodge them.

    I think that is why Putin is drawing his own line in the sand.

    He knows the American’s and Saudi’s have a long history of using murderous Islamic radicals to destabilise governments and does not want such a situation developing in Russia.

    The elites of the west are of course disgustingly amoral in their use of Islamic groups but justify it by convincing themselves they are bringing freedom and liberty to all, in other words their vision of a liberal utopia which is ultimately going to be a gay massage parlour on every other corner and an abortionist on those corners left.

    Therein lies a great danger for us all: men like Obama filled with their own virtue and unhesitatingly amoral, even evil in their action, meet a nationalist like Putin determined to head off disaster for his own country which has a long history of being misunderstood.

    Meanwhile the world chugs another thickshake while our MSM studiously ignores the issues

    • Agree: Kiza
  12. MMM says:

    “Stupidity”, “Ignorance”, “Incompetence” are words frequently used to explain Neocon & Tribe actions/disasters. But note that Israel keeps growing, relatively untouched though surrounded by chaos and death. Europe and America are well on their way to ruin and Russia may be nuked if the Neocons find an opportunity to pull it off as an “Accident” or whatever. Sounds more like the Protocols of the Elders playing out than stupidity, ignorance, or incompetence.

  13. Marcus says:

    Could Rehmat pass a Turing Test?

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  14. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    First remark
    Those who pretend that the current conflict is not an exterior aggression, but a «civil war», can not explain the consequences of the declaration of war against Syria by President Bush in 2003, nor why the peace treaty of 2012 was signed by the major powers in the absence of any Syrian representative.

    Why the cease-fire in Syria has failed
    by Thierry Meyssan

  15. Rehmat says:

    YES – Monica Lewisky – Rehmat did pass a Turning Test. He visited Israel’s Wailing Wall inside occupied East Jerusalem in 1995.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    , @5371
  16. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Israel, which whispers a lot into Washington’s ears, did the same thing by encouraging the growth of Hezbollah and Hamas as enemies

    I do not believe this to be accurate and is a mixing up of the two groups. Hezbollah is an organization of Lebanese Shiites formed in the wake of the ’82 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. They are currently in militarily conflict with the Sunni jihadi types in Syria. The two groups are very different.

  17. @Rehmat

    Which Rehmat passed the Test ? You or one of the numerous minions you employ to interrupt websites with Islamist drivel completely unrelated to the question in hand ? I won’t be holding my breathe.

  18. RobinG says:

    There are 3 over-arching motives –
    1.) Sustain and grow the US weapons industry and associated careers
    2.) Old Cold War/new Cold War thinking and vendettas
    3.) Implement Israeli grand strategy

    To understand #3, you MUST be aware of the “Yinon Plan” for the ME –
    “Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East
    The Infamous “Oded Yinon Plan”.
    Analysis and translation by Israel Shahak,
    introduction by Michel Chossudovsky

  19. 5371 says:

    A Turing test, dear bumbling chap, is not what you have to pass to get a driver’s license.

  20. Tom in AZ says:
    @Dan Hayes

    Well, she may be way over the top. But John F#cking Bolton makes all that follow him seem sane by comparison…

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  21. Dan Hayes says:
    @Tom in AZ

    While I agree with you regarding the relative degrees of sanity of Bolton’s successors, it seems to me that Ms. Power wins hands down with regard to the tone of her unbridled, baying-at-the-moon UN behavior.

  22. How Far Are We from War with Russia Over Syria?

    I can’t speak for y’all. But I know I will not go to war with Russia over Syria. The psycho killers who decide American “foreign policy” are another matter. They have proved to my satisfaction that they are not rational, that they are determined to rule the world by force of arms and that they are indifferent to human suffering. You might say that “they” are Zionists or war profiteers and you would be right. But what is most relevant to the question is that they were born without a conscience. Simply put, they have no soul. They are exclusively self serving which is the same as being in the service of evil.

    I think the only way that there will not be war against Russia is if Russia voluntarily surrenders its sovereignty or if there is regime change in Washington. My hope is that dithering and half measures will continue until the empire dies of overreach and hubris.

  23. dearieme says:

    “Why the Iraq Attack? Why the war on Syria? ” Thanks for all the suggestions. They seem to boil down to the proposition that the American establishment consists of utterly corrupt careerists who are heedless of human suffering. And heedless of vital American interests.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Margolis Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Bin Laden is dead, but his strategy still bleeds the United States.
Egyptians revolted against American rule as well as Mubarak’s.
“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in...
A menace grows from Bush’s Korean blind spot.
Far from being a model for a “liberated” Iraq, Afghanistan shows how the U.S. can get bogged down Soviet-style.