Before getting to the interviews by current U.N Ambassador to the United Nations Mrs. Rubio vis-à-vis Syria, it is important to reassert reference points that are being intentionally overlooked by media; reference points the MSM pundits intentionally hide.
Point One – Russia, Iran and Syria’s President Bashir Assad care primarily about one thing: keeping Bashir Assad in power. All other influential objectives are secondary to this primary intention. All of the actions taken by Russia, Iran and the Syrian Government are specifically focused on keeping Bashir Assad in power.
Point Two – All historic action taken by the Russian, Iranian and Syrian participants are to eliminate the opposition to Assad. Goal #1 keep Assad in power, necessitates goal #2 eliminate Assad’s opposition.
Point Three – So long as Russia, Iran and the Syrian Regime can use the terrorism of ISIS as a foil they will continue to do so. As long as the appearance of Assad fighting ISIS remains the cognitive reference point of the international community – it is easier to keep Assad in power.
Point Four – Therefore the continued ground action of ISIS becomes a tool, a foil, to keep pressure away from the international community focusing on Assad’s removal.
Point Five – It is currently more beneficial for the objectives of Russia and Iran for the ISIS terrorism narrative to remain in place. The Syrian regime can survive with Assad, and accomplish the agenda of Russia and Iran, so long as the appearance of fighting ISIS remains the international optic.
These points have evolved over time. What was true in 2014 (ISIS is a threat to Assad) is no longer necessarily true in 2017 (ISIS, thanks to Russia, now contained in a geographic region within Syria – and not the same threat as 2014).
This understanding helps to reset the current paradigm. This quagmire is brutally overlooked by the media.
This fundamental paradigm shift in regional action, is what lies behind Assad (and Russia) now focusing on eliminating the opposition to Assad, that is not necessarily ISIS.
The ISIS narrative (including al-Qaeda, al-Nusra) now provides the foil for Assad, with Russia’s help, to eliminate his opposition that is NOT extremist. Under the guise of fighting terrorism (ISIS) Assad is launching attacks against his political opposition with the intention to wipe them out.
If the Russian military and the entire Syrian military wanted to eliminate ISIS in Syria (said to be approximately 30k +/-), they could do so rather quickly. They’ve had over a year to assemble enough military personnel and military armament to defeat that enemy.
They have not done so because it doesn’t fit the current agenda: keeping Assad in power.
It is this specific quagmire, via Assad’s interests served by the continuance of ISIS, that creates a situation where the recent chemical weapons were deployed. Either:
• A.) By Assad against his political opposition groups. Not ISIS terrorists. Or…
• B.) By political opposition groups, against extremists (al-Qaeda, ISIS etc.). Or…
• C.) By extremist groups, against political opposition groups, in an effort to get the Western forces to attack Assad.
Both A and C are most likely. We can make a solid research argument for both motives. Given the nature of the victims, option B is impossible to reconcile. If I had to bet I’d say “C”, but the White House claims much evidence toward “A”.
However, the reality of this quagmire is also why we previously said it doesn’t matter who used Chemical Weapons.
What really matters is President Trump’s response as guided by the regional partners who are aware of this reality.
The joint mid-east alliance have a regional plan to combat extremism and bring back stability. The alliance knows President Trump has no intention of engaging U.S. forces in another mid-east war. The alliance members know for the first time in history they are dealing with a U.S. President that is beholding to no external political elements. The alliance is asking for Trump’s political leadership strength.
By President Trump assigning responsibility, and the promise of further action, to Bashir Assad; and by taking extremely aggressive and public action that was widely accepted as necessary by the larger international community – President Trump is breaking up the availability of Assad (Russia and Iran) to hide behind the useful foil of their opposition to ISIS.
If another chemical attack takes place, Bashir Assad runs the risk of being removed. And the entire world, sans Russia and Iran, will see the removal action as justified.
Remember, the primary goal of Russia and Iran is to keep Assad in power.
♦ If Bashir Assad did not carry out the prior chemical attack, he, and Russia, is now in a position of having to make sure that another attack doesn’t take place, ever. This means Russia and Assad need to re-engage the fight against whomever ‘might’ carry out another chemical attack. (Trump wins)
♦ If Bashir Assad did carry out the prior chemical attack, he and Russia, are now unable to use that action against Assad’s political opposition. (Trump wins)
President Trump is forcing Assad (and Russia) to fight ISIS.
And THAT is the exact response Assad gave after the 59 tomahawk missiles struck the Syrian airbase. See: “Assad promises to fight ISIS harder.” This is also one of the reasons why the targeted airbase is still operational.
It is important to reset the overall review to this include this perspective when you watch the interviews with Nikki Haley.
Now pay attention to Secretary Tillerson:
Overall, the situation in Syria is one where our approach today and our policy today is, first, to defeat ISIS. By defeating ISIS we remove one of the disruptive elements in Syria that exists today.
That begins to clarify for us opposition forces and regime forces. In working with the coalition — as you know, there is a large coalition of international players and allies who are involved in the future resolution in Syria.
So it’s to defeat ISIS; it’s to begin to stabilize areas of Syria, stabilize areas in the south of Syria, stabilize areas around Raqqa through ceasefire agreements between the Syrian regime forces and opposition forces. Stabilize those areas; begin to restore some normalcy to them. Restore them to local governance — and there are local leaders who are ready to return, some who have left as refugees — they’re ready to return to govern these areas.
Use local forces that will be part of the liberation effort to develop the local security forces — law enforcement, police force. And then use other forces to create outer perimeters of security so that areas like Raqqa, areas in the south can begin to provide a secure environment so refugees can begin to go home and begin the rebuilding process.
In the midst of that, through the Geneva Process, we will start a political process to resolve Syria’s future in terms of its governance structure, and that ultimately, in our view, will lead to a resolution of Bashar al-Assad’s departure.