By Sharmine Narwani
Source: Veterans News Now
The terror in Paris is due entirely to France in Syria.

Let’s not beat around the bush.

The terror attacks in Paris last Friday shook the globe, even in countries where these acts are sadly the norm. Europe hasn’t seen carnage on this scale, with this degree of planning, for decades. But was this political violence entirely unexpected?.

Perhaps not. When French commentators railed against the perpetrators for “an attack on our values, our way of life” they couldn’t have been more wrong.

The Paris attacks had one source only and that was the Syrian conflict. True, the alleged terrorists, ISIS, were able to recruit angry, young, European Muslims to the task because of years of disenfranchisement and voicelessness in the heart of their continent.

But there would have been no calling, no urgency, no engine driving the recruitment frenzy, out of context of the Syrian storyline.

Nearly five years ago, several regional and western states utilized the larger-than-life symbols of the Arab Uprisings to create regime change in Syria. Syrians had already hit the streets in small numbers, galvanized by the fearlessness of their fellow Arabs to demand political and economic reforms. But it was only when shots rang out and Syrians fell dead that demands turned to rage and larger numbers mobilized.

With the benefit of time and disclosure, we have since learned that Syrian security forces were also being killed from the earliest days – 88 soldiers in the first month – and that there were armed elements shooting at both sides, to stir up conflict for the explicit purpose of effecting regime change in Syria. (1)

In a 2015 report on ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the US-think tank Brookings Institution wrote:

“Presented with an opportunity to inject violence into what had been a peaceful revolt, Baghdadi sent one of his Syrian operatives to set up a secret branch of the Islamic State in the country that year. The branch, later known as the Nusra Front, initially followed the Islamic State’s playbook by attacking civilians as part of a clandestine terror campaign to sow chaos.”

And chaos they sowed.

Chaos, of course, is a goal for radical, Salafist, militant groups. It creates a political and security vacuum that they are well-equipped to fill. These practices and experiences were honed at the expense of Afghans three decades ago, when the Saudi-funded and CIA-trained Mujahedeen learned how to create, then exploit, power vacuums.

The US-led invasion of Iraq, however, was the pivitol event that began the seeding of these extremist terror networks far and wide. Baghdadi is an Iraqi and ISIS is borne from Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) which then merged into the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), the precursor to ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham).

During the course of the Syrian conflict, we have seen the ease of movement between extremist groups. Free Syrian Army (FSA) members join ISIS, Ahrar al Sham militants join Jabhat al-Nusra, they fight with each other, they break up and re-form under new leadership – avowed enemies fighting on one front form security pacts when fighting on another. And thousands of these western-backed rebels have fought alongside ISIS and Al-Nusra, Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria.

“Armed moderates” are practically non-existent in Syria, despite countless efforts by western media, analysts and politicians to whitewash the “rebels” and pretend ignorance on the radical character of the militants they armed and assisted. Former US Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn admitted in August that his government and western allies had taken a “willful decision” to support the establishment of a “Salafist principality in Eastern Syria” – the same area now controlled by ISIS. (2)

At the forefront of the foreign intervention that has supported, financed, armed and assisted militants in Syria are three western states, the US, UK, France, and three main regional states, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar (UAE too).

In August 2012 when the Syrian conflict ratcheted up to a whole new level of armed political violence, I visited Zaatari Camp in Jordan, near the border with Syria where refugees were encamped. Right outside the camp entrance was a French military hospital, which I was told was providing emergency medical assistance to civilian refugees.

Later, we learned that the French facility was involved in patching up rebel fighters who would then return to the Syrian military theater. These were still early days in the Syrian conflict – around 10,000 dead compared to the 250,000-plus death toll today. (3)

But by the end of 2012, the proactive French role inside Syria was clearly detectable. British daily The Guardian wrote in December 2012:

“France has emerged as the most prominent backer of Syria’s armed opposition and is now directly funding rebel groups around Aleppo as part of a new push to oust the embattled Assad regime. Large sums of cash have been delivered by French government proxies across the Turkish border to rebel commanders in the past month, diplomatic sources have confirmed. The money has been used to buy weapons inside Syria and to fund armed operations against loyalist forces.” (4)

At this point, an EU arms embargo on Syria was in effect, but direct French weapons shipments to rebels were also secretly taking place. According to the 2015 book “In the corridors of French diplomacy,” French President Francois Hollande told author Xavier Panon, a diplomatic and military specialist, that France’s “services” were delivering “lethal weapons” to Syrian rebels in the second half of 2012. These arms shipments included canons, machine guns, rocket launchers and anti-tank missiles, and were, according to Hollande, ostensibly earmarked only for vetted FSA militias.

France and the UK teamed up to push through a lifting of EU weapons sanctions on Syria in May 2013, and the following month, at a ‘Friends of Syria meeting’, Paris committed to further increasing military aid to rebel groups. Furthermore, the French government was arguably the biggest cheerleader for launching airstrikes against Syria in August 2013 – efforts that were ultimately thwarted by widespread public pressure against military intervention in the US and UK.

We know that French funds ended up in the hands of Islamist militant groups like Liwa al-Tawhid for the purchase of ammunition and undoubtedly other military necessities. We also know that a slew of other weapons connected to France have shown up in the Syrian military theater, whether directly or indirectly. These include MILAN anti-tank missiles, Russian Igla anti-air missiles (reportedly transferred to Syria via Libyan Al Qaeda members who claim they were trained by the French), APILAS anti-tank weapons, SNEB rockets, FAMAS assault rifles and others lethal arms.

And just this month, photos of the APILA rocket launcher originally supplied to rebels were spotted in ISIS’ possession. (5)

Why were the French so determined to pursue a policy of military escalation in Syria – given that the proliferation of weapons in the Syrian theater was clearly leading to massive casualties, widespread destabilization and the exacerbation of a humanitarian crisis?

One need only to look at another of Hollande’s foreign policy and economic initiatives to understand his Syria policy.

To bolster a lagging economy, the French president dove headfirst into a series of mega arms deals with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Persian Gulf states – selling sophisticated weaponry to despotic, sectarian regimes neck-deep in dealings with jihadi and Salafist networks spanning the Middle East and North Africa.

Last year, US Vice President Joe Biden exposed the dangerous game being played by some of these states – he names Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE in these comments:

“They were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad except that the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.” (6)
While Hollande was raking in the Euros from arms deals with these very states, he was turning a blind eye to their activities in Syria.

France’s weapons exports in 2014 were just over 8 billion Euros. By May of 2015 alone, that number had skyrocketed to 15 billion Euros, primarily due to a $7 billion sale of military hardware to Qatar. The French ministry of defense claimed that 30,000 jobs would be created by this one sale – but at what cost?

And last month, the French inked an additional $12 billion in contracts with the Saudis, including major military hardware and parts.

France isn’t alone in these arms sales – the UK and US are right alongside competing for Persian Gulf petrodollars. Never mind that one of the biggest recipients of weapons is Saudi Arabia (today the number one weapons importer in the world), which has instigated the horrific carpet-bombing of Yemen that has killed thousands and decimated the already impoverished country. Worse yet, the main beneficiaries of the Yemeni bombing campaign appear to be Al Qaeda, who are de facto allies of the Saudis against the Houthis, and have used the chaos to move into new territory throughout the south of the country.

On Monday, the US White House announced a further $1 billion sale to the Saudis of air-to-land munitions for their Yemeni campaign – under the guise of “counter-terrorism” no less – ironic, given that Al Qaeda gains each time the Saudis drop a bomb.

Two years after the September 11 terrorist attacks that claimed almost 3,000 victims in the United States, the US Senate’s Judiciary Committee held hearings on terrorism and its connection to Wahhabism (state religion of Saudi Arabia and Qatar). During the hearings, Saudi Arabia was called the “epicenter” of terror funding for “principally Al Qaeda but many other recipients as well.” The Saudis, according to Senate transcripts, had contributed a whopping $70 billion over 25 years to the funding of “what they call Islamist activities.” (7)

In 2009, a secret US State Department cable signed off by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claims: “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide…Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT (Laskhar-e Taiba), and other terrorist groups…It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.”

Hollande’s government is hooked on the profits derived from its Persian Gulf allies. But this relationship has also made him hostage to short-term rewards – in exchange for turning France’s foreign policy into a subservient arm of Saudi-Qatari geopolitical objectives.

The Paris attacks were surely undeserved, but never unexpected. Over the past three decades we have seen, over and over again, that Salafist extremists bite the hand that feeds its ranks. While mentor states enjoy the fact that militants are convenient foot soldiers and proxies who can fight their foreign battles, they do not yet see the inevitable blowback as a deterrence. Rather, they hunker down when a terror attack heads their way, cut off further civil liberties under the guise of fighting “terrorism,” drop a few bombs and scapegoat an ethnic or religious minority group until the anxiety fades. Then it is back to old business.

In Paris, on Friday, the perpetrators – whether ISIS or another radical Salafist group – had little to lose and much to gain. Chaos is their game, and their goals, operations and cells are easily shifted. Not so France.

Hollande reacted by declaring war, stomping his feet in outrage…and dropping some bombs on Syria. He is not a visionary, but a cog in a business wheel. Under his governance and prior to the Paris attacks, France had conducted all of five airstrikes in their “war on ISIS” in Syria. And collected a lot of cash for it.

No, ISIS/Al Qaeda/Nusra Front/Whomever doesn’t give a fig about French “values” and “way of life.” The terror in Paris is due entirely to France in Syria.

References
1. https://www.rt.com/op-edge/157412-syria-hidden-massacre-2011
2. http://levantreport.com/2015/08/06/former-dia-chief-michael-flynn-says-rise-of-islamic-state-was-a-willful-decision-and-defends-accuracy-of-2012-memo/
3. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-01-081113.html
4. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/07/france-funding-syrian-rebels
5. https://twitter.com/MuradoRT/status/662723467737886720
6. http://mideastshuffle.com/2014/10/04/biden-turks-saudis-uae-funded-and-armed-al-nusra-and-al-qaeda/
7. https://www.rt.com/op-edge/256561-sunni-threat-middle-east-stability/

* Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Middle East geopolitics.

By Tony Cartalucci
Source: New Eastern Outlook
The terrorist attacks carried out in the heart of the French capital, either coincidentally or intentionally, have served as the perfect point of leverage for the West on the very eve of the so-called “Vienna talks” regarding Syria.

With its serendipitously strengthened hand and with France taking a more prominent role, the West is attempting to reassert not only its narrative, but its agenda regarding the ongoing conflict in Syria, an agenda that has – as of late – been derailed by Russia’s military intervention and recent gains made on the battlefield by Syrian military forces. The London Guardian stated in its article “Paris attacks galvanise international efforts to end Syria war” that:

The Isis attacks in Paris have galvanised international efforts to end the war in Syria, with a new deadline set for negotiations between the warring parties and for a country-wide ceasefire.

There is still no sign of agreement, however, on the key question of the future of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.

It should seem extraordinary to the global public that even after the attacks in Paris, the West still insists on undermining the Syrian government toward its goal of “regime change,” which includes continued material support to armed militants – all of which are extremists, and many of which have either coordinated with, or fought under the banner of Al Qaeda and even the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS).

This is also considering the fact that the Syrian government is now currently engaged in battle with ISIS in and around Aleppo, and is currently threatening to sever its supply lines leading out of NATO-member Turkey’s territory.

Regarding this point, the Guardian would even report:

It was clear, however, that Russia and the US have again had to agree to disagree about Assad. The Paris attacks “show that it doesn’t matter if you’re for Assad or against him,” said the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov. “Isis is your enemy.”

However, to explain the West’s apparent failure to prioritize, the Guardian claims:

Isis, in their [the West’s] view, is a symptom of political failings in both Iraq and Syria. The Vienna participants are to meet in Paris before the end of the year to review progress toward a ceasefire and the selection of delegations for the Syrian talks.

In reality, ISIS is not a “symptom of political failings.” It is the result of concerted, immense, multinational state-sponsorship. Entire armies of the immense scale ISIS operates on do not rise out of “political failings,” they rise from huge, preexisting financial networks, region-wide logistical support, multinational political support, intelligence networking, and experienced military planning and organizational skills.

The West and its regional allies, namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey, clearly constitute this immense multinational state-sponsorship ISIS has so far enjoyed. A look at any map depicting the Syrian conflict shows ISIS supply lines running directly out of NATO-member Turkey’s territory and in numerous reports, even out of the West’s most prominent papers, it is even admitted that ISIS is supplied in Syria, via Turkey.

It is clear then that “political failings” are not the “cause” of ISIS except only in the sense that the “failure” to exact regime change in Syria has prompted the West to continue propping up ISIS and other terrorist groups until the government in Damascus falls – and only when Damascus’ regional and global allies abandon it.

The West Got What it Wanted in Libya – And Created ISIS in the Process

The West’s claims during the Vienna talks that if only they get their way in Syria, the threat of ISIS will subside, is betrayed by the events surrounding the very rise of ISIS in Syria in the first place.

Just before the conflict reached critical mass in Syria during 2011, the US, UK, France, other NATO members, as well as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), were already in the process of fully dividing and destroying Libya in pursuit of regime change.

They insisted that regime change was the only way to end the bitter fighting that had swept the country – regime change that just so happened to fulfill the long-held desire by Washington and Europe to see Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi ousted from power.

Through arming what the West called “rebels,” and through direct military intervention which included large-scale, nationwide airstrikes, naval bombardments, and even special forces, NATO devastated the country and turned it over literally to Al Qaeda. The West’s “rebels” turned out to be sectarian extremists all along, and in fact – with NATO’s help – they promptly took their weapons, fighters, and cash to begin the invasion of northern Syria via Turkey later that year.

The Business Insider would report in its article, “REPORT: The US Is Openly Sending Heavy Weapons From Libya To Syrian Rebels,” that:

The administration has said that the previously hidden CIA operation in Benghazi involved finding, repurchasing and destroying heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, but in October we reported evidence indicating that U.S. agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

There have been several possible SA-7 spottings in Syria dating as far back as early summer 2012, and there are indications that at least some of Gaddafi’s 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles were shipped before now.

On Sept. 6 a Libyan ship carrying 400 tons of weapons for Syrian rebels docked in southern Turkey. The ship’s captain was “a Libyan from Benghazi” who worked for the new Libyan government. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head Abdelhakim Belhadj, worked directly with Stevens during the Libyan revolution.

Belhadj, it should be mentioned, was the commander of US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) – which is literally Al Qaeda in Libya – and was so before, during, and after the 2011 Libyan war. Belhadj was also reportedly aligned with ISIS as it officially established itself in the shattered North African state. Fox News would report in its article, “Herridge: ISIS Has Turned Libya Into New Support Base, Safe Haven,” that:

[Catherine] Herridge reported that one of the alleged leaders of ISIS in North Africa is Libyan Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was seen by the U.S. as a willing partner in the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

“Now, it’s alleged he is firmly aligned with ISIS and supports the training camps in eastern Libya,” Herridge said.

It is clear that despite Western claims that regime change in Libya would be the beginning of the end for Libya’s violence and instability, it was only the end of the beginning – and not only for chaos in Libya – but for other nations across North Africa and in Syria itself.

Using Another 9/11 to Justify Creating Another Libya

NATO’s intervention and regime change in Libya did not avert a refugee crisis, it helped create one. NATO’s intervention and successful regime change in Libya did not make the region or the world safer, it turned the entire nation into a breeding ground for terrorist organizations with so-far unprecedented reach and operational capacity. NATO’s goals in Libya did not prevent the refugee crisis, it helped start it. And with all of this in mind, having seen this and taken full stock of Libya’s outcome, the West has nonetheless moved forward with precisely the same agenda in Syria.

In all reality, the West has no intention of bringing peace or stability to Syria. Their goal is to leave Syria as divided and destroyed as Libya, and to use the chaos and instability fostered there as a springboard for other targets of the West’s proxy warfare – most likely Iran, Russia, and targets deeper in Central Asia.

The West promises that it will end the chaos in Syria, just like they promised it would end in Libya. It will not end in either.

With Libya’s fate in mind, and a repeat performance clearly taking shape in Syria should the West get its way, it must be made clear that no matter how many innocent people are killed by terrorists the West itself helped create and perpetuate, they will not get an opportunity to turn Syria into the “Libya of the Levant,” no matter how convenient and well-timed these killings are, no matter how deep they are within the heart of Europe or North America, and no matter how tragic and regrettable the aftermath is.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.