Tag Archives: Turkey

Turkish election exposes deepening crisis of rule

By Halil Celik and Jean Shaoul
June 6, 2015
World Socialist Web Site


Turkey’s parliamentary election on Sunday, June 7, takes place amid increasing social and political tensions on the national and international front that will intensify, whichever party wins.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is seeking an increased majority for his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), in order to push through constitutional changes for a presidential system of government, a move to more authoritarian forms of rule. But after winning three terms in office, the AKP now faces declining support, with polls predicting a reduced majority of 290-300 seats—far short of the 367 required for a constitutional amendment.

In addition, the AKP government’s relations with its traditional allies in NATO and the Middle East became strained following the Arab Spring, when Ankara sought to position itself as the model for Sunni Islamists in the region. It initially opposed the NATO-led war to unseat Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. It was particularly vociferous against the Saudi-orchestrated and US-supported military coup against Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Mursi—with whom Ankara established close relations, in line with previous US policy.

Turkey’s role in Syria’s sectarian civil war, sponsoring Muslim Brotherhood-dominated opposition groups and financing and arming Islamic militias, including the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), in an attempt to overthrow the regime of its former ally, President Bashar al-Assad, again brought it into conflict with Washington after its own recent turn against ISIS.

Turkey’s choice of allies in the Syrian civil war was motivated by its refusal to lend any support to Syria’s Kurds, who are allied to Turkey’s Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), against whom the Turkish state fought a bitter 30-year-long civil war. Syria’s Kurds have carved up an autonomous state along Turkey’s borders and are opposed to the Islamists.

In partnership with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, the Turkish government has deployed tens of thousands of troops to the Syrian border in preparation for a possible invasion. On Thursday, May 7, the secretary-general of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) told journalists that, according to a tip-off from a “very reliable source,” Turkey would “launch a military operation into Syria tonight or Friday.” Two days later, the army chief went on leave for two weeks, ostensibly due to health problems.

The AKP’s aggressive and incoherent foreign policy is no more popular in Turkey than it is among the regime’s US, European and regional allies.

Following years of economic growth of around eight to 10 percent, that benefited a relatively small layer of the population, growth fell to four percent in 2013 and only 2.9 percent last year. As a result of the recession in its major export markets and the fall in the value of the Turkish lira, the country’s trade deficit grew to more than five percent of GDP last year.

Unemployment has risen above 20 percent, reaching 40 percent in the southeastern and predominantly agricultural and Kurdish region. This, along with rising prices, has led to a massive increase in household debt, with consumer credit ballooning eleven-fold.

According to the Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report 2014, Turkey is among those countries with “very high inequality.” The share of the top 10 percent of the nation’s wealth was 77.7 percent, the second-highest percentage after Russia. Income disparity grew by 21 percent between 2000 and 2014.

Today, just 100 families monopolize around 30 percent of the total national income. There are 44 dollar billionaires with a combined fortune of $50 billion, up from five in 2002.

These social and economic conditions were the driving force for the first indications of a movement against the AKP government during the Gezi Park protests in June 2013. While that movement was a predominantly middle class protest, the industrial working class has begun to stir.

Three weeks ago, 20,000 metalworkers in various car plants, including workers at Renault, Tofaş and Ford Otosan, went out on strike over pay and conditions in defiance of their union, Türk-Metall. The wildcat strikes brought production in Turkey to a standstill, at a loss of $70 million a day. Türk-Traktör, a factory near Ankara, is still on strike. On June 1, thousands of physicians and health professionals went on a one-day strike in Istanbul.

Tensions within Turkey’s ruling elite are explosive. In late 2013, Erdoğan, who was prime minister at the time, faced off with his former Islamist allies, led by Fethullah Gülen, a US-based preacher, and his Hizmet movement, who are opposed to the AKP’s overtures to the PKK, closing down their network of schools.

The Gülenists responded by instigating a major investigation into corruption involving AKP ministers and Erdoğan’s own family in December 2013. Calling it a “foreign plot” and an “attempt to damage the government made by a parallel state nested within the state,” Erdoğan ordered the removal and reassignment of police officers, prosecutors and judges involved in the investigation, and introduced laws outlawing Hizmet and banning the Gülenists from the police, the courts and government service, replacing them with AKP loyalists.

Erdoğan’s fallout with the Gülenists has forced him to turn to his former political adversaries, the Turkish military and the security establishment, for support.

Since becoming president, Erdoğan and the AKP government, headed by Ahmet Davutoglu, have become even more authoritarian and divisive. The government has clamped down on journalists, closed off critical websites and social media, and indicted more than 105 people for insulting the president.

In violation of the constitution, which accords the presidency a largely ceremonial function above politics, Erdoğan has retained the leadership of the AKP, held public meetings, criticised the opposition parties and called for an increased majority for the AKP in the parliamentary elections to enable the AKP to revise the constitution in favour of a presidential system.

The AKP not only uses the resources of the state to conduct its electoral campaign, but also employs the state institutions and the judiciary against the opposition parties, with pro-AKP judges, prosecutors and police chiefs hindering the electoral campaign of the opposition in a number of cities.

Turkey’s main opposition parties, the Kemalist Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which espouse equally right-wing economic policies favouring big business, have been unable to make any serious inroads into the AKP’s support.

The predominantly Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) has sought to reposition itself as a “left party” along the lines of Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain. Most of the petty-bourgeois liberal left, which previously supported the AKP government, either openly or through the Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), the HDP’s predecessor, are now calling on workers and youth to vote for the HDP. This time, their slogan is “Freedom from the AKP at all costs.”

The HDP is for the first time fielding a national list, rather than independent candidates from the Kurdish region where the party is strongest. It is a risky strategy that means it must attract at least 10 percent of the vote to beat Turkey’s prohibitively high national election threshold to win any seats in parliament. Not a few international commentators, including the right-wing business magazine the Economist, have called for a vote for the HDP to clip Erdogan’s wings.

Should the HDP win the 72 seats that polls are predicting, it could end the era of single-party AKP governments and a return to the previous norm of rule by shaky coalitions. Should the HDP fail to win the necessary votes, all its seats in the Kurdish regions would transfer to the AKP. A defeat will likely lead to claims of electoral fraud and the breakdown of the much stalled “peace process” with the PKK and the Kurds.

Turkey says US agrees to provide air cover for anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria

By Niles Williamson
May 26, 2015
World Socialist Web Site


Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said Monday that the US had agreed to provide air support for so-called “moderate rebels” being trained in Turkey, once they cross the border into Syria.

Cavusoglu told the Daily Sabah that there was “a principle agreement” between the two governments for Washington to provide air cover for the proxy forces being trained in a US-funded program aimed at toppling the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Asked if there would be cooperation with the US in providing air support for the “train-and-equip army,” the foreign minister replied, “Of course. They have to be supported via air. If you do not protect them or provide air support, what is the point?”

Cavusoglu refused to give any details when asked if the air support would include armed American drones flown from Incirlik Air Base in the southern Turkish city of Adana. “These are technical details,” he stated. “There is a principle agreement on providing air support. How it is going to be provided is in the responsibility of the army.”

As of Monday evening, the US government had not officially responded to Cavusoglu’s statement, neither affirming nor denying its accuracy. Such an agreement would, however, mark a major escalation in the four-year-long US-instigated civil war that has devastated Syria, killing hundreds of thousands of people and turning millions more into refugees.

The Turkish claim comes at a point of mounting military successes against Syrian government forces by US-backed “rebels” in league with the Al Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front and by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The provision of air cover by the US for its proxy forces on the ground in Syria would follow the pattern of the 2011 US-NATO air war in Libya, which ended with the torture and assassination of deposed ruler Muammar Gaddafi and led in turn to the collapse of the country into bloody civil war between rival Islamist militias.

The US has been flying a fleet of four unarmed Predator surveillance drones over Syria and Iraq from Incirlik since 2011. Three additional Predator drones were deployed to the Turkish base in April.

While the drones reportedly remain unarmed, Turkish military officials agreed in principle last month to the deployment of armed drones at the air base, which is located approximately 360 miles north of the Syrian capital of Damascus and 250 miles northwest of the ISIS Syrian stronghold of Raqqa, well within the flight range of the Predator drones.

The US and Turkish governments are undertaking the military training operation as part of a $500 million program approved by Congress in September 2014 that also involves the training of Syrian “rebels” at camps in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

According to the Hurriyet Daily News, approximately 123 US soldiers arrived in Turkey at the end of April to initiate the training and equipping program. Forty of these soldiers were deployed to the Hirfanli army base in central Turkey to train supposedly moderate anti-Assad forces. The remaining 83 were deployed to Incirlik to oversee the transfer of weapons to Syrian insurgent groups. Turkey has provided an equal number of soldiers to work alongside the US advisers.

According to Hurriyet, the fighters trained at Hirfanli will be transferred to Hatay province, where they will be armed with rifles, machine guns and anti-tank weapons before being sent back across the border into Syria.

The US has already initiated a similar program in Jordan, where some 400 soldiers from the US and 100 others from countries allied to the US have been training an initial group of approximately 100 Syrian fighters. Washington and its allies are planning to train 15,000 anti-regime Syrian fighters over the next three years.

While launched under the pretense of developing an effective force to fight ISIS, which has taken control of large swaths of Syria and Iraq, the training programs are aimed ultimately at the overthrow of Assad.

Cavusoglu made this clear in response to a question about his expectations for the operation, stating, “The opposition forces are fighting on both fronts. While the fight against ISIS is prioritized, the regime must be also stopped.”

US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter told the New York Times earlier this month that Washington would be obligated to assist the “rebels” they trained if they came into conflict with the Syrian military. “If they are contested by regime forces, we would have some responsibility to help them,” he stated, adding, “We have not yet decided in detail how we would exercise that responsibility.”

Since last summer, when ISIS moved across the border from Syria to Iraq, seizing control of large portions of that country, the US has been gradually building up direct military operations against the extremist group inside Syria.

ISIS developed out of the civil war stoked up by the US and its imperialist allies as part of its effort to overthrow Assad, a key ally of Iran and Russia. The CIA and the US military have funneled massive quantities of weapons and ammunition as well as thousands of foreign fighters into Syria since 2011.

On September 10, 2014, US President Barack Obama announced the beginning of a consistent campaign of air strikes against ISIS targets throughout Syria. Since then, the US and its allies have carried out several thousand air strikes against targets in Iraq and Syria at a cost of more than $2.4 billion, or roughly $8.9 million per day.

US Special Forces carried out a raid in eastern Syria on May 17, killing 32 reputed members of ISIS, including a reportedly high-level ISIS officer. American Special Forces carried out their first attack inside Syria last summer in an unsuccessful raid against an ISIS complex in Raqqa, ostensibly to rescue US hostages who were later killed.

The US-led military operation in Iraq and Syria continued on Sunday and into Monday with 10 air strikes in Syria and 25 in Iraq. US strikes in Iraq hit ISIS targets near Fallujah, Baiji, Bahghdadi and Ramadi.

Shiite militias are preparing for a counter-offensive to retake Ramadi, which fell to ISIS forces last week after the Iraqi military was routed. On Monday, Shiite militia forces fighting alongside local Sunni tribal fighters took over part of Al Tash, a rural village 12 miles south of Ramadi.

Sunni fighters loyal to the Iraqi government were reported to be laying landmines on Monday to reinforce the defense of Baghdadi, which was retaken from ISIS forces in March. The city, 63 miles northwest of Ramadi, is the site of the Al Asad air base, where several hundred US military advisers are currently stationed.

Since June 2014, more than 3,000 US soldiers have been deployed throughout Iraq as part of anti-ISIS military operations.

World War I: The 100th Anniversary of the Battle of Gallipoli (1915-1916)

By Birsen Filip
April 25, 2015
Global Research


ottoman_empire-b316fThe Battle of Gallipoli, or the Battle of Çanakkale, was fought between the Ottoman Empire and the Allied Forces of the First World War (1914-1918) on the Gallipolo peninsula from April 25, 1915 to January 9, 1916. This battle was initiated by Britain and France, who organized a naval attack aimed at capturing the Ottoman Empire’s capital, Constantinople (modern Istanbul). The Ottoman Army was commanded by Mustafa Kemal (1881-1938), while Winston Churchill (1874-1965) led the Royal Navy, which included soldiers from Australia and New Zealand in addition to those of the UK and France.

Churchill’s goals were very ambitious, as he was convinced that “the invasion would give the British a clear sea route to their ally Russia and knock the fading Ottoman Empire, the “sick man of Europe”…out of the war, which would persuade one or all of the neutral states of Greece, Bulgaria and Romania to join the Allies”. While Churchill was well-aware that the invasion of Gallipoli would by costly, he believed that this high price was worth paying, given that victory would eliminate Turkey as a factor in the war. He predicted that an “army of 50,000 men and sea power” would be enough to eliminate “the Turkish menace”. Young Churchill was able to convince the British Cabinet of the merits of the mission and they eventually agreed to send naval forces. Also, despite some initial hesitation, the French government also supported the British plan as designed by Churchill.

In addition to Britain and France, the imperial army sent to battle in Gallipoli was also comprised of soldiers from New Zealand and Australia, who joined on account of their loyalty to the monarchy despite gaining independence as British colonies 14 years prior to the onset of the First World War. Thus, in late November 1914, soldiers from both Australia and New Zealand, who thought they were headed to England for training, were instead deployed near Cairo in Egypt. Then, in April 1915, they were ordered to go from Egypt to a new destination, the Gallipoli peninsula.

Unfortunately for Churchill, his assessments and predictions proved to be wholly inaccurate and unreliable, as the Allied Forces were not able to achieve any of their objectives. In fact, Allied Forces evacuated the Gallipoli peninsula after only eight months of fighting, with Churchill resigning his post well before this withdrawal. In the end, even though Ottoman forces were able to repel the invading Allies from Gallipoli and retain control of the region, both sides suffered tremendous casualties as a result of the fighting as well as widespread disease. To be more precise, at the conclusion of the Battle of Gallipoli, Allied Forces suffered “250,000 casualties, including some 46,000 dead,” while the Turkish army “estimated 250,000 casualties, with 65,000 killed.”

The Ottoman victory in the Battle of Gallipoli turned out to be one of the most significant events in the history of contemporary Turkey, with lasting impacts that extended well beyond the physical battlefield. In addition to allowing the Turks to retain control of Constantinople and the surrounding region, it also facilitated Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s rise to prominence. Shortly after leading his forces to victory in the Battle of Gallipoli, Ataturk assumed the leadership of Turkey as its first president and, in the 1920s, implemented a series of reforms designed to facilitate the transition to Occidental patterns and lifestyles in Turkey.

Meanwhile, the Battle of Gallipoli represents one of the great defeats suffered by the Allied forces during the First World War. Despite its disastrous results, this conflict played a symbolic role in developing a sense of national identity for both Australia and New Zealand. In fact, every year, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) commemorates April 25th, the date of the original landing, as a national day of remembrance to honour the thousands of casualties that were incurred in Gallipoli. This year will mark the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Gallipoli and, in order to commemorate its centennial, more than 8,000 Australians will gather at memorials in Turkey so as to honour the bravery of those who lost their lives in this region. Furthermore, Prince Charles and Prince Harry will also be in Turkey to “represent the royal family at the centenary Anzac dawn service in Gallipoli”. Not surprisingly, there are some security concerns about the commemoration ceremony that will be held in Gallipoli on April 24 and 25, given the significance that it holds for Turkey as well as the planned attendance of the British Royal Family members, Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, and over 8,000 Australians. In response, “[i]t’s expected there’ll be 4000 Turkish jandarma and national police present — an increase of 40 per cent on previous years — as well as the coast guard and at least 1000 soldiers from the 2nd army corps.”

It is evident that military strategists learned many lessons from the Gallipoli campaign in terms of warfare tactics, which they developed, refined, and implemented during World War II. For instance, “the successful evacuation led to the development of American amphibious warfare tactics practiced in the Pacific during the Second World War.” Unfortunately, aside from some new military tactics and strategies, traditional and contemporary imperial nations appear to have learned little else in the way of an evolved sense of morality and ethics to curb their expansionist behaviour and imperialistic ambitions. Sadly, many atrocities have been committed around the globe since the end of the First World War, including World War II, as well as many other regional wars and invasions that have led to the destruction and destabilization of entire nations, particularly on the Asian and African continents. The atrocities of 20th and 21st century reinforce Hegel’s claim that:

“peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it. Each period is involved in such peculiar circumstances, exhibits a condition of things so strictly idiosyncratic, that its conduct must be regulated by considerations connected with itself, and itself alone. Amid the pressure of great events, a general principle gives no help”.

Breaking the Resistance with Terrorism and Proxy Wars

By Eric Draitser
March 17, 2015
New Eastern Outlook


S8885544332With the situation in the Middle East seemingly spinning out of control, many political observers are left wondering what it all means. The war in Syria has been at the forefront of the news since 2011, and rightly so, as Syria has become the epicenter of a larger regional conflict, particularly with the ascendance of ISIS in the last year.

Undoubtedly, the mainstream acceptance of the ISIS threat has changed the strategic calculus vis-à-vis Syria, as the US prepares to launch yet another open-ended war, ostensibly to defeat it. And, while many in the West are willing to buy the ISIS narrative and pretext for war, they do so with little understanding or recognition of the larger geopolitical contours of this conflict. Essentially, almost everyone ignores the fact that ISIS and Syria-Iraq is only one theater of conflict in the broader regional war being waged by the US-NATO-GCC-Israel axis. Also of vital importance is an understanding of the proxy war against Iran (and all Shia in the region), being fomented by the very same terror and finance networks that have spread the ISIS disease in Syria.

In attempting to unravel the complex web of relations between the terror groups operating throughout the region, important commonalities begin to emerge. Not only are many of these groups directly or tangentially related to each other, their shadowy connections to western intelligence bring into stark relief an intricate mosaic of terror that is part of a broader strategy of sectarianism designed to destroy the “Axis of Resistance” which unites Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah. In so doing, these terror groups and their patrons hope to internationalize the war in Syria, and its destructive consequences.

Terrorism as a Weapon in Syria and Iraq

In order to understand how these seemingly disparate groups fit into the regional destabilization, one must first recognize how they are connected both in terms of ideology and shared relationships. On the one hand you have the well known terror outfits operating in the Syria-Iraq theater of this conflict. These would include the ubiquitous ISIS, along with its Al Qaeda-affiliated ally Jabhat Al-Nusra.

However, often left out of the western narrative is the fact that the so called “moderate rebels,” such as the Al Farouq Brigade and other similar groups affiliated with the “Free Syrian Army,” are also linked through various associations with a number of jihadi organizations in Syria and beyond. These alleged “moderates” have been documented as having committed a number of egregious war crimes including mutilation of their victims, and cross-border indiscriminate shelling. And these are the same “moderates” that the Obama Administration spent the last three years touting as allies, as groups worthy of US weapons, to say nothing of the recent revelations of cooperation with US air power. But of course US cooperation with these extremist elements is only the tip of the iceberg.

A recent UN report further corroborated the allegations that Israeli military and/or Mossad is cooperating with, and likely helping to organize, the Jabhat al-Nusra organization in and around the Golan Heights. Such claims of course dovetail with the reports from Israeli media that militant extremists fighting the Syrian government have been treated in Israeli medical facilities. Naturally, these clandestine activities carried out by Israel should be combined with the overt attacks on Syria carried out by Tel Aviv, including recent airstrikes, which despite the inaction of the UN and international community, undeniably constitute a war crime.

Beyond the US and Israel however, other key regional actors have taken part in the destabilization and war on Syria. Turkey has provided safe haven for terrorists streaming into Syria to wage war against the legally recognized government of President Assad. In cooperation with the CIA and other agencies, Turkey has worked diligently to foment civil war in Syria in hopes of toppling the Assad government, thereby allowing Ankara to elevate itself to a regional hegemon, or so the thinking of Erdogan and Davutoglu goes. Likewise, Jordan has provided training facilities for terrorists under the guidance and tutelage of “instructors” from the US, UK, and France.

But why rehash all these well-documented aspects of the destabilization and war on Syria? Simple. In order to fully grasp the regional dimension and global implications of this conflict, one must place the Syria war in its broader geopolitical context, and understand it as one part of a broader war on the “Axis of Resistance.” For, while Hezbollah and certain Iranian elements have been involved in the fighting and logistical support in Syria, another insidious threat has emerged – a renewed terror war against Iran in its Sistan and Baluchestan province in the east.

Rekindling the Proxy War against Iran

As the world’s attention has been understandably fixed upon the horrors of Syria, Iraq, and Libya, a new theater in the regional conflict has come to the forefront – Iran; specifically, Iran’s eastern Sistan and Baluchestan province, long a hotbed of separatism and anti-Shia terror, where a variety of terror groups have operated with the covert, and often overt, backing of western and Israeli intelligence agencies.

Just in the last year, there have been numerous attacks on Iranian military and non-military targets in the Sistan and Baluchestan region, attacks carried out by a variety of groups. Perhaps the most well known instance occurred in March 2014 when five Iranian border guards were kidnapped – one was later executed – by Jaish al-Adl which, according to the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium is:

an extremist Salafi group that has since its foundation claimed responsibility for a series of operations against Iran’s domestic security forces and Revolutionary Guards operating in Sistan and Balochistan province, including the detonation of mines [link added] against Revolutionary Guards vehicles and convoys, kidnapping of Iranian border guards and attacks against military bases… Jaish al-Adl is also opposed to the Iranian Government’s active support of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which they regard as an attack on Sunni muslims…Jaish ul-Adl executes cross border operations between the border of Iran and Pakistan and is based in the Baluchistan province in Pakistan.

It is important to note the centrality of Iran’s support for Syria and the Syrian Arab Army (and of course Hezbollah) in the ideological framework of a group like Jaish al-Adl. Essentially, this terror group sees their war against the Iranian government as an adjunct of the war against Assad and Syria – a new front in a larger war. Of course, the sectarian aspect should not be diminished as this group, like its many terrorist cousins, makes no distinction between political and religious/sectarian divisions. A war on Iran is a war on Shia, and both are just, both are legitimate.

Similarly, the last 18 months have seen the establishment of yet another terror group known as Ansar al-Furqan – a fusion of the Balochi Harakat Ansar and Pashto Hizb al-Furqan, both of which had been operating along Iran’s eastern border with Pakistan. According to the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium:

They characterize themselves as Mujahideen aginst [sic] the Shia government in Iran and are linked to Katibat al Asad Al ‘Ilamiya; Al-Farooq activists; al Nursra Front (JN), Nosrat Deen Allah, Jaysh Muhammad, Jaysh al ‘Adal; and though it was denied for some time, appears to have at least personal relationships with Jundallah…The stated mission of Ansar al Furqan is ” to topple the Iranian regime…”

Like its terrorist cousin Jaish al-Adl, Ansar al-Furqan has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks against the Iranian Government, including a May 2014 IED attack on a freight train belonging to government forces. While such attacks may not make a major splash in terms of international attention, they undoubtedly send a message heard loud and clear in Tehran: these terrorists and their sponsors will stop at nothing to destroy the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Two inescapable facts immediately come to the fore when examining these groups. On the one hand, they are Sunni extremists whose ultimate goal is the destruction of the Iranian state and all vestiges of Shia dominance, political, military or otherwise. On the other hand, these groups see their war against Iran as part and parcel of the terror wars on Syria and Iraq.

And then of course there’s Jundallah, the notorious terror organization lead for decades by the Rigi family. Anyone with even cursory knowledge of the group is undoubtedly aware of its long-standing ties to both US and Israeli intelligence. As Foreign Policy magazine reported in 2012, Israeli Mossad and US CIA operatives essentially competed with one another for control of the Jundallah network for years. This information of course directly links these agencies with the covert war against Iran going back years, to say nothing of the now well-known role of Israeli intelligence in everything from assassinations of Iranian scientists to the use of cyberweapons such as Stuxnet and Flame. These and other attacks by Israel and the US against Iranian interests constitute a major part of the dirty war against Iran – a war in which terror groups figure prominently.

It should be noted that a number of other terror outfits have been used through the decades in the ongoing “low-intensity” war against Iran, including the infamous Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a terrorist group hailed as heroes by the US neocon establishment. Thanks to Wikileaks, it also now documented fact that Israel has long since attempted to use Kurdish groups such as PJAK (Iraqi Kurdish terror group) to wage continued terror war against Iran for the purposes of destabilization of the government. Additionally, there was a decades-long campaign of Arab separatism in Iran’s western Khuzestan region spearheaded by British intelligence. As Dr. Kaveh Farrokh and Mahan Abedin wrote in 2005, “there is a mass of evidence that connects the British secret state to Arab separatism in Iran.”

These and other groups, too numerous to name here, represent a part of the voluminous history of subversion against Iran. But why now? What is the ultimate strategy behind these seemingly disparate geopolitical machinations?

Encircling the Resistance in Order to Break It

To see the obvious strategic gambit by the US-NATO-GCC-Israel axis, one need only look at a map of the major conflicts mentioned above. Syria has been infiltrated by countless terrorist groups that have waged a brutal war against the Syrian government and people. They have used Turkey in the North, Jordan in the South, and to a lesser degree Lebanon and, indirectly, Israel in the West. Working in tandem with the ISIS forces originating in Iraq, Syria has been squeezed from all sides in hopes that military defeat and/or the internal collapse of the Syrian government would be enough to destroy the country.

Naturally, this strategy has necessarily drawn Hezbollah into the war as it is allied with Syria and, for more practical reasons, cannot allow a defeated and broken Syria to come to fruition as Hezbollah would then be cut off from their allies in Iran. And so, Hezbollah and Syria have been forced to fight on no less than two fronts, fighting for the survival of the Resistance in the Levant.

Simultaneously, the regional power Iran has made itself into a central player in the war in Syria, recognizing correctly that the war could prove disastrous to its own security and regional ambitions. However, Tehran cannot simply put all its energy into supporting and defending Syria and Hezbollah as it faces its own terror threat in the East. The groups seeking to topple the Iranian government may not be able to compete militarily with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, but they can certainly create enough destabilization through terrorism to make it more difficult for Tehran to effectively aid in the fight in Syria.

The US-NATO-GCC-Israel alliance has not needed to put its own boots on the ground to achieve its strategic objectives. Instead, it is relying on irregular warfare, proxy terror wars, and small-scale destabilizations to achieve by stealth what it cannot achieve with military might alone.

But it remains paramount for all those interested in peace to make these connections, to understand the broad outlines of this vast covert war taking place. To see a war in Syria in isolation is to misunderstand its very nature. To see ISIS alone as the problem is to completely misread the essence of the conflict. This is a battle for regional hegemony, and in order to attain it, the Empire is employing every tool in the imperial toolkit, with terrorism being one of the most effective.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder of StopImperialism.org and OP-ed columnist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

ISIS’ Bloody Footprints Lead From NATO Territory

By Tony Cartalucci
December 17, 2014
New Eastern Outlook


87654422It was reported recently that Germany’s broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) investigated what turned out to be hundreds of trucks a day carrying billions of dollars in supplies,  flowing into Syria and directly into the hands of the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS). 

Turkey, a NATO member since 1952, has played a pivotal role in the destabilization and destruction of neighboring Syria. Since 2011, Turkey has allowed its territory to be used as a transit and staging point for sectarian terrorists flowing from around the world and into Syria in what could be described as a defacto NATO invasion by proxy. 

In 2011, after the Libyan conflict drew to an end in favor of NATO, terrorists it had armed and provided air cover for in North Africa were promptly shipped to Turkey where they then slipped into Syria to engage the Syrian government and its military. Since then, an untold number of terrorists have used not only Turkey as a staging ground, but also Lebanon and Jordan.

In addition to literal terrorists being harbored in NATO territory, security agencies of NATO members including the US and UK, have been active along the Turkish-Syrian border arming, funding. and equipping what they call “moderate rebels.” These moderate rebels have recently been revealed as affiliates of or organized directly organized beneath both Al Qaeda and ISIS.

DW’s report does not implicate merely Turkey in aiding and abetting ISIS, but exposes the fact that ISIS’ supply lines lead from within NATO itself – in other words, ISIS is a creation, perpetuation, and agent of NATO.

Contrary to Western propaganda, Al Qaeda was intentionally organized and directed by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel to engage in a regional confrontation aimed at Iran and its powerful arc of influence. Exposed by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 article,  “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” it was stated explicitly that (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda

Clearly, ISIS is the verbatim fulfillment of Hersh’s 2007 warning.

And while some may question what took place between 2007 and the current disposition of ISIS today, those documenting the ongoing conflict in Syria starting in 2011 have noted substantial and continued state sponsorship of militants fighting in the Syrian conflict, many of which are now confirmed to be operating under the banner of ISIS.

Headlines over the past 3-4 years including, “C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition,” “First Syria rebels armed and trained by CIA ‘on way to battlefield’,” “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.,” and “Official says CIA-funded weapons have begun to reach Syrian rebels; rebels deny receipt,” reveal ongoing Western support, bridging the gap between the conspiracy exposed by Hersh in 2007 and the current torrent of supplies flowing to ISIS via NATO territory.

It is clear that the ISIS threat was NATO all along, the culmination of a conspiracy spanning at least two US Presidential administrations, and resulting in a regional conflict marked by some of the most horrific barbarism documented in modern history.

With NATO feeding the ISIS threat directly, no serious attempt to destroy ISIS in either Syria or Iraq can be attempted without first cutting its supply lines leading from NATO territory. Clearly the United States, NATO, or regional partners like Israel, Qatar, or Saudi Arabia have any intention of doing so. As indicated by DW’s report, Kurds operating on both sides of the Turkish-Syrian border are attempting to seal off the flow of supplies leading from NATO territory.

The Syrian Arab Army, the Iranian forces supporting anti-ISIS fighters in Syrian territory, and the allies of both countries must insist that strict resolutions are passed to secure the border and stem the flow of ISIS’ lifeline. A clearly worded resolution, if voted down by the likes of the US and its NATO accomplices, will expose further the true nature ISIS and the misanthropic agenda of the West it is a manifestation of.

If the West capitulates and the resolution is passed, further steps toward arming and aiding the Syrian and Iranian governments and their various allies in the securing of the Turkish-Syrian border can be made. From there, the proxy war engineered and executed by the West which has engulfed the region for years, may finally be brought to an end.

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


Energy Aggression Against Russia is Expanding

By Petr Lvov
December 13, 2014
New Eastern Outlook


4534521During his recent trip to Ankara, President Vladimir Putin said on December 1 that the construction of the South Stream gas pipeline project for Southern Europe would be terminated due to the negative position of both Bulgaria and Brussels. Instead of that, it was proposed to build a gas pipeline through the territory of Turkey to its western borders with the EU, where it will be possible to create a kind of a “gas hub” for the countries of Southern and South-Eastern Europe. Naturally, this has caused a nervous reaction of some Europeans. It is one thing to bluff to the tune of the Americans, while it’s quite another to lose an opportunity to purchase gas directly from Russia, bypassing another difficult transit country – Turkey, instead of unreliable Ukraine. What we are talking about here means to “bargain one trouble for another”.

And the fact that Ankara is not the easiest partner for Brussels is understandable; after all, it was EU that for decades stubbornly refused Turkish membership in the EU. At the same time they are actively involving Turkey in NATO plans in relation to Iraq and Syria. And almost immediately the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Ms. Federica Mogherini, arrived as a head of the representative delegation to meet with President Erdogan in an attempt to convince him to refuse from engaging in President Vladimir Putin’s gas project proposal.

But after all, it was the Europeans themselves, being influenced by the Americans and by Brussels under various pretexts, and by their own hands “buried” the gas pipeline South Stream, twisting the arms of Bulgaria. Moscow had just spent considerable time explaining the importance of security of the supply energy by way of diversification on account of the Ukrainian crisis, especially for the European region depressed in terms of the economy, where all the countries, without exception, are fighting for any additional sources of income. They only just have reached that Moscow and Ankara decided jointly to build a gas pipeline to Europe via Turkey, and not through the territory of Bulgaria. But having lost touch with reality, European officials demanded an explanation from Moscow and began to insist that it was not their fault but the fault of the Kremlin for the failure of the South Stream project. So they set out to twist the arms of Ankara. And in order for Turkey to forget about business, the EU played its most important trump card. Mogherini promised Ankara to speed up the process of Turkish accession to the EU.

Meanwhile, on December 9 a ministerial meeting took place on the South Stream project in Brussels with the participation of Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovenia, Austria, Croatia, Italy, Greece and Romania in order to take measures in connection with the refusal of Russia from implementing the project. And there are things that should worry those countries. Technical capacity of the pipeline is 63 billion cubic meters of gas per year. The length of the main pipeline is approximately 540 kilometers. The payback period for the investments will be no longer than 15 years from the start of commercial exploitation of the pipeline on the territory of Bulgaria. It does not involve complex and unpredictable transit countries such as Ukraine and Turkey.

But, as it turned out, the EU is looking for a replacement pipeline for South Stream, the construction of which Russia previously refused, rather than trying to return to it. The meeting was initiated by the vice-president of the European Commission for Energy Union, Maroš Šefčovič. Moreover, Russia did not participate in the meeting, nor did Serbia as it is not yet included in the EU. The heads of the Ministry of Energy for Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovenia, Austria, Croatia, Italy, Greece and Romania have come up with three alternatives to the South Stream project. In particular, countries of the EU are planning to build LNG terminals to receive “blue fuel” from the Caspian Sea along the “Southern Gas Corridor” as well as develop gas fields in the Black and Mediterranean seas. Besides that, another idea is to create a system of vertical pipelines between the South East and Central Europe with the possibility of two-way gas flow. Earlier it was reported that the EU countries participating in the South Stream project would not receive compensation.

As it has become known, Ankara showed no adherence to its principles. On December 10 information from Turkey appeared that the country considers as the key project construction of a major gas pipeline from the Caspian region, that is to say, from Azerbaijan, possibly Turkmenistan, and probably on the basis of development of the Southern Transport Corridor project and Nabucco.

And this once again reaffirmed what is already well known: Turkey is a difficult partner not only for the EU, but also for Russia. After all, this country is a member of the NATO Alliance. And in terms of Syria and Iraq, it occupies a position closer to the American position, not the Russian one. It often takes into account the interests of Saudi Arabia and is subject to pressure from Washington, ready to bow to the highest bidder.

From the very beginning, even a few months ago, it became clear that Russia should go in another direction with regards to gas, not through Turkey, but through Iran, as well as to quickly create production capacity of its own LNG fields in the Artic and the Far East and look for other markets instead of Europe: above all India, Pakistan and countries of Southeast Asia. And in order to realize this, it should build together with Iran a gas pipeline from Iran that is connected into the gas transportation network of the Russian Federation, especially from the South Pars field, filling it with both Iranian and Russian gas to Pakistan and India. While Moscow was thinking about it, Tehran voiced on December 9 its intention to implement the project of building a gas pipeline to Pakistan. And then there’s still the United States who are increasing pressure on Russia and Iran in order to thwart their cooperation within the economic sphere. American State Department spokesman, Jen Psaki, on December 2 threatened Russia with new sanctions because of the alleged agreement between Russia and Iran on the exchange of “oil for goods”. The volume of the proposed transaction was valued at 20 billion USD; It is alleged that Iran would supply Russia with around 500 thousand barrels of oil a day for two or three years at a slightly lower than the market price, and in exchange, Iran would receive a variety of civilian goods.

Unfortunately, in fighting against these sanctions, Moscow, for whatever reason, is unable to show resolve in relation to Tehran and reach some sort of a “breakthrough” in its relations with Iran. And without that, Russia will continue to face obstacles in the face of countries that are subject to American pressure. And procrastination here is dangerous. Ultimately, in Tehran, they are tired of waiting for Moscow to shake an outstretched hand and do what needs to be done in relation to its strategic partnership with Iran.

In addition, infatuated with gas, in Russia they have clearly forgotten that at this current stage, another energy weapon oil is far more dangerous. Even the recent OPEC decision didn’t make Russia realize a quite obvious thing: US – backed by Saudi Arabia and with support by Kuwait – is about to bring Russian economy down by instigating a sharp decline in oil prices that fell on December 10 to 65 USD per barrel and will soon fall to 40 USD per barrel – and this will just repeat what happened in the mid-80s under Reagan. And then Washington, by making use of the natural resentment of the Russian population and the decline in the living standards will proceed by organizing “colored” demonstrations in an attempt to create mass protests in Moscow and other Russian cities such as those which occurred in Kiev at Maidan Nezalezhnosti.

Of course, it won’t go the Ukrainian way; however it may be the right time to make a step forward from reassuring speeches that one should not be afraid of the falling oil prices or the value of the ruble to actual countermeasures with help from those who are still on the same side of the barricades with Russia Iran being among them.

Peter Lvov, Ph.D in political science, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Syrian No-Fly-Zone a Bid to Save Al Qaeda

By Tony Cartalucci
December 13, 2014
New Eastern Outlook


564622Recent strikes on Syria by Israel have been alleged to be part of a regional plan by the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel to establish a no-fly-zone (NFZ) over Syria, just as NATO did in Libya in 2011 effectively handing the entire nation over to Al Qaeda and now “Islamic State” terrorists. DEBKA File has suggested in its article, “Israel air strikes wiped out Russian hardware for thwarting US no-fly zone plan over Syria,” that:

High-ranking American military sources revealed Monday, Dec. 8, that Israel’s air strikes near Damascus the day before wiped out newly-arrived Russian hardware including missiles that were dispatched post haste to help Syria and Hizballah frustrate a US plan for a no-fly zone over northern Syria.

Regardless of the veracity of this report, attempts to justify and impose a NFZ over Syria has been a stated goal of Western policymakers since 2011 when a similar ploy was used under the guise of “humanitarian intervention” in Libya.

No-Fly-Zone to Protect Terrorist Mercenaries, Not “Civilians” or “Rebels” 

Corporate-financier funded policymakers from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) published an article in 2013 titled, “Jack Keane and Danielle Pletka: How to Stop Assad’s Slaughter,” claiming:

Syria is not Libya. Bashar Assad’s troops are well armed, and his ground forces are waging successful campaigns against rebel forces across the country. But eliminating Assad’s ability to take to the air and tilting the balance of power in favor of anti-Assad rebels—as the United States and its allies did with the fighters who eventually overthrew Moammar Gadhafi—is both achievable and advisable.

However, in Libya, NATO’s “humanitarian” NFZ clearly was implemented not to protect innocent civilians, but to provide air cover for terrorist mercenaries armed and directed by NATO itself. These terrorists are now revealed to be Al Qaeda and the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS). It is clear then that “Assad’s slaughter” is in all actuality a war being waged upon the depraved ranks of Al Qaeda – from its Al Nusra front to ISIS.

From the beginning of Syria’s conflict in 2011, the US State Department itself revealed Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front was not only involved in early fighting, but had already established a nationwide presence carrying out hundreds of attacks in every major Syrian city. In an official statement by the US State Department designating Al Nusra as a foreign terrorist organization and as an alias for Al Qaeda in Iraq, it was reported that:

Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed.

The widespread presence of Al Qaeda so early in the conflict is owed to the fact that the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, since at least as early as 2007, conspired openly to use the terrorist organization to wage a regional proxy war against Iran and its allies, including Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Damascus’ war, then, is not one being waged against its own people, nor against “pro-democracy rebels,” but rather against a heavily armed front of sectarian militants backed from abroad seeking to invade, overthrow, and occupy the nation of Syria. This foreign-backed terrorist front, with the help of the Western media, is merely hiding behind the ever tenuous facade of genuine “rebellion.”

One example in particular illustrates not only this reality – the fact that there are none and never have been “moderate rebels” – but also the fact that Western intervention predicated upon assisting nonexistent “moderate rebels” and “civilians” is a criminal conspiracy designed solely around regime change and imposing the West’s will upon the nation and people of Syria. 

Last month, it would be revealed that terrorists portrayed by the West as “moderate rebels” and allegedly “vetted” by the United States before being armed with advanced weaponry including anti-tank missiles were officially merged with Al Qaeda. The International Business Times would claim in its article, “Syria: Al-Nusra Jihadists ‘Capture US TOW Anti-Tank Missiles’ from Moderate Rebels,” that:

Weaponry supplied by the US to moderate Syrian rebels was feared to have fallen into the hands of jihadist militants affiliated to al-Qaida after clashes between rival groups.  

Islamist fighters with Jabhat al-Nusra seized control of large swathes of land in Jabal al-Zawiya, Idlib province, at the weekend, routing the US-backed groups the Syrian Revolutionaries Front (SFR) and Harakat Hazm, activists said.  

Washington relied on SFR and Harakat Hazm to counter Isis (Islamic State) militants on the ground in Syria, complementing its air strikes.

5453111One Syrian rebel group supported in the past by the United States condemned the air strikes on Tuesday. Harakat Hazm, a rebel group that received a shipment of U.S. anti-tank weapons in the spring, called the airstrikes “an attack on national sovereignty” and charged that foreign led attacks only strengthen the Assad regime.The statement comes from a document, purportedly from the group, that has circulated online and was posted in English translation from a Twitter account called Syria Conflict Monitor. Several Syria experts, including the Brookings Doha Center’s Charles Lister, believe the document to be authentic.
 Despite attempts to claim Harakat Hazm had “fallen” to Al Qaeda, Harakat Hazm itself had already openly pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda a month beforehand. In September, the Daily Beast would report in its article, “Al Qaeda Plotters in Syria ‘Went Dark,’ U.S. Spies Say,” that Harakat Kazm condemned US airstrikes on ISIS and Al Nusra. The Daily Beast reported (emphasis added):

The same article would also reveal that:

Before the official statement, there were signs that Harakat Hazm was making alliances in Syria that could conflict with its role as a U.S. partner. In early Septemeber a Harakat Hazm official told a reporter for the L.A. Times: “Inside Syria, we became labeled as secularists and feared Nusra Front was going to battle us…But Nusra doesn’t fight us, we actually fight alongside them. We like Nusra.”

The US, NATO, Israel as the “Islamic State’s” Air Force

With this in mind, Syria’s allies must take all measures to ensure a no-fly-zone is not only politically unachievable, but tactically and strategically unachievable as well. Failure in Syria will open the flood gates of proxy terrorism and warfare upon Iran, then Russia and China. The world can ill-afford the continued primacy of a hegemonic power willing to use such tactics to achieve the already abhorrent, intolerable objective of global conquest.   Just as in Libya where genocidal sectarian extremists operating under the flag of Al Qaeda’s regional franchises including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) both now openly operating under the banner of ISIS, were thrust into power with NATO backing, so to does NATO plan on installing extremists into primacy across Syria. The goal is not simply the ruination of Syria, but the use of Syria as a springboard to wage war upon Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, then turn NATO’s terrorist mercenary force northeast toward Russia and then China.

To this end, the US, NATO – primarily Turkey – as well as Israel, have throughout the Syrian conflict provided arms, aid, equipment, and even airpower to Al Qaeda in their bid to violently overthrow the Syrian government. Just as was done in Libya, Al Qaeda’s role in the fighting was covered up with the illusion of “moderate rebels” and “unarmed” “pro-democracy protesters.” As the facade collapsed, an increasingly tangled and incoherent narrative has emerged to explain how the West is infusing the region with billions in military aid, and yet Al Qaeda rather than the West’s fabled “moderates” have emerged as the dominate fighting force across the region.

The only explanation, and as was the plan from the very beginning, is that the US, NATO, Israel and other regional partners are intentionally building up and deploying Al Qaeda’s various factions across the region to fight in an increasingly horrific, costly, proxy war.

The proposed “no-fly-zone” the West has been attempting to implement is simply rhetorical cover for providing Al Qaeda directly with air cover while preventing the only actual military force in the region fighting Al Qaeda, the Syrian Arab Army, from finally eliminating this scourge from within their borders and restoring order across their country and in turn, across the region.

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


Witnesses: ISIS vehicle and members came from Turkish side

By Global Research News
December 01, 2014
Firat News


105778944-warrior-isilEye witnesses spoke to ANF about the suicide attacks the ISIS gangs carried out in Kobanê after crossing into the town from the Turkish side of the border yesterday.

ISIS gangs targeted Kobanê with multiple suicide car attacks using Turkish soil in the Mürşitpınar crossing area along the border with West Kurdistan, Rojava, early yesterday morning. Two ISIS militants carried out suicide attacks at the scene where their bomb-laden vehicles were detonated.

Fierce clashes broke out in the border area as YPG/YPJ (People’s/Women’s Defense Units) fighters strongly responded and repulsed the attacks. ISIS members who went back to the Turkish side, the building of wheat silos of the TMO (soil products office) very close to the border gate, continued to open fire on YPG/YPJ fighters while Turkish soldiers made no intervention as they attacked Kobanê.

Besides the attack from Turkish side, the ISIS gangs also carried out intense attacks from the eastern, southern and western fronts of Kobanê. The attacks were repelled by YPG/YPJ fighters who also blew up two bomb-laden vehicles of the gangs, and destroyed two of the three tanks they used in the onslaught on the southern front.

While the Prime Ministry Directorate General of Press and Information denied reports about the ISIS gangs using Turkish land to attack Kobanê, arguing that these were all fabricated news, statements of eye witnesses, who include civilians and asayesh (security units) members, do entirely contradict the official statement by Turkish authorities.

Witnesses told that the suicide vehicle came form Turkish land, and ISIS members that launched an attack after the explosions came from near the armored vehicles belonging to Turkish security forces. They also pointed out that the Turkish electricity supply was cut along the Kobanê border just before the attacks by ISIS gangs.

Asayesh officer İsmail who witnessed the attacks in Mürşitpınar border crossing area, said the suicide car was detonated at around 5 o’clock Saturday morning, adding that;

“I was at the sentry box at the border gate, together with another friend. The bomb-laden car was detonated soon after crossing swiftly from the border gate. We soon later gathered and moved towards the border gate. There were Turkish armored vehicles across our area and the ISIS members were coming from near them. Battle raged out there between us and the gangs. After bringing a wounded comrade to this side, I got to the top of a building where I saw an ISIS member opening fire from a tree on the Turkish side. I fired back on him and also saw a Turkish armored vehicle entering that area three times and people getting out those vehicles.”

Another asayesh officer Elî who was at his position in Kaniya Kurda region on the borderline at the time of the attack, stated that it was not possible for the gangs to come from that side, and that there was no road in that area. Elî told that; “The electricity was unusually cut along the entire borderline beginning from the Mahser village as of 4 in the morning. There was no power cut in other areas.”

Another asayesh officer Mihemed Heqî who was on the watch when the suicide car was detonated, and also suffered an injury in the attack, told the followings;

“As my turn of duty was near, which is from 4 to 6 am, they were already attacking us with mortars and heavy weapons from the southern front. Not long after I took over the watch, I heard a sound of chain and the sound of our gate being knocked over. When I looked at the direction where the sound came from, I saw a car coming from Turkey’s side crossing the border gate and moving towards us. It turned the first street and detonated soon after crossing into our side. Houses around us were all demolished as we didn’t understand what was happening. The armored vehicles of Turkey were standing right across us. The suicide car came from near them and there were around 50 other ISIS members there.”

Mihemed Heqî gave the following details regarding the suicide car of the ISIS gangs;

“It was a green military vehicle with a heavy weapon installed on it. I saw it as it came from Turkey’s side, crossed the border gate and detonated soon after passing by me. The car came from Turkey side but mortars were being fired from the southern side.”

Another eye witness Doctor Menav Kitkanî who was also on the watch when the attack was carried out told that;

“I was trying to see which area had been hit by their mortars when a vehicle coming from the border gate broke into our side and detonated behind our building. I myself saw the car coming from Turkey’s side.”

BREAKING: Germany’s DW Reports ISIS Supply Lines Originate in NATO’s Turkey

By Tony Cartalucci
November 27, 2014
Land Destroyer Report


Germany’s international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) published a video report of immense implications – possibly the first national broadcaster in the West to admit that the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) is supplied not by “black market oil” or “hostage ransoms” but billions of dollars worth of supplies carried into Syria across NATO member Turkey’s borders via hundreds of trucks a day.

The report titled, “‘IS’ supply channels through Turkey,” confirms what has been reported by geopolitical analysts since at least as early as 2011 – that NATO member Turkey has allowed a torrent in supplies, fighters, and weapons to cross its borders unopposed to resupply ISIS positions inside of Syria.

In one surreal scene from the DW report, anti-Syria terrorists are seen walking across the border and literally shot dead just on the other side by Kurdish fighters.

Local residents and merchants interviewed by Germany’s DW admitted that commerce with Syria benefiting them had ended since the conflict began and that the supplies trucks carry as they stream across the border originates from “western Turkey.” The DW report does not elaborate on what “western Turkey” means, but it most likely refers to Ankara, various ports used by NATO, and of course NATO’s Incirlik Air Base.

While DW’s report claims no one knows who is arranging the shipments, it does reveal that the very torrent of trucks its film crew documented was officially denied by the Turkish government in Ankara. It is a certainty that Turkey is not only aware of this, but directly complicit, as is NATO who has feigned a desire to defeat ISIS but has failed to expose and uproot ISIS’ multinational sponsorship and more importantly, has refused to cut its supply lines – an elementary prerequisite of any military strategy.

ISIS Menace Was NATO All Along 

Image: Even by looking at the Western media’s maps of ISIS’ territorial
holdings it is obvious it is not a militant force springing up in Syria or Iraq but
rather an invasion force originating from NATO territory. 

ISIS supply lines leading from NATO territory should be of no surprise.

As reported since as early as 2007, the US and its regional accomplices conspired to use Al Qaeda and other armed extremists in a bid to reorder North Africa and the Middle East. It would be Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his article, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” that explicitly stated (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda

Read more…