This is the VERY BEST analysis I've seen from anyone on the Syria situation, and I've read at least a dozen so far on Substack. I think you got rolled by your spellcheck, though. Of a half dozen uses of the word "discrete," only one was correct, and the rest were spelled "discreet." Also, you have "want" for "wont." This would not be important, but it's so good I think you should shop it to a journal like Consortium News or another independent news source.
While clinically speaking the assessment of Israel as a winner makes sense, when one applies common sense, it hardly appears to be a win.
Israel has not routed Hamas or Hezbollah and is simply hated even more by Palestinians and Lebanese, if that were even possible, and now it has opened a third front in Syria with the same goal, occupation and colonisation.
It is one thing to take land in times of chaos but quite another to secure it. Israel does not even have the boots on the ground to secure Occupied Palestine in general and Gaza in particular. Yes, it can continue murdering people, nearly half of them children, but that is not securing an area. Same with Lebanon.
The Israeli modus operandi is primitive and backward like much about the society, the belief being if you demonstrate your capacity to destroy and kill then your enemy will be forced into compliance and you will control them, or at least have power over them. If that approach worked then Israel would have had 75 years of peaceful compliance from the Palestinians, instead of ever-increasing resistance and determination to be free.
One suspects, again simply applying common sense, that the Syria invasion is more for the brainwashed Israeli market to demonstrate, look how powerful we are, look how they run from us, and look at how much more land we can take for you to settle! Delusional of course but then delusion is the middle name for Israel.
But, having invaded and put some boots on the ground in Syria, Israel now has to secure land in three countries powerfully enough to send in the settlers. And for the settlers to be safe, Israel needs plenty of boots on the ground in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria.
It doesn't have access to those boots. In Israel the workers are the soldiers and they are either working and keeping the economy afloat or they are working at killing and occupying and the economy is in tatters. Sure they could complicate it all by bringing in mercenaries but that is always an oil and water mix requiring huge amounts of money, time, attention and monitoring.
Israel has soldiers who are seriously mentally ill and we see that from the videos they take of themselves. They also have a high suicide and defection rate. The society is now loathed around the world which only increases paranoia which only intensifies mental illness. How can such a sick society, experienced only in targeting civilians under occupation, even create a military with the structure, order and discipline required to occupy and subdue two other countries?
Perhaps as a military expert you can explain what I am getting wrong?
Well said. It must be emphasised that Israel's economy can not possibly be doing well, as their GDP has dropped significantly over the last year, they are losing many of their best and brightest who have become discouraged and fearful that Israel can not give them the advertised safety and security they longed for when they moved there, many companies and countries have broken trade relations with them and virtually the entire world is beginning to treat them as anathema. The support of the US and Europe whom their zionist financial supporters control have economic problems of their own, drowning in debt, militarily weak and on the edge of economic/financial collapse.
Further, anyone who thinks that Iran is not positioned to completely destroy Israel's existing infrastructure if they make the wrong move, is living in lalaland. Israel in the end is a small country - only a few airports, a couple of viable sea ports, a critically important offshore gas facility, and something like only 5 power stations - all these can be critically damaged very easily by Iran's missiles and drones. Taking out much of their infrastructure would immediately destroy the country as the population could not exist there without it - no matter the amount of support they could get from their allies since most of it would take years to replace.
Also, if such a thing happened, the US would have only limited ability to retaliate on behalf of Israel as Iran has modern air defence, their arms production and nuclear facilities are located under mountains and the ability to destroy or incapacitate virtually all major US military installations in the region, plus completely disrupt the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf within minutes - this is a risk far too great to take by the West - and they are well aware of it.
Thank you for this response - you've said many of the things I wanted to say.
The subject I'd like to add, and the main element missing from the author's analysis, is the US Empire.
Like Serge, I don't really know what "fake state" means, but then I don't really know what a "legitimate" state is either (they're all glorified protection rackets as far as I'm concerned). In any case, Israel is not a separate nation in it's own right.
If we take up the author's analogy of nation states as organisms, then yes, even a vassal state is their own beast, though subjugated to a larger, more dangerous beast. But Israel is not a whole organism - it is but the heavy hand of the Empire reaching out to grab the World's energy supply by the scruff of the neck. If cut off, the hand could not survive on its own.
Israel is the 49th state of the USA, founded in 1948. The de facto HQ of CENTCOM.
We should not confuse "fake" with "illegitimate". It is "fake" v "real", and "legitimate" v "illegitimate". These are not mutually exclusive terms for a country. In other words, israel is a "real" country in that it without question exists, but it is "illegitimate" in that the land it occupies has been outright stolen by force (NOT given to it by the UN as many believe).
I totally agree. Moreover, the idea that we can assess the identify of the 'winners' and 'losers' after a few short weeks is quite mistaken. I rather suspect that Israel's overreach may turn out to be a terrible error, and that other interested parties, such as Iran, may benefit from a redirection of resources.
There are some missing pieces here. Woefully impoverished states elsewhere have fought on, and even won. Yemen for instance. There are circumstantial hints that a high level sell-out took place. And the end result is just awful on many levels, above all for the people of Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.
For Russia, I'd maybe compare the situation to the decision to withdraw from lands West of the Dnieper. It was quite possible to fight on, but at some point the overall cost-benefit was recognized as not worth it. Russian bases going forward become an invitation for Erdogan to extort again and again, so probably will be abandoned.
Russian ambiguity on Israel, despite literal genocide carried out in broad daylight, was also certainly a long term problem, and deserves reconsideration. As time goes on I think the nearly universal sentiment in the "Global South" will make it more natural to correct this. But this is, alas, the downside of 'multipolarity'.
For Iran, the battleground for upcoming showdown with the US shifts to Iraq. This may be beneficial, but only if Iraq's internal politics are less fragile than Syria's. As a human being, I certainly hope they can unite and stand up for themselves in the face of Western barbarism.
Exactly. Let us not forget it's core sponsor, my country of depraved ruling elites. I'm constantly horrified.
This was massively coordinated with Turkey, Israel, USA/NATO. The other Arab states did nothing to help Assad. I heard 1 (Col. Jacques Baud) commentator say that the gulf states would not help. He also said that Iran and Russia didn't act because Assad stopped communicating. Professor Marandi has similar views.
It was massively planned. My view is that the US sanctions and arming factions is the most responsible. The US rag of a Constitution tasks these sociopaths with running the US. That's the bottom line in the end. Assad never wanted the job.
So far Bibi has an arrest warrant for war crimes: starving the population to death. 600 trucks per day prior to Oct 7, 2023 compared to maybe 60 half-full trucks - of course, for security reasons, today; which means a reduction to 1/20th of "normal" times, when Gazans were still on a caloric reduced diet.
Assuming you have an intake of 3000 calories per day, reducing that to 1/20th yields 150 calories per day. Try it for a month, see if you are alive after that...
Everything about the fundamentals -- Syria's overpopulation combined with declining resources combined with lack of ethnic and sectarian homogeneity -- is true.
But the question also has to be asked what Russia and Iran did to help Syria recover the northeast. The answer is nothing.
Then the next question is what could they have done. The answer is a lot.
Let's say they didn't want to fight the US prior to 2022.
But the moment the first HIMARS systems arrived in Ukraine and started decimating Russian logistics, Russian Tornado-S and other heavly MLRS systems should have been unleashed on the US bases in the northeast of Syria, with the goal of complete annihilation and driving them out.
US then wants to do air strikes? Send more air defense and actually use it, see how they like their F-35s dropping out of the skies like flies.
Many people were in fact calling for such reciprocal actions for two years.
But in the Kremlin they have been in "we want to surrender, will you please let us surrender, please, please, please?" mode since Istanbul. So of course none of the above was done...
A comparison with the situation in Soviet times is instructive -- Syria back then was not only allowed to use the Russian-supplied weapons on Israel (while it was clearly banned from doing it in the 2010s and 2020s), but the USSR was in key moments ready to intervene to defend it directly. Now? The Kremlin would bomb the "terrorists" but that was it, and even that was not carried to completion, while their masters were allowed to do whatever they wanted.
During the USSR times, there weren't as many Russian immigrants to Israel as after 1992. This creates mutual influencing forces that induce restraint to Russia.
Before 2022, Russia wasn't as well prepared to "sanctions from Hell" as she is today. Risking a financial collapse for the sake of evicting Americans from Eastern Syria didn't make sense.
Yes, prior to 2022 the Cold War norms of fighting a proxy war were maintained — no attacks on each other’s territory and no existential for each other conflicts.
Although even by those rules it would have been perfectly fine for Russia to pump Syria with weapons and unleash them on the US, Turkey and the Zionists in Tel Aviv. It is what the USSR used to do.
But in mid-2022 the US started to break the rules, and then it was not even just allowable, but mandatory to hit them hard somewhere, Syria being the most obvious place.
Syria is a majority Sunni state. Assad was running a minority rule government, his regime legitimacy coming from being a part of Arab nationalistic secular block facing and fighting Israel. Once upon a time Egypt, Iraq were also run by Arab nationalist secular forces at war with Israel. Not so much after Sadat signing peace agreement with ISrael, and Syria not signing, even less after the Sadam's invasion of Kuwait, and final defeat and destruction of Sadam's regime and Iraqi state.
Syria was alone, in Arab and Sunni Moslem world. in double bind position. Like Armenia.
Traditionally described by idiom: Don't Change Horses In Midstream.
Survival of Syria demanded making peace with Israel, getting support of other Arab states, Muslim states, the very states that supported uprising against the Assad government. And this again demanded leaving traditional allies Iran and Russia.
A very difficult strategic position, as precisely described by Serge.
Russia could have used Syria against US, bit it would have ended in a major defeat, then.
Second, there is no open conflict between Russia and Israel, per se. In multipolar world Russia can honestly support Palestinian cause, but in same spirit in which Naftali Bennett tried to arrange a negotiation between Russia and Ukraine, RUssia is interested and would support any nonviolent negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestinians , but once war and violence erupts, and war is perceived as existential by Israelis and Jews worldwide, it is not a Russian war.
The zionist influence in the Kremlin cannot be overstated, and is the refraining influence that determines Russia's options. The US also has the same zionist parasitic influence, where the well-being of the people is irrelevant to the goals of the zionists (what ever demonic power they represent).
The battles, whether openly manifested or discretely occurring, are the existential battle of humanity in these biblical times.
It is not just the conflicts between nations, but the conflicts within nations and within each of us that constitutes the drama of these times.
Isn't most every power trying to contain the psychos in DC? Or are they just more considerate of or afraid the raging empire? By the way, US person here. War sucks!
The Russians realized years ago that Assad's generals and army were rotten with corruption. The Russians told Assad to clean up his army and fire the corrupt generals. Assad wouldn't do it. The generals kept him in power. Assad and his generals deserve their fates.
I'm surprised that the Ukrainian Army is still fighting. Zelensky and his generals are also corrupt.
"The Problem of Syria, as such, is that the fiscal-economic viability of the state is tenuous at best and relies on consolidated control of the state’s former territory, but this in turn requires welding together an amalgamation of ethnic and sectarian groups, combustible in the best circumstances, at the same time that foreign powers are trying to set them alight. The ethnic logic and the economic logic of Syria border on total incompatibility, and have historically been held together by repression and violence. "
Indeed, the "Problem of Syria" is one which has existed really since the end of WW1 and the collapse of the old Ottoman Empire. While the British had Mandates in Palestine and Mesopotamia (now Israel/Jordan and Iraq, respectively), France wanted its sphere of influence in the region and so insisted on running its own Mandate in Syria--it toppled the nascent Hashemite Kingdom of Syria in 1920 and spend the remainder of the pre-WW2 years crafting the states of Syria and Lebanon. Perversely the closest Syria ever came to political stability was the dictatorial rule of Hafez al-Assad, Bashar's far more capable father.
The situation in Syria now is much like that of LIbya after the death of Muommar Quadafi: multiple rival factions none of which have the power or the gravitas to unite all the factions into a single polity. All of the tribal allegiances the British and French disregarded in the post-WW1 carve-up of the region are still very much at odds with the arbitrarily drawn borders which nominally define the countries today.
Since the end of WW1 the entire region has been held together largely by this or that strongman dictator, and the toppling of Assad, much like the toppling of Hussein in Iraq, leaves a power vacuum that no one is able to fill.
Super triple kudos for mentioning the population explosion and the draining of the aquifers! Nobody else pays attention to that. I am seriously impressed.
But: you should also consider that the population explosion was by design. Seriously, the Syrian government was strongly pro-natalist and even made the sale and possession of contraceptives a crime! (See “Demographic Developments and Population: Policies in Ba’thist Syria (Demographic Developments and Socioeconomics)”, by Onn Winkler).
Always the rich INSIST that more people MUST be jammed into a country and this is guaranteed to be totally wonderful. Always we are lied to. But in the aftermath, there is an almost total blackout on discussing this. Other instances where the rich forced the population up, and the result was, if not always collapse, certainly strong downwards pressure on the working class, include Mexico, China under Mao, Japan before WWII, South Africa, the Ivory Coast, Turkey, England, Sweden, The Kingdom of Hawaii, Afghanistan, Sudan (they even had secret fertility police looking for illegal contraceptive use), and yes, the United States, where since the closing of the frontier there has been an inverse relationship between the rate of immigration and the fortunes of workers.
One also notes that the total size of the Syrian population including the Diaspora might be approaching 35 million by now (last I hear the Syrian refugees in Turkey are still averaging about 4 kids each). The refugees are not going back, and in any event Erdogan has been a champion of high levels of immigration, that was the main issue in the last Turkish election.
The Jews are happy. The Muslims are fighting each other. The Christians are the big losers. They are being beheaded right now by the new rulers of Syria.
Israel will overextend itself eventually. Iran needs to take care of itself. Theocracies don't work well in the modern world.
As an American, I just want the American troops to come home. I want the money and weapons to Israel to stop. The Old World can go to Hell (which it will), as far as I'm concerned.
Problem is the new world is an extension of the old world.. well, kind of.. a lot of the religious nut jobs from the old world populated the new one.. so you have same old, same old..
Big Surge struck out on multiple fronts fronts despite a good analysis of the main reasons for the collapse of the SAR. As far as the conclusions on the geopolitical outlook, this was the typically biased and limitedly informed analysis from a western viewpoint. You might as well have been reading a propaganda or simplistic interpretation with the (pseudo) categorization of the winners and losers! First, Russia a small loser? Lol! Russian reliance on Syria as a base for its political and potential military power projection in West Asia and the Mediterranean goes back to the Soviet times. With Syria out of the picture, it is left without a naval force vis-à-vis the empire anywhere in the Mediterranean all the way down to Africa. And if anyone had any troops in Syria up until the end, it was Russia rather than Iran. Second, Iran never depended or used Syria, Lebanon, or the Eastern Mediterranean as actual or potential projections of economic power like empires do. Rather, Iran variably organized, supported, or reinforced Hezbollah or Syria mainly as autonomous bulwarks and defense lines against military threats stemming from the Zio-American schemes. However, with the rise of Iran’s long range military capabilities and ability to project deadly missile and drone power (advanced and ultra technological warfare), it has seized escalation dominance or de facto deterrence against US and Israel, and a reduced need to invest and expend enormous resources including direct military presence in unstable and shifting arenas, merely to protect its borders and integral autonomy from such eventual threats. That is not to mention that Iran has now has even a viable nuclear option.
And the totally ridiculously hollow statement that israel and Iran have equally demonstrated capability to direct airstrikes against each other? Are you kidding? Israel has always lived on the premise, in fact, the unequivocal ability to threaten all regional actors with the ability to conduct devastating airstrikes at will or with impunity, and the conviction or the confidence that no one has the ability to penetrate its invulnerable air defenses. There’s nothing that’s been more shattered than that, with the unprecedented successful direct missile and hypersonic missile strikes on the most cherished and defended military and industrial assets of Israel by Iran! I guess 2024 hasn’t been all that bad for Iran, after it demonstrated the ability to penetrate the supposedly best and most heavily defended airbase in the world! And the Israeli retaliation was at best ineffectual and at worse comical as it could not even with the logistical and intelligence support of the US actually send one of its bombers into Iranian airspace as had been planned or do any notable damage to Iranian military assets. You can fool yourself in considering that as equal to what Iran gained and what Israel actually lost in deterrence power!
Israel as the winner? Lol! Some winning year it’s been for Israel! Its army or infantry dealt huge losses in material, manpower, and morale; its utter and embarrassing failure to accomplish effective or stable control over Gaza let alone southern Lebanon (other than assassinating a few notable leaders which will not ever defeat the movement and resistance unless you are a typical uniformed western “analyst” who thinks the resistance starts and ends with a charismatic leader!) and carrying out a genocide against women and children); its economy shattered and the exodus of its most economically significant population by the hundreds of thousands; its utter unprecedented shameful and negative image and perception across the world including criminal charges for its leaders; and the loss of its carefully constructed deterrence and invulnerability of its military, especially in future conflicts and battles with state or no state actors. And you think Syria has been good for israel? I guess you have little idea of surprises a new Libya next door might bring to Israel. The same instabilities that Israel counts on for advancing its agenda in the region can become new tumors that will fester to create challenges and demand unending resources for that “little shitty county” (as remarked by a French politician some years ago).
A big problem with this supposed analysis by Big Surge regarding the geopolitical background, consequences, and outlook is that there is little evidence of having studied or incorporated any local sources including hundreds diverse and informed Iranian or middle eastern political reporters, analysts, or experts. Such sources of course demand some knowledge of the language and cultures beyond the stereotypical or limited European or American variety.
I have watched Professor Marandi, Col. Jacques Baud and others. I am American. That said, people underestimate the insanity of WA. This Syrian operation was/is a total plan. Your thoughts on the global surprise? Ceasefire on Lebanon which Israel totally ignored. Immediate air attacks on Syria. Massive coordination with Turkey, the US/NATO/Israel. Rebranding their 'moderate rebels' aka Al Q, ISIS, etc.
I am happy to see the restraint of China, Russia. These psychos are dangerous with their Battle of Armageddon religious self-fulfilling BS.
Among the many decent western analysts of the current geopolitical dynamics, I like Pepe Escobar, Alastair Crooke, and Brian Berletic. I also think The Cradle offers excellent take and coverage from a more local Middle East/West Asia framework. But, there are many others, particularly in the non-English speaking and locally well known journalists and experts beyond Marandi for instance. I think, the complexity of the current West Asian dynamics demands a rather detailed understanding of its historical, social, economic, and cultural background and diversity that few in the Western world fully understand let alone have mastered. The traces of colonial, Imperial and Eurocentric viewpoints are detectable even among the very best of their experts that do not function necessarily within the vast designated or self appointed “experts” in the mainstream media propaganda industry.
I have watched all of these people you cite on You Tube and various presentations. I like Ben Norton-Geopolitical Economy Report, Grayzone, Hedges, Sachs, others. Michael Hudson for economics.
I read widely as time permits. I follow historians for some of these topics.
Just finished a book by Rashid Khalidi, Robert Fisk. It's wise to consult highly educated folks. No one is perfect. However, bias can be detected if one considers many views. Thank you. ✌️
Dismissing the argument that some states are 'fakes' misses the point. The whole idealogical history upon which Israel's claim to a statehood is based is a fabrication as Finkelstein- a Jewish academic- exposed in the 'bible unearthed', also made into a BBC documentary. This is a matter of main stream acknowledged archeological fact. As the for the european so called Jews, see Koestler on the thirteen tribe!
This matters because the fake history of Israel is what it has relied on- or the US western hegemon has cynically relied upon- to establish a forward base in the resource rich ME with religious fundamentalists of the Jewish persuasion, as much victims of this fabrication as is promulgators, using the fakery to wage war on Israel's neighbours and take their land.
But we do not have to go back into the mists of history to make the argument for a fake state here. It was dumped straight into the ME by the west after WWII forcibly displacing the actual inhabitants of the actual territory- a war crime in all but name!
As for Ukraine, there are many provisional moving boundaries in that part of eurasia not just viz Ukraine. The idea of the sovereign rights of a given 'state' is just a propaganda weapon in wars for resources. If you happen to be sitting on resources that the western hegemon has set its avarice sights on, beware. Your sovereign (sic) rights count for nothing at all. You had better have that final bastion of sovereignty in good working order because you will need it- military force.
A couple of points. It was not explicitly mentioned, so I will note that certainly all the Astana stakeholders understood Syria's precarious state very well. I conjecture that they had an agreement that the status quo would be maintained for the foreseeable future, but Turkey decided to renege at this time. I think Russia and Iran would have preferred the collapse not happen at this time viz Lavrov's remarks but knew it was likely to happen and of course had expected contingencies.
Second, chaos on its border may not be a long term win for Israel, if there is such a thing as a long term win for Israel. God knows...
In the modern geopolitical era it is the power that acts with the most tactical and strategic aggression that walks away with the prize. The axis of resistance especially iran acted with too little conviction and initiative in relation to Israeli belligerence and ultimately paid the price. It doesn't make me feel good but it's undeniable that Israel is the big winner.
Israel's airpower had to be curbed, either by air defence in Syria protecting its sovereignty and Lebanon's, and or Iran incapacitating Israel's airfields.
Neither was, and we see the consequence.
This is just a major factor, but as Serge poignantly asserts, Syria's economic strength made it unviable as a functioning state.
When i consider the ancient story of fallen angels at Mount Hermon, their vow to degrade the DNA of humans, the COVID vaccine operation, what Israel's army really represents, and the recent sightings of alien craft around the world then perhaps the sudden collapse of Syria and the occupation of Mount Hermon means more than most realize. I don't know.
Arguably, a country is "fake" if it did not grow into statehood in an organic fashion, with some form of internal cohesion and natural borders. If the country feels like a gigantic zoological park with an army, it is probably "fake", though a few centuries from now it may be very much non-fake.
This is the VERY BEST analysis I've seen from anyone on the Syria situation, and I've read at least a dozen so far on Substack. I think you got rolled by your spellcheck, though. Of a half dozen uses of the word "discrete," only one was correct, and the rest were spelled "discreet." Also, you have "want" for "wont." This would not be important, but it's so good I think you should shop it to a journal like Consortium News or another independent news source.
While clinically speaking the assessment of Israel as a winner makes sense, when one applies common sense, it hardly appears to be a win.
Israel has not routed Hamas or Hezbollah and is simply hated even more by Palestinians and Lebanese, if that were even possible, and now it has opened a third front in Syria with the same goal, occupation and colonisation.
It is one thing to take land in times of chaos but quite another to secure it. Israel does not even have the boots on the ground to secure Occupied Palestine in general and Gaza in particular. Yes, it can continue murdering people, nearly half of them children, but that is not securing an area. Same with Lebanon.
The Israeli modus operandi is primitive and backward like much about the society, the belief being if you demonstrate your capacity to destroy and kill then your enemy will be forced into compliance and you will control them, or at least have power over them. If that approach worked then Israel would have had 75 years of peaceful compliance from the Palestinians, instead of ever-increasing resistance and determination to be free.
One suspects, again simply applying common sense, that the Syria invasion is more for the brainwashed Israeli market to demonstrate, look how powerful we are, look how they run from us, and look at how much more land we can take for you to settle! Delusional of course but then delusion is the middle name for Israel.
But, having invaded and put some boots on the ground in Syria, Israel now has to secure land in three countries powerfully enough to send in the settlers. And for the settlers to be safe, Israel needs plenty of boots on the ground in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria.
It doesn't have access to those boots. In Israel the workers are the soldiers and they are either working and keeping the economy afloat or they are working at killing and occupying and the economy is in tatters. Sure they could complicate it all by bringing in mercenaries but that is always an oil and water mix requiring huge amounts of money, time, attention and monitoring.
Israel has soldiers who are seriously mentally ill and we see that from the videos they take of themselves. They also have a high suicide and defection rate. The society is now loathed around the world which only increases paranoia which only intensifies mental illness. How can such a sick society, experienced only in targeting civilians under occupation, even create a military with the structure, order and discipline required to occupy and subdue two other countries?
Perhaps as a military expert you can explain what I am getting wrong?
Well said. It must be emphasised that Israel's economy can not possibly be doing well, as their GDP has dropped significantly over the last year, they are losing many of their best and brightest who have become discouraged and fearful that Israel can not give them the advertised safety and security they longed for when they moved there, many companies and countries have broken trade relations with them and virtually the entire world is beginning to treat them as anathema. The support of the US and Europe whom their zionist financial supporters control have economic problems of their own, drowning in debt, militarily weak and on the edge of economic/financial collapse.
Further, anyone who thinks that Iran is not positioned to completely destroy Israel's existing infrastructure if they make the wrong move, is living in lalaland. Israel in the end is a small country - only a few airports, a couple of viable sea ports, a critically important offshore gas facility, and something like only 5 power stations - all these can be critically damaged very easily by Iran's missiles and drones. Taking out much of their infrastructure would immediately destroy the country as the population could not exist there without it - no matter the amount of support they could get from their allies since most of it would take years to replace.
Also, if such a thing happened, the US would have only limited ability to retaliate on behalf of Israel as Iran has modern air defence, their arms production and nuclear facilities are located under mountains and the ability to destroy or incapacitate virtually all major US military installations in the region, plus completely disrupt the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf within minutes - this is a risk far too great to take by the West - and they are well aware of it.
Like it or not, the second paragraph here is 100% correct. This is not over by a long shot.
Thank you for this response - you've said many of the things I wanted to say.
The subject I'd like to add, and the main element missing from the author's analysis, is the US Empire.
Like Serge, I don't really know what "fake state" means, but then I don't really know what a "legitimate" state is either (they're all glorified protection rackets as far as I'm concerned). In any case, Israel is not a separate nation in it's own right.
If we take up the author's analogy of nation states as organisms, then yes, even a vassal state is their own beast, though subjugated to a larger, more dangerous beast. But Israel is not a whole organism - it is but the heavy hand of the Empire reaching out to grab the World's energy supply by the scruff of the neck. If cut off, the hand could not survive on its own.
Israel is the 49th state of the USA, founded in 1948. The de facto HQ of CENTCOM.
We should not confuse "fake" with "illegitimate". It is "fake" v "real", and "legitimate" v "illegitimate". These are not mutually exclusive terms for a country. In other words, israel is a "real" country in that it without question exists, but it is "illegitimate" in that the land it occupies has been outright stolen by force (NOT given to it by the UN as many believe).
I totally agree. Moreover, the idea that we can assess the identify of the 'winners' and 'losers' after a few short weeks is quite mistaken. I rather suspect that Israel's overreach may turn out to be a terrible error, and that other interested parties, such as Iran, may benefit from a redirection of resources.
" "There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.”
Known to palaeontologists as "punctuated equilibrium".
There are some missing pieces here. Woefully impoverished states elsewhere have fought on, and even won. Yemen for instance. There are circumstantial hints that a high level sell-out took place. And the end result is just awful on many levels, above all for the people of Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.
For Russia, I'd maybe compare the situation to the decision to withdraw from lands West of the Dnieper. It was quite possible to fight on, but at some point the overall cost-benefit was recognized as not worth it. Russian bases going forward become an invitation for Erdogan to extort again and again, so probably will be abandoned.
Russian ambiguity on Israel, despite literal genocide carried out in broad daylight, was also certainly a long term problem, and deserves reconsideration. As time goes on I think the nearly universal sentiment in the "Global South" will make it more natural to correct this. But this is, alas, the downside of 'multipolarity'.
For Iran, the battleground for upcoming showdown with the US shifts to Iraq. This may be beneficial, but only if Iraq's internal politics are less fragile than Syria's. As a human being, I certainly hope they can unite and stand up for themselves in the face of Western barbarism.
I don’t think you know what Genocide means…
Genocide is destruction of a country, people, culture, group, society. Zionists and Jews started doing that in 1947 and Israel has never stopped.
Genocide is Israel using maps of Palestine and calling it all Israel.
Genocide is murdering Palestinians for resisting occupation.
Genocide is destroying hospitals.
Genocide is destroying universities and schools.
Genocide is destroying churches, mosques and all infrastructure.
Genocide is believing another group is subhuman.
Genocide is failing to teach your children that they live on land which has been stolen from others.
Genocide is failing to teach the history of Palestine.
Genocide is stealing Palestinian food, culture, history, archaeology and calling it Israeli.
And yes, genocide is trying to kill as many Palestinians as possible but mostly to eradicate their land, country, history from the map.
In 47/48 the Zionists and Jews wiped from the face of the earth 530 Palestinian towns and villages. THAT IS GENOCIDE.
In 47/48 they massacred thousands of Palestinians and drove out nearly a million. THAT IS GENOCIDE.
The total destruction of Gaza is genocide. The use of bombs, bullets, starvation, denial of clean water and medical aid IS GENOCIDE.
The murder of men, women and children throughout all of Occupied Palestine and destruction of their homes IS GENOCIDE.
Exactly. Let us not forget it's core sponsor, my country of depraved ruling elites. I'm constantly horrified.
This was massively coordinated with Turkey, Israel, USA/NATO. The other Arab states did nothing to help Assad. I heard 1 (Col. Jacques Baud) commentator say that the gulf states would not help. He also said that Iran and Russia didn't act because Assad stopped communicating. Professor Marandi has similar views.
It was massively planned. My view is that the US sanctions and arming factions is the most responsible. The US rag of a Constitution tasks these sociopaths with running the US. That's the bottom line in the end. Assad never wanted the job.
If you wanted to be objective, you would have to admit that the killing is on both sides, including the Palestinians.
Wholesale elimination of civilian populations, especially along ethno-religious lines. What Israel is doing right now.
Nope.
You tickle a population to death?? Don’t keep us guessing, oh wise one! Enlighten the world!
🙄
Let's wait for the ICJ with its verdict, ok?!
So far Bibi has an arrest warrant for war crimes: starving the population to death. 600 trucks per day prior to Oct 7, 2023 compared to maybe 60 half-full trucks - of course, for security reasons, today; which means a reduction to 1/20th of "normal" times, when Gazans were still on a caloric reduced diet.
Assuming you have an intake of 3000 calories per day, reducing that to 1/20th yields 150 calories per day. Try it for a month, see if you are alive after that...
Everything about the fundamentals -- Syria's overpopulation combined with declining resources combined with lack of ethnic and sectarian homogeneity -- is true.
But the question also has to be asked what Russia and Iran did to help Syria recover the northeast. The answer is nothing.
Then the next question is what could they have done. The answer is a lot.
Let's say they didn't want to fight the US prior to 2022.
But the moment the first HIMARS systems arrived in Ukraine and started decimating Russian logistics, Russian Tornado-S and other heavly MLRS systems should have been unleashed on the US bases in the northeast of Syria, with the goal of complete annihilation and driving them out.
US then wants to do air strikes? Send more air defense and actually use it, see how they like their F-35s dropping out of the skies like flies.
Many people were in fact calling for such reciprocal actions for two years.
But in the Kremlin they have been in "we want to surrender, will you please let us surrender, please, please, please?" mode since Istanbul. So of course none of the above was done...
A comparison with the situation in Soviet times is instructive -- Syria back then was not only allowed to use the Russian-supplied weapons on Israel (while it was clearly banned from doing it in the 2010s and 2020s), but the USSR was in key moments ready to intervene to defend it directly. Now? The Kremlin would bomb the "terrorists" but that was it, and even that was not carried to completion, while their masters were allowed to do whatever they wanted.
During the USSR times, there weren't as many Russian immigrants to Israel as after 1992. This creates mutual influencing forces that induce restraint to Russia.
Before 2022, Russia wasn't as well prepared to "sanctions from Hell" as she is today. Risking a financial collapse for the sake of evicting Americans from Eastern Syria didn't make sense.
I was talking about AFTER 2022.
And yes, the Jewish capture of the Kremlin is a gigantic issue that nobody ever talks about.
Zionist Jews are behind the war on Russia that the West launched, and Zionist Jews are running Moscow.
And then people are wondering why Moscow does not fight back...
"I was talking about AFTER 2022."
You wrote "Let's say they didn't want to fight the US prior to 2022."
In any case, after or before, Russia wages an attrition war. Opening a far away front doesn't make sense in that scenario.
Yes, prior to 2022 the Cold War norms of fighting a proxy war were maintained — no attacks on each other’s territory and no existential for each other conflicts.
Although even by those rules it would have been perfectly fine for Russia to pump Syria with weapons and unleash them on the US, Turkey and the Zionists in Tel Aviv. It is what the USSR used to do.
But in mid-2022 the US started to break the rules, and then it was not even just allowable, but mandatory to hit them hard somewhere, Syria being the most obvious place.
Syria is a majority Sunni state. Assad was running a minority rule government, his regime legitimacy coming from being a part of Arab nationalistic secular block facing and fighting Israel. Once upon a time Egypt, Iraq were also run by Arab nationalist secular forces at war with Israel. Not so much after Sadat signing peace agreement with ISrael, and Syria not signing, even less after the Sadam's invasion of Kuwait, and final defeat and destruction of Sadam's regime and Iraqi state.
Syria was alone, in Arab and Sunni Moslem world. in double bind position. Like Armenia.
Traditionally described by idiom: Don't Change Horses In Midstream.
Survival of Syria demanded making peace with Israel, getting support of other Arab states, Muslim states, the very states that supported uprising against the Assad government. And this again demanded leaving traditional allies Iran and Russia.
A very difficult strategic position, as precisely described by Serge.
Russia could have used Syria against US, bit it would have ended in a major defeat, then.
Second, there is no open conflict between Russia and Israel, per se. In multipolar world Russia can honestly support Palestinian cause, but in same spirit in which Naftali Bennett tried to arrange a negotiation between Russia and Ukraine, RUssia is interested and would support any nonviolent negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestinians , but once war and violence erupts, and war is perceived as existential by Israelis and Jews worldwide, it is not a Russian war.
The zionist influence in the Kremlin cannot be overstated, and is the refraining influence that determines Russia's options. The US also has the same zionist parasitic influence, where the well-being of the people is irrelevant to the goals of the zionists (what ever demonic power they represent).
The battles, whether openly manifested or discretely occurring, are the existential battle of humanity in these biblical times.
It is not just the conflicts between nations, but the conflicts within nations and within each of us that constitutes the drama of these times.
Isn't most every power trying to contain the psychos in DC? Or are they just more considerate of or afraid the raging empire? By the way, US person here. War sucks!
The Russians realized years ago that Assad's generals and army were rotten with corruption. The Russians told Assad to clean up his army and fire the corrupt generals. Assad wouldn't do it. The generals kept him in power. Assad and his generals deserve their fates.
I'm surprised that the Ukrainian Army is still fighting. Zelensky and his generals are also corrupt.
"The Problem of Syria, as such, is that the fiscal-economic viability of the state is tenuous at best and relies on consolidated control of the state’s former territory, but this in turn requires welding together an amalgamation of ethnic and sectarian groups, combustible in the best circumstances, at the same time that foreign powers are trying to set them alight. The ethnic logic and the economic logic of Syria border on total incompatibility, and have historically been held together by repression and violence. "
Indeed, the "Problem of Syria" is one which has existed really since the end of WW1 and the collapse of the old Ottoman Empire. While the British had Mandates in Palestine and Mesopotamia (now Israel/Jordan and Iraq, respectively), France wanted its sphere of influence in the region and so insisted on running its own Mandate in Syria--it toppled the nascent Hashemite Kingdom of Syria in 1920 and spend the remainder of the pre-WW2 years crafting the states of Syria and Lebanon. Perversely the closest Syria ever came to political stability was the dictatorial rule of Hafez al-Assad, Bashar's far more capable father.
The situation in Syria now is much like that of LIbya after the death of Muommar Quadafi: multiple rival factions none of which have the power or the gravitas to unite all the factions into a single polity. All of the tribal allegiances the British and French disregarded in the post-WW1 carve-up of the region are still very much at odds with the arbitrarily drawn borders which nominally define the countries today.
Since the end of WW1 the entire region has been held together largely by this or that strongman dictator, and the toppling of Assad, much like the toppling of Hussein in Iraq, leaves a power vacuum that no one is able to fill.
What a mess.
Super triple kudos for mentioning the population explosion and the draining of the aquifers! Nobody else pays attention to that. I am seriously impressed.
But: you should also consider that the population explosion was by design. Seriously, the Syrian government was strongly pro-natalist and even made the sale and possession of contraceptives a crime! (See “Demographic Developments and Population: Policies in Ba’thist Syria (Demographic Developments and Socioeconomics)”, by Onn Winkler).
Always the rich INSIST that more people MUST be jammed into a country and this is guaranteed to be totally wonderful. Always we are lied to. But in the aftermath, there is an almost total blackout on discussing this. Other instances where the rich forced the population up, and the result was, if not always collapse, certainly strong downwards pressure on the working class, include Mexico, China under Mao, Japan before WWII, South Africa, the Ivory Coast, Turkey, England, Sweden, The Kingdom of Hawaii, Afghanistan, Sudan (they even had secret fertility police looking for illegal contraceptive use), and yes, the United States, where since the closing of the frontier there has been an inverse relationship between the rate of immigration and the fortunes of workers.
One also notes that the total size of the Syrian population including the Diaspora might be approaching 35 million by now (last I hear the Syrian refugees in Turkey are still averaging about 4 kids each). The refugees are not going back, and in any event Erdogan has been a champion of high levels of immigration, that was the main issue in the last Turkish election.
Great analysis of Syria. Fascinating.
The Jews are happy. The Muslims are fighting each other. The Christians are the big losers. They are being beheaded right now by the new rulers of Syria.
Israel will overextend itself eventually. Iran needs to take care of itself. Theocracies don't work well in the modern world.
As an American, I just want the American troops to come home. I want the money and weapons to Israel to stop. The Old World can go to Hell (which it will), as far as I'm concerned.
Problem is the new world is an extension of the old world.. well, kind of.. a lot of the religious nut jobs from the old world populated the new one.. so you have same old, same old..
Diana, No! New England and Washington, D.C., are extensions of the Old World, but 90% of the USA is not.
Big Surge struck out on multiple fronts fronts despite a good analysis of the main reasons for the collapse of the SAR. As far as the conclusions on the geopolitical outlook, this was the typically biased and limitedly informed analysis from a western viewpoint. You might as well have been reading a propaganda or simplistic interpretation with the (pseudo) categorization of the winners and losers! First, Russia a small loser? Lol! Russian reliance on Syria as a base for its political and potential military power projection in West Asia and the Mediterranean goes back to the Soviet times. With Syria out of the picture, it is left without a naval force vis-à-vis the empire anywhere in the Mediterranean all the way down to Africa. And if anyone had any troops in Syria up until the end, it was Russia rather than Iran. Second, Iran never depended or used Syria, Lebanon, or the Eastern Mediterranean as actual or potential projections of economic power like empires do. Rather, Iran variably organized, supported, or reinforced Hezbollah or Syria mainly as autonomous bulwarks and defense lines against military threats stemming from the Zio-American schemes. However, with the rise of Iran’s long range military capabilities and ability to project deadly missile and drone power (advanced and ultra technological warfare), it has seized escalation dominance or de facto deterrence against US and Israel, and a reduced need to invest and expend enormous resources including direct military presence in unstable and shifting arenas, merely to protect its borders and integral autonomy from such eventual threats. That is not to mention that Iran has now has even a viable nuclear option.
And the totally ridiculously hollow statement that israel and Iran have equally demonstrated capability to direct airstrikes against each other? Are you kidding? Israel has always lived on the premise, in fact, the unequivocal ability to threaten all regional actors with the ability to conduct devastating airstrikes at will or with impunity, and the conviction or the confidence that no one has the ability to penetrate its invulnerable air defenses. There’s nothing that’s been more shattered than that, with the unprecedented successful direct missile and hypersonic missile strikes on the most cherished and defended military and industrial assets of Israel by Iran! I guess 2024 hasn’t been all that bad for Iran, after it demonstrated the ability to penetrate the supposedly best and most heavily defended airbase in the world! And the Israeli retaliation was at best ineffectual and at worse comical as it could not even with the logistical and intelligence support of the US actually send one of its bombers into Iranian airspace as had been planned or do any notable damage to Iranian military assets. You can fool yourself in considering that as equal to what Iran gained and what Israel actually lost in deterrence power!
Israel as the winner? Lol! Some winning year it’s been for Israel! Its army or infantry dealt huge losses in material, manpower, and morale; its utter and embarrassing failure to accomplish effective or stable control over Gaza let alone southern Lebanon (other than assassinating a few notable leaders which will not ever defeat the movement and resistance unless you are a typical uniformed western “analyst” who thinks the resistance starts and ends with a charismatic leader!) and carrying out a genocide against women and children); its economy shattered and the exodus of its most economically significant population by the hundreds of thousands; its utter unprecedented shameful and negative image and perception across the world including criminal charges for its leaders; and the loss of its carefully constructed deterrence and invulnerability of its military, especially in future conflicts and battles with state or no state actors. And you think Syria has been good for israel? I guess you have little idea of surprises a new Libya next door might bring to Israel. The same instabilities that Israel counts on for advancing its agenda in the region can become new tumors that will fester to create challenges and demand unending resources for that “little shitty county” (as remarked by a French politician some years ago).
A big problem with this supposed analysis by Big Surge regarding the geopolitical background, consequences, and outlook is that there is little evidence of having studied or incorporated any local sources including hundreds diverse and informed Iranian or middle eastern political reporters, analysts, or experts. Such sources of course demand some knowledge of the language and cultures beyond the stereotypical or limited European or American variety.
I have watched Professor Marandi, Col. Jacques Baud and others. I am American. That said, people underestimate the insanity of WA. This Syrian operation was/is a total plan. Your thoughts on the global surprise? Ceasefire on Lebanon which Israel totally ignored. Immediate air attacks on Syria. Massive coordination with Turkey, the US/NATO/Israel. Rebranding their 'moderate rebels' aka Al Q, ISIS, etc.
I am happy to see the restraint of China, Russia. These psychos are dangerous with their Battle of Armageddon religious self-fulfilling BS.
Your thoughts?
Among the many decent western analysts of the current geopolitical dynamics, I like Pepe Escobar, Alastair Crooke, and Brian Berletic. I also think The Cradle offers excellent take and coverage from a more local Middle East/West Asia framework. But, there are many others, particularly in the non-English speaking and locally well known journalists and experts beyond Marandi for instance. I think, the complexity of the current West Asian dynamics demands a rather detailed understanding of its historical, social, economic, and cultural background and diversity that few in the Western world fully understand let alone have mastered. The traces of colonial, Imperial and Eurocentric viewpoints are detectable even among the very best of their experts that do not function necessarily within the vast designated or self appointed “experts” in the mainstream media propaganda industry.
I have watched all of these people you cite on You Tube and various presentations. I like Ben Norton-Geopolitical Economy Report, Grayzone, Hedges, Sachs, others. Michael Hudson for economics.
I read widely as time permits. I follow historians for some of these topics.
Just finished a book by Rashid Khalidi, Robert Fisk. It's wise to consult highly educated folks. No one is perfect. However, bias can be detected if one considers many views. Thank you. ✌️
Dismissing the argument that some states are 'fakes' misses the point. The whole idealogical history upon which Israel's claim to a statehood is based is a fabrication as Finkelstein- a Jewish academic- exposed in the 'bible unearthed', also made into a BBC documentary. This is a matter of main stream acknowledged archeological fact. As the for the european so called Jews, see Koestler on the thirteen tribe!
This matters because the fake history of Israel is what it has relied on- or the US western hegemon has cynically relied upon- to establish a forward base in the resource rich ME with religious fundamentalists of the Jewish persuasion, as much victims of this fabrication as is promulgators, using the fakery to wage war on Israel's neighbours and take their land.
But we do not have to go back into the mists of history to make the argument for a fake state here. It was dumped straight into the ME by the west after WWII forcibly displacing the actual inhabitants of the actual territory- a war crime in all but name!
As for Ukraine, there are many provisional moving boundaries in that part of eurasia not just viz Ukraine. The idea of the sovereign rights of a given 'state' is just a propaganda weapon in wars for resources. If you happen to be sitting on resources that the western hegemon has set its avarice sights on, beware. Your sovereign (sic) rights count for nothing at all. You had better have that final bastion of sovereignty in good working order because you will need it- military force.
Bingo!
A couple of points. It was not explicitly mentioned, so I will note that certainly all the Astana stakeholders understood Syria's precarious state very well. I conjecture that they had an agreement that the status quo would be maintained for the foreseeable future, but Turkey decided to renege at this time. I think Russia and Iran would have preferred the collapse not happen at this time viz Lavrov's remarks but knew it was likely to happen and of course had expected contingencies.
Second, chaos on its border may not be a long term win for Israel, if there is such a thing as a long term win for Israel. God knows...
Excellent point! Another case of a deal where Russia was backstabbed by its “partners”…
One needs to remember that the US owns the areas controlled by the SDF (Kurds) as told by Dana Stroul
https://youtu.be/FSE3FWKFp4g?si=GY8CrU2SRaeeO4pE
To which the question needs to be asked: which part of the US causes this play ?
It seems to me that the US could either turn on the Kurds or any player. They have done it before in Iraq.
Blowing up the pipeline hurt Europe more than Russia. The intent of toppling Assad took a long time, since 2011 at least. ⏳️
Wesley Clark's speech about toppling ME governments comes to mind.
It seems that few world leaders have much integrity. Money, resources, power rule them all. I keep studying. ✌️
In the modern geopolitical era it is the power that acts with the most tactical and strategic aggression that walks away with the prize. The axis of resistance especially iran acted with too little conviction and initiative in relation to Israeli belligerence and ultimately paid the price. It doesn't make me feel good but it's undeniable that Israel is the big winner.
Israel's airpower had to be curbed, either by air defence in Syria protecting its sovereignty and Lebanon's, and or Iran incapacitating Israel's airfields.
Neither was, and we see the consequence.
This is just a major factor, but as Serge poignantly asserts, Syria's economic strength made it unviable as a functioning state.
Eventually, it won't be a winner.
When i consider the ancient story of fallen angels at Mount Hermon, their vow to degrade the DNA of humans, the COVID vaccine operation, what Israel's army really represents, and the recent sightings of alien craft around the world then perhaps the sudden collapse of Syria and the occupation of Mount Hermon means more than most realize. I don't know.
Arguably, a country is "fake" if it did not grow into statehood in an organic fashion, with some form of internal cohesion and natural borders. If the country feels like a gigantic zoological park with an army, it is probably "fake", though a few centuries from now it may be very much non-fake.