At long last, Syria’s army and Russia’s air force are no longer being threatened with World War III by the US and its allies if they proceed to destroy the tens of thousands of Al-Qaida-led jihadists whom the US had helped to train and arm (and had been protecting in Syria ever since December 2012) in order to overthrow Syria’s non-sectarian Government and replace it by a fundamentalist-Sunni Government which the royal Sauds who own Saudi Arabia would appoint. All throughout that war, those Al-Qaeda-led ‘moderate rebels’ had been organized from the governate or province of Idlib (or Idleb). But now, most (if not all) of their leadership are dead.

Turkey’s leader Tayyip Erdogan had hoped that he would be allowed both by Russia’s Vladimir Putin and by the United States’ Donald Trump to grab for Turkey at least part of Idlib province from Syria. But now, he is instead either participating in, or else allowing, Syria’s army and Russia’s air force, to slaughter Idlib’s jihadists and restore that province to Syria. On 9 September 2018, Russia and Iran had granted Turkey a temporary control over Idlib, and Erdogan then tried to seize it permanently, but finally he has given it up and is allowing Idlib to become restored to Syria. This turn-around signals Syria’s victory against its enemies; it’s the war’s watershed event.

Here is the history of how all that happened and how Syria is finally a huge and crucial step closer to winning its war against the invaders (which had originally been mainly Al Qaeda, US, Turkey, Qatar, and the Sauds,, but more recently has been only Al Qaeda and US):

I reported, back on 10 September 2018, that:

—

Right now, the Trump Administration has committed itself to prohibiting Syria (and its allies) from retaking control of Idlib, which is the only province that was more than 90% in favor of Al Qaeda and of ISIS and against the Government, at the start of the ‘civil war’ in Syria. Idlib is even more pro-jihadist now, because almost all of the surviving jihadists in Syria have sought refuge there — and the Government freely has bussed them there, in order to minimize the amount of “human shield” hostage-taking by them in the other provinces. Countless innocent lives were saved this way.

Both Democratic and Republican US federal officials and former officials are overwhelmingly supportive of US President Trump’s newly announced determination to prohibit Syria from retaking control of that heavily jihadist province, and they state such things about Idlib as:

It has become a dumping ground for some of the hardcore jihadists who were not prepared to settle for some of the forced agreements that took place, the forced surrenders that took place elsewhere. … Where do people go when they’ve reached the last place that they can go? What’s the refuge after the last refuge? That’s the tragedy that they face.

That happened to be an Obama Administration official expressing support for the jihadists, and when he was asked by his interviewer “Did the world fail Syria?” he answered “Sure. I mean, there’s no doubt about it. I mean, the first person who failed Syria was President Assad himself.”

—

Idlib city, incidentally, had also been the most active in starting Syria’s ‘civil war’, back on 10 March 2012 (that’s a news-report by Qatar, which had actually helped to finance the jihadists, whom it lionized as freedom-fighters, and Qatar had also helped the CIA to establish Al Qaeda in Syria). Idlib city is where the peaceful phase of the “Arab Spring” uprisings transformed (largely through that CIA, Qatari, Saudi, and Turkish, assistance) into an armed rebellion to overthrow the nation’s non-sectarian Government, because that’s where the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda was centered. On 29 July 2012, the New York Times headlined “As Syrian War Drags On, Jihadists Take Bigger Role” and reported that “Idlib Province, the northern Syrian region where resistance fighters control the most territory, is the prime example.” (Note the euphemism there, “resistance fighters,” not “jihadists,” nor “terrorists.” That’s how propaganda is written. But this time, the editors had slipped up, and used the honest “Jihadists” in their headline. However, their news-report said that these were only “homegrown Muslim jihadists,” though thousands of jihadists at that time were actually already streaming into Idlib from around the world. Furthermore, Obama lied and said that the people he was helping (the al-Saud family who own Saudi Arabia, and the al-Thani family who own Qatar) to arm, were not jihadists, and he was never called-out on that very blatant ongoing lie.) But the US-allied, Saud-and-Thani-financed, massive arms-shipments, to the Al-Qaeda-led forces in Syria, didn’t start arriving there until March 2013, around a year after that start. And, then, in April 2013, the EU agreed with the US team to buy all the (of course black-market) oil it could that “the rebels” in Syria’s oil region around Deir Ezzor were stealing from Syria, so as to help “the rebels” to expand their control in Syria and thus to further weaken Syria’s Government. (The “rebels,” in that region of Syria, happened to be ISIS, not Al Qaeda, but the US team’s primary target to help destroy was actually Syria, and never ISIS. In fact, the US didn’t even start bombing ISIS there until after Russia had already started doing that on 30 September 2015.)

A week following my 10 September 2018 news-report, I reported, September 17th, about how Erdogan, Putin, and Iran’s Rouhani, had dealt with the US alliance’s threat of going to war against Russia in Syrian territory if Russia and Syria were to attack the jihadists in Idlib:

—

As I recommended in a post on September 10th, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan jointly announced on September 17th, “We’ve agreed to create a demilitarized zone between the government troops and militants before October 15. The zone will be 15-20km wide,” which compares to the Korean DMZ’s 4-km width. I had had in mind the Korean experience, but obviously Putin and Erdogan are much better-informed about the situation than I am, and they have chosen a DMZ that’s four to five times wider. In any case, the consequences of such a decision will be momentous, unless US President Donald Trump is so determined for there to be World War III as to stop at nothing in order to force it to happen no matter what Russia does or doesn’t do.

What the Putin-Erdogan DMZ decision means is that the 50,000 Turkish troops who now are occupying Idlib province of Syria will take control over that land, and will thus have the responsibility over the largest concentration of jihadists anywhere on the planet: Idlib. It contains the surviving Syrian Al Qaeda and ISIS fighters, including all of the ones throughout Syria who surrendered to the Syrian Army rather than be shot dead on the spot by Government forces.

—

However, after Erdogan got control over Idlib, he double-crossed Putin and Rouhani, by trying to solidify his control not only over Idlib but over adjoining portions of Syria, I headlined on 14 July 2019 “Turkey Will Get a Chunk of Syria: An Advantage of Being in NATO”, and reported:

Turkey is already starting to build infrastructure even immediately to the north and east of Idlib in order to stake its claim to a yet larger portion of Syria than just Idlib. This might not have been part of the deal that was worked out by Russia’s Putin, Iran’s Rouhani, and Turkey’s Erdogan, in Tehran, on 9 September 2018, which agreement allowed Turkey only to take over — and only on a temporary basis — Idlib province, which is by far the most pro-jihadist (and the most anti-Assad) of Syria’s 14 provinces. Turkey was instead supposed to hold it only temporarily, but the exact terms of the Turkey-Russia-Iran agreement have never been publicly disclosed.

Turkey was building in those adjoining Syrian areas not only facilities from two Turkish universities but also a highway to extend into the large region of Syria to the east that was controlled by Kurdish separatist forces which were under US protection. In July 2019, Erdogan seems to have been hoping that Trump would allow Turkey to attack those Kurdish proxy-forces of the US.

For whatever reason, that outcome, which was hoped for by Erdogan, turned out not to be realized. Perhaps Trump decided that if the separatist Kurds in Syria were going to be allowed to be destroyed, then Assad should be the person who would allow it, not he; and, therefore, if Erdogan would get such a go-ahead, the blame for it would belong to Assad, and not to America’s President.

Given the way Assad has behaved in the past — since he has always sought Syrian unity — the likely outcome, in the Kurdish Syrian areas, will be not a Syrian war against Kurds, but instead some degree of federal autonomy there, so long as that would be acceptable also to Erdogan. If Erdogan decides to prohibit any degree of Kurdish autonomy across the border in Syria as posing a danger to Turkish unity, then Assad will probably try (as much as he otherwise can) to accommodate the Kurds without any such autonomy, just like in the non-Kurdish parts of the unitary nation of Syria. Otherwise, Kurdish separatist sentiment will only continue in Syria, just as it does in Turkey and Iraq. The US has backed Kurdish separatism all along, and might continue that in the future (such as after the November 2020 US Presidential election).

Finally, there seems to be the light of peace at the end of the nightmarish eight-year invasion of Syria by the US and its national (such as Turkey-Jordan-Qatar-Saud-Israel) and proxy (such as jihadist and Kurdish) allies. Matters finally are turning for the better in Syria. The US finally appears to accept it. America’s threat, of starting WW III if Russia and Syria try to destroy the jihadists who have become collected in Syria’s Idlib province, seems no longer to pertain. Maybe this is because Trump wants to be re-elected in 2020. If that’s the reason, then perhaps after November of 2020, the US regime’s war against Syria will resume. This is one reason why every US Presidential candidate ought to be incessantly asked what his/her position is regarding the US regime’s long refrain, “Assad must go”, and regarding continued sanctions against Syria, and regarding restitution to Syria to restore that nation from the US-led war against it. Those questions would reveal whether all of the candidates are really just more of the same actual imperialistic (or “neocon”) policies, or whether, perhaps, one of them is better than that. Putin has made his commitments. What are theirs? Will they accept peace with Russia, and with Iran? If America were a democracy, its public would be informed about such matters — especially before the November 2020 ‘elections’, and not merely after they are already over.

Last week saw the return to relative normalcy in the northwestern town which had been held under siege by al Qaeda-affiliated militants for over five years. Situated south of Aleppo on the road to the capital Damascus, Khan Sheikhoun was officially declared under the control of Syrian state forces on August 21 after a hard-fought battle against militants.

International journalists from Italy, Bulgaria, Greece and Russia witnessed the return of residents and efforts to resume electricity services and reopening of schools. Khan Sheikhoun was ransacked by the routed jihadi terror groups, with the typical depravity that had been seen in other liberated areas. But despite the devastation, residents were relieved to begin the task of restoration of what was previously a town renowned for its culture and beauty before the war erupted in March 2011.

The remnants left behind by the defeated militants as well as the identity of dead fighters testified to their terrorist affiliation. Many of them were foreign mercenaries. Khan Sheikhoun was a stronghold for the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group which was formerly known as Al Nusra Front. Notwithstanding the chameleonic name, they are part of the jihadi Al Qaeda terror network which is internationally proscribed and which Western governments are officially opposed to.

The capture of the town again demonstrates the vile nature of the Syrian war as being one of foreign-sponsored aggression for regime change. In particular, the United States government and its NATO allies, Britain, France, Turkey, and others, are now known to be fully complicit in covert sponsorship of these terrorists.

Khan Sheikhoun is of particular significance because on April 4, 2017, it was dramatically reported by Western news media as being the site of a Sarin chemical weapon attack, allegedly carried out by the Syrian state forces. Three days later, on April 7, the US, Britain and France launched over 100 airstrikes on Syria in what was claimed to be “revenge” against the “Syrian regime” for allegedly committing an atrocity with chemical weapons. Syrian authorities and Russia asserted the alleged Sarin attack at Khan Sheikhoun was a false-flag provocation, fabricated by the militants with the aim of eliciting a military strike on Syria by the US and its NATO allies.

Clearly, after the liberation of the town this month, it is evident that it was a den of terrorist groups which held residents under a reign of terror. Yet for years, the Western news media had proclaimed that these fighters were “rebels” who deserved support from Western intervention. Even as Syrian forces were launching their assault on Idlib Province in recent months, the Western media were animated by shrill reports of “rebels” and civilians being killed by indiscriminate “regime” air strikes.

Tellingly, the momentous victory at Khan Sheikhoun was met with an astonishing silence among Western governments and news media.

The same duplicitous pattern has been seen before when the Syrian army and its Russian ally liberated Douma, Ghouta, Daraa, Aleppo, Maaloula and many other areas besieged by the so-called “rebels” so lionized in Western media. Syrian residents have been invariably relieved and overjoyed to have their freedom and dignity restored by the Syrian army and Russian forces. Their stories of the horror they endured under captivity are shocking from the depravity and cruelty meted out by Western-backed “rebels”.

That is why the liberation of Khan Sheikhoun, as with other locations in Syria, has had to be studiously ignored by the Western news media. Because if they really performed normal journalistic duty what the Western public would learn is that their governments and media have been complicit in huge war crimes against the Syrian nation.

It is all the more despicable therefore that the US is shifting its efforts to block the reconstruction of war-torn Syria. This week, the country is to hold the annual Damascus International Trade Fair. Delegates from some 40 nations are attending and exploring ways to regenerate the Syrian economy and to meet the challenge of reconstruction. Some estimates put minimal repair of infrastructure at a cost of $388 billion. The true figure could be in trillions of dollars.

That bill should be assigned to Washington, London, Paris, Ankara, Riyadh, Doha and Tel Aviv for the criminal aggression they collectively and stealthily inflicted on Syria.

Ahead of the Damascus trade fair, the US was warning prospective foreign investors that they could face sanctions if they did business with Syria. Russia’s foreign ministry condemned the American effort to sabotage Syria’s reconstruction.

As Russian lawmaker Valery Rashkin, who was in Syria this week, put it, the US is trying to destroy Syria through economic warfare after losing its dirty-war military agenda.

The European Union also stands condemned for continuing to impose economic sanctions on Syria. The war is over and it has been exposed as Western-backed criminal aggression. All past accusations against the Syrian state are null and void as malign propaganda. Thus, sanctions on Syria are a contemptible attack on the country by nations whose criminal complicity should actually be a matter of prosecution.

We can only wish the people of Syria well. With international solidarity from Russia, China, Iran and others, Syria will recover its former strength and pride. Syria has won a tremendous victory. The losers are the Western governments and media who have been exposed for the corrupt charlatans they are.

‘Assad may be a son of a bitch, but let’s make him our son of a bitch’ seems to be the thinking from Gulf Arab states which is slowly changing the way many countries are changing their views. Soon governments of EU countries will no doubt restore diplomatic relations with the Syrian leader, all in the belief that he could be used as a way of influencing Iran and Hezbollah. It’s not a new idea. In fact, it was exactly the idea championed by Nancy Pelosi in 2007 which led to Assad being brought in from the cold then.

But Idlib, if taken, will create new problems which those powerful nations should mull carefully. For the last two years, it was a region where both refugees and extremists went as a last resort as there was nowhere else to go. Turkey is seen as the odd man out in the region as its loyalty is to neither the East nor the West but to its own slightly delusional ideas of being a hegemony broker in the Middle East.

If Idlib is finally taken by Assad forces and the local Al Qaeda coalition (HTS) has to leave, rather than fight for the last man, then Turkey will be seen as a loser. That creates problems in itself. Will this be taken calmly and pragmatically by its firebrand leader or will there be some kind of military reaction to assert itself on nearby SDF (Kurdish) forces in the North of Syria? And where will the HTS extremists go?

The second question is easier to answer as, almost certainly, they will head to the South of Syria and join their comrades who were allowed to regroup there, with the assistance of the Iranians (yes, Iranians) and join a cluster of ISIL fighters who, for the moment, are being viewed by a salivating Israel which looks at them with pride and joy. Israel and Turkey may be at each others throats but they might find that their own extremists will fuse together into one.

The fall of Idlib will hardly be a victory at all. Indeed, the failure of Russia and Turkey to stick to their own agreements on demilitarized zones surprised no one. Can anyone remember the number of such ‘de-escalation zone agreements which were annulled? Too many have come and gone and probably the US and Russia will have to draw up a fresh one for the South again, once Idlib is taken and Erdogan uses the refugees fleeing as leverage against the West for his needs, whether they be troubled arms deals with Washington or financial issues.

What Idlib will underline is that Syria is not the place to draw up agreements as they are never respected for long. The writing was on the wall though when Erdogan struck the deal and was quoted by western media as saying that his own extremists would not be moved, but merely “deactivated” by himself, temporarily of course. HTS forces in the region are too valuable to Erdogan whose own apologists on live TV have openly admitted to me is a bonafide policy strategy of Ankara in Syria “as this is what the West has been doing from the start”, one explained to me.

Three million Syrians, half of whom arrived as refugees and of 60,000 are fighters, is the real issue. What happens to them and where do they go?

And what can we make of Russia now working hand in hand with the Assad regime on bombing sorties? Originally, when the Idlib deal was struck, Turkey made a big deal about Russia agreeing not to be part of an offensive against its mercenaries. But in recent days, no one is even pretending that Russia is neutral any more. One regional player who will take particular attention of that move will be Turkey’s arch enemy Israel, which has recently been pushing its luck in Syria with a number of bombing runs aimed at Assad military installations. In 2018, when a Russian jet was shot down due to an incident of friendly fire by Assad’s anti-aircraft batteries, which were aiming at Israeli F-16s, Moscow made murmurings about the special deal of allowing Israel a free hand on its bombing, to be off. There was even talk of creating Russian no fly zones and a beefed up anti-aircraft plan and, indeed, since then Assad has received delivery of the much feared Russian S-300 missile system, which has yet to be used against Israeli jets.

Will Russia reengaging on its own Turkey deal signal a new chapter in its protection of its host regime? If that is the case, Israel better curtail its feral campaign in Syria as a downed Israeli F-16 might be all Bolton and Pompeo need to force Trump into a war with Iran, which would be the biggest error in US foreign policy since Lindon B. Johnson sent US forces into Vietnam in 1965.

Idlib is a failure of diplomacy and military planning.

The bombardment of Idlib province and neighbouring areas has killed more than 300 people since late April, according to an EU-sponsored observer based in the UK. It also displaced nearly 270,000 people in May alone, according to the United Nations which claims that a total of 24 health facilities and 35 schools have been hit in the latest escalation.

But we shouldn’t expect a swift victory. The tactic most analysts predict is that Russia has advised President Bashar al-Assad that the best policy is to “chip away” at the area, and not unleash a major assault that would create chaos on Turkey’s doorstep. Expect talk of war crimes cases from both sides soon and reports of more weapons delivered to extremist groups.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has been busy eradicating Daesh in the southern part of Syria in recent weeks, concentrating its efforts on securing all areas that have been liberated from terrorist control but which still remain vulnerable to sporadic attacks, as occurred in Sweida at the end of July 2018. In that incident, there were dozens of victims and numerous abductees who remained in the hands of Daesh for months. This caused the Syrian population in neighbouring areas to clamor for protection, forcing the SAA to undertake an anti-terrorist campaign that has been ongoing since August.

This effort by the SAA has slowed down in part due to subsequent events, with an agreement reached between Erdogan and Putin to create a demilitarized zone in the province of Idlib. From October 15, an area spanning 20 kilometres and guarded by Turkish and Russian troops guarantees a separation between the SAA and terrorist groups in the province.

Russian and Syrian efforts have been moving in two very specific directions over the last few weeks. While Moscow supplies Damascus with new equipment in preparation for the future advance on Idlib, Putin and his entourage continue diplomatic efforts to draw more of Syria’s enemies closer to the Russia-Iran-Syria axis. The meeting that brought about the demilitarized zone included Macron and Merkel, the Europeans having evidently come to terms with the impossibility of overthrowing the legitimate government of Syria. Macron and Merkel were offered a way out of the Syrian conflict, decoupling themselves from the belligerent stance of the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia. The intention is to usher Paris and Berlin towards the same direction Qatar, Turkey and Jordan have been progressively gravitating. Certainly, these are not countries to be considered friends of Damascus. Rather, they are parties with whom a constructive dialogue needs to be entered into in order to advance common diplomatic interests.

Moscow has often found it possible to reach an agreement or start unpublicized negotiations with each of these parties. Erdogan seems to have preferred an agreement with Putin rather than waiting for the liberation of Idlib by the SAA, thus being able to postpone the natural conclusion of the war that will find him sitting at the table defeated. At the same time, Erdogan wants to concentrate on the Kurds in order to secure the border between Syria and Turkey controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), and to prevent any partition of Syrian territory that would favor other parties. Jordan has even reopened the border crossings with Syria, appearing to be the first country in opposition to Damascus that is now taking practical steps to mend fences.

The case of the participation of the two European countries at the summit with Erdogan and Putin is more complex. The rift between Washington and the other European capitals is wide and well documented, even more so after the events in Paris commemorating the end of the First World War. Macron and Trump seem to be diverging further in terms of policy and ideology, while Trump and Merkel have always had their differences. Trump’s choices in the Middle East, in the wake of the destructive actions of Israel and Saudi Arabia, marked a profound point of difference and mistrust with the European allies. Macron and Merkel have a huge problem dealing with refugees flowing from areas in North Africa and the Middle East destroyed by US-led wars. The prospect of working with Erdogan, and indirectly with Damascus, to bring back hundreds of thousands of refugees currently in France and especially Germany, seems to have been Putin’s winning argument during the talks in Istanbul.

This slow diplomatic approach has been accelerated as a result of Israel’s downing of a Russian electronic-surveillance aircraft. The need to avoid a direct conflict between Moscow and Tel Aviv allowed the Russian missile forces to deploy to Syria an advanced model of the S-300 in addition to the existing S-300/400 systems on the ground. The presence of these advanced systems, and Moscow’s threats to use them, together with American concerns over the possibility of an F-35 being shot down by Soviet systems dating from the 1970s, forced the Zionist entity to halt its attacks on Syria.

This situation has helped to create a frozen conflict in the country. Together with the agreement of Idlib, this gives the SAA plenty of time to rest, regroup, and receive supplies needed for future campaigns.

The current truce is a strategic pause that has all the appearance of what has happened in the past in the provinces of Homs and Aleppo. The need to free Idlib from terrorists goes hand in hand with the promise of Assad and the government of Damascus to liberate every inch of Syria from terrorists. The diplomatic efforts of Moscow serve to prepare the ground for what will happen in the coming months, with the SAA set to advance on Idlib. In this sense, the deployment of advanced systems in Syria serves as a deterrent against possible responses from countries like Israel and the United States, anxious to defend their jihadists, but continuing to have minimal influence on the ground.

Russia and Syria’s moves therefore seem to be in preparation for the battle for Idlib, to be the longest and most difficult yet. The liberation of the province is inevitable but requires all the necessary political, diplomatic and military preparation in order to ensure success and limit potential escalation. As is often the case, Moscow and her allies approach complex issues with simple and pragmatic solutions, even offering exit strategies to their (geo)political opponents, which contrasts with their demonstrated tendency to rush heedlessly towards war.

In mid-September, Putin and Turkey’s Erdogan agreed on establishing a 15 – 20 km-wide demilitarized zone in Idlib province along the Turkish border.

Russian and Turkish forces will control the zone, an offensive to liberate Idlib put on hold at least until later this year, maybe not until 2019.

Full withdrawal of US-supported terrorists was to be completed by October 15, the deadline missed because al-Nusra and allied jihadists refuse to disarm and leave – likely at the behest of Washington, their paymaster.

According to AMN News, Syria’s military “demand(s) answers regarding the(ir) failed…withdrawal from the designated buffer zone,” adding:

“(T)he Syrian Arab Army’s High Command is in talks with the Russian military about the next steps to take in the Idlib, Aleppo, Latakia, and Hama provinces” in response to noncompliance with the buffer zone agreement – by US-supported terrorists.

A Syrian military source said jihadists in Idlib continue attacking government forces and civilians, explaining:

They’re “strengthening their positions, digging new trenches and expanding their network of underground tunnels,” digging in for continued battle.

Al-Nusra, its affiliate Guardians of Religion Organization, and the Turkistan Islamic Party of Syria intend remaining in their positions, including strategic high ground and nearby areas held, using them as platforms for continued shelling.

Idlib is the last major stronghold of US-supported terrorists in Syria, controlled by tens of thousands of jihadists.

On Monday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said Idlib’s demilitarized zone agreement is untenable if al-Nusra and other jihadists fail to comply, saying:

“We cannot keep quiet about the continuation of the current situation in Idlib if the Nusra Front refuses to comply with this agreement,” adding:

“After liberating territory east of the Euphrates River, freeing Idlib from terrorists’ control is the next objective, stressing the province will be returned to Syrian sovereignty.

If the Russian/Turkish demilitarized zone isn’t implemented, Damascus will take other options to eliminate al-Nusra and other terrorists in Idlib, he said.

“Because (millions of) Syrian citizens in Idlib, and it is not their fault, we said that the liberation of Idlib with reconciliation is much better than the bloodshed. Syria’s support for the (Moscow/Ankara) Sochi agreement came from its desire not to shed blood,” al-Moallem explained.

Commenting on US occupied territory in the country, he stressed the importance of liberating it from their presence, returning the entire nation to Syrian control.

“(W)e still consider Turkey a state that is occupying our territories. Therefore, our armed forces cannot participate with their forces in any operation east of the Euphrates,” he stressed.

Head of Russia’s reconciliation center in Syria Vladimir Savchenko blamed the Trump regime for the failure of al-Nusra and other jihadists to withdraw from Idlib’s demilitarized zone, saying:

Because of US “inaction,” they “establish(ed) control over a 20-kilometer strip on the Euphrates’ east bank between the settlements of Hajin and al-Susa,” adding:

US forces continue “simulat(ing)” fighting against ISIS terrorists they support. Days earlier, their fighters abducted 700 civilians during an attack on a refugee camp near al-Bahrah, holding them hostage as human shields.

On Tuesday, Iraqi General Dia al-Wakil blasted Washington, saying its so-called coalition supports the scourge of ISIS it pretends to oppose.

“I do not believe that the (US-led) international coalition wants to bring an end to terrorism in the region,” he said, adding:

“Under the cover of the ‘fight against terrorism,’ US forces can remain and strengthen here. Behind this are economic goals. Americans need oil and arms sales contracts.”

ISIS and other terrorists are deployed where the US wants them used. Their fighters are “simply transferred to a given point” from another, including from one country to another.

“We have already seen how terrorists moved throughout the region before the international coalition’s very eyes,” transported by Pentagon helicopters. It happens repeatedly.

ISIS “has not been destroyed, but will still be used in political struggles, especially amid instability in the Middle East.” The same goes for al-Qaeda, its al-Nusra offshoot, and other terrorist groups.

Separately, Iranian Foreign Ministry official Jaberi Ansari said a massacre in Idlib by al-Nusra and/or other terrorists is Tehran’s red line.

It would have “grave humanitarian and moral, as well as political costs, which is unacceptable,” he said – no further elaboration added on how Iran might respond.

stephenlendman.org

Photo: Twitter

It appears that the Russians have pressed the pause button on their plans for an offensive alongside the Syrian government to retake Idlib. By the time they return to play mode the martial music may have changed.

New US policies for Syria

Without fanfare the US has just reformulated its position to create the conditions for it to launch devastating strikes on Syria no longer just on the pretext of alleged use of chemical weapons but on any ‘humanitarian’ pretext the US sees fit. In an interview with the Washington Post on 6 September, James Jeffrey, the hawkish new Special Envoy for Syria fresh from the neocon incubator of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, did not mince words:

“We’ve started using new language,” Jeffrey said, referring to previous warnings against the use of chemical weapons. Now, he said, the United States will not tolerate “an attack. Period.”

“Any offensive is to us objectionable as a reckless escalation” he said. “You add to that, if you use chemical weapons, or create refu¬gee flows or attack innocent civilians.”

Jeffrey’s remarks were little noticed because he was that day announcing something else more immediately striking: a ‘new’ policy on Syria involving cancellation of Trump’s announced departure of US troops before the end of 2018 and instatement of a plan to stay on indefinitely until achievement of the twin goals of removing all trace of the Iranian presence in Syria and installation of a Syrian government which would meet US conditions – conditions which President Asad would by Jeffrey’s own admission not be likely to meet.

The headlines naturally focussed on this latest Washington folly – do they think Iran will up sticks as long as there is a single US soldier on Syrian soil, or that there is Syrian Mandela waiting in the wings? – and the importance of the remarks about Idlib was missed. Yet those words may be about to bring the world to the brink of global war.

New doctrine for US intervention

What Jeffreys was saying was quite clear. That with or without alleged use of chemical weapons, a sudden exodus of frightened civilians from a part of Idlib, use of the fabled ‘barrel bombs’, or launch of a major offensive will be taken by the US as a trigger for drastic and probably sustained bombing aimed at bringing the government of Syria to its knees.

Until now successive US administrations have been careful to draw the red line for intervention in Syria at use of chemical weapons, presumably on the grounds that there is universal agreement and international law to the effect that use of prohibited weapons is taboo. WMD after all were the casus belli for Iraq, even if it turned out to be false. Now suddenly we have a new, broader and consequently more dangerous doctrine.

The State Department has not yet favoured the American public, Congress or anyone else with an explanation or justification for the change, but we can speculate. Can it be, for example, that US policy makers realise that when the next alleged use of chemical weapons occurs in Syria, as surely it will, it will be more difficult to sell intervention to the public than the first two times because the game has now been rumbled? Not only has the idea that the White Helmets might not be all they seem entered the bloodstream of media discourse, but the OPCW inspectors, able for once after Douma actually to visit a crime site, failed to find any proof of use of prohibited weapons. Add to that those pesky Russians unhelpfully telling the world exactly how and where the White Helmets were going to stage their next Oscar-winning performances. So why bother with all that rigmarole over chemical weapons when Western opinion is already sufficiently primed to accept any intervention whatever as long as it is somehow ‘humanitarian’ and doing down the evil Russians?

Responsibility to Protect

Step up ‘Responsibility to Protect’, the innocuous-sounding UN-approved doctrine beloved of interventionists of both Left and Right. Never mind that most legal scholars utterly reject the notion that this doctrine legalises armed aggression other than with Security Council approval or in self-defence. Was it not effectively invoked in the British government’s legal position statement provided at the time of the post-Douma strikes? (The US administration, knowing their audience, never bothered to provide any legal justification whatever.)

Slight snag: although the British government have preemptively sought with their legal statement to give themselves cover to commit acts of war on a whim, and without recourse to Parliament, as long as it can be dressed up as humanitarian, nevertheless there might be considerable disquiet in Parliament and possibly even among service chiefs were the government to appear to be about to launch strikes alongside the US had there not been even the appearance of a chemical weapons incident. For this reason it is likely that the British government will attempt to persuade the US not to give up just yet on chlorine.

Is it this new amplified threat – of strikes whether or not Asad obliges or appears to oblige with suicidal use of chlorine – which has given the Russians reasons to call off the dogs, pro tem at least? Probably not, because the Russians were taking it as read that fake chemical attacks were coming anyway. They will take note however that the US has just effectively lowered the bar on its own next heavy intervention in Syria and will not be deterred by any blowing of the gaff.

For those who naively but sincerely believed that if Asad laid off the chlorine he would not get bombed the world has suddenly become a lot more dangerous. For realists however the new doctrine merely removes a hypocrisy, or rather introduces an inflexion into the hypocrisy, whereby the itch felt by those salivating at the prospect of striking Syria, Russia and Iran can be masked as a humanitarian concern which goes beyond abhorrence of chemical weapons.

timhayward.wordpress.com

The Russian military warned that a false-flag chemical attack staged by the rebels could occur at any time and be used as a pretext for Western missile strikes.  A massive Turkish military convoy, consisting of more than 300 vehicles, including tanks, armored vehicles, and MLRS launchers, has entered Idlib from the province of Hatay. 

Syria needs Idlib — the last stronghold of the jihadists and the shortest route from Latakia to Aleppo. The M5 international highway crosses Idlib, linking Turkey and Jordan through Aleppo and Damascus. Control of the province would greatly facilitate the negotiations with the Kurds and strengthen Syria’s position at the UN-brokered Geneva talks. If the negotiation process succeeds, the only territories left to liberate would be the zone controlled by the US, such as the al-Tanf military base and the surrounding area, the northern parts of the country under Turkish control, and small chunks of land still held by ISIS.

Turkey opposes the idea of an Idlib offensive. It wants assurances for the groups in Idlib under its control and it doesn’t want an influx of refugees. These controversial issues can be tackled with Russia as a mediator. Turkey, Iran, and Russia did not agree on everything at the recent summit in Tehran, but the West’s hopes that they would go their separate ways, or even clash in Idlib, have been dashed.

President Erdogan has just said that he wants to meet the Russian president again after his Sept 28-29 visit to Germany. This means that the Turkish leader has ideas and proposals to discuss and Moscow can play a role in reaching a compromise, such as a more narrowly tailored counter-terrorism operation in Idlib. There is a divide, but it can be bridged.  The parties have the will to get it done.

Ankara plans to organize a Turkey-Russia-Germany-France summit. The Russian presidential aide, Yury Ushakov, has confirmed that such a meeting is in the works. Moscow has just invited the Turkish military to take part in its largest-ever military exercise, Vostok 2018, which will be held in the Far East. China and Mongolia have also been invited. Obviously, Russia and Turkey are prepared to solve their differences over Idlib peacefully through negotiations.

In any event, the province cannot remain under the terrorists’ control forever. They must be either surrender or be routed. Now that the operation to free Idlib has begun, many of them will lay down their arms. They know their resistance is futile.

Actually, victories over terrorists that pave the way to a negotiated solution of the conflict should be welcomed, but the US sees these things in a different light. Washington seems to be shifting gears on Syria again, despite the statements President Trump made earlier about the plans to pull out. Now the president has reportedly agreed to new objectives that will keep US troops on the ground in Syria indefinitely in order to ensure that the Iranian forces are driven out. The US military has just sent reinforcements to al-Tanf to demonstrate its resolve to stay in that country. The Marines are holding a multi-day exercise there, using live ammunition.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, said on Sept. 7 that the administration viewed any government assault on Idlib as an escalation of Syria’s warning that Washington would respond to any chemical attack by Damascus. Ambassador James Jeffrey, who served as a deputy national security adviser to President George W. Bush, has recently been appointed US Special Representative for Syria Engagement, and Joel Rayburn, the former senior director for Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, is now Special Envoy for Syria. The two appointments confirm the fact that the US has changed its mind and decided to remain in Syria, as both these officials had supported this policy before.

America’s top military brass are studying the options for military involvement in Syria. But the real reason may not be Idlib or any other events in that country, but rather the situation creep in Iraq, where anti-Iranian and anti-government Shia protests in the south have turned violent and the prime minister may be compelled to step down. The protesters are armed and violent. They have attacked the Iranian consulate and the headquarters of Iranian-backed militias in the city.

Fighting has also been reported between Iranian forces and Kurds in Iraq’s Kurdish region. Details have been provided of mortar fire in Baghdad, where protests took place in July. Something’s cooking in Iraq. There is too little information available to obtain any deep insights into what’s going on, but the situation is unpredictable and volatile. Iraq could soon implode. The US will not leave the region, and it needs every outpost it has there. A lot depends on how events develop in Iraq.

Idlib will ultimately be liberated. The status of the US-led coalition forces in Syria will become a hot-button topic and be seen as the main stumbling block on the path to peace and reconstruction. 

Green city buses have delivered their last passengers to Idlib. In a recurring pattern across Syria, at the end of every battle in which Syrian government forces won back their territory, the Russian Center for Reconciliation has made deals with armed fighters: surrender and return to civilian life, or take the free bus ride to Idlib. The Russian police secured the safety of the fighters and their families who chose to not integrate back into society but to continue their jihad with the goal of establishing an Islamic state in Syria according to the Wahhabi political doctrine.

But this was the last time the bus ride to Idlib would be offered as an option. One by one, all other areas in Syria under terrorist control have fallen, and now the final battle for Idlib looms large on the horizon.

The Syrian conflict began in Daraa in 2011 as a U.S.-NATO project for “regime change.” The project failed to achieve its objective, but did cost about 500,000 lives as well as the wholesale destruction of many parts of Syria, and left millions of Syrians homeless or living abroad as refugees. Recently, the conflict has made a U-turn ending in Daraa — and setting the stage for the last battle of Idlib.

Idlib: a jihadist stronghold

The mainstream media labels Idlib as the last “rebel” stronghold, but the term “rebel” can apply only to those who are not jihadists. Idlib is a stronghold of al Qaeda and its affiliates and of ISIS fighters and their families. The term “rebel” does not apply to any of those groups. The U.S.-NATO war on Syria, for the purpose of removing the Syrian government, sold the idea that they were supporting Syrian freedom fighters, aka “rebels.” The Free Syrian Army (FSA) was a U.S.-NATO invention under the direction of the CIA in Turkey. But the FAS had problems early on, as they lacked support from the Syrian population: they couldn’t get Syrian men willing to fight. They resorted instead to the only available resources: international jihadists from the four corners of the globe.

Pharmacist Dr. Samir Qanatri owned and operated his own pharmacy in his hometown of Idlib. He was a well-known supporter of secular ideology and served as vice chairman of the Pharmacists’ Union in Syria. The FSA beat him to death inside his shop and then burned his corpse and his shop. This was a very powerful message to from the FSA to Idlib in 2011: we stand against secular ideology.

Qanatri was not a member of the then-ruling state party, Al Ba-ath. His premeditated murder had nothing to do with his association with the Syrian government, or the ruling party, as he was affiliated with neither. This was the U.S.-NATO-supported FSA sending a clear message that it would not tolerate secular ideology, regardless of what was being written in the Western media. Syrians were not following the Western media in 2011, and at the time had no idea there was a powerful propaganda campaign portraying the SNC and its armed wing, the FSA, as secular and moderate forces of change in Syria. The truth on the ground was just the opposite, but the Western media never covered that.

An attempt to sectarianize a secular state

Syria is home to 18 different religious minorities and the Syrian government has been secular for 40 years, an ideology well-ingrained in the Syrian mindset. This may be one of the reasons that Syrians of all economic levels, religions, sects and educational backgrounds rejected the SNC and FSA. From the outset, the majority of the Syrian population remained in favor of peace and security, as opposed to armed opposition.

The armed fighters in Syria did have some supporters across Syria, and this led to a great deal of destruction and bloodshed; however, the main base of their support continued to be among Syrian expats, Arabs and Westerners living in safety in Washington, London, Paris, Istanbul and Riyadh.

One of the very first political banners hung by the FSA on the coast in 2011 read: “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to their Grave.” The Western media and the Obama White House were careful not to translate that banner into English. The FSA and its political wing, the SNC, have never been secular or moderate. The founding members of the SNC and FSA were members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Their goal for Syria has always been to establish an Islamic government, thus abolishing the secular Ba’ath Party as well as the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP).

A terrorist occupation

Idlib has literally dozens of armed groups. Naming each and providing even a brief description would take many pages. The situation on the ground there can be described as such: civilians living under the occupation of terrorists, some of whom are Syrian; though foreign terrorists are more numerous than locals. Some of the terrorists have been settled in Idlib for years, and have large families consisting of wives, children and elderly relatives.

“Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham” is the largest group in Idlib. “Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement” is also there — the group famously supported by the U.S. until it gained notoriety for chopping off the head of an 11-year-old boy in Aleppo, and making a video of the before-and-after process that went viral on the internet. The video caused the U.S. State Department under President Obama to reconsider its previous support of the group.

One of the unexpected groups occupying Idlib consists of Chinese citizens turned jihadists. Numbering around 4,000 persons, they brought their entire families with them, even establishing schools for their children. Known as Uyghurs, they knew they couldn’t create an Islamic state in China so they opted to create their utopia in Syria. Also numerous in Idlib are the Turkestani and Uzbek jihadists, likewise from Central Asia. They have acquired drones that they have used recently to attack the Hmeymim Military Airbase, near Latakia, as reported by the Russian Ministry of Defense.

The suffering was beyond description, as children and the elderly died from a lack of medical care and starvation. Now the villages sit vacant: a bitter wind blows through them as the last remaining hostages were released in a prisoner swap.

Almost 5,000 civilian hostages from the two villages boarded buses and were taken to the safety of Latakia, while 1,500 prisoners were released and taken to Idlib in the deal agreed upon by the armed fighters in Idlib and Russian negotiators.

Even as local residents sat on a bus waiting to evacuate al-Foua and Kefraya, one Egyptian terrorist boarded and proclaimed, “There’s no place for you in Idlib.” Strange that a foreigner would think himself the one to change the demographics of Syria: yet another example of the U.S.-NATO-sponsored sectarian war in Syria. This technique of pitting sects against one another might work on drawing boards in America and Europe; but thanks to the secular values ingrained in Syria, they had no chance of nationwide success.

The jihadist occupiers of Idlib have forfeited UN protection

UN Security Council Resolution 2254, dated December 2015, endorsed a roadmap for a peace process in Syria, and made clear that members of the coalition were to fight all terrorist factions, including ISIS as well as the various players named under the al Qaeda umbrella. Resolution 2254 makes it clear that no ceasefire would ever include those groups.

In May of 2017, an agreement was signed during the Astana talks backed by Turkey, Russia and Iran that established de-escalation zones in Syria, one of which was in the Idlib province. But the armed fighters who control Idlib are overwhelmingly derived from the terrorist groups specifically banned from protection under Security Council Resolution 2254. Not only are those fighters overwhelmingly members of al Qaeda- and ISIS-affiliated terrorist groups, but many are not Syrian. When the bombs start falling over Idlib, the Western media may report them as a violation of the de-escalation zone provision; however, this provision does not apply, as the Syrian government intends to target only the groups specified as legitimate targets under Security Council Resolution 2254.

There are Syrian civilians who are being held captive in Idlib and are being used as human shields. Those civilians are being used as a tool to pressure the UN, Turkey and others to stop any military action taken by Russia and Syria based on the humanitarian crisis that may develop due to their presence in the province. Over the past seven years of the conflict, many of Idlib’s residents have left to take up refuge in nearby Latakia; some went to UN camps in Turkey at Gaziantep; while others made the trek to Germany in the summer of 2015.

Still others, however, remain in their homes, shops or farms in Idlib despite the hardships of living under terrorist control. For a myriad of reasons, they did not flee and have had to face living under foreign occupation by international jihadists. Some of those residents have kept in contact with relatives outside of Idlib and have expressed fear over the coming firestorm, but have no options.

Idlib’s Natives face no good choices

Some experts suggest the majority of Syrian residents in Idlib are waiting and hoping for the day when the Syrian Army liberates the area so they can resume a normal life. This is based on past history, including the liberation of East Aleppo in late 2016, the liberation of East Ghouta several months ago, and the recent liberation of Daraa: in each case, the majority of civilians streaming out of the recently liberated cities said they were happy to be free once more.

Watch | Eastern Ghouta civilians greet the Syrian Army as it enters Ain Tarma

In 2011, Turkey set up the tents in Gaziantep, just over the border from Idlib, before any refugees began fleeing the still budding Syrian conflict. Was the move an act of clairvoyance, or was it perhaps under instruction from the CIA office in nearby Adana?

Refugees would soon arrive and fill those tents, creating a humanitarian crisis worthy of UN support and funding. The refugees were mainly women and children who left their men behind to fight with the FSA for a paycheck distributed by Saudi Arabia in Turkey. Leaving women and children alone is risky anywhere, and in Turkey reports of rape and resulting unwanted pregnancies as well as the sexual abuse of small boys and girls, soon made headlines. The rapists turned out to be Turkish guards tasked with control of the thousands of new Syrian refugees.

When the dust settles over the ruins of Idlib, there will be survivors, including terrorists who can’t stay in Syria because they are not Syrian citizens. However, various countries, including the U.K., are refusing to allow their own citizens to return home after fighting for terrorist groups in Syria; instead, they are revoking their citizenship. Some countries, such as France, have gone so far as to bluntly state the solution is to kill them before they come home. The Canadian prime minister was ridiculed by his citizens after he suggested jihadists could be rehabilitated and even compared the terrorists coming home to Canada as similar to the Italian migrants to Canada.

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen recently warned of the threat posed by fighters attempting to return home:

We are entering a new phase of the fight. Jihadists are going underground, dispersing to other safe havens — including on the internet and returning to their home countries.”

While the exact details of the recent private meeting in Helsinki between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have yet to be revealed, the main points of concern agreed upon regarding Syria were:

1. The security of the Syrian-Israeli border at the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights must be maintained by SAA and clear of Iranian military presence.
2. The U.S. and Russia will work in coordination to achieve peace in Syria.

It would appear there are no glaring differences between the two leaders’ approach to ending the Syrian conflict, which was planned, funded and executed under the Obama administration. President Trump inherited the conflict and has stated repeatedly he wants the United States out of wars in the Middle East.

The coming battle for Idlib

The battle for Idlib will begin soon, as the SAA secures areas to the South and West of the province; then the aerial bombardments will begin. We will probably see and hear the same war-weary correspondents from CNN and the BBC, reporters who never applied for a visa to enter Syria.

Illegals crossing the border in the U.S. are considered criminals, subject to arrest and prosecution. Yet, American journalists have been embedded with terrorist groups in Syria for eight years, and have used smugglers in the human trafficking business to ferry them in and out through Turkey. Some of these journalists don’t bother with groundwork and instead opt to take the easy way out, reporting from the Beirut Hilton or the Istanbul Plaza.

Stay tuned: the coverage of Idlib will begin soon, and the green buses can finally get back to their job of transporting Syrians as they live, shop and work in peace at last.

mintpressnews.com

“Turkey’s last-ditch efforts to harness Russian military and diplomatic heft to counter the Syrian Kurds and unravel their alliance with the United States are showing few signs of succeeding, like much else in the country’s ill-fated Syrian policy,” writes Amberin Zaman.

The introduction of Russian forces in Afrin is reminiscent of what happened in Manbij, where a threatened Turkish assault was deterred by US forces in the north and Russian and Syrian deployments in the south.

“If anything,” Zaman continues, “both the United States and Russia are steadily deepening their ties with the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and its Arab allies who operate under the umbrella of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). And viewed from Ankara, they are doing so at Turkey’s expense.”

The negotiations between Russia and the Syrian Kurds over Afrin included discussion of possible coordination against Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, al-Qaeda’s Syria affiliate, formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra, now under the umbrella of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, whose members slipped out of Aleppo with other armed groups under Turkish cover, according to Fehim Tastekin.

Tastekin writes, “YPG sources told Al-Monitor the two sides [Russia and the YPG] met at Khmeimim air base near Latakia to discuss developing a joint operation against Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (previously Jabhat al-Nusra), which has made Idlib its central base. The Kurds initially insisted that the partnership should also oppose organizations such as Ahrar al-Sham, which Turkey supports. In the end, the sources said, both parties decided not to debate which organizations they will confront and agreed that Russia will set up a base in Afrin. The Kurds said they rejected Russia’s request to have Syrian regime troops at the base and to fly the Syrian flag there.”

He adds, “Zelal Ceger, an official with the Kurdish Movement for a Democratic Society in Afrin, said that the Kurds sought an arrangement with Russia because of persistent attacks on Afrin by Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) and armed groups that Turkey supports,” which includes Salafi and Turkmen armed groups.

Ceger told Tastekin that “this war can escalate — hence our call on Russia for an alliance. There has to be coordination between Turkey and us. Russia will provide that coordination to prevent Turkish attacks against Afrin.”

Tastekin adds that YPG officials rejected a US proposal to include Syrian Kurdish forces backed by Iraqi Kurdistan President Massoud Barzani, calling it a “conspiracy” that could lead to war among the Kurds.

Zaman writes, “Turkey’s strongest card is its long border with Syria and continued influence over assorted Syrian rebel groups, which it has united under the Euphrates Shield command. Since August, Turkey and its rebel allies have cleared the Turkish border of IS forces and after a bloody and protracted offensive captured the IS-controlled town of al-Bab last month. But firmly hemmed in to the east by Russian, Syrian regime and US forces and now to the west by Russian forces in Afrin, Euphrates Shield appears to have reached the limits of its expansion.”

She adds, “The recent split in Ahrar al-Sham, one of the most powerful rebel factions in Syria, with its top leaders defecting to the Jabhat al-Nusra-dominated and al-Qaeda-linked Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, will have further weakened Turkey’s hand.”

While the United States is consumed with planning for unseating the Islamic State (IS) in Raqqa, Idlib may prove a comparable or perhaps even more explosive fault line because of the blurred lines among anti-Western Salafi groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, which is backed by Turkey, and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. 

Tamer Osman reports that Syrian “warplanes are increasingly hovering in the sky over Idlib in northern Syria and targeting several residential areas inside the city.”

Tastekin writes, “The Syrian army has been clearing out IS forces from their last Aleppo stronghold. Thanks to an agreement between Turkey and Russia, Turkish-supported armed groups — which oppose the Syrian regime but were also fighting IS in Aleppo — were allowed to leave there with their weapons and families. Most of them settled in Idlib and Azaz. … Russia and Turkey disagree on what to do with these anti-Syrian (and therefore, anti-Russian) groups. Russia wants them disbanded. Turkey would like them to hold onto that area and join the pro-Turkish Free Syrian Army factions to fight the Kurds and keep them from establishing a continuous autonomous region near Turkey’s border. If Russia and the Syrian army open a front against Idlib, clashes with the Turkish-backed groups could spill over to Afrin. Although the Kurds are focused on defending Afrin, they may be amenable to a joint operation with the Russians against threats from Idlib.”

“The biggest problem,” Osman continues, “is the lives of hundreds of thousands of Syrians living in Idlib, as these will not be able to find another shelter amid the ongoing airstrikes falling on the city and its suburbs. This same scenario occurred in areas now controlled by the Syrian regime forces such as the eastern neighborhoods of Aleppo.”

Khaled al-Khateb reports from Aleppo, “Turkey has been training a police organization, the Free Syrian Police (FSP), to help out with secondary operations in Aleppo province so the Free Syrian Army (FSA) can focus on fighting and maintaining control of the areas it has captured.“

Khateb writes, “The FSA’s presence there makes residents targets for the Islamic State (IS).” He adds, “The first FSP group, stationed in Jarablus, was recruited in late 2016 from Syrian refugee camps scattered in Gaziantep and Kilis in southern Turkey, unlike the second group stationed in Azaz and nearby towns, which mostly came from Aleppo province. There has been no shortage of recruits.”

Semih Idiz explains that “there is also speculation, fueled by remarks made by Erdogan in the recent past, about a Turkish effort to turn the FSA into Syria’s new army. If this were to come about, it would mean a Sunni-dominated, anti-Kurdish and anti-Shiite army. Given the big picture as it stands today, though, such an army is highly unlikely to be formed, since it would be blocked by Russia and the United States. The bottom line in all of this is that the prospects for Ankara’s realizing its aims in Syria appear to be dimming by the day — a fact that is also being increasingly noted by Turkish analysts.”

al-monitor.com