Western Strategy in Syria — Partition, Sabotage of Sochi, and Two New Wars?

by Dee Mclachlan

On January 11, 2017, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, faced a nine-hour confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It was during the hearing that Tillerson said the US should focus first on defeating ISIS, and then address the future of the Assad regime.

Now, exactly a year later, on January 11, 2018, a meeting is held in Washington to discuss Syria. This article is about a leaked diplomatic cable (which they referred to as a TD), which was published at Prochetmoyen-orient.ch (17 February 2018), translated here, here, and at defense.pk. It is alleged the 5-page communication details the “Western strategy” in Syria, which includes:

“partition of the country, sabotage of Sochi [Russia-backed Syrian peace talks], framing of Turkey and instructions to the UN Special Representative Staffan de Mistura who leads the negotiations of Geneva.”

Benjamin Norman — a diplomat in charge of the Middle East at the British Embassy in Washington — reported, in a confidential diplomatic telegram (or cable), on the meeting of the “Small American Group on Syria.” The meeting was allegedly held in Washington on January 11, 2018, and included the United States, Great Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

A further 8-page Non Paper allegedly disclosed a Paris January 23rd meeting which was essentially devoted to the discussion around chemical weapons.

It appears that Benjamin Norman (his Twitter account here) had discussions with Fiona Hill, as the article says: “…according to the separate discussions we had, for example with Fiona Hill – that relations between the United States and Turkey are already bad and unlikely to improve.”

(I know Dr Fiona Hill, and we have spoken about Syria in the past. She has being traveling to the Middle East for decades, and has sound knowledge of the complexities in the area. I have written to her regarding the detail and authenticity of the alleged Norman ‘cable’. UPDATE: Fiona said this is all factual, but the Fiona Hill referred to in the cable is another Fiona Hill, who is a special advisor to Trump on Russia.)

From the West’s past modus operandi in the Middle East, nothing what is disclosed in the alleged cable is a surprise.

It is said in the article that these people were in attendance at the 11 January, 2018, meeting:

• David Satterfield (US Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East),
• Hugh Cleary (Head of the Near and Middle East Department of the Foreign Office ),
• Jérôme Bonnafont (Director ANMO / North Africa and Middle East at the Quai d’Orsay),
• Jordanian Nawaf Tell, Saudi Jamal al-Aqeel, and (presumably) Benjamin Norman.

Below I have quoted major portions of the article [All bolding is my emphasis]:

“David Satterfield confirmed that President Trump has decided to maintain a large US military presence in Syria, despite the victory over the ‘Islamic State Organization’ ( Dae’ch ); the cost of this maintenance being set at $ 4 billion annually. He said that this US military presence should prevent any resurgence of Dae’ch, but, above all, to prevent the ‘Iranians from settling permanently and imposing themselves in the search for a political solution’. Thirdly, he insisted that the first meeting of the ‘Small Group’ should also provide ‘material and political support for Staffan de Mistura [Special Envoy for Syria] to consolidate the Geneva process ‘.

The US are obviously troubled by the Russian-backed Syrian peace talks at Sochi on the Black Sea. Let me continue with the article.

“The French representative – Jérôme Bonnafont – posed the problem of a possible participation of Bashar al-Assad in future elections. David Satterfield responded that ‘the goal was to create conditions and institutions that would allow elections that Assad could not win.’ Satterfield added that ‘there is no flagrant reason’ to prevent Assad from being a candidate… For Satterfield, it is about getting the Russians to let Assad go… [Wow, talk about interfering in elections.]

“One of the conclusions of this first meeting of the “Small Group” is perfectly clear: ‘to reinvigorate Geneva so that Sochi becomes irrelevant’; France demanding more ‘transparency on the Russian position’.

“The Saudis warned of a ‘risk of fragmentation of the different opposition groups and asked for help to maintain the cohesion of the opposition.’ Satterfield replied that their representatives should ‘be more involved in finding a political solution rather than enjoy great salaries and long stays in pleasant hotels.’ [Typical]

“David Satterfield then explained that the Turkish opposition to the ‘Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG)’ prevented the Kurds from participating in Geneva. While understanding Ankara’s position, he stressed that ‘we could not ignore a group that controlled the third of Syria (SIC) and took the largest part in the fight against Dae’ch’. He explained that ‘Americans were seeking to establish multi-ethnic leadership in northeastern Syria to dilute the hegemony of the YPG.’ [Ḥdoywotho d’Sutoro d’Amo; YPG is a mainly-Kurdish militia in Syria] On the other hand, it was necessary to impose the FDS (Syrian Democratic Forces, mainly Kurdish and under American control) in the process of Geneva.”

The concluding comments of the cable, if true, speaks volumes about the vision and future of Western strategy in Syria. To continue:

“The three key conclusions underscore ‘a real reaffirmation of US leadership behind the scenes …’. The second perspective is to ‘keep the pressure on Russia, even if Russia can not convince Moscow to let go of the regime as we had hoped.’ In this regard, ‘we must continue – what we are already doing – to denounce the horrible humanitarian situation as well as the Russian complicity in the campaign of bombing civilian targets.’ Finally, concludes the author of TD, ‘the Americans told me how much they appreciated our contribution and our support in recent months as they were finalizing their strategy.’

The article notes four worrying developments. To continue:

“1) The United States has decided to strengthen and diversify their nuclear posture. The Pentagon has announced that it will develop miniaturized tactical nuclear weapons ‘to adapt to new international threats’. Iranian President Hassan Rohani responded: ‘How can anyone speak of world peace and at the same time announce that he is developing new nuclear weapons for his main enemies?’

2) NATO Defense Ministers agreed on 14 and 15 February in Brussels on the outline of a new overhaul of the Atlantic Alliance command structures… it is ‘better to deter and respond to new threats from certain states, first and foremost Russia.’

3) In the aftermath of the destruction of an Israeli fighter in Syrian airspace, and while Israeli police demand the indictment of Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu for corruption, Tel-Aviv accuses Iran of establishing itself in Syria and threatens to multiply its military operations. This is not the first time that the Israeli prime minister – who refuses to resign – is using the resurgence of regional tension to consolidate his personal power and his alliance with the extreme right of the country.

4) Finally, Washington’s military support for the Kurds in Syria continues to provoke the Ankara era. The crisis of confidence is consumed and the Turkish-American axis is on the brink of rupture. Second NATO contingent, the Turkish army had to accompany the conservative and anti-Western turn after the failed coup of July 2016. Mission has been given to a general with conservative and Islamist tendencies to restructure the derailed Turkish army by the purges.”

The article concludes that Norman perfectly reflects the Western strategy in Syria:

“to sabotage the Sochi peace efforts, to add two new wars to the Syrian crisis: that of the Turks against the Kurds and those of the Israelis against Iran and the Lebanese Hezbollah. ‘The Americans have never admitted their military defeat in Syria and do not want to let go and especially their main strategic objective,’ said a senior French diplomat, ‘that of a dismantling of Syria, the type of one who has been driven to Iraq and Libya.’ Their desire is to arm the Kurds to control the oil areas of eastern Syria in order to influence the political and economic reconstruction of the country. Peace is not for tomorrow.”

Yes. It does seem peace “is not for tomorrow.”