Syrian War Report – February 8, 2018: US-led Coalition Struck Syrian Army In Deir Ezzor

 DISPATCHES FROM SOUTHFRONT.ORG

https://southfront.org/syrian-war-report-february-8-2018-us-led-coalition-struck-syrian-army-deir-ezzor/

On February 7, the US-led coalition carried out several airstrikes on positions of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in the province of Deir Ezzor. The coalition claimed that the SAA had “initiated an unprovoked attack against well-established Syrian Democratic Forces [SDF] headquarters”, added that “coalition service members” were co-located with SDF fighters during the attack and described the strikes as a self-defense act.

According to local sources, the US targeted positions of the SAA near the town of Khasham, located on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River where some clashes between the SAA and the SDF were also reported. Earlier pro-opposition sources speculated that the SAA was preparing to use Khasham as a foothold to attack the SDF position in the areas of the CONICO gas facility and the Jafar oil field. However, these reports were not confirmed by any evidence.

No doubts, the US-led coalition will use the incident to deepen the rift between the SAA and the Kurdish-dominated SDF. Earlier this month, Damascus allowed a large convoy of Kurdish fighters to reach the area of Afrin where Turkey is conducting a military operation against YPG/YPJ forces that are the core of the SDF. However, the relations between the sides remained complicated.

On February 7, the media wing of the YPG released a video showing two ATGM strikes at battle tanks of the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF). The strikes were conducted in the Rajo and Bulbul districts of Afrin. The both tanks were allegedly destroyed. On the same day, reports appeared that two TAF service members died in the Afrin operation.

Meanwhile, the TAF and the Free Syrian Army captured Hawiz Hill and re-entered Shaykh Khurus. On February 8, clashes continued there. The SAA, the Tiger Forces and their allies made large gains against ISIS in the northeastern Hama pocket. The ISIS resistance remains in Suruj, Ibn Wardan Qastel and a number of small points across the remaining militant-held area.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham continued its attempts to exploit the SAA operation against ISIS attacking government positions west and north of Abu al-Duhur. Fierce clashes are ongoing there.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Support SOUTHFRONT if you can. Reliable independent journalism is vital and priceless. 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

 CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]




Syrian Air Defense Downs Israeli F-16


BE SURE TO PASS OUR ARTICLES ON TO KIN, FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES

IDF jet of the type downed by Syrian defenses.

Throughout years of US-led aggression on Syria, Israel attacked its territory numerous times – by air and cross-border shelling. It’s unclear if any of its warplanes were hit before – most often operating from Lebanese or its own airspace. Pre-dawn Saturday, Syria’s air defense downed an Israeli F-16 operating west of Damascus. An IDF spokesman said the plane crashed, its pilots safe after ejecting, adding they’re hospitalized in stable condition.

Preceding the incident, Israel downed what it called an Iranian drone, most likely a Syrian one called Iranian.

Netanyahu and IDF leadership together with Washington seek pretexts to escalate war on Syria more than already.

IDF spokesman General Ronen Manelis lied, saying Iran conducted “a dangerous attack on Israeli territory,” adding:

“This is a serious breach of Israeli sovereignty by Iran…dragging the region into an adventure, and it will pay the price” – a ominous warning, Israel and Washington coordinating their anti-Syria operations.

No evidence suggests any Iranian or Syrian cross-border attacks occurred throughout years of conflict.

Unlike Israel, Syrian air and ground forces operate only in their own territory. Iran insists it only has advisory military personnel in the country, aiding its ally combat US-supported terrorism, operating from Syrian bases, not its own, as falsely claimed.

No Iranian or Syrian drone entered Israeli territory pre-dawn Saturday, as Israel claimed. The downed UAV was in Syrian airspace, perhaps close to Israel’s border. Syrian media said Israeli “aggression” was launched against one of its army bases.

This Israeli-provoked incident signals a possible dangerous escalation of US-led war on Syria – launched by Obama, revved up by Trump, aiming for regime change and gaining another US imperial trophy, ahead of plans to target Iran the same way.

Russia understands US and Israeli intentions, failing so far to challenge them forcefully. The latest incident is more evidence of the need to confront US, Israeli and Turkish aggression in Syria to stop it. Failure to act could let these countries carve up Syrian territory, achieve long sought regime change, isolate Iran, target its government the same, and embroil the region in greater conflict than already.

The time to stop what’s going on is now or face a likely far greater regional problem ahead.  The only language Washington and Israel understand is force. It’s time to give them a taste of their own medicine – enough to force them to back off.

Continuing normal diplomatic relations with serial aggressors encourages them to pursue their imperial agendas unimpeded. Challenging them forcefully is the only way to keep war in Syria from spreading dangerously out-of-control – heading things toward possible nuclear confrontation, a doomsday scenario essential to prevent.

A Final Comment

According to the Moscow Times, Russian military contractors were killed by US-led aerial and ground attacks on Syrian and allied forces in Deir Ezzor earlier this week.  RT, Sputnik and Tass failed to report it. Numerous Russian private military contractors operate in Syria.

According to the Moscow Times, “two tactical units of the Wagner private military group had been hit by the US strikes on Feb. 7.”

“One (unit was) practically totally destroyed, and the second…smashed ‘to smithereens,’ “ quoting Igor Girkin, a Russian army artillery veteran.

Russia’s Defense Ministry reportedly said none of its military personnel were killed, a statement saying the attack “demonstrates that the true goal of the continued illegal presence of US forces on Syrian territory (is) the capture and control of economic assets that belong exclusively to the Syrian Arab Republic, not a fight against the ISIS international terrorist group.”

How many more Syrian and Russian personnel will die before Moscow challenges US-led aggression forcefully?

Each incident like the above and what happened pre-down Saturday explain the urgency of intervening responsibly to stop them.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
 Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 10.13.00 AMSTEPHEN LENDMAN was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard University. Two years of US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1960. After working seven years as a marketing research analyst, he joined the Lendman Group family business in 1967. He remained there until retiring at year end 1999. Writing on major world and national issues began in summer 2005. In early 2007, radio hosting followed. Lendman now hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network three times weekly. Distinguished guests are featured. Listen live or archived. Major world and national issues are discussed. Lendman is a 2008 Project Censored winner and 2011 Mexican Journalists Club international journalism award recipient. His new site is at http://stephenlendman.org


black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]





North Korean charm initiative continues with personal invitation

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

Hand-delivered invitation to President Moon Jae-in to meet with Kim Jong-un in Pyongyang received warmly, request made for US to resume talks with North Korea


North Korean leader Kim Jong-un continues to make headlines with his efforts to talk with the South Korean leadership, independently of the United States’ influence. In a new development on Saturday, February 10th, Jong-un invited South Korean President Moon Jae-in to a meeting in Pyongyang, this being done via a personal letter hand delivered by Jong-un’s sister, Kim Yo-jong, to President Moon.

This is in hopes of a third inter-Korean summit. The first two have been highly positive in their nature, and have progressed swiftly since the beginning of the year.  Kim Jong-un’s move towards what appears to be a rapprochement was warmly welcomed by the South, and the two nations’ summits have happened independently of any direct US support.

The Winter Olympic Games are being held in Pyeongchang, South Korea, and they opened on Friday, February 9th and will conclude on the 25th of this month. The two Korean states have combined their athletic forces into one united Korean team, competing under a united Korean flag.

Kim Jong-un’s sister is a member of the North Korean Politburo.  She heads the regíme’s propaganda department and she is very close to her brother.  She is the highest ranking state head to attend the Olympic games on behalf of North Korea. Interestingly, during the opening ceremonies of the Games, she was seated very close to the American Vice President Mike Pence, but the Yonhap News Agency reported that the two tried to avoid directly facing one another.


The jingoist dullard Mike Pence in Korea, a typical example of US backwardness and corruption, sent to make sure that the North's charm offensive does not loosen the grip of the American empire on a long-tortured people.

This naturally is a very hopeful sign for Korean people on both sides of the DMZ, but the Americans remain unimpressed, to say the least. The rhetoric from the US President Donald Trump has been strongly supported in equally strong statements by Mr. Pence, both in deed (he was to have brought with him the father of Otto Warmbier, the American student who died just days after being returned to the USA in a coma following imprisonment in North Korea.

The South Korean President had to acknowledge the difficulty in this situation, for although the South is very interested in dialogue with the North (they are brother peoples, after all), the USA is an ally to South Korea. President Moon indicated this in his comments to Kim Yo-Jong, noting that “an early resumption of dialogue between the United States and the North is needed also for the development of the South-North Korean relationship.”

The American influence might be seen as either a voice of restraint from foolish behavior, or a wet blanket trying to ruin the good times.  Of course, this depends on one’s understanding of the situation. The attraction of brother nations reuniting is huge in the region. But the point of North Korea’s {western propaganda built]  reputation for brutality in the treatment of her own people as well as the treatment of foreigners is something that the US maintains cannot be taken lightly or just swept under the rug. This is a matter that the North is going to have to face as the negotiations and meetings continue.

While it is clear that the North wants closer ties with the South, it is not clear exactly why. However, the effect of the charm offensive of Kim Jong-un and his sister is very clear, and there remain signs of hope for some sort of positive change.

The Duran

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” -- acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump -- a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report 

window.newShareCountsAuto="smart";




F.W. ENGDAHL: The Actual Cause for World War I and a Century of War

BE SURE TO PASS OUR ARTICLES ON TO KIN, FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES

Newsletter Ten: The Actual Cause for World War I and a Century of War

This issue of my periodic newsletter I would like to devote to a selection from my best-selling book, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics. The book describes the emergence of oil as the strategic commodity for world economic power and its role in leading not only to the First World War in August 1914, but also most subsequent wars down to the present. I have selected a section describing the long-ignored role of Germany’s mammoth Berlin-to-Baghdad railway project to decisions in London to redraw the map of Europe by encircling the German Reich with secret alliances first with France and then Russia to oppose Germany.  If you like the book, it would mean a lot to me if you leave a review on Amazon. This helps me continue to create great content for you. 

 

A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics Copyright F. William Engdahl

CHAPTER TWO--
The Lines are Drawn:
Germany and the Geopolitics of the Great War

Germany’s Wirtschaftswunder

[dropcap]G[/dropcap]rowing divergence after 1873 between the depressed economy of the British Empire, and the emerging industrial economies of Continental Europe, above all the German Reich, created the background to the outbreak in 1914 of the Great World War. The role of petroleum in this conflict already had become central, though few outside a tiny elite of London and New York bankers and financiers realized fully how central until years after. Towards the final decade of the 19th century, British banking and political elites had begun to express first signs of alarm over two specific aspects of the impressive industrial development in Germany. The first was emergence of an independent, modern German merchant and military naval fleet. Since 1815 and the Vienna Congress, the English Navy had been unchallenged lord of the seas. The second strategic alarm was sounded over an ambitious German project to construct a railway linking Berlin with, ultimately, Baghdad, then part of the Ottoman Empire.

In both areas, naval challenge and building a rail infrastructure linking Berlin to the Persian Gulf, oil figured as a decisive, if still hidden, motive force for both the British and the German side. We will see why these two developments were regarded as virtual casus belli by the Anglo-Saxon establishment at the turn of the century. By the 1890s, British industry had been surpassed in both rates and quality of technological development by an astonishing emergence of  industrial and agricultural development within Germany.

By the 1870s, decades of piecemeal German adoption of the economic reforms of Friedrich List, in creation of a national modern rail transport infrastructure and tariff protection for emerging domestic industries, began to bring notable results, more so in the context of the political unity of the German Reich after 1871. Until approximately the 1850s, imitation of the apparently successful British economic model was the dominant policy followed in Germany, and the free trade economics of such British economists as Adam Smith or David Ricardo, were regarded as holy gospel in German universities.

But increasingly, after England went into prolonged depression in the 1870 s, which hit Germany and Austria as well, Germany began to realize the serious flaws in continuing faithfully to follow the British model. As Germany turned increasingly to a form of national economic strategy, and away from British free trade adherence, in building a national industry and agriculture production, the results were remarkable. As one indication of this shift away from the English model, from 1850 to the eve of the First World War in 1913, German total domestic output increased five-fold. Per capita output increased in the same period by 250%. The population began to experience a steady increase in its living standard, as real industrial wages doubled between 1871 and 1913.

But the heart of the German industrial revolution was the explosive expansion of technological, industrial, and agricultural development within Germany. With the United States concentrated largely on its internal expansion after its Civil War, the industrial emergence of Germany was seen increasingly as the largest threat to Britain s global hegemony during the last decade of the century.


By rail from Berlin to Baghdad

Sultan Mehmed V  greeting the German Kaiser in 1898.


[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n 1889, a group of German industrialists and bankers, led by Deutsche Bank, secured a concession from the Ottoman government to build a railway through Anatolia from the capital, Constantinople. This accord was expanded ten years later, in 1899, when the Ottoman government gave the German group approval for the next stage of what became known as the Berlin-Baghdad Railway project. The second agreement was one consequence of the 1898 visit to Constantinople by German Kaiser Wilhelm II. German- Turkish relations had become of high importance over those ten years. Germany had decided to build a strong economic alliance with Turkey beginning in the 1890s, as a way to develop potentially vast new markets to the East for export of German industrial goods. The Berlin-Baghdad Railway project was to be the centerpiece of a brilliant and quite workable economic strategy. Potential supplies of oil lurked in the background and Britain stood opposed. The seeds of animosities tragically being acted out in the Middle East in the 1990 s trace directly back to this period.

For more than two decades, the question of construction of a modern railway linking Continental Europe with Baghdad was at the center of German-English relations as a point of friction. By the estimation of Deutsche Bank director, Karl Helfferich, the person responsible at the time for the Baghdad rail project negotiations, no other issue led to greater tensions between London and Berlin in the decade and half before 1914 with the possible exception of the issue of Germany's growing naval fleet.

In 1888, under the leadership of Deutsche Bank, a consortium secured a concession for construction and maintenance of a railway connecting Haidar- Pascha outside Constantinople, with Angora. The company was named the Anatolian Railway Company, and included Austrian and Italian shareholders as well as a small English shareholding. Work on the railway proceeded so well that the section was completed ahead of schedule and construction was further extended south to Konia.

By 1896 a rail line was open which could go from Berlin to Konia deep in the Turkish interior of the Anatolian highlands, a stretch of some 1,000 kilometers of new rail in a space of less than 8 years in an economically desolate area. It was a true engineering and construction accomplishment.

The ancient rich valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers was coming into sight of modern transportation infrastructure. Hitherto, the only rail infrastructure built in the Middle east had been British or French, all of it extremely short stretches in Syria or elsewhere to link key port cities, but never to open up large expanses of the interior to modern industrialization.

The railway gave Constantinople and the Ottoman Empire vital modern economic linkage for the first time with its entire asiatic interior.

The rail link, once extended to Baghdad and a short distance further to Kuwait, would provide the cheapest and fastest link between Europe and the entire Indian subcontinent, a world rail link of the first order. From the English side, this was exactly the point. "If Berlin- Baghdad were achieved, a huge block of territory producing every kind of economic wealth, and unassailable by sea-power would be united under German authority," warned R.G.D. Laffan, at that time a senior British military adviser attached to the Serbian Army, "Russia would be cut off by this barrier from her western friends, Great Britain and France. Laffan added. "German and Turkish armies would be within easy striking distance of our Egyptian interests, and from the Persian Gulf, our Indian Empire would be threatened. The port of Alexandretta and the control of the Dardanelles would soon give Germany enormous naval power in the Mediterranean." Laffan hinted at the British strategy to sabotage the Berlin- Baghdad link. "A glance at the map of the world will show how the chain of States stretched from Berlin to Baghdad. The German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Bulgaria, Turkey. One little strip of territory alone blocked the way and prevented the two ends of the chain from being linked together. That little strip was Serbia. Serbia stood small but defiant between Germany and the great ports of Constantinople and Salonika, holding the Gate of the East...Serbia was really the first line of defense of our eastern possessions. If she were crushed or enticed into the Berlin-Baghdad system, then our vast but slightly defended empire would soon have felt the shock of Germany s eastward thrust. --(emphasis added)."

In 1912, Deutsche Bank, in the course of its financing of Baghdad rail connection, negotiated a concession from the Ottoman Emperor giving the Baghdad Rail Co. full right-of-way rights to all oil and minerals on a parallel 20 kilometers on either side of the rail line. The line had reached as far as Mosul in what today is Iraq. By 1912, German industry and government realized that oil was the fuel of its economic future, not only for land transport but for naval vessels. At that time, Germany was itself in the lock-grip of the large American Rockefeller Standard Oil Company trust. Standard Oil's Deutsche Petroleums Verkaufgesellschaft controlled 91% of all German oil sales. Deutsche Bank held a minority 9% share of Deutsche Petroleums Verkaufgesellschaft, hardly a decisive interest. Germany in 1912 had no independent, secure supply of oil. But geologists had discovered oil in that part of Mesopotamia today called Iraq, between Mosul and Baghdad. The projected line of the last part of the Berlin-Baghdad rail link would go right through the area believed to hold large oil reserves. Efforts to pass legislation in the Berlin Reichstag in 1912-13 to establish a German state-owned company to develop and run the new found oil resources, independent of the American Rockefeller combine, were stalled and delayed until the outbreak of World War in August 1914 pushed it from the agenda. The Deutsche Bank plan was to have the Baghdad rail link transport Mesopotamian oil over land, free from possible naval blockade by the British and thereby, make Germany independent in its petroleum requirements.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
  Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States, Engdahl is the son of F. William Engdahl, Sr., and Ruth Aalund (b. Rishoff). Engdahl grew up in Texas and after earning a degree in engineering and jurisprudence from Princeton University in 1966 (BA) and graduate study in comparative economics at the University of Stockholm from 1969 to 1970, he worked as an economist and freelance journalist in New York and in Europe. Engdahl began writing about oil politics with the first oil shock in the early 1970s. His first book was called A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order and discusses the alleged roles of Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Ball and of the USA in the 1979 overthrow of the Shah of Iran, which was meant to manipulate oil prices and to stop Soviet expansion. Engdahl claims that Brzezinski and Ball used the Islamic Balkanization model proposed by Bernard Lewis. In 2007, he completed Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation. Engdahl is also a contributor to the website of the anti-globalization Centre for Research on Globalization, the Russian website New Eastern Outlook,[2] and the Voltaire Network,[3] and a freelancer for varied newsmagazines such as the Asia Times. William Engdahl has been married since 1987 and has been living for more than two decades near Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]