Het is al lang geen geheim meer, dat de eerste aanzet van de VS om tot een opstand te komen, die moest uitmonden in een staatsgreep tegen het Syrische Assad bewind, dateren van 2006…..
Uit CIA documenten, gepubliceerd op Wikileaks blijkt nu, dat de VS al in 1986 aanstuurde op een staatsgreep tegen Hafes Assad (Hafes el-Assad, de vader van de huidige Syrische president Bashar al-Assad)……
In 1986 was de maffe sociopaat en oorlogsmisdadiger Reagan president van de VS. Ook toen drong de CIA aan op het organiseren van een opstand en coup tegen het Syrische bewind. Destijds zag men de sjiitische bevolking als groep die opgezet moest worden tegen Assad. Dit terwijl juist Assad destijds, als zijn zoon tot voor 2011 de verschillende religieuze groeperingen vreedzaam met elkaar deden samenleven…….
Met de opstand die de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde, de VS in 2011 wist uit te lokken, mede door grote aantallen IS en Al Qaida strijders vanuit Libië te vervoeren richting Syrië, is deze vreedzame manier van samenleven voor een fiks deel de nek omgedraaid……….
Hier het artikel op 10 april jl. door Information Clearing House gelinkt naar Sputnik International, die het op 10 april jl. bracht:
US
PLANS TO TOPPLE ASSAD FAMILY GO BACK SIX PRESIDENTS, CIA DOC REVEALS
MIDDLE
EAST 21:52
10.04.2017(updated 22:39 10.04.2017)
Sifting
through the CIA’s database of 11 million+ declassified documents,
WikiLeaks has uncovered a report from 1986 on “possible
scenarios that could lead to the ouster of President Assad.”
Pointing to the potential for exploiting sectarian tensions, the
report nonetheless ironically explains why the US’s current regime
change strategy is wrong.
In
January, the US Central Intelligence Agency put over 11 million of
its declassified files online. On Monday, WikiLeaks discovered that
one of these documents includes a secret report involving scenarios
for ousting Hafez Assad (Bashar Assad’s father) going back all the
way to the Reagan administration.
Full CIA doc: Scenarios for ousting Assad — found in recently uploaded CREST database (1986) cia.gov/library/readin…
The document,
created under the supervision of the Director of Global Issues by the
appropriately named Foreign Subversion and Instability Center, and
distributed to senior intelligence officials, as well as officials in
the State Department, the Pentagon, Reagan Middle East policy advisor
Dennis Ross, and William Eagleton, then-US ambassador in Syria.
The
memorandum casually lays out what the CIA envisions to be the
“scenarios that could lead to the ouster of President Hafez
al-Assad in Syria.” The report makes no bones about its
“purposely provocative” nature and tone.
Predating
the 2011 Arab Spring unrest which would engulf Syria in a bloody
foreign-backed civil war by nearly a quarter of a century, the CIA
report offered an effective proto blueprint for US intelligence to
play up factionalism between the Alawite minority (to which the Assad
family belongs) and Sunni Muslims, who make up around three quarters
of Syria’s population.
Why
Assad Must Stay: ‘A War Involving Fighters From 86 Countries Isn’t a
Civil War’
The
document pointed out that while tensions between the Alawites and
Sunnis had declined significantly by the mid-1980s, “the
potential for serious communal violence remains.” In fact, the
report’s authors argued that a sectarian conflict leading to civil
war is one of the top three options for regime change in Syria, the
other two being a succession power struggle and military setbacks
abroad in Lebanon or Israel sparking a coup.
“A
Sunni rebellion in the late 1970s and early 1980s ended when Assad
crushed the Muslim Brotherhood that spearheaded it,” the report
noted. It added, however that “although we judge that fears of
reprisals and organizational problems make a second Sunni challenge
unlikely, an excessive government reaction to minor outbreaks of
Sunni dissidence might trigger large-scale unrest. In most instances
the regime would have the resources to crush a Sunni opposition
movement, but we believe widespread violence among the populace could
stimulate large numbers of Sunni officers and conscripts to desert or
mutiny, setting the stage for civil war.”
The
failed ‘Sunni challenge’ being referred to was the February 1982
storming of Hama, known in the West as the ‘Hama Massacre’, in which
the Syrian government crushed an Islamist uprising led by the Muslim
Brotherhood-led in the western Syrian city of Hama. The storming of
the city resulted in the deaths of hundreds of soldiers and militants
and several thousand civilians.
Without
getting into too many details, the report claimed that any new
“general campaign of Alawi violence against Sunnis might push
even moderate Sunnis to join the opposition. Remnants of the Muslim
Brotherhood – some returning from exile in Iraq – could provide a
core of leadership for the movement.”
Furthermore,
the report estimated that “although the regime has the resources
to crush such a venture, we believe brutal attacks on Sunni civilians
might prompt large numbers of Sunni officers and conscripts to desert
or stage mutinies in support of dissidents, and Iraq might supply
them with sufficient weapons to launch a civil war.”
Bringing
to mind the long-standing ties between Damascus and Moscow, which go
back to the 1960s, the CIA attempted to predict the Soviet Union’s
likely response to any attempt to oust Assad. It concluded that
Moscow’s best interest would be to preserve the status quo.
Expanding
on the latter idea, the report explained that “business
moderates would see a strong need for Western aid and investment to
build Syria’s private economy, thus opening the way for stronger ties
with Western governments.”
Top
3 Most Notorious MSM Fake News Tactics From the Syrian War
Interestingly,
unlike its Obama-era successors, the CIA of the 1980s had warned that
any prolonged chaos and civil war in Syria would turn it into a
“dangerously erratic force in the region,” and adding that
“a weak government in Damascus might heighten Syria’s
attractiveness as a base for terrorism.”
Ironically,
the report also warned that any gains the US might see by Assad’s
ouster “would be mitigated…if Sunni fundamentalists assumed
power. The reason, again, has to do with Israel’s security:
“Although Syria’s secular traditions would make it extremely
difficult for religious zealots to establish an Islamic Republic,
should they succeed they would likely deepen hostilities with Israel
and provide support and sanctuary for terrorist groups.”
In
reality, of course, the effort to destabilize Syria in the early
2010s was a joint effort by the US and its Israeli, Turkish and Gulf
State allies. It would be Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, not Iraq,
that would provide the lion’s share of the weapons used by militants.
Furthermore, the CIA report failed to mention or predict the inflow
of tens of thousands of jihadists into Syria from abroad, even though
it was employing similar tactics in Afghanistan against the Soviet
Union during this period.
It’s
unknown whether the CIA of the 1980s genuinely believed that the
‘moderates’ in whom they placed their hopes wouldn’t
immediately be swallowed up by radical Islamists, although US
experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s make it unlikely
that the CIA of the 2000s couldn’t foresee such an eventuality.
============================
Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, op één van de labels, die u hieronder terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor de labels: bloedbad van Hama, W. Eagleton en D. Ross.
Mijn excuus voor de vormgeving.
