@ GNΩME

The strategic importance of Syria in shaping the balance of power in the Middle East is undeniable. Positioned at the crossroads of key regional players, Syria has long been a battleground for competing interests. From its alliances with Russia and Iran to its role in energy politics, the country has been targeted by external forces seeking to reshape the region to their advantage. Syria has historically been an essential ally of Russia, providing the Russian navy access to the Mediterranean through the port of Latakia. At the same time, Iran has viewed Syria as a critical component of the so-called "Shiite Crescent," which provides Tehran with a vital connection to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Any disruption in Syria would have significant consequences for both Russian and Iranian strategic interests. On August 31, 2011, [Amnesty International](https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/MDE24/035/2011/en/) released a report accusing the Syrian government of being responsible for the deaths of 88 detainees from recent protests. However, like most media narratives surrounding the conflict,[ the allegations](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paR5_hu64H0) were based entirely on second-hand accounts and contextless video snippets provided by opposition forces actively attempting to overthrow the Assad government. Despite the lack of concrete evidence, the establishment media eagerly propagated the story, fueling calls for "humanitarian intervention." This followed a familiar pattern: the invocation of the so-called "[Responsibility to Protect](https://www.globalresearch.ca/humanitarian-neo-colonialism-framing-libya-and-reframing-war/24617)" doctrine, a pretext used by global powers to justify military invasions and devastating bombing campaigns under the guise of protecting civilians. As seen with Libya, Western leaders—including Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron, and Harper—[called for Assad's removal](https://youtu.be/qNtICdGDdwQ?si=PW--2jwV8Ed1GRYY), paving the way for potential NATO military intervention. Long before the Arab Spring, Western governments had been laying the groundwork for regime change in Syria. In April 2011, [a U.S. State Department official](https://web.archive.org/web/20110411130724/https://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/08/us-trains-activists-to-evade-security-forces/) admitted to running a two-year, $50 million program aimed at equipping protesters with new technologies to evade government detection. The same official revealed that activists from Syria and other Arab Spring countries had received training just before the uprisings began. Earlier that year, [The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-secretly-backed-syrian-opposition-groups-cables-released-by-wikileaks-show/2011/04/14/AF1p9hwD_story.html) published leaked U.S. diplomatic cables proving that Washington had been secretly funding Syrian opposition groups since at least 2005—well before the so-called "spontaneous" protests erupted. This raises a critical question: why would an isolated government facing the threat of NATO intervention deliberately provoke the West by ordering snipers to fire on unarmed protesters at funerals? The mainstream media never questioned these dubious claims, which were sourced from anonymous, second-hand, and unverified reports. n 2010, a group called [Gen Next](https://web.archive.org/web/20090213090409/https://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2008/November/20081120122321eaifas0.3440363.html) (renamed now as [Alder](https://alder.co/about-alder/)) which has been involved with Alliance of Youth Movements in organizing youth-led destabilization campaigns in countries that are not friendly to American and Israeli interests had delivered a [training program](https://web.archive.org/web/20110929221929/https://www.gen-next.org/index.php/programs/gallery/-/album/5482723470431484737/) in which participants were taught how to handle high-powered sniper rifles and shoulder-mounted grenade launchers. Predictably, these reports were ignored in the West. In August 2011, Israeli intelligence-linked outlet DEBKAfile [reported](https://web.archive.org/web/20110815020301/http://www.debka.com/article/21207/) that NATO and the Turkish military were drafting plans for a military campaign in Syria, which included arming opposition fighters with anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars, and heavy machine guns. As the situation escalated, the establishment media once again cheered on war, pushing for intervention under the guise of protecting Syrian civilians. The cycle repeated itself in 2013, when Western governments accused Assad of using [chemical weapons](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7-S1QAmWQQ), conveniently ignoring the overwhelming opposition to another military adventure. By 2013, the American public had grown weary of endless wars. Despite relentless efforts by the White House to manufacture consent for a unilateral strike on Syria, there was widespread opposition—not just [in the U.S.](https://web.archive.org/web/20150808142142/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/), but [globally](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPGjbwqHRNs). [John Kerry](https://web.archive.org/web/20130827020025/http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/08/213503.htm) and [Barack Obama](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxyBKKYPT4c) falsely claimed that Assad was responsible for a chemical weapons attack, using this as a pretext for military intervention. However, independent analysts and insiders exposed this as a false flag operation. Even in the UK, the propaganda push faltered when British Prime Minister [David Cameron](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnKKPwEX_ac) lost a crucial [parliamentary vote](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obxu5W9Wru8) on military action in Syria. As more evidence [surfaced](https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/International/Did-the-White-House-Help-Plan-the-Syrian-Chemical-Attack.html), it became clear that the attack had been perpetrated by U.S.-backed terrorist groups—and that the U.S. government knew about it in advance. When even members of the British Parliament called out the deception, the war narrative collapsed, exposing the extent of the manufactured crisis. The events in Syria were not isolated. Retired U.S. General Wesley Clark famously [revealed ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzX3DfZR_1c)that he had overheard a conversation at the Pentagon about a plan to invade seven countries—including Iraq, Libya, and Syria—long before the Arab Spring. While Clark’s timeline was not entirely accurate, the overarching strategy of destabilization was clear. Key figures in the U.S. defense establishment at the time—including Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and Richard Perle—had extensive [ties to Israel](https://web.archive.org/web/20130904083848/https://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/08/27/fbi.spy/), raising the question of whether a broader Zionist agenda was at play. [Documents ](https://web.archive.org/web/20130117222422/https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf)such as the infamous "Oded Yinon Plan" ([Greater Israel](https://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815)) outlined strategies for the dissolution of Syria and Iraq into ethnically and religiously divided territories, weakening any potential opposition to Israeli expansion. The plan explicitly called for breaking Syria apart into sectarian statelets, mirroring the strategy used to divide Lebanon. The long-term goal was clear: to ensure that Israel’s adversaries remained fragmented and powerless. <img src="https://blossom.primal.net/313eed84ca3bff42df56ba7fd73028266ad13ab6b20bba3126aa9d4238550476.png"> "Divide and conquer" is a strategy used for millennia. And this is what happens in Syria so many years as we were seeing the Sunni majority fighting the Alawite sect in Power under Assad and his father for decades. And it's interesting to see not only the native inhabitants Sunni of Syria but of course the foreign funded jihadists who were being shipped into the country and fueling all that conflict. Part of what this was about, it's the destabilization of the [Shia land bridge](https://phibetaiota.net/2013/05/graphic-irans-shia-land-bridge-to-lebanon-mediterranean/) that connects Iran all the way to its Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, which runs through Syria. But if that can be destabilized and the Shia Alawite sect minority that rules Syria can be replaced with a Sunni majority ruling over the country then that would break up that link between Iran and Lebanon and further destabilize and isolate Iran. <img src="https://blossom.primal.net/c3e9eedd9f2140bb63a552ff08eb8aab1ca10ae981da2a6841b496baec230937.jpg"> And this is something that can be seen in policy planning documents of various think tanks, as in the infamous "[Which path to Persia?](https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/brookings-which-path-to-persia.html?m=1)" document from Brookings Institution. As we start to expand the scope of this, then of course the thing that always in these Middle East conflicts comes into play is the natural resources. Let's remember the prospect of the [Iraq, Iran, Syria pipeline](https://web.archive.org/web/20130727143145/https://www.tehrantimes.com/economy-and-business/758-iran-iraq-syria-sign-major-gas-pipeline-deal-). Iran, Iraq, and Syria had signed a deal for the construction of the Middle East’s largest gas pipeline, which would transit Iranian gas from Iran’s South Pars gas field to Europe via Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea. What we were talking about back then was a pipeline providing traveling from Iran to Europe, through the Mediterranean. [That move](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNet5aLKaWg) was about to change the power balance of the region. Such a [project ](https://web.archive.org/web/20130723151340/http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-04-230713.html)had the potential to shift the regional power balance dramatically. The mere prospect of it was enough to anger multiple stakeholders, from the U.S. and Israel to Turkey and the Gulf monarchies, all of whom had vested interests in preventing [Syria ](https://web.archive.org/web/20130831121243/http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-04-290813.html)from becoming an energy corridor. The war in Syria was never about democracy, humanitarian concerns, or chemical weapons. It was about [power](https://web.archive.org/web/20130315191710/http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/06/14/us-military-spending-over-the-years/), [control](https://web.archive.org/web/20130318180618/http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/10/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war/1970997/), and the relentless [pursuit ](https://web.archive.org/web/20130306140329/http://www.businessinsider.com/top-25-us-defense-companies-2012-2?op=1)of strategic dominance by Western and regional actors. The destabilization of Syria served multiple agendas—weakening Iran, severing Russia’s influence, ensuring Israel’s security, and controlling energy routes. What we have witnessed over the past decade is not a civil war, but a foreign-orchestrated campaign to dismantle yet another independent state in the Middle East. Understanding these dynamics is essential in recognizing how mainstream narratives are crafted to justify war while hiding the real motivations behind the chaos. <img src="https://blossom.primal.net/b1e0155c7bd73c05fe6323e9131d528842c6410f6520f0cc7885b6bdb5022084.jpg">