Damascus Falls, Greater Israel Rises

Letters from O'Brien #71

Dear Mr Smith,

Today as I write this, Damascus has fallen. This marks a historic turning point for Syria, who’s leadership has either fled or conceded control to the various rebel factions. The generic talking points flood the media. But there are some other - more crucial - issues which are worthy of our attention…

As I predicted in my last letter, this veneer of anti-Assad rebellion, or even the veneer of pure CIA-funded regime change is thin. The predominant claims made by western commentators since the beginning of this blitz operation have been that this is an American operation to throw out Assad (primarily because he is anti-western) and to increase strain on Russian resources by dragging it into further regional conflicts. This is partially true, but what about the role of Israel? The most ‘invested’ conflict today is not Ukraine vs Russia. It is Israel vs its neighbours. In my view, Israel’s regional ambitions are the only thing that could have motivated the US to start mass-funding again for a significant regional war, not merely some grudge against Assad or Russia.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED - BACKGROUND

Since my last letter, and before the fall of Damascus, there were a few interesting bits of information which emerged. The first - and in my view most telling - was a statement put out by HTS (the primary rebel group). They claimed that they were ‘friends with Israel’, that they posed no regional threat to Israel, and that Israel should aid them by sending airstrikes or artillery barrages onto targets near the capitol. Keep in mind, to those who have been paying attention to Syria for the past decade, this is not surprising.

There are three major factional rivals in the region, and all of them have suspicious backgrounds. The most prominent from the beginning (Arab Spring circa 2011) was the Free Syrian Army— backed by a wide variety of western nations. They were presented as the ‘moderates’, and directly received funding from the US, along with a variety of smaller groups who were aligned with them. The second were the Kurdish extremist groups; these were in no way ‘democratic’ forces and included the PKK (responsible for terrorist bombings in Turkey), and later the Syrian Democratic Forces. They too received funding from the US.

The third major group were the fundamentalist extremists. These are actual terrorist groups. The most prominent was of course Islamic State, which split from Al-Qaeda, but held essentially the same (but amplified) beliefs. Up until 2017, ISIS were indirectly receiving aid from the US, through intelligence operators in the region. This stopped at the behest of Trump. They also - notably - received military aid from Israel (which they boasted about), and this likely effected why they withheld from striking Israel, despite reaching the border regions. After 2017, ISIS went underground. The next most extreme (and powerful) group in the Syrian resistance was Tahir al Sham, or HTS.

In 2021 it was reported that HTS was now the dominant rebel fighting force in Syria, far stronger than the US-championed FSA, and far more extreme. The group formed out of Al Nusra, which was directly under the ideology and sway of Al-Qaeda. HTS also has strong supporter-overlap with ISIS, with many formerly swearing allegiance to the group. Not surprisingly HTS govern their territory in a manner similar to ISIS; absolute religious law, with zero tolerance for other groups, religions, and ideologies. Now consider that Syria has a large Christian population, as well as a mixed Muslim population, which was allowed by Assad. Under HTS, persecution of basically everyone that doesn’t align themselves with the ruling ideology will be persecuted.

Now HTS was - and has been for some time - funded by the US. This continued even after widespread reports of abuse and persecution occurring under their territory. Again, they are only slightly less extreme in comparison to ISIS. Israel also supports HTS, and this has since been made very public.

CURRENT STATE

Now, since the government has fallen, a few interesting things have occurred. Notably, HTS has control of the majority the Syrian population, while the FSA has somehow re-emerged in force from the Jordanian border. More interesting still, in the east, ISIS is now back on the rise. I regularly check the Live UA Map website, and ISIS has had basically no visible presence on the map since they started it. Now, since government forces stared retreating, it has re-emerged; they have captured large chunks of territory in the east, either from the SAA/government, or from the Kurdish backed forces which they have been obliterating.

But by far the most interesting - yet predictable - event occurred just hours ago as of writing this; the Israeli Defence Force has sent tanks and troops into the Golan Heights, and supposedly they are also heading further in. Simultaneously, the IAF began sending aircraft to strike targets across Syria.

Meanwhile, the US has issued a statement, saying they will ‘not intervene’ in Syria… unless ‘ISIS poses a threat’. Convenient, as I will explain.

GREATER ISRAEL

In my view, as I presumed a few days ago, there are several underlying reasons for the Syrian collapse, and only a few of them actually have to do with Syrian leadership itself.

But let me start with Syria’s leaders. Assad remains one of the few leaders in the world who has actively rejected the Israeli narrative. This extends into revisionist history, with Assad last year openly claiming that the Holocaust was exaggerated to justify the state of Israel, and that ‘there was no 6 million’. This obviously cuts to the very heart of a long-standing Israeli narrative (and Israel will never befriend Assad because of it) but it is not enough to justify what has happened. That is because there are more ‘pressing’ issues at play.

The most impactful conflict - as I said earlier - is Israel against its neighbours. Why? Because the establishment in the west supports Israel in a way that is beyond how they support these other flashpoint-states like Ukraine, Taiwan, and so forth. Unlike Ukraine, for example, Israel is the one nation who’s forays into regional conflicts will never (seemingly) deter US (government) support.

Since October 7^th, the most pressing issue has been Hezbollah. Israel knows they must face Iran at some point if they are to be the regional leader and establish ‘greater Israel’. Iran’s military rivals Israel’s in many ways, however Hezbollah remains an effective proxy for the moment. While Hezbollah cannot defeat Israel in a direct engagement, they can cause serious damage in a collateral conflict, which is why they exist. If Israel ever makes a move against Iran directly, Hezbollah will respond in force, which has - up until this point - acted as a deterrent against such action.

Syria has long been aligned with Iran and Hezbollah. Syria’s geographical placement gives Lebanon a buffer to the east, and helps link Hezbollah with Iran. It also - on a more specific note - prevents Turkish action in the region.

Beyond this, Syria has also been one of Israel’s longest standing rivals, and the two have been at war since 1948. This has led to the Golan Heights region being perpetually locked in dispute between the two countries.

With Syria’s government now gone, all of this has changed. With a power vacuum in Syria, I predict that Israel will seize the Golan Heights (which they have desired for a long time). However, I believe that if they are bold, they may also seize the opportunity to push further up north, which would serve two purposes; in the long run it guarantees more land for Greater Israel, and in the short term, it critically allows Israel to encroach around Lebanon’s borders, allowing them to further restrict any flow in or out of Southern Lebanon. In the medium term this will likely allow them to push Hezbollah north of the Linai River (Israel wants either a buffer zone or complete control of everything south of the river), while also operate more securely into central Lebanon if they desire.

But what about US intervention? So far, US National Security Council spokesperson Sean Savett has said they are ‘monitoring the situation’, whilst US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has said that they will not intervene in Syria, but “will take steps to prevent any potential revival of ISIS”. Why doesn’t this sound correct? Because it isn’t…

The dynamic at play for the US is this: ISIS are on the rise again. In the past ISIS saw success because of Israeli aid and US supplies. It just so happens that HTS has opened all of the prisons on their way to Damascus, and in some of these prisons were top ISIS leaders from the last war. This is not the first time this has happened; ISIS was initially founded by fundamentalist terrorists who had been released from prison in similar mass-jailbreak operations. This led to the Battle of Fallujah in 2004. In the Syrian Civil War, ISIS initially gained strength by - yet again - emptying prisons and recruiting former radicals.

Israel also needs the US to either stop Hezbollah, or directly engage Iran for Israel to win hegemony over the Middle East. All the US needs now is a reason to directly intervene. As I just noted, ISIS is indeed on the rise like they were in 2014, so this statement from Sullivan can technically already be put into effect if they desired.

OUTCOMES

I believe that the US will somehow find a way to concern itself with Syria. If not direct military presence, then through some form of force. Again, the crucial piece of the puzzle here is not necessarily Syria, but Iran, Hezbollah, and Israel’s ambitions. Assad didn’t bend the knee, now he’s gone.

I stand by some of my original predictions from last week; I believe intervention may occur through several possible avenues. Extremist rebel forces will cause a ‘humanitarian crisis’ or something to that effect, and this will be used to justify intervention which will inevitably be expanded. Already there are these strange videos of ‘weapons being handed out to children’ in Damascus, who knows where that will lead. They may tie HTS to ISIS (an actual legitimate connection which they have conveniently ignored up until this point, perhaps for this reason) and use this to justify intervention. Either way, I believe they will link any ‘terroristic’ activity somehow back to Hezbollah, or at least associate them ‘by proxy’ to any wrongdoings in the region, thus justifying some sort of direct response.

I also believe that - so long as ISIS remains on the map - Israel will continue to fund them as a revolutionary force. Remember, ISIS’s unique Islamic theology puts them at odds with the majority of Shia as well as Sunni Muslims in that particular region - Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon. The immediate goals of ISIS also set them primarily at odds with Hezbollah and the Iranian government rather than Israel (in the short term). However, by continually funding competition in the region, ISIS can be used by Israel as a tool of chaos until the stronger powers have all been weakened. At that point, these revolutionary groups - all funded in part by either the US or Israel - can easily be shut down and absorbed with their fragmented territory into a single unified Israeli state or zone.

There are some telling signs already; as to why IDF tanks are in a foreign country Israel is not even in an open conflict with, the IDF released a statement claiming that they are creating a buffer zone to prevent ‘military infiltrations’ into Israel. This is the same group which days ago said that they support Israel. So what’s going to happen now— are they going to ‘attack Israel’ with some sort of help from Hezbollah or ISIS? If that happens, the US will respond. Is the dynamic beginning to make sense?

Broadening the picture; Assads regime was one of the last to properly stand against Israel and their regional plans. The end goal for Israel is to expand their borders in all directions, from the sea to the Euphrates in Iraq, from Turkey to the Nile. This is ‘greater Israel’, documented since at least the 1980s (yet going back a longer than that) with the infamous Yinon Plan.

Greater Israel will give the country not only access to resource rich areas directly, but it will also make them the ‘centre of the world’. Africa is set to become ‘the next China’ for cheap manufacturing in this century; Israel will control land trade from all of Africa into Europe or Asia. China wants access to the Middle East and Africa with Belt and Road; Israel will control that. Europe needs access to the Middle East; they will control that. A huge percentage of global shipping passes through the Suez Canal; they will control that. This is Greater Israel. The goals have long been set, and there can be little denying this; all that matters is how long it will take to achieve those ambitions.

I would like to write more regarding Turkey and how their own interests may come into conflict with Israel and America - but another time. I think that what happens in Syria from this point is part of the momentum and broad end goals I have just stated above - Israel’s direct hegemony in the Middle East. But let’s see— only time will tell.

Sincerely yours,

O’Brien