- Secretary of State John Kerry abandons his allies. There will be no delivery of decisive weapons to the “rebels” in Syria. Assad will not be ousted. The promises of the United States were binding only on those who believed in them.
- ©U.S. Department of State
On June 13, the spokesman of the National Security Council of the United States announced that the red line had been crossed: as shown by the evidence gathered by the French and the British, Syria Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people. We would see what we would see … Without delay, the new NATO Allied Land Command was activated in Izmir (Turkey). War was imminent.
A month later, Western resolve has petered out. The atlanticist press has discovered with horror that the armed opposition in Syria is composed of fanatics hated by the vast majority of Syrians, which is what we have been saying for two years. Meanwhile, on site, the Free Syrian Army and the Al-Nusra Front, instead of fighting against Damascus troops, are waging a merciless war against each other.
What has happened, then, that could have transformed the war of “liberation” of Syria into this enormous mess? In fact, none of the stakes have changed in a month: the Syrian Arab Army has never used chemical weapons against the “rebels”, and the latter have not “radicalized”. However, the U.S. plan that I was the first to bring to light, last November, is slowly unfolding. The current stage is the desertion of the armed opposition.
All this confirms that Anglo-American imperialism is spent. The on-the-ground implementation of decisions made in Washington moves very slowly. This process highlights the blindness of the Western media which ignore these decisions until they are translated into action. Unable to analyze the world as it is, they continue to relay and lend credence to “political communication”.
So what I wrote , which was labeled as “conspiracy theory” by the mainstream press, is becoming obvious to it ten months later. Eric Schmitt wrote modestly in the New York Times that “the administration’s plans are far more limited than it has indicated in public and private.”  While David Ignatius in the Washington Post crudely titles “Syrian rebels get ’the jilt’ from Washington.”  They were waiting for anti-tank weapons and they received 120-millimeter mortars. They were promised planes, and they received Kalashnikovs. Weapons arrive in large quantities, not to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, but so that the “rebels” may kill each other off until none remains.
And so as to avoid any doubt: CIA director, John Brennan and Vice President Joe Biden, have convinced Congress behind closed doors that they should not send decisive weapons to Syria. Meanwhile in London, the House of Commons has stepped into the breach. And in Paris, Alain Marsaud and Jacques Myard – for other reasons -, attempt to embark the National Assembly on the same Western refusal to continue to support the “rebels.”
Without any qualms, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who, in December, had deplored the United States’ inclusion of the Al-Nusra Front on their list of terrorist organizations, “because they do a good job on the ground”, has now himself asked the UN to put it on the international list of terrorist organizations. And Manuel Valls, the French interior minister, said on France 2 that the French fighting in Syria alongside their former Islamist allies would be arrested and prosecuted on their return to France.
The Geneva II Conference, discussed for the past year, is coming into focus. The main obstacles were the National Coalition, supported by Qatar, demanding the prior capitulation of Bashar al-Assad, and the Franco-British who refused to see Saudi Arabia and Iran at the negotiating table.
Ayatollah Khamenei removed from play President Ahmadinejad and his chief of staff Meshaie, men of faith and anti-clerical fanatics, to be replaced by Sheikh Rouhani, a very pragmatic religious person. Once installed as the new president of Iran in late August, the latter should agree to participate in the negotiations. For their part, the Anglo-Saxons removed Qatar, the gas micro-state which they used to cover up the alliance between NATO and the Muslim Brotherhood. They entrusted the management of the “rebels” in Syria to Saudi Arabia alone, while undermining the international “rebels” in their press. With or without King Abdullah, Riyadh should also accept negotiation.
Fake surprise: at the urging of Secretary of State John Kerry, the Palestinian Authority has agreed to resume negotiations with Israel, even if the latter continues the colonization of the territories.
Barring unexpected reversals in Egypt or Tunisia, there should no longer be, within two to three months, major obstacles to the holding of Geneva II, the braodened “new Sykes-Picot”; named after secret agreements by which France and the United Kingdom shared the Middle East during the First World War. During this conference, the United States and Russia will divide North Africa and the Levant, at the expense of France, dividing the region into zones sub-contracted by the Saudis (Sunni) or the Iranians (Shi’ites).
After forcing the emir of Qatar to resign and having abandoned the “rebels” in Syria, Washington is thus going to withdraw regional influence from its faithful ally, France, which has soiled its hands for two years for nothing. Such is the cynical law of imperialism.
 “No Quick Impact in U.S. Arms Plan for Syria Rebels” by Mark Mazzetti, Eric Schmitt and Erin Banco, The New York Times, July 14, 2013.
 “Syrian rebels get ’the jilt’ from Washington” by David Ignatius, The Washington Post, 18 July 2013.