The confession of the criminal John Kerry
This was originally published on Voltairenet.org on January 17, 2017.
The war against Syria is the first to have been waged, for more than six years, in the digital era. A wealth of documents which should have remained secret for many years have already been published. Although they have been released in different countries, so that international public opinion is unaware of them, they already enable us to piece together the events concerned. The release of a recording of comments made in private by John Kerry last September reveals the policies of the Secretary of State and obliges all observers — including ourselves — to review our previous analyses.
The broadcast by The Last Refuge of the complete recording of the meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and the members of the National Coalition (September 22, 2016, at the Dutch delegation to the United Nations) calls into question what we thought we knew about the U.S. position on Syria.
First of all, we believed that while Washington had launched the operation known as the Arab Spring in order to overthrow the secular Arab regimes for the benefit of the Muslim Brotherhood, it had left its allies to assume the second war against Syria on their own, as from July 2012. Since these states pursued their own objectives — recolonization for France and the United Kingdom, theft of gas reserves for Qatar, expansion of Wahhabism and revenge for the Lebanese civil war for Saudi Arabia, annexation of the North of the country for Turkey on the Cypriot model, etc. — the original objective had been abandoned. However, John Kerry states in this recording that Washington has never stopped seeking to overthrow the Syrian Arab Republic, which implies that it supervised the work of its allies at every stage. It follows that, over the last four years, the jihadists have been commanded, armed and coordinated by NATO Allied LandCom (ground forces command) based in Izmir (Turkey).
Second, John Kerry confirms here that Washington could go no further because of international Law and the position of Russia. Let’s be clear about this — the United States have never ceased exceeding their rights. They have destroyed most of Syria’s oil and gas infrastructures, on the pretense of fighting the jihadists (which is allowed under international law), but without having been invited by President el-Assad (which violates international law). However, they did not dare to deploy their troops on the ground and openly fight the Republic, as they did in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. For that job, they chose to put their allies in the front line — leadership from behind — and to support mercenary forces without discretion, as they did in Nicaragua, at the risk of being sanctioned by the International Court of Justice (UN internal tribunal). Washington does not want to engage in a war against Russia, which, although it had not opposed the destruction of Yugoslavia and Libya, stood up and drew a new line which must not be crossed. Moscow has the capacity to defend the Law by force if Washington were to openly engage in a new war of conquest.
Third, John Kerry confirms here that Washington hoped for the victory of Daesh over the Republic. Until now — on the basis of the report by General Michael Flynn on August 12, 2012, and the article by Robin Wright in The New York Times on September, 28 2013, — we had understood that the Pentagon intended to create a Sunnistan straddling Syria and Iraq, in order to cut the Silk Road. However, he admits that the plan went much further than that. Probably, Daesh was to take Damascus and then be chased out by Tel-Aviv (in other words, they would be pushed back to the Sunnistan which had been allotted to them). Syria would then be shared between Israel in the South, Daesh in the East, and Turkey in the North.
This point enables us to understand why Washington gave the impression of no longer being able to control events, of giving its allies free rein — indeed, it engaged France and the United Kingdom in the war by leading them to believe that they would be able to recolonize the Levant, while in fact, it had planned to divide Syria without them.
Fourth, by admitting that Washington supported Daesh, John Kerry recognizes that it armed them, which destroys the rhetoric of the war on terror.
- Since the attack against the al-Askari mosque in Samarra, on February 22, 2006, we knew that Daesh (originally known as the Islamic Emirate of Iraq) had been created by the national director of U.S. Intelligence, John Negroponte, and Colonel James Steele — on the model they had used in Honduras — in order to put an end to the Iraqi Resistance and to spark a civil war.
- We knew, since the publication by the PKK daily, Özgür Gündem, of the minutes of the planning meeting held in Amman on June 1, 2014, that the United States had organized the joint offensive of Daesh on Mosul and the Kurdistan Regional Government on Kirkuk.
- We now know with certainty that Washington has never stopped supporting Daesh.
Fifth, we had interpreted the conflict between the Allen/Clinton/Feltman/Petraeus clan on one hand, and the Obama/Kerry administration on the other, as being concerned with the question of whether or not to support Daesh. This interpretation was wrong. Both sides had no qualms about organizing and supporting the most fanatical of jihadists. Their disagreement concerned only the recourse to open warfare — and the risk of potential conflict with Russia — or the choice of secret action. Only Flynn — Donald Trump’s current security advisor — is opposed to jihad.
If, in a few years, the United States should collapse as the U.S.S.R. did, this recording of John Kerry could be used against him, and against Barack Obama, before an international court — but not before the International Criminal Court, which today is discredited. Having recognized the extracts of this conversation which have been published by The New York Times, he would no longer be able to contest the authenticity of the whole dossier. The support that Kerry offers to Daesh violates several UN resolutions and constitutes proof of his responsibility and that of Obama in the crimes against humanity committed by the terrorist organisation.
— Thierry Meyssan
