Secret File Confirms Trump Claim: Obama, Hillary ‘Founded ISIS’ to Oust Assad

Obama, Clinton


The Obama Administration’s policy of supporting Salafist opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad saw the United States unwittingly support the creation of the Daesh ‘caliphate’ in Syria.

A 2012 defense intelligence report, originally stamped SECRET exposes that the US-backed anti-Assad coalition at the time was spearheaded by al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) that soon after cobbled together to form the Daesh terror network.

The report exposes that while the United States refused to directly aide and support AQI and ISI pursuant to restrictions imposed by domestic anti-terror laws, State Department and Pentagon officials were well aware that the so-called ‘moderate’ rebels were intertwined with the terrorist militants who were the vanguard of the fighting force. Somewhat fantastically, the United States finds itself in a similar predicament in its anti-Assad proxy war vis-à-vis another former al-Qaeda affiliate, al-Nusra Front.

“AQI, through the spokesman of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), Abu Muhammad al-Adnani… is calling on the Sunnis in Iraq, especially the tribes in the border regions (between Iraq and Syria), to wage war against the Syrian regime,” said the report.

It continued: “Opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor) adjacent to the Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey are supporting these efforts.”

“There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasak and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want,” in what can only conceivably be construed as a call for the formation of a Daesh “caliphate” in Syria.

In December 2012, only months after the defense intelligence report, President Obama caved to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the more hawkish wing of the national security establishment saying the United States considered the opposition to be “the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.”

Again, the opposition that the Obama administration deemed to be the “legitimate representative of the Syrian people” was led by the precursors to the Daesh terror network, AQI and ISI, with Washington employing a policy of feigned ignorance agreeing to provide arms, aid, and support to other factions of the opposition knowing that these groups would potentially function as a conduit.

Indications are that the Obama administration failed to appropriately apprehend the danger posed by the Daesh terror network with the President calling the group al-Qaeda’s “JV Team” and with his own former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn’s assessment predicting in intricate detail the rise and reach of the jihadist group going largely ignored.

The US policy of utilizing jihadist extremists in proxy wars carries with it a haunting track record dating back to the CIA support, during the Reagan administration, of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan that spawned off the now deceased terror mastermind Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terror network.

Good Luck With That: Obama Tries to Trick Russia Into Nuclear Disarmament

Russian Topol-M intercontinental ballistic misiles drive through Red Square during the Victory Day parade in Moscow on May 9, 2010


On Monday, the Washington Post reported, citing unnamed officials, that the Obama administration planned to offer Moscow an extension of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, also known as New START, after its expiry in 2021. Commenting on the initiative, experts speaking to Svobodnaya Pressa suggested Moscow is unlikely to be fooled into agreeing.

According to the Washington Post, the US president is looking to ensure his legacy as peacemaker by securing the treaty’s future following the end of his term. Moreover, anonymous administration officials told the paper about a possible “landmark shift” in the country’s nuclear posture to a policy of “no first use,” and agreement to adhere to a UN Security Council resolution banning nuclear weapons testing.The White House is yet to confirm making the proposals. For his part, Kremlin presidential spokesman Dmitri Peskov commented that so far, “we know nothing about this.”

Still, according to the independent online newspaper Svobodnaya Pressa, “it’s highly unlikely that the Washington Post made up the story out of thin air.”

Accordingly, the news website suggested, it’s worth taking a look at the offer in detail. “At first glance, the proposal written about by the newspaper looks like an attempt to improve relations with Russia on questions of fundamental importance. After all, politicians can make all sorts of statements, but an agreement on the quantity of nuclear weapons is one of the key components in the system of global security.”

The START-3 or New Start treaty was signed in April 2010, entering into force in 2011. The treaty lasts for 10 years. If it is extended for another five years, this would assure that even a two-term Clinton or Trump presidency would not be able to alter the terms of cooperation with Russia in the nuclear field, “thus ensuring some measure of stability,” so the logic goes.

The signing of the New START treaty in Prague, the Czech Republic by President Dmitry Medvedev and President Barack Obama on April 8, 2010.
© RIA Novosti. Dmitriy Astakhov
The signing of the New START treaty in Prague, the Czech Republic by President Dmitry Medvedev and President Barack Obama on April 8, 2010.

“On the other hand,” Svobodnaya Pressa noted, “Obama’s initiative runs counter to Washington’s general policy. NATO is moving its military infrastructure up to Russia’s borders. The West is not even hiding its efforts to destabilize the situation in Ukraine, Moldova, the South Caucasus and Central Asia. Simply put, Russia is being hemmed in strategically. From this perspective, the White House is proposing that Moscow reject its last guarantee of security – its nuclear shield.”

Speaking to the publication, Mikhail Alexandrov, a senior expert at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, emphasized that “under no circumstances should we extend START-3.”The initiative, according to Alexandrov, is related to US military planning and construction efforts, not the assurance of strategic balance and peace. “In connection with the aggravation of the military-political situation, Washington does not know what kind of weapons to build. If we extend START-3, they will be aware of our refusal to build additional strategic nuclear weapons. At that point, the US will be free to continue to quietly build up its missile defense system.”

Meanwhile, the analyst continued, “if they face the prospect of increasing Russian strategic forces, the whole idea of a missile defense system will be bankrupted. Anti-ballistic missile defense is ineffective today, but the new types of missiles which will be delivered by 2021 will change the situation further.”

However, Alexandrov warned, “if the Treaty is extended, and against a small number of missiles, the anti-missile system can be effective.”

Having read declassified US plans on nuclear warfare from the Cold War period, the analyst pointed out that for US nuclear war planners, ‘a couple million casualties’ was entirely within the range of acceptable losses. Therefore, he noted, “it is a myth that the Americans will be frightened by the prospect of a few warheads falling on targets inside the United States.”

“The problem is that the US missile defense system is being deployed too close to our country. They are looking to shoot down missiles even before the separation of the warheads – to intercept a missile armed with ten warheads. In this way, the anti-missile system’s effectiveness increases considerably. If we maintain the same number of missiles, while the US continues to expand their missile defense system, we will lose. Extending START-3 gives Washington carte blanche for the deployment of a missile defense system; there is no other way of looking at it.”

Alexandrov suggested that Russia, in the interests of preserving the strategic nuclear balance, must engage with new missile technologies – the so-called supersonic missiles, like Sarmat, expected to replace the R-36, and the Barguzin rail-based ICBM system.

The analyst emphasized that “it would be another thing entirely if the Americans were to reject the development of their missile defense system; then it would be possible to conduct serious negotiations. In the meantime, there is no sense in doing so.”

Ultimately, Alexandrov noted, given NATO’s clear advantage in conventional armaments, the threat of a nuclear response currently serves as Russia’s main deterrent against aggression.For his part, Alexander Perendzhiev, an expert from the Russian Association of Independent Military Experts, suggested that the latest US initiative “is not attempt to show Obama’s peaceful disposition, so much as an effort to mark his place in history…Obama wants everyone to remember how he fought for world peace; at the same time, he wants to say that the US made a great proposal, while Russia prevented its realization.”

Ultimately, the analyst noted, it’s entirely possible that the White House leaked the story to the Washington Post to test the waters of Moscow’s possible reaction. “It’s probably not a coincidence that the story appeared on the eve of the Russia-NATO summit,” Perendzhiev concluded.

Hurry Up! Obama Wants to Liberate Raqqa, Mosul Before Leaving Office

Kurdish Peshmerga forces keep watch in a village east of Mosul, Iraq, May 29, 2016.


President of the United States, Barack Obama has set a goal to liberate Raqqa and Mosul from Daesh before his presidential term expires in November. President Obama wants to go down in history as the destroyer of Daesh, a Kurdish political analyst said.

Operation Raqqa vs. Operation Mosul

“Operation Raqqa looks like Washington’s effort to regain ground after the liberation of Palmyra by the Syrian Army backed by Russian airstrikes. Before Obama leaves office he wants to be the liberator of Raqqa and Mosul,” prominent Kurdish analyst Ramazan Karim told RIA Novosti.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) started an operation to liberate Raqqa in May. The SDF mainly comprises the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG). They are backed by aircraft of a US-led international coalition. Moreover, American, German and French military instructors and special forces are working in the region.Currently, the first stage of the operation is underway. The goal is cut off Raqqa from the Turkish border. Now, Kurdish forces are storming the town of Manbij. At the same time, the Syrian Army is advancing from the south on the province of Raqqa.

Washington announced an operation to liberate Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, in early-March. According to some military analysts, before the liberation of Mosul, Iraqi forces would liberate Fallujah. Then, the army and Kurdish troops would deploy to Mosul.”They cannot liberate Mosul so far. There are tensions between Baghdad and Kurds as well as in the Iraqi government. There is the issue of dividing Mosul after the liberation. Mosul is a stumbling block between Kurds, Sunni, and Shiites, but also between Iran, Turkey and the US and other Western countries,” the analyst said.

According to him, the main question is not the liberation of Mosul but who will reap the fruits of this victory.

“I think that the liberation of Mosul would be postponed. The situation in Raqqa is not that complicated so its liberation would be successful,” Karim suggested.

Russia, the US, Kurds

According to the analyst, in order to liberate Raqqa, the US was ready for a compromise and formed a tactical alliance with the Democratic Union Party (PYD), the largest and most powerful Kurdish group.

“Previously, relations between Washington and PYD were not close. But amid rapprochement between PYD and Moscow, Washington was concerned. The US promised to open a PYD office in Washington. Then, a Pentagon representative visited Kobani and the US and PYD agreed on an operation in Raqqa,” Karim said.

Russia’s Role in Fighting Daesh

According to the analyst, previously the US planned the fight against Daesh as long-term but had to adjust the plan after Russia became involved.
“Kurdish forces are very capable, and the US leads an aerial coalition. I think the liberation of Raqqa will be successful,” he said.At the same time, he stressed that it is impossible to “completely defeat” terrorism in Syria without Russia.

“Iraqi and Syrian Kurds have underscored that cooperation between Russia and the US would make the fight against Daesh more efficient. Russia’s actions against are more effective than what the US is doing. If you take a look at a Daesh map you will see that after Russia involved the territory began to shrink and its numbers began to decrease,” Karim concluded.