02/10/16 – Gareth Porter – The Scott Horton Show

Hey y'all, Scott Horton here for WallStreetWindow.com.
Mike Swanson knows his stuff.
He made a killing running his own hedge fund and always gets out of the stock market before the government generated bubbles pop, which is, by the way, what he's doing right now, selling all his stocks and betting on gold and commodities.
Sign up at WallStreetWindow.com and get real-time updates from Mike on all his market moves.
It's hard to know how to protect your savings and earn a good return in an economy like this.
Mike Swanson can help.
Follow along on paper and see for yourself, WallStreetWindow.com.
All right, y'all, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is my show, The Scott Horton Show.
Now, the heroic Gareth Porter is on the line, and he's now writing for Middle East Eye a lot of the time, MiddleEastEye.net, and I don't know why, Gareth, you couldn't convince them to change your title to something that actually reflects the article that you've written here, but they've, just so people can find it, the article is mistitled, U.S. position on Syria tilts in favor of Russian intervention, which is not really what the article is about, but anyway, let's just talk about the discrepancy there.
Go ahead.
I'm glad you've introduced the article with that point, because I am very unhappy with the title, and of course, inevitably, that is what it's been shown as being virtually everywhere on the net, except for antiwar.com.
Yeah, we changed it for you there.
Yeah.
You know, it's true, I am not saying that the Obama administration has tilted toward the Russian intervention, but rather that they have adjusted their policy in light of the reality created by the Russian intervention.
It's a crucial distinction, but apparently, these nuances are a bit too much for...
Well, there's just, that ain't even nuance, right?
There's nothing nuance about that.
Recognizing that your bluff has been called is a lot different than throwing in with your adversary.
Right, and the point here is that, in fact, John Kerry and the Obama administration are simply now doing their best to take advantage, to minimize the damage that is done to their past strategy, and to adjust it so that they can take maximum advantage of it, in light of the reality, which already existed, that the United States and Russia are, in fact, supporting some of the same forces.
Basically, the only viable military force against ISIS on the ground in Syria is being supported by both the United States and Russia, and so that is, I think, clearly now going to be a more important part of the U.S. strategy in the future.
All right, now, so, you know, the thing is, is we've had a lot of turning points in this thing, and, you know, on this show and in your writing, although you were mostly working on your Iran book at the time when this really all first started, but all of our friends and colleagues and fellow commentators and everybody, all the former CIA guys that we like, McGovern, Giraldi, Leverett, and, you know, all these things, we've been talking about just the insanity of the U.S. backing the jihadists in Syria, and it's the Sunni-based insurgency from Iraq, led by al-Qaeda in Iraq, against Assad, and Hillary and Obama took al-Qaeda in Iraq's side ever since 2011, and we've been exposing this and explaining this and raging against it, and yet there have been many turning points this whole time where we could have assumed that, man, they have to turn it around now, and I guess I won't go down the whole list, but they failed to get their regime change war in 2013.
That was a big one when the CIA basically mutinied against the accusation that they were supposed to put their names on the accusation that Assad used poison gas there in Damascus, which was huge.
You might have thought that would turn the policy around, and then you had to follow Mosul and the declaration of the caliphate in June of 2014, and at that point it was like, all right, come on, they've got to back off Assad now, but now you're telling me that now they're backing off Assad, but even this is months since the Russians began their intervention.
So what's really changed here, do you think?
Okay, I'm going to introduce a genuine sort of subtlety or nuance here in order to explain what has happened and what has not happened.
What has not happened is that the United States has suddenly changed its whole posture toward the state of the Syrian government, that is to say, the state structure of Syria.
I mean, the reality is that the Obama administration has not really wanted to have that overthrown by jihadists and their allies, even when they were clearly going along with the arming of the al-Qaeda knockoff in Syria and its close allies.
My understanding has been, and still is, that they were going to use the Saudi-Qatari-Turkish support for al-Nusra Front and other Salafist allies of al-Qaeda to put pressure on the Syrian government and its allies to get Assad to step down, with the understanding that they could somehow jigger this so that they would still have the state structure intact, and therefore they could have it both ways.
So I think that's been the strategy for the last two to three years.
So in other words, they're willing to get rid of Assad, but not if the whole damn state has to fall to get rid of him?
That I do believe was indeed the calculation.
Now what has happened now is that I think they are clearly giving up, even asking Assad to step down, or demanding, if you will, publicly, that Assad step down.
And this has translated into their posture within the context of the Syrian peace negotiations, UN-sponsored, at least nominally, peace negotiations as well.
In other words, they are not going to be, and they have not told the opposition, the opposition folks, who have been sort of on the edges of those negotiations, now boycotting them, that they are going to call for Assad to step down.
That's really a rather interesting development in the last month or so.
So I think that's the nuance here, it's that they are now not even going to push or expect that they can succeed in getting Assad to step down.
And so we do have a new ballgame in terms of the politics surrounding the peace negotiations, and that doesn't mean they're going to succeed, I'm not convinced that that's going to happen any time soon, but if in fact they can, if the Russians are successful enough to weaken the al-Nusra Front and other Salafist allies sufficiently, then of course, then it becomes a new game in which you could have peace forced on the armed opposition, because the Saudis and the Turks are incapable of changing that.
Well, but they're not going to be very happy about that, and especially the Turks have even talked about if the Kurds do too well at sealing the border there, they'll invade to break it.
What do you think about that?
Well, I think that is a very serious threat, I agree.
That is what this new development raises as the next danger to the situation in the Middle East.
I mean, it's very, very serious, as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, yeah, it's a hell of a chessboard.
We're going to have you explain a little bit about who all's who and who's on whose side and what the balance of crisis is over there in Syria on the other side of this break.
Everybody, it's the great Gareth Porter.
The title of the piece is incorrect, but you need to know it.
It's US Position on Syria Tilts in Favor of Russian Intervention.
It means recognizes that our bluff's been called, but anyway, we'll be right back, y'all.
Hey, y'all, check out the audio book of Lew Rockwell's Fascism vs.
Capitalism, narrated by me, Scott Horton, at audible.com.
It's a great collection of his essays and speeches on the important tradition of liberty.
From medieval history to the Ron Paul revolution, Rockwell blasts our statist enemies, profiles our greatest libertarian heroes, and prescribes the path forward in the battle against Leviathan.
Fascism vs.
Capitalism by Lew Rockwell for audio book.
Find it at Audible, Amazon, iTunes, or just click in the right margin of my website at scotthorton.org.
Who says Austrian school libertarians have to be statist on immigration?
We should support government goons busting people's heads to keep them out of the country?
Well, some have tried to make that case in the past, but now David Hathaway's hard-hitting new book, Immigration, Individual vs.
National Borders, refutes, point by point, every argument they've made.
This is a short, well-written book that shuts down the closed borders argument once and for all.
Immigration, Individual vs.
National Borders by David Hathaway.
Forward by me.
Buy it now on Amazon.com in both print and Kindle versions.
Alright, y'all, welcome back.
I'm Scott Horton.
It's my show, The Scott Horton Show.
I'm talking with Gareth Porter about the politics surrounding the disaster in Libya.
I mean, Syria.
That's a different disaster.
Sorry.
The tip of my tongue has so many different American wars on it, you know, I get them shuffled out of order sometimes.
I know what you mean.
Believe me.
So, listen.
Yeah.
What a, what a damn mess.
Because, I guess you decide, Gareth.
The things I need you to help explain to me are who's who and what's going on at the talks and who's who and what's going on on the ground there as far as, you know, recent gains by the jihadists and recent reversals as well.
There are huge events taking place on the ground that are changing the politics of the whole situation in all the capitals.
We have to start with what has happened, you know, on the ground as a result of the Russian air offensive, counter-offensive, if you will.
And I think the main thing is clearly that they have, in fact, succeeded in threatening, at the very least, the lines of supply of al-Nusra Front in the north, in the northwest of the country, from roughly the Aleppo area particularly, to the Turkish border.
And this is why, you know, there is just suddenly, there's a huge hue and cry from both supporters of the armed opposition in Syria and sort of the ideological, sort of the advocates of humanitarian war, such as Michael Ignatieff and Weifel Peer of the formerly New Republic in the Washington Post, I guess it was yesterday, sort of decrying the moral bankruptcy of the United States for refusing to, you know, go to war to prevent the Russians from tilting the military balance within Syria.
All this is happening because, clearly, some major tilting of the situation militarily has occurred in the past few weeks, and whether it will be permanent, whether it will be totally successful remains to be seen.
Certainly, the possibility that the al-Nusra Front, Alaw al-Sham, and other Salafist groups fighting with al-Nusra Front against the Assad regime will be critically weakened is what is on the minds of both sides at this point, including, of course, as you've mentioned before the break, the Turks, who are very upset with the fact that this has happened and their entire strategy has, in fact, been threatened, is threatened.
So whether Turkey is actually going to intervene militarily is, indeed, the primary question mark at this point hovering over not just the peace talks, but over the entire war in Syria.
Yeah, but what about the power of the empire to tell the Turks that, hey, look, man, you have to do this or that or at least stay within these lines?
I mean, come on, who's the satellite and who rules the world?
Well, I mean, this is a question that I think we need to talk about some more, and it applies to both Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
In theory, of course, you're right.
I mean, the United States is the superpower, not the Turks, not Turkey, not Saudi Arabia.
And let me add here real quick, too, for you to address that it kind of sounds just like plausible deniability, like Ronald Reagan.
Oh, it's it's our allies doing it, not us.
But come on.
Yeah, but yeah, but it's not.
I mean, the point that I want to make here is that in the Middle East, the United States has the dominant military and economic power.
But when it comes to policy choices, it is, in a way, held hostage by its allies.
Why?
Because, you know, the United States military, the Pentagon, wants those bases so badly that it does not want to rock the boat.
That is why, for example, in 2011, when Bahrain was was shooting down demonstrators and the Saudis sent in troops to help them to put down demonstrators by force.
What did the Obama administration do?
Despite the fact that it started out saying, oh, you can't do this.
You know, that's that's beyond the pale.
They pulled back and they did nothing and they essentially made their peace with that situation, the reason being that the Saudis are the real power in Bahrain.
The Bahrainis don't control their own destiny.
They're completely dependent on the Saudis economically.
And the Saudis let it be known that that this was not acceptable.
And, of course, Bahrain is a non a major non-NATO ally of the United States.
Why?
Because of the naval base, the fleet naval base in Minami, I guess is how you pronounce it.
So basically this stake that the national security state has in in Bahrain, which means the state that the Saudis control, gives the Saudis huge leverage over the Obama administration because Obama is not willing to stand up to the national security state.
And the same thing, of course, is true about Turkey because of encircling.
So, you know, I think that the real politics of this are different from what appears to be, you know, U.S. powers tell them what to do again.
I mean, obviously that's what should happen.
And it would happen if it were not for the case, for the fact that the national security state's bureaucratic interests prevail over the national interest.
So, in other words, Kerry knows that he doesn't even have the clearance from the Pentagon to read any kind of riot act or ultimatum to the Turks.
Well, and remember, I wrote this story a few weeks ago about how the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, essentially were undermining or trying to undermine as best they could the regime change policy, both in Libya and in Syria, by sharing the the information, the intelligence they have on ISIS and presumably on the south front.
I mean, I'm pretty sure it was on the south front as well with the Russians.
And of course, that meant sharing it with the Syrian government as well.
So and I mentioned at the end of the story that even though the Joint Chiefs were not in favor of regime change in Syria, nevertheless, they did not favor any crackdown on Qatar for its role in supporting the jihadists.
Why?
Because Qatar, of course, is host to a major army facility in Qatar, which the U.S. military is not willing to give up.
And so they pulled back.
They pulled their punches.
That, everybody, is the great Gareth Porter.
You see why I have him on all the time.
It's because of all the stuff that he knows and all the great articles he writes.
Thanks very much for coming back on the show, Gareth.
Thanks, Scott, my pleasure.
The book, y'all, by the way, I almost forgot to say is Manufacture Crisis.
It is the book on the Iranian nuclear program, for real.
Manufacture Crisis by the great Gareth Porter.
Go and spend money on it right this minute.
This article is at MiddleEastEye.net.
U.S. position on Syria tilts in favor of the fact of Russian intervention.
Hey, Al, Scott Horton here for NPV Engineering.
This isn't for all of you, but for high end contractors specializing in industrial construction and end users who own and operate industrial equipment.
NPV offers licensed professional consulting on chemical and mechanical engineering for your projects.
Tanks, pressure vessels, piping, heat exchangers, HVAC equipment, chemical reactors for oil companies or manufacturing facilities, as well as project management support and troubleshooting for those implementing designs.
NPV will get your industrial project up and running.
Head over to NPVengineering.com.
Hey, Al, Scott Horton here.
It's always safe to say that one should keep at least some of your savings in precious metals as a hedge against inflation.
If this economy ever does heat back up and the banks start expanding credit, rising prices could make metals a very profitable bet.
Since 1977, Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc.has been helping people buy and sell gold, silver, platinum and palladium, and they do it well.
They're fast, reliable and trusted for more than 35 years.
And they take Bitcoin.
Call Roberts and Roberts at 1-800-874-9760 or stop by rrbi.co.
Hey, Al, Scott here.
If you're like me, you need coffee, lots of it.
You probably prefer it tastes good too.
Well, let me tell you about Darren's Coffee.
Come to Darren'sCoffee.com.
Darren Marion is a natural entrepreneur who decided to leave his corporate job and strike out on his own, making great coffee.
And Darren's Coffee is now delivering right to your door.
Darren gets his beans direct from farmers around the world, all specialty, premium grade with no filler.
Hey, the man just wants everyone to have a chance to taste this great coffee.
Darren'sCoffee.com.
Use promo code Scott and you get free shipping.
Darren'sCoffee.com.