Syria's allies will respond with force: fake news story?

I cannot take these articles at face value. I take Adam Garrie's point about the existance of the source for this story, "Ilam al Harbi media" but RI's point that the story is false because the Kremlin hasn't confrmed it is ludicrous.

We are in a war situation and there is something called the 'fog of war'. I can think of situations where it has been in the interests of both the Americans and Russians to keep stories quiet. The Kremlin did not announce publicly ahead of time that they were intervening in Syria last year (and neither should they have).

The Duran and the people that contribute are generally very reliable and trustworthy in their coverage but their strength is geopolitics not the back story about energy pipelines etc. and they don't always get it right.

One glaring example is the following article by Alexander Mercouris which gave the reasons why Donald Trump wouldn't take action in Syria – a day or so before Trump sent his cruise missiles into Syria. You couldn't get it more wrong!

Here is another article by Adam Garrie which more or less places people who think that Russia/Iran might respond are just false news media and/or Facebook trolls.

3 groups of people disappointed that Russia hasn’t retialiated against US forces

I personally think there is much more reason for doubt and we have to gradually filter out what the truth is from differing (and often conflicting versions).

I think the Duran got it wrong before and so there is no reason they can't again.

---SMR

Here’s why Donald Trump is unlikely to attack Syria

US threats to attack Syria look less strong than parts of the media have made them appear and the US military is certain to be opposed.

The debate about the Syrian chemical attack yesterday and President Trump’s comments during a news conference with the King of Jordan have led to speculation that the US might be readying an attack on Syria.

The speculation stems from the fact that Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, said that if the UN Security Council fails to take action over the chemical attack the US might consider taking “unilateral action”, whilst President Trump himself made comments during the news conference that appeared to have the military option open.

Whilst in any international issue the possibility of unilateral military action by the US can never unfortunately be completely ruled out, on balance neither Nikki Haley’s comment nor President Trump’s comment seem to presage military action.....

Fake news story in mainstream AND alt-media slanders Russia and Iran

The story says that Russia and Iran threatened to attack the US if a 'red line' was crossed. This is an outright lie

the Duran,

9 April, 2017

A fake news story has been circulating on both mainstream media and alt-media saying that Russia and Iran have issued a joint threat to ‘use force’ in the event of the US targeting Syrian forces again. It was also reported that the issue was quoted as being a ‘red line’, a term generally used by the United States.

This blatantly false story was picked up by the following media outlets

–The Independent

–Haaretz

–Reuters

–Sunday Express

–Zero Hedge 

The Sunday Express and Zero Hedge both site something called  Ilam al Harbi media as the source of information for the story.

A quick English language Google search for ‘Ilam al Harbi’ comes up with several articles from Yemen Press, none of which lead to a story about the Putin/Rouhani phone call or anything else concerning Russia/Iranian responses to the US attack on Syria.

Additionally there is a Saudi based telecom company called al-Harbi whose website can be found here. It is not a news website in any way shape or form.

A report from the usually reliable Al-Masdar news has produced an Arabic language document purportedly from a joint military command centre used by Russia, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. Although, Iran, Russia and Syria do share intelligence and cooperate in the Syrian war against terrorism, the existence of the specific ‘joint command centre’ in question, seems to be misleading and inaccurate if not entirely fabricated in this context.

No such body as the ‘joint operations room’ in this context appears to exist nor has it ever existed according to any source, dating from the beginning of Russian involvement in the civil war in September of 2015 up until today.  The reports mentioning the document in question do not for example site the formal joint intelligence ventures of the so called 4+1 Coalition of Syria, Russia, Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah.

In all likelihood, the document is a forgery produced by those who seek to spread false stories about the strategy of Russia, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. The second most likely scenario is that the document was produced by middle or low ranking military personnel who do not speak for any of the aforementioned parties. Such individuals would likely be enthusiastic patriotic members  of the Syria/Russia/Iran/Hezbollah coalition who want to send an unsanctioned and ultimately counterproductive message to the US.

Because the document is in Arabic, it is unlikely to have originated in either Russia or Iran.

The actual content of the well documented phone call between the Russian and Iranian Presidents entirely contradicts the dubious document and is totally in line with official and de-facto Russian and Iranian policy.

Vladimir Putin and Hassan Rouhani pledged to continue support for the Syrian government in its war against terrorism. The two leaders additionally pledged to cooperate further on issues of regional stability.

They also called for an investigation into the chemical attack which America used as the proximate cause of the missile strike on Syria.

Further information on the phone conversation can be found in the original report from The Duran.

It is also unlikely that an inauthentic or totally unsanctioned document was leaked by official sources in order to intimidate the US. With many fearing that the US will indeed push things to the brink of world-war, it is not in the interests of Russia, Syria or Iran to allow such a statement to slip through the crack, no matter who authored it.

Russia, Iran and Syria want to end the conflict, not monumentally expand it as some in the US certainly do.

The geo-political goal of Iran, Russia and Syria are is show a united front and an ability to robustly defend Syria against aggression, but their goal is not to invite a US invasion through the very kind of provocation that America’s trigger-happy deep state would jump at rather than back down from. Instead, Russia, Iran and Syria’s goals are clearly and transparently expressed though official channels.

In this sense the document is of no probative value to the case Syria, Russia and Iran are making before the UN and other official channels: namely that tensions should calm, the US should cease all further aggression and that an international investigation should be conducted to clarify western confusion over the chemical attack in Idlib Governorate.

Whoever has spread this fake news clearly wants to paint Russia and Iran as violent, unhinged and destabilising as the United States.

The reality is in fact almost the complete opposite of what is being reported.

Fake news is being used to try to increase tensions.  This is not only irresponsible but it is dangerous, as dangerous as the lies upon which the US attack was based.

Reuters, Others, Report Fake Iran/Russia Statement on Syria — 'Russia Insider' Blindly Follows

Moral of this story: Never listen to Reuters

Russia Insider,

9 April, 2017

UPDATE: It looks like we goofed. Yes, the Independent, Reuters, and lots of other terrible (and not terrible) outlets reported on this. We had our doubts from the very beginning, but naively thought that the mainstream media couldn't be that bad. We were wrong! It's been five hours and we've seen zero confirmation from the Kremlin, so we're calling BS. 

We apologize to our readers, and will do our best to be less trusting in the future. 

---

DEVELOPING

A joint command center used by Russia, Iran and allied forces has issued a statement saying that red lines have been crossed in Syria and that there will be retaliation if they are crossed again. While multiple sources report this, we think 

it's unlikely the Russians formally signed off on this statement. 

Independent:

Russia and Iran have warned the US they will "respond with force" if their own "red lines" are crossed in Syria.

"What America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines. From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well," the group's joint command centre said.

Reuters:

A joint command center made up of the forces of Russian, Iran and allied militia alliance supporting Syrian President Bashar al Assad said the U.S. strike on a Syrian air base crossed "red lines" and it would now respond to any new aggression and increase their level of support to their ally.

"What America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines. From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well," said the statement published by the group on media outlet Ilam al Harbi.

Daily Sabah:

"What America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines. From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well," said the statement published by the group on media outlet Ilam al Harbi.

U.S. military presence in northern Syria is "illegal" and their aim to control area makes them "occupation" forces, the statement added.

In a separate statement, Kremlin said that Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani noted in phone call that "aggressive" U.S. actions against Syria are not permissible.

The two leaders also called for an objective investigation into an incident involving chemical weapons in Syria's Idlib and said they were ready to deepen cooperation to fight terrorism, the Kremlin said in a statement on its website.

The two presidents said that they are ready to deepen cooperation on fighting terrorism to ensure stability in Middle East.

Al Masdar News:

The military operation rooms of Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and other allies have just released a new joint statement. This joint statement was spurred on by US aggression that saw the country strike the Shayrat Airbase in rural Homs with Tomahawk missiles.

The statement released in Arabic states that the allied operations room recognizes that the US is supporting the separation of northern Syria and Iraq from their respective states.

Point seven of the statement details how all US military are legitimate targets as they have crossed every red line possible and operate illegally in Syria. It then emphasizes that the joint military operations room will respond strongly to any aggression and any violation made by the US in Syria.

Questions from us: Which joint command center? Who was the signatory for Russia? Reuters and the Independent are reporting this, but we're looking for confirmation from the Kremlin.

Amichai Stein‏Verified account @AmichaiStein1

#BREAKING: #Russia-#Iran allliance command center states US attack on #Syria crossed "red lines": will respond to any future such aggression

• RETWEETS30
• LIKES7
• 

12:57 AM - 10 Apr 2017

Here is the article from Zero Hedge, carried by We Are Change

RUSSIA AND IRAN REMIND 

U.S. THAT SYRIA HAS 

ALLIES WHO WILL 

RESPOND WITH FORCE IF 

FURTHER PROVOKED

Article via ZeroHedge

A statement issued on Sunday by a joint command centre consisting of forces of Russian, Iran and allied militia alliance supporting Syrian President Bashar al Assad said that Friday’s US strike on the Syrian air base crossed “red lines” and it would “respond with force” to any new aggression while increasing their level of support to their ally.

In the statement published by the group on media outlet Ilam al Harbi, the pro-Assad alliances says that “what America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines. From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well.”

Earlier on Sunday the UK’s Defence Secretary, Sir Michael Fallon, demanded Russia rein in Mr Assad (by which he really meant be willing to accept a new Syrian regime with a pro-western puppet leader, and one who is willing to allow the Qatar gas pipeline to cross the country on its way to Europe.

Fallon also claimed that Moscow is “responsible for every civilian death” in the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhun and said Putin was responsible for the brutal killings “by proxy”, because it was the Syrian president’s “principal backer.” The defense minister said the attack had happened “on their watch” and that Vladimir Putin must now live up to previous promises that Mr Assad’s chemical weapons had been destroyed.  His comments came after Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson pulled out of a Moscow visit hours before he was due to fly.

* * *

Finally, for those who are unclear about the core geopolitical tensions that are at the base of the long-running Syrian proxy war, the answer is – as so often tends to be – commodities and specifically natural gas, as we first explained in 2013, and as summarized in the following October 2016 article courtesy of Eric Zuesse (see also “Competing Gas Pipelines Are Fueling The Syrian War & Migrant Crisis“)

The Oil-Gas War Over Syria (In 4 Maps)

Turkey’s Anadolu News Agency, though government-run, is providing remarkably clear and reliable diagrammatic descriptions of the current status of the U.S – and – fundamentalist – Sunni, versus Russia – and – Shia – and – NON – fundamentalist – Sunni, sides, in the current oil-and-gas war in the Middle East, for control over territory in Syria, for construction of oil-and-gas pipelines through Syria supplying fuel into the world’s largest energy-market: Europe. Russia is now the dominant supplier of both oil and gas, but its ally Iran is a Shiite gas-powerhouse that wants to share the market there, and Russia has no objection.

Qatar is a Sunni gas-powerhouse and wants to become the main supplier of gas there, and Saudi Arabia is a Sunni oil-powerhouse, which wants to become the major supplier of oil, but Saudi oil and Qatari gas would be pipelined through secular-controlled (Assad’s) Syria, and this is why the U.S. and its fundamentalist-Sunni allies, the Sauds, and Qataris, are using Al Qaeda and other jihadists to conquer enough of a strip through Syria so that U.S. companies such as Halliburton will be able safely to place pipelines there, to be marketed in Europe by U.S. firms such as Exxon. Iran also wants to pipeline its gas through Syria, and this is one reason why Iran is defending Syria’s government, against the U.S.-Saudi-Qatari-jihadist invasion, which is trying to overthrow and replace Assad.

Here are the most-informative of Anadolu’s war-maps:

The first presents the effort by many countries to eliminate ISIS control over the large Iraqi city of Mosul. A remarkably frank remark made in this map is “An escape corridor into Syria will be left for Daesh [ISIS] so they can vacate Mosul” – an admission that the U.S. – Saudi – Qatari team want the ISIS jihadists who are in Mosul to relocate into Syria to assist the U.S. – Saudi – Qatari effort there to overthrow and replace the Assad government: 

The second is about the Egyptian government’s trying to assist the Syrian government’s defense against the Saudi – U.S. – Qatari invasion of Syria, at Aleppo, where Syria’s Al Qaeda branch is trying to retain its current control over part of that large city. The Saud family are punishing the Egyptian government for that:

Here is Russia’s proposed gas-pipeline, which would enable Russia to reduce its dependence upon Ukraine (through which Russia currently pipes its gas into Europe). Obama conquered and took over Ukraine in February 2014 via his coup that overthrew the democratically elected neutralist Ukrainian President there:

In addition, there is the following map from oil-price.com:

That map shows the competing Shiia (Russia-backed) and Sunni (U.S.-backed) gas-pipelines into Europe — the central issue in the invasion and defense of Syria.

On 21 September 2016, Gareth Porter headlined “The War Against the Assad Regime Is Not a ‘Pipeline War’”, and he pointed out some errors in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s account that had been published under the headline “Syria: Another Pipeline War”. Porter argued: “It’s easy to understand why that explanation would be accepted by many anti-war activists: it is in line with the widely accepted theory that all the US wars in the Middle East have been ‘oil wars’ — about getting control of the petroleum resources of the region and denying them to America’s enemies.”

But the ‘pipeline war’ theory is based on false history and it represents a distraction from the real problem of US policy in the Middle East — the US war state’s determination to hold onto its military posture in the region. Porter ignored the key question there, as to why the US war state has a determination to hold onto its military posture in the region. Opening and protecting potential oil-gas-pipeline routes are important reasons why. Clearly, Kennedy’s documentation that the CIA was trying as early as 1949 to overthrow Syria’s secular government so as to allow to the Sauds a means of cheaply transporting their oil through Syria into Europe, remains unaffected by any of the objections that Porter raised to Kennedy’s article. The recent portion of Kennedy’s timeline is affected, but not his basic argument.

Furthermore, any military strategist knows that the US war state is intimately connected to the U.S. oil-and-gas industries, including pipelines (oilfield services) as well as marketing (Exxon etc.). And Porter got entirely wrong what that connection (which he ignored) actually consists of: it consists of U.S. government taxpayer-funded killers for those U.S. international corporations. Here is how Barack Obama put it, when addressing graduating cadets at West Point, America’s premier military-training institution:

Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts and failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago.

It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead – not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.

He was saying there that America’s military is in service to U.S.-based international corporations in their competition against those of Russia, Brazil, China, India, and anywhere else in which “rising middle classes compete with us”. 

Those places are what Gareth Porter referred to as “America’s enemies”.

Economic competitors are “enemies”. Obama thinks that way, and even a progressive journalist such as Porter doesn’t place into a skeptical single – quotation – mark – surround, the phrase ‘America’s enemies’ when that phrase is used in this equational context. On both the right (Obama) and the left (Porter), the equation of a government and of the international corporations that headquarter in its nation — the treatment of the military as being an enforcement-arm for the nation’s international corporations — is simply taken for granted, not questioned, not challenged.

RFK Jr. was correct, notwithstanding some recent timeline-errors. Syria is “Another Pipeline War”, and Obama is merely intensifying it. (On 9 November 2015, I offered a different account than RFK Jr. provided of the recent history — the Obama portion — of the longstanding U.S. aggression against Syria; and it links back to Jonathan Marshall’s excellent articles on that, and to other well-sourced articles, in addition to primary sources, none of which contradict RFK Jr.’s basic view, “Syria: Another Pipeline War”).

Another portion of Porter’s commentary is, however, quite accurate: America’s ‘Defense’ (or mass-killing-abroad) industries (such as Lockheed Martin) are not merely servants of the U.S. government, but are also served by the U.S. government: “the US war state’s determination to hold onto its military posture in the region” is protection of the major market — the Middle Eastern market — for U.S. ‘Defense’ products and services. It’s not only America’s firms in the oil, gas, and pipelines, industries, which benefit from America’s military; it is also America’s firms in the mass-killing industries, that do.

To the extent that the public (here including Barack Obama and Gareth Porter) do not condemn the presumption that “the business of America is business”, or that a valid function of U.S. – taxpayer – funded military and other foreign-affairs operations is to serve the stockholders of U.S. international corporations, the hell (such as in Syria) will continue. Gareth Porter got lost among the trees because he failed to see (and to point to) that forest.

This article was originally seen at ZeroHedge.com and was authored by Tyler Duden.