Here Comes 110,000 of Them

Official: US goal to take in 110,000 refugees in coming year

The United States will strive to take in 110,000 refugees from around the world in the coming year, a senior Obama administration official said Wednesday, in what would be a nearly 30 percent increase from the 85,000 allowed in over the previous year.

The increase reflects continuing concern about the refugee crisis stemming from Syria’s civil war and conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet it’s still far short of what advocacy groups say is needed to address an unprecedented crisis that saw some 1 million people pour into Europe alone last year.

The official who wasn’t authorized to discuss the numbers before an official announcement and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Secretary of State John Kerry had previously suggested that the U.S. target would climb to 100,000 in the coming year, but that the figure was a floor, not a ceiling. He briefed lawmakers on the revised figure on Tuesday.

The 110,000 goal covers a 12-month period that starts next month. In the 12 months ending Sept. 30, the U.S. goal was 85,000, and in the three years before that, the target was 70,000 per year.

The White House has tried to emphasize that the refugee program is safe and doesn’t pose a major threat to national security. That concern was heightened last year after terrorist attacks in European cities — including some connected to people who had spent time in Syria. Officials said that potential refugees would continue to be subject a more rigorous screening process than any other foreigners granted entrance to the U.S.

The announcement comes two weeks after the U.S. announced it had met President Barack Obama’s goal of admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees despite early skepticism that it would reach its goal. Millions of Syrians have been displaced by a civil war that has killed roughly half a million people.

Republican governors have pushed back vehemently and tried to refuse to let them into their states, leading to a clash with the administration, which has maintained that states can’t legally bar refugees who otherwise meet the criteria.

The administration did not release a breakdown of how many refugees would be accepted from specific countries in the coming year.

The U.S. has tried to encourage other countries, too, to increase their contribution to alleviating the refugee crisis. The official said increasing the U.S. target this year reflected that strategy and Obama’s belief that all nations need to do more to help the neediest.

As part of that effort, Obama plans to host a summit on refugee issues with world leaders next week during the U.N. General Assembly gathering in New York.

The U.N. refugee agency chief, Filippo Grandi, said Tuesday that Europe needed to boost its efforts to take in people from places like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. In an Associated Press interview, he called it “one of the great challenges” of the future.

“There’s a time now to have this rational discussion,” he said.

****

Hillary Clinton will hold “a number of bilateral meetings” at next week’s United Nations General Assembly in New York City, the campaign said Wednesday.

The former secretary of state anticipates meeting with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, according to a campaign aide’s guidance. More from Politico.

****

TEHRAN, Sept. 11 (Xinhua) — Iranian President Hassan Rouhani will attend the upcoming UN General Assembly meeting on Tuesday in New York, the first Vice President Es’haq Jahangiri said Sunday, state IRIB TV reported.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and a number of Iran’s diplomats and officials will accompany Rouhani to attend the meeting.

There is no report about a meeting plan between Rouhani and the U.S. President Barack Obama during his visit to New York.

 

 

ISIS Chemical Weapons Destroyed and Hostilities with Hezbollah

US says it destroyed Islamic State chemical threat in Iraq

WASHINGTON (AP)– American warplanes eliminated a “significant chemical threat” to Iraqi civilians by bombing a complex of buildings near the northern city of Mosul that Islamic State militants had converted from pharmaceutical manufacturing to chemical weapons production, the three-star general in charge of U.S. air operations in the Middle East said Tuesday.

 Photo: DailyMail

Air Force Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian told reporters at the Pentagon that the target was an Islamic State headquarters also used to produce lethal chemicals, possibly including chlorine and mustard gas. He provided no details on the chemical production.

Harrigian described the airstrike as a large, well-planned operation, which destroyed more than 50 targets at the site with a variety of U.S. warplanes, including Air Force B-52 bombers and Marine Corps F-18D attack planes. Other U.S. officials said later that a total of 12 U.S. planes were used.

Harrigian said the mission was part of a broader effort to cut off the Islamic State’s main sources of revenue, kill their leaders and create “organizational dysfunction” in ways that will eliminate the group as a military threat in Iraq and Syria.

Meanwhile:

Hezbollah “secretly” deploying in Quneitra: report

A pro-rebel outlet claims that Hezbollah fighters have taken up positions in the province along the Israeli border under the guise of being local militiamen.

BEIRUT – Hezbollah has allegedly started to “secretly” deploy its members to Quneitra to replace regime troops stationed in the province near the Golan demarcation line with Israel, according to a pro-opposition outlet.

Al-Etihad press reported Thursday that pro-regime troops in Madinat al-Baath and Khan Arnabeh—both government strongholds northeast of the rebel-held Quneitra border crossing—were being “withdrawn in batches” for redeployment near the western Ghouta suburbs of Damascus.

The outlet’s report mirrored that of local correspondent Omar al-Joulani, who reported on Tuesday that pro-regime forces as well as Hezbollah withdrew a number of their combatants and tanks from the two Quneitra province towns.

However, Al-Etihad press cited local sources as saying that Hezbollah members “came out with the regime forces in public,” but returned in secret to positions under the guise of being local militiamen.

“Hezbollah fighters… returned under the name of the Golan Regiment,” the sources claimed, in reference to the predominantly Druze force that fights under the banner of the regime’s auxiliary National Defense Force.

On Monday, Iran’s Fars News reported that Hezbollah and Syrian regime forces are readying a major offensive against rebels along the Golan demarcation line with Israel.

Syrian military sources said that Hezbollah deployed fighters “in the vicinity of the Quneitra border crossing.”

“[Hezbollah] aims to put an end to the presence of armed men in the area close to the border,” the sources told the Iranian outlet.

The Fars News report comes after the leader of Iran’s paramilitary Basij force, General Mohammad Reza Naqdi, toured Syria’s border with Israel near Quneitra in July, the first such visit of a top-ranking official from Tehran to be publicized in Iranian media.

Cross-border incidents

 

In past weeks, pro-regime forces have bombarded rebel positions in Al-Hamidiyah and other rebel-held villages along the Golan border near the Quneitra crossing, with a number of mortar rounds hitting Israel, prompting Tel Aviv to launch retaliatory strikes on at least five occasions.

On July 4, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) hit two Syrian army targets in the Golan after stray fire damaged the technical fence stretching across the demarcation line between the two countries in the mountainous region.

Two weeks later, an unmanned aerial vehicle crossed over the border into Israeli territory in the central Golan, prompting Israel to fire two Patriot missiles in an unsuccessful attempt to shoot down the drone.

An air-to-air missile fired by an Israeli jet also failed to bring down the drone, which Tel Aviv suspects is Russian-manufactured.

In the latest incident, Israel once again responded to a stray cross-border mortar strike on September 8, hitting a Syrian army target east of the Druze-populated town of Hader in Quneitra, as per Tel Aviv’s standard practice of retaliation to errant fire.

A local pro-Assad fighting force also claimed that Israel conducted a missile strike on one of its convoys in the Quneitra province, although Tel Aviv has made no official comment on the accusation while Syrian state media has also stayed mum.

The Golan Regiment announced on July 28 that two Israeli Nimrod missiles hit one of its positions, but did not name the specific location of the strike.

“The commander of the Golan Regiment’s Fist Battalion, Majid Himoud, escaped the Zionist [strike],” the group, which is part of the Syrian regime’s auxiliary National Defense Force, announced on its official Facebook page.

The militia, which is predominantly Druze, added that Israel fired the missiles from its side of the divided Golan Heights, but did not specify whether the Nimrods were launched from an aircraft or the ground.

 

 

John Kerry’s Daughter Vanessa and Funneling of Millions

Vanessa Kerry, a physician, married Dr. Brian Nahed in 2009, the New York-born son of Iranian-Americans who live in California.

Related reading: Seed CEO Vanessa Kerry Speaks at HIV/AIDS Problem Solvers Forum

EXCLUSIVE: John Kerry’s State Department Funneled MILLIONS To His Daughter’s Nonprofit

DailyCaller: More than $9 million of Department of State money has been funneled through the Peace Corps to a nonprofit foundation started and run by Secretary of State John Kerry’s daughter, documents obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation show.

The Department of State funded a Peace Corps program created by Dr. Vanessa Kerry and officials from both agencies, records show. The Peace Corps then awarded the money without competition to a nonprofit Kerry created for the program.

Initially, the Peace Corps awarded Kerry’s group — now called Seed Global Health — with a three-year contract worth $2 million of State Department money on Sept. 10, 2012, documents show. Her father was then the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which oversees both the Department of State and the Peace Corps.

Seed secured a four-year extension in September 2015, again without competition. This time, the Peace Corps gave the nonprofit $6.4 million provided by the Department of State while John Kerry was secretary of state.

Seed also received almost $1 million from a modification to the first award, as well as from Department of State funds the group secured outside the Peace Corps.

The Peace Corps program — called the Global Health Service Partnership (GHSP) — sends volunteer physicians and nurses to medical and nursing schools in Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda and Liberia, according to Seed’s website. More than 40 clinical educators worked at 13 sites in the 2014-2015 program.

Kerry and government officials colluded to launch the program and ensure that Seed would get the contract.

“Vanessa, Buck, and Sarah are meeting with Ambassador Goosby on the morning of 9/16/11 to discuss next steps for the GHSP,” said a memo from September 16, 2011 — one year before Seed received its first award. “Conversations with OGAC leadership confirm that Ambassador Goosby is very supportive of the initial proposal.”

The memo was referring to Peace Corps Directors Buck Buckingham and Sarah Morgenthau and Ambassador Eric Goosby, who then headed the Office of the US Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC) — the State Department office that later funded GHSP.

A meeting one month later unveiled the strategy to send tax dollars to Seed.

“The public funding to start the GHSP is secured, it will come from OGAC through [Peace Corps] to support core HQ and field based activities, and to develop a sub-agreement to provide support to the foundation for contributions for their work in this partnership,” minutes from a Nov. 18, 2011, meeting said. The “foundation” refers to Seed, which was then called the Foundation for Global Health Service.

Officials in that meeting also assured Kerry that she would not have to compete with other groups for Department of State funds.

“Buck obtained clarity of the mechanism by which federal money will be provided to” Seed, the minutes said. “The process can be fast tracked and non-competed through a specific grant mechanism.”

Meanwhile, the State Department buried its intent to transfer funds to the Peace Corps in its required congressional notification.

“The GHSP is a smaller line item in a multi-page document with multi-million dollar programs,” minutes from the November 2011 meeting said.

Seed received its first award less than one year later. Peace Corps later provided another nearly $900,000, noting it underestimated the program’s expenses, especially travel and salary costs.

It’s unclear when that modification was added, but Kerry drew a salary from Seed for the first time in 2014. She was the only officer listed on the nonprofit’s 990 tax form to receive compensation — some $140,000 for a reported 30 hours per week.

Discussion about the $6.4 million extension also provides questionable details. Peace Corps officials noted that contracts could not extend beyond five years and considered competing the next award, but decided they would “go forward with sole-source option if mandated by OGAC,” minutes from a July 17, 2014 meeting said.

Ultimately, the extension was awarded without competition on Sept. 10, 2015. It’s unclear why the Peace Corps violated its five-year policy by giving Seed seven years of non-competitively awarded funding.

Peace Corps justified the decision to forgo competition by arguing Seed was already burrowed into the program, and that replacing it out would cause problems.

“As such, if a cooperative agreement were to be awarded to a new partner, applicants that were recruited and vetted by Seed may be unable to be placed in the field,” a Sept. 10 2015 document stated. The document further noted that “Peace Corps has been unable to identify any potential partners which satisfy the needs of the GHSP program” other than Seed, which was created based around the program’s needs.

Seed spokesman Mark Marino denied any conflicts of interest, telling TheDCNF:

No conflict of interest exists in our partnership with Peace Corps and the US government. Dr. Vanessa Kerry is primarily employed by and paid through Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. Dr. Kerry receives no financial compensation from the Peace Corps or US government. Funding from the Peace Corps, an independent agency in the federal government, represents about 27% of Seed’s total $6.3 million budget this fiscal year.

Marino also claimed that “Seed is the only organization that provides debt repayment for US doctors, nurses, and midwives to serve internationally, something Seed does entirely through private philanthropy. Seed specifically works in the areas of medical, nursing and midwifery education focused on human resource capacity building, making it different than many other non-government organizations.”
A Peace Corps spokesman who demanded anonymity told TheDCNF that the “Peace Corps is proud of the continued work we have done in collaboration with Seed Global Health and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) to send qualified health professionals abroad to teach and expand clinical capacity.”

“Since the agency’s early years, Peace Corps has sought to improve health outcomes in the countries it serves. The Global Health Service Partnership is an innovative continuation of the Peace Corps’ commitment to global health.”

Department of State spokesman John Kirby told TheDCNF that “there is absolutely no conflict of interest here. Secretary Kerry played no role in this decision making while in the Senate or subsequently while at the State Department.”

Kirby said “Kerry’s work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee allotted funding to PEPFAR generally — not directly to this program. Using funds appropriated by Congress for PEPFAR, the State Department directs funds through an interagency process to seven implementing agencies.”

“The Peace Corps recommended the GHSP for funding support, and approval of that support went through the standard interagency budgeting and review process. The GHSP was one element supporting PEPFAR’s Human Resources for Health Strategy, which was developed in part to meet the goal set by the U.S. Congress of 140,000 new health care workers trained by PEPFAR under its fiscal year 2009-2013 reauthorization.”

 

 

 

 

 

 
Share Video

 

 
Share Video
Share Video

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social Justice: National Sovereignty and the Right of Intervention

Where is this social justice movement coming from? Do you ever go keyboarding on the internet looking for one specific thing and uncover something related and much bigger? When it comes to this festering growth movement of ‘social justice’ as we are witnessing throughout the country, one must ask what is the genesis. We saw some demands surface after Ferguson and Baltimore. Between those two protests and legal investigations, the White House launched a 21st Century Policing Mandate. But how was this mandate conceived? Ah, seems we need to hop over to New York and that interesting building called the United Nations.

So, it is reasonable to consider the BLM movement is well funded and not only has made it’s way onto Elm Street, it is also taking a place onto network television, where we are forced to see it where the largest TV audiences merge, NFL football.

Are there some connections or collaboration going on here? It cant be proven, however this is a time you can be the judge as this appears to have history and will be with us for years to come.

There is a training program. There are countless issues that do need to be addressed and this movement does have valid reasons that deserve attention. The question is are all components being addressed including the true root causes?

Related reading and timeline: Black Lives Matter: The Growth of a New Social Justice Movement

This is a long United Nations document, almost 160 pages, but to help out the reader, begin at document page 11.

Circa 2006:

The application of social justice requires a geographical, sociological, political

and cultural framework within which relations between individuals and groups can

be understood, assessed, and characterized as just or unjust. In modern times, this

framework has been the nation-State. The country typically represents the context

in which various aspects of social justice, such as the distribution of income in a

population, are observed and measured; this benchmark is used not only by national

Governments but also by international organizations and supranational entities such

as the European Union. At the same time, there is clearly a universal dimension

to social justice, with humanity as the common factor. Slaves, exploited workers

and oppressed women are above all victimized human beings whose location matters

less than their circumstances. This universality has taken on added depth and

relevance as the physical and cultural distance between the world’s peoples has

effectively shrunk. In their discussions regarding the situation of migrant workers,

for example, Forum participants readily acknowledged the national and global dimensions

of social justice.

Social justice is treated as synonymous with distributive justice, which again is often

identified with unqualified references to justice, in the specific context of the activities

of the United Nations, the precise reasons for which may only be conjectured.

In its work, for reasons that will be examined in chapter 5, the United Nations has essentially

from the beginning separated the human rights domain from the economic

and social domains, with activities in the latter two having been almost exclusively

focused on development. Issues relating to the distributive and redistributive effects

of social and economic policies—issues of justice—have therefore been addressed

separately from issues of rights, including those inscribed in the International Covenant

on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The unfortunate consequences of

this dissociation must be acknowledged. To support the concept of social justice is

to argue for a reconciliation of these priorities within the context of a broader social

perspective in which individuals endowed with rights and freedoms operate within

the framework of the duties and responsibilities attached to living in society. Notwithstanding

the implied associations between social justice, redistributive justice,

and justice as a more general concept, the fact is that the explicit commitment to

social justice has seriously deteriorated; over the past decade, the expression has

practically disappeared from the international lexicon and likely from the official language

of most countries. The position will be taken here that the United Nations

must work to try to restore the integrity and appeal of social justice, interpreted in

the contemporary context as distributive justice.

****

This part is chilling just considering the concept:

2.1 National sovereignty and the right of intervention

The Forum noted that on two recent occasions, force had been used against States

Members of the United Nations without the formal approval of the Security Council

and outside the provisions of chapter VII of the Charter.10 Even prior to these events,

the “right of intervention”, legitimized by the overriding need to protect human

rights and in particular to prevent genocide, had been openly and vigorously debated

in international circles. Today, it is generally agreed that the principles of respect for

national sovereignty and non-interference in the domestic affairs of a State can be

legitimately suspended to address unchecked and unpunished violations of basic

human rights and fundamental freedoms. Intolerance for such violations represents

a heightening of the human consciousness and real progress, and is a necessary

step in the building of a true world community. Vexing questions arise, however,

with regard to the type of legal regime needed to govern this right of intervention.

 

The Obama Admin Has Officially Forgiven Iran

  Getty Image

Iran, a known and proven state sponsor of terror has a history of stealing worldwide peace.

Below is the Congressional hearing of the money transfer transaction(s) to Iran, and the testimony reveals there are more coming and others not previously known.

The timeline of that day as noted by those with President GW Bush.

The Falling Man:

After 15 years, why aren’t we asking about Iran’s role in 9/11?

There is an extensive al-Qaeda network feeding global branches based in the Islamic Republic.

Fifteen years on from the 11 September 2001 terror attacks on the US, al-Qaeda is better-positioned than ever before. Its leadership held, and it has rebuilt a presence in Afghanistan. More importantly, al-Qaeda has built powerful regional branches in India, North Africa, Somalia, Yemen and Syria.

Rebranding itself away from the savagery of Iraq, al-Qaeda has sought to embed itself in local populations by gaining popular legitimacy to shield itself from retribution if, or when, it launches terrorist strikes in the West. This is proceeding apace, above all because of a failure to assist the mainstream opposition in Syria, sections of which were forced into interdependency with al-Qaeda to resist the strategy of massacre and expulsion conducted by the Assad regime.

The 9/11 massacre had not come from nowhere. In February 1998, Osama bin Laden, then-leader of al-Qaeda, plus Ayman al-Zawahiri and three others signed a document that said “kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim”.

Al-Qaeda attempted to blow up US troops in Yemen in December 1992. Three months later, al-Qaeda attacked New York’s World Trade Center, murdering six people. In November 1995, a car bomb in Riyadh targeted the American training mission for the Saudi National Guard, killing six people. In June 1996, Iran blew up the US military living quarters at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, murdering 19 people.

Al-Qaeda played “some role, as yet unknown” in the attack, according to the 9/11 Commission. The US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were levelled in August 1998, slaughtering 224 people and wounding 5,000, mostly Africans. And in October 2000, a skiff containing two suicide bombers struck an American Naval vessel, the USS Cole, in the port of Aden, killing seventeen sailors.

The conspiracy theories about 9/11 are now a feature of life today. Often proponents will hide behind the façade of “asking questions”. Instead of queries about jet fuel melting steel beams and nano-thermite, however, this inquisitiveness would be much better directed at the actual unanswered questions surrounding 9/11, which centre on the role of Iran.

In 1992, in Sudan, al-Qaeda and Iran came to an agreement to collaborate against the West “even if only training”, the 9/11 Commission records. Al-Qaeda members went to the Bekaa valley to be trained by Hezbollah, Iran’s Lebanese proxy. Hezbollah’s military leader at that time, Imad Mughniyeh, personally met Bin Laden in Sudan to work out the details of this arrangement.

There is no doubt that training provided by Iran made the 1998 East African Embassy bombings possible, and after the bombing numerous al-Qaeda operatives fled unhindered through Iran to Afghanistan. The 9/11 Commission documented that over-half of the death pilots “travelled into or out of Iran” and many were tracked into Lebanon.

Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al-Qaeda

Senior Hezbollah operatives were certainly tracking some of the hijackers, in at least one case travelling on the same plane. The operational planner of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, lived in Iran for long stretches of the 1990s. To this day there is an extensive al-Qaeda network that feeds the global branches based in Iran, sheltered from US counter-terrorism efforts.

“Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al-Qaeda,” the 9/11 Commission noted. But the connections were there, and “this topic requires further investigation”. Sadly, such investigation has never occurred. Instead, the Islamic Republic has been brought into the fold, with billions of dollars released to it through the nuclear deal and a curious belief that Tehran can, or will, help stabilise the Middle East has taken hold.

Bin Laden had intended to drive the US out of the region with the 9/11 attack. “Hit them and they will run,” he told his followers. This was a theme of his 1996 fatwa first declaring war on America. In this, he miscalculated.

The Taliban regime had sheltered Jihadi-Salafists from all over the Arab world. Some left over from the fight against the Soviet occupation; others on the run from the security services of their native lands or just wanting to live in a land of “pure Islam”. Though the training and planning for global terrorism occurred in Afghanistan, most of al-Qaeda’s resources were directed more locally, toward irregular wars, notably in Algeria, Bosnia, and Chechnya. Al-Qaeda trained up to 20,000 jihadist insurgents before 9/11. This sanctuary was lost in the aftermath of 9/11, something lamented by jihadi strategist Mustafa Setmariam Nasar (Abu Musab al-Suri).

Bin Laden had worked with Ahmad al-Khalayleh (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi), the Jordanian founder of what we now know as the Islamic State (Isis), to carve out a jihadi statelet in northern Iraq in the late 1990s led by a group called Ansar al-Islam.

Mustafa Badreddine funeral
Rice is thrown as Hezbollah members carry the coffin of top their commander Mustafa Badreddine on 13 May 2016Reuters/Aziz Taher

After the Taliban’s fall, al-Khalayleh moved into this area and into Baghdad in early 2002. After making preparations through Syria for the influx of foreign fighters, al-Khalayleh moved to the Ansar-held territory and waited for the US.led Coalition.

IS’s predecessor planned – with al-Qaeda’s blessing – to expel the Coalition forces and set up an Islamic state in Iraq that could then spread across the region, restoring the caliphate. But IS’s methods brought it into frequent conflict with al-Qaeda, and by 2008 IS had been strategically defeated after provoking a backlash among Sunnis in Iraq. The distinctions between IS and al-Qaeda hardened thereafter until their formal split in February 2014.

IS, post-2008, changed some tactical aspects so as to bring the tribes back on-board but remained remarkably consistent in its approach, including the celebration of violence, premised on the idea of building an Islamic state as quickly as possible, which would force the population into collaboration with it and ultimately acceptance over time. In contrast, al-Qaeda placed ever-more emphasis on building popular support that would culminate in a caliphate when it had a critical mass.

The discrediting of IS’s predecessor, operating under al-Qaeda’s banner, damaged al-Qaeda so much that Bin Laden considered changing the organization’s name. Events since then, above all allowing the Syria war to protract, allowed al-Qaeda to rebrand as “pragmatic”, using IS as a foil, and recover.

Al-Qaeda, vanguard-style, took on the local concerns, worked to solve them, and in turn claimed the protection of the local population. Al-Qaeda has tangled itself so deeply into local dynamics, in Yemen and Syria most notably, that it would require a substantial local effort to root them out.

Unfortunately, the Western approach is making the problem worse. A good example came on Thursday night (8 September 2016) when the US launched air strikes against some leaders of al-Qaeda in Syria, now calling itself Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (JFS), which ostensibly disaffiliated from al-Qaeda in July in order to further this process of entanglement.

JFS claims it has no external ambitions and is working to break the siege of 300,000 people in the rebel-held areas of Aleppo city, yet it is attacked. Meanwhile, the US has done nothing about the thousands of Iranian-controlled Shia jihadists, tied into Iran’s global terrorist network, who are the leading element in imposing the siege, and conducted these strikes likely in furtherance of a deal with Russia, which also helped impose the siege. JFS thus claimed that it is serving the Syrian people, while the US opposes the revolution and supports the pro-regime coalition.

“It is a highly unfortunate reality that many Syrians living in opposition areas of Syria perceive JFS as a more determined and effective protector of their lives and interests than the United States and its Western allies,” wrote Charles Lister. The West has been unwilling to do anything to complicate the ability of the Bashar al-Assad regime to commit mass-murder for fear of antagonizing the Iranians and collapsing a “legacy-setting nuclear accord“. While that remains the case, al-Qaeda will continue to gain power and acceptance as a necessary-evil in Syria, and the ramifications of Syria are generational and global.

It is true that there is far too much optimism in current assessments of IS’s impending doom. The group will outlast the loss of its cities, and the misguided way the Coalition has conducted the war will provide conditions for a potential revival. Still, it is al-Qaeda that has the long-term advantage.

IS claimed sole legitimacy to rule, gained visibility and therefore followers. But as strategists like Setmariam understood, this made them visible to their enemies too, a toll that is beginning to tell, especially abroad. In Syria, formal al-Qaeda branches were never the organisation’s only lever and al-Qaeda was much more interested in shaping the environment than ruling it. In essence, al-Qaeda will give up the name and the public credit for the sake of the thing – whether that’s the popular understanding of the religion or the foundations of an Islamic emirate.

“IS wants the world to believe that it is everywhere, and … al-Qaeda wants the world to believe that it is nowhere.” That quip from Daveed Gartenstein-Ross neatly summarizes the trajectory of the two organisations. What can’t be seen is harder to stop – al-Qaeda’s counting on it.


Kyle W. Orton is associate fellow at the Henry Jackson Society and a Middle East analyst and commentator.