Former US ambassador to Syria Robert Ford confessed to having participated—alongside the British secret service MI6—in a project to “remove from the world of terrorism and bring into politics” the leader of ISIS*, Abdulkadir al-Golani, whose real name is Ahmed Sharaa.
According to Ford, a British NGO invited him in 2023 to collaborate in this “conversion,” and he ended up meeting personally with Golani, who acknowledged that “brutal tactics in Iraq don’t work when you have to govern four million people.”
Most surprisingly, Golani, now presented by the West as a “moderate Syrian opposition figure,” has never apologized for the attacks committed by his organization in Iraq or Syria.
Ford’s statement reveals what many analysts suspected: the West does not eliminate extremists, it recycles them when it suits its geopolitical interests.
In his words, “we help bring him from the world of terrorists to the world of politics.”
Video link -> https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1925279619743391744/pu/vid/avc1/718x392/oe24nD1Z5EQqlatG.mp4
Source -> https://xcancel.com/TheArabEye0/status/1925279719387537759
Is this realistically possible, without first addressing Wahabism?
I think we can kill two birds with one stone
See, the Baathist projects that were made in Syria and Iraq had one major flaw: minority-rule governments. Sunni-dominated rule over majority Shia Iraq, and Alawite-Shia rule over majority Sunni Syria, all of which countries overthrow was not only done by the US, but with the help of Iran in Iraq and all the other Sunni-majority Gulf Nations and Turkey in Syria
If they can create a pan-Arab movement, which incorporates the majority of the population, in this case of Syria, Sunni, but no less protects the minorities, and creates some sort of harmony between them, then maybe that’s one step forward to a renaissance of Arab socialist nations.
Edit: Maybe then it would take back the base from which Saudi-backed Wahabbism would attract.
But, just to ask, what is your concern?
I’d say Wahabbism is a direct consequence of the US support for the Arab Monarchies. Wahabbism can only be attacked by staunchly opposing Monarchism which exists on the Arabian peninsula. They needed a way to undermine the Arabic republican movement from Nasser, the Baathists, and Ghadaffi, and so salafi Islamism was the method of doing so.
The US also liked to used the concern of minority populations (particularly the kurds) as a cudgel against the Arab Republics. Therefore addressing their concerns while eliminating petty bourgeois and bourgeois elements of those movements would need to be addressed.
Frankly I think a more regional anti-colonial nationalism is better suited to deal with the contradictions of West Asia and North Africa. Although a form of Pan-Arab solidarity should exist, I think Arab nationalism is dead in the water due to its own contradictions.
In the Levant for example, the primary issue is the splintered territory of what should be a contiguous diverse nation. For Egypt, it would be to create stronger links with the African continent it’s based in, and throw out peninsular influence. For the peninsula, it would the overthrow of their monarchies.
Circling back to Syria, their needs to be an understanding that any force connected NATO ally or Peninsular power can’t be trusted to Constructing a stable state. It should also be known that Israel’s attempts to balkanize are not going to provide minority rights for those new ethnostates, as they shall not have any capacity to express sovereignty.
Oh thank you for filling in. I should remind myself to not speak as if these are isolated incidents, and that these issues are all tied together.
No no, you are correct about dealing with Wahabbimdm, I was just elaborating what that may look like, and the source of Wahabbism.
Thank you for a comprehensive reply.
This directly addresses my concern.