After more than 13 years of bloody civil war, the brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad has finally been toppled. What came as a surprise attack to many, has left the region in a state of uncertainty and turmoil. Who will be the next ruler of Syria, and will we finally get an Islamic state premised on the true Islamic values of justice and honor, or will internal and external enemies once again take advantage of the instability of the Muslim ummah and use it to get what they want?

Before we can even think about delving into and answering these important questions, however, it is imperative that we, first and foremost, learn the history of the past 13 years. We simply cannot begin to imagine where we are heading if we don’t have the slightest clue as to where we’ve been. What has led to this situation, and what can we learn from the past so that we do not repeat our mistakes?

What Is the Syrian Civil War?

According to mainstream media outlets, the Syrian revolution started in February of 2011 when a wave of “pro-democracy” protests were met with fierce clampdowns by the Syrian government. The regime showed that it was willing to fire live ammunition on its own people to avoid the effects of the Arab Spring spilling into Syria. Having witnessed Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Ben Ali of Tunisia fall due to the uprisings in their respective countries, Bashar al-Assad revealed himself as being all too adamant to violently crack down on the Syrian people—to hold them in check and to terrorize them into obedience.[1]

This only added fuel to the fire and further intensified the uprising. The people demanded freedom, dignity, and representative government instead of the authoritarian Ba’athist nationalism of the Assad regime, whose family had ruled Syria since Bashar’s father took power in 1971. They stem from the Alawites (also known as the Nusayris), who are a sect considered to be disbelievers by both Sunnis and Shi’ahs.

After the government’s violent crackdown on the Syrian people, the protests quickly turned into an armed insurrection with militias forming and spreading from city to city. By 2012, the peaceful protests had turned into a full-blown civil war between armed militias and the security forces of Bashar al-Assad.

Many factions had risen—sometimes vying with one another over leadership—, but the “Free Syrian Army” rose among them too, a rebel umbrella group formed by defectors from the Syrian army. They claimed leadership over the armed opposition, but its authority was largely unrecognized by the local militias. Islamist militant groups started taking center stage as the non-Islamist factions proved themselves impotent, as well as perhaps being unsupported by local popular opinion. People wanted Islamic government, which for 40 years had been suppressed by secular and nationalist Arab extremism.

The Nusrah Front (Jabhat al-Nusrah), a group that was affiliated with al-Qaeda, was generally considered to be one of the most effective fighting forces. It was led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, also known as Abu Muhammed al-Jolani. In 2016, al-Jolani severed ties with al-Qaeda, rebranding the group as Jabhat Fath al-Sham and later as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in 2017. The Nusrah Front was challenged by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who combined his forces in Iraq and Syria to form “ISIL,” also known as the “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” (ISIS). Al-Baghdadi obviously intended for his former lieutenant, al-Jolani, to be part of the new group under his command, but al-Jolani rejected the merger, and the two groups ended up fighting against each other.

RELATED: Who Created ISIS?

By 2013, the Syrian Civil War had become an international proxy war between regional powers and the United States and Russia. Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar openly started funding the rebels. The United States started funding what they termed “moderate” rebel groups out of fear that “radical jihadists” who would someday turn against the West were possibly being armed. The Syrian government received military support from Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.

People became divided, however. Not everyone was convinced that this was an honest “peoples uprising” that had grown organically out of decades of oppression of basic rights. The critics claimed that this was an orchestrated US-NATO-Israeli sponsored al-Qaeda insurgency.[2] By fertilizing the region with instability and infighting amongst Israel’s enemies, the critics argued, the way would be paved for a “Greater Israel” to emerge out of the ashes of a bloody civil war.

Two sides seemed to emerge: one supporting wholeheartedly the violent crackdown of the regime against what they termed as “Islamist terrorists” and another side believing in the dream of an Islamic Caliphate and the restoration of a former golden age of Islam. Ultimately the fight ended up being between the “Assadists” and the so-called “Islamists,” and the latter seem to have now emerged victorious, although it remains to be seen what kind of government they will end up forming. Will it be a nationalist government, or will it be a truly Islamic government free of Ba’athist and Arab nationalist extremism?

RELATED: On the Syrian Revolution’s 11th Anniversary

“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

In 1997, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)—a neoconservative think tank—was created with the purpose of reshaping the Middle East. Of the twenty-five people who signed PNAC’s founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith. These people obviously—and documentably—had extensive ties to Israel, with Wolfowitz and Feith actually even being investigated for the parts they played in spying for Israel.[3]

We do not have to go out on too much of a limb to assert that there was a concerted Zionist effort behind the Project for the New American Century and its agenda to reshape the Middle East. All the invasions and overthrowings conducted by Western powers since the “War on Terror” began in 2001, are part of a grander Zionist project for reshaping the Middle East through destabilization and instigating regime change.

In 1982, the Oded Yinon Plan was published by the World Zionist Organization. In it, Israel’s plan to carve up and institute a “Greater Israel”—a new Jewish Superpower in the Middle East—were revealed. Also in the document was Israel’s plans for Syria:

“The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor […]. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.”[4]

In essence, the Yinon Plan is all about keeping the Middle East divided ethnically and religiously; and to get the different sects to fight against one another, because if they’re busy fighting each other, they won’t be fighting against Israel, and that means “peace” and “security” for Israel. This is the age-old “divide and conquer” strategy, which has been employed by empires for millennia.

What we have been witnessing for the past twenty years is precisely this plan coming into fruition; Sunnis are fighting Shi’ah and vice versa. This is fomented in order to weaken the Shi’ah “land bridge” which connects Iran all the way to its Hezbollah forces in Lebanon through Syria. Toppling Assad would potentially cut off and isolate Iran and its ability to “threaten” Israel.

An Islamic State?

Now we have a new unstable situation before us. Who will take power in Syria, and which “bloc” of alliance will Syria choose for itself? Will they stand with the “axis of resistance” in the form of Russia and Iran, or will they align with the NATO powers?

The United States and Israel will not accept a Sunni Islamist government that is opposed to Israeli and American foreign policy. We have seen as much with Morsi in Egypt, and we have also seen what the Western response was: isolate, sanction, destabilize, and support the opposition towards regime change and then once again install the former regime, this time in the form of Sisi.

It seems that Jolani is aware of all this. He is trying to send out signals that he means to include everyone in his new government—former regime officials, different sects, denominations, and so on. He seems more focused on building stable institutions and creating law and order rather than overtly calling for Islamic governance.

Syria is weak both militarily and economically, and it is being attacked by Israel, who are taking advantage of the situation. The question arises: will he be allowed to focus inwardly on state building, or will he be pushed into taking sides?

Al-Jolani can either side with Iran and Russia and thereby risk sanctions, isolation, and coup d’états, or he can side with the West and be rewarded economically and militarily, but he will lose out on the ability to criticize and oppose Israel. In other words, siding with the West will mean Syria is turned into another vassal state of America.

Syria now has an opportunity to stand with the Palestinians and to see another Salah al-Din moment arise. Will he take the path of bravery, or will he take the path of safety?

RELATED: The Tragedy of Syria and Our Struggle to Remain Conscious

Notes

[1] https://archive.md/g7kHC

[2] https://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-who-is-behind-the-protest-movement-fabricating-a-pretext-for-a-us-nato-humanitarian-intervention/24591

[3] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2004/8/28/pentagon-rocked-by-israeli-spy-case

[4] https://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815