Why The Arabs Don’t Want Us In Syria

| Educate!

Above Photo: John Foster Dulles (right), Republican Party Foreign policy expert, is greeted by his brother, Allan Dulles, as he arrives in New York in October 1948 | AFP/AFP/Getty Images

They don’t hate ‘our freedoms.’ They hate that we’ve betrayed our ideals in their own countries — for oil.

In part because my father was murdered by an Arab, I’ve made an effort to understand the impact of U.S. policy in the Mideast and particularly the factors that sometimes motivate bloodthirsty responses from the Islamic world against our country. As we focus on the rise of the Islamic State and search for the source of the savagery that took so many innocent lives in Paris and San Bernardino, we might want to look beyond the convenient explanations of religion and ideology. Instead we should examine the more complex rationales of history and oil — and how they often point the finger of blame back at our own shores.

America’s unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria — little-known to the American people yet well-known to Syrians — sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic jihadism that now complicates any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIL. So long as the American public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely only to compound the crisis. Secretary of State John Kerry this week announced a “provisional” ceasefire in Syria. But since U.S. leverage and prestige within Syria is minimal — and the ceasefire doesn’t include key combatants such as Islamic State and al Nusra — it’s bound to be a shaky truce at best. Similarly President Obama’s stepped-up military intervention in Libya — U.S. airstrikes targeted an Islamic State training camp last week — is likely to strengthen rather than weaken the radicals. As the New York Times reported in a December 8, 2015, front-page story, Islamic State political leaders and strategic planners are working to provoke an American military intervention. They know from experience this will flood their ranks with volunteer fighters, drown the voices of moderation and unify the Islamic world against America.

To understand this dynamic, we need to look at history from the Syrians’ perspective and particularly the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent jihadism as a Cold War weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.

This did not happen without controversy at home. In July 1957, following a failed coup in Syria by the CIA, my uncle, Sen. John F. Kennedy, infuriated the Eisenhower White House, the leaders of both political parties and our European allies with a milestone speech endorsing the right of self-governance in the Arab world and an end to America’s imperialist meddling in Arab countries. Throughout my lifetime, and particularly during my frequent travels to the Mideast, countless Arabs have fondly recalled that speech to me as the clearest statement of the idealism they expected from the U.S. Kennedy’s speech was a call for recommitting America to the high values our country had championed in the Atlantic Charter; the formal pledge that all the former European colonies would have the right to self-determination following World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt had strong-armed Winston Churchill and the other allied leaders to sign the Atlantic Charter in 1941 as a precondition for U.S. support in the European war against fascism.

U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy gives a speech in September, 1964

U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy gives a speech in September, 1964

But thanks in large part to Allen Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, sat on a secret committee charged with investigating the CIA’s clandestine mischief in the Mideast. The so called “Bruce-Lovett Report,” to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the American people who believed, at face value, their government’s denials. The report blamed the CIA for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root “in the many countries in the world today.” The Bruce-Lovett Report pointed out that such interventions were antithetical to American values and had compromised America’s international leadership and moral authority without the knowledge of the American people. The report also said that the CIA never considered how we would treat such interventions if some foreign government were to engineer them in our country.

This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists “hate us for our freedoms.” For the most part they don’t; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms — our own ideals — within their borders.

* * *

For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.

The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949 — barely a year after the agency’s creation. Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March 1949, Syria’s democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation for Al-Quwatli’s lack of enthusiasm for the U.S. pipeline, the CIA engineered a coup replacing al-Quwatli with the CIA’s handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za’im. Al-Za’im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, four and a half months into his regime.

Following several counter-coups in the newly destabilized country, the Syrian people again tried democracy in 1955, re-electing al-Quwatli and his National Party. Al-Quwatli was still a Cold War neutralist, but, stung by American involvement in his ouster, he now leaned toward the Soviet camp. That posture caused CIA Director Dulles to declare that “Syria is ripe for a coup” and send his two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone, to Damascus.

Two years earlier, Roosevelt and Stone had orchestrated a coup in Iran against the democratically elected President Mohammed Mosaddegh, after Mosaddegh tried to renegotiate the terms of Iran’s lopsided contracts with the British oil giant Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP). Mosaddegh was the first elected leader in Iran’s 4,000-year history and a popular champion for democracy across the developing world. Mosaddegh expelled all British diplomats after uncovering a coup attempt by U.K. intelligence officers working in cahoots with BP. Mosaddegh, however, made the fatal mistake of resisting his advisers’ pleas to also expel the CIA, which, they correctly suspected, was complicit in the British plot. Mosaddegh idealized the U.S. as a role model for Iran’s new democracy and incapable of such perfidies. Despite Dulles’ needling, President Harry Truman had forbidden the CIA from actively joining the British caper to topple Mosaddegh. When Eisenhower took office in January 1953, he immediately unleashed Dulles. After ousting Mosaddegh in “Operation Ajax,” Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah Reza Pahlavi, who favored U.S. oil companies but whose two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward his own people from the Peacock throne would finally ignite the 1979 Islamic revolution that has bedeviled our foreign policy for 35 years.

Mohammed Mosaddegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from 1951-1953, pictured left in 1951, the same year he was named TIME Person of the Year, right. His tenure was cut short by a United States-led coup in 1953, which installed Shah Reza Pahlavi

Mohammed Mosaddegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from 1951-1953, pictured left in 1951, the same year he was named TIME Person of the Year, right. His tenure was cut short by a United States-led coup in 1953, which installed Shah Reza Pahlavi

Flush from his Operation Ajax “success” in Iran, Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1957 with $3 million to arm and incite Islamic militants and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians to overthrow al-Quwatli’s democratically elected secularist regime, according to Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA, by John Prados. Working with the Muslim Brotherhood and millions of dollars, Rocky Stone schemed to assassinate Syria’s chief of intelligence, the chief of its General Staff and the chief of the Communist Party, and to engineer “national conspiracies and various strong arm” provocations in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan that could be blamed on the Syrian Ba’athists. Tim Weiner describes in Legacy of Ashes how the CIA’s plan was to destabilize the Syrian government and create a pretext for an invasion by Iraq and Jordan, whose governments were already under CIA control. Kim Roosevelt forecast that the CIA’s newly installed puppet government would “rely first upon repressive measures and arbitrary exercise of power,” according to declassified CIA documents reported in The Guardian newspaper.

But all that CIA money failed to corrupt the Syrian military officers. The soldiers reported the CIA’s bribery attempts to the Ba’athist regime. In response, the Syrian army invaded the American Embassy, taking Stone prisoner. After harsh interrogation, Stone made a televised confession of his roles in the Iranian coup and the CIA’s aborted attempt to overthrow Syria’s legitimate government. The Syrians ejected Stone and two U.S. Embassy staffers—the first time any American State Department diplomat was barred from an Arab country. The Eisenhower White House hollowly dismissed Stone’s confession as “fabrications” and “slanders,” a denial swallowed whole by the American press, led by the New York Times and believed by the American people, who shared Mosaddegh’s idealistic view of their government. Syria purged all politicians sympathetic to the U.S. and executed for treason all military officers associated with the coup. In retaliation, the U.S. moved the Sixth Fleet to the Mediterranean, threatened war and goaded Turkey to invade Syria. The Turks assembled 50,000 troops on Syria’s borders and backed down only in the face of unified opposition from the Arab League whose leaders were furious at the U.S. intervention. Even after its expulsion, the CIA continued its secret efforts to topple Syria’s democratically elected Ba’athist government. The CIA plotted with Britain’s MI6 to form a “Free Syria Committee” and armed the Muslim Brotherhood to assassinate three Syrian government officials, who had helped expose “the American plot,” according to Matthew Jones in “The ‘Preferred Plan’: The Anglo-American Working Group Report on Covert Action in Syria, 1957.” The CIA’s mischief pushed Syria even further away from the U.S. and into prolonged alliances with Russia and Egypt.

Following the second Syrian coup attempt, anti-American riots rocked the Mideast from Lebanon to Algeria. Among the reverberations was the July 14, 1958 coup, led by the new wave of anti-American Army officers who overthrew Iraq’s pro-American monarch, Nuri al-Said. The coup leaders published secret government documents, exposing Nuri al-Said as a highly paid CIA puppet. In response to American treachery, the new Iraqi government invited Soviet diplomats and economic advisers to Iraq and turned its back on the West.

Having alienated Iraq and Syria, Kim Roosevelt fled the Mideast to work as an executive for the oil industry that he had served so well during his public service career at the CIA. Roosevelt’s replacement as CIA station chief, James Critchfield, attempted a failed assassination plot against the new Iraqi president using a toxic handkerchief, according to Weiner. Five years later, the CIA finally succeeded in deposing the Iraqi president and installing the Ba’ath Party in power in Iraq. A charismatic young murderer named Saddam Hussein was one of the distinguished leaders of the CIA’s Ba’athist team. The Ba’ath Party’s Secretary, Ali Saleh Sa’adi, who took office alongside Saddam Hussein, would later say, “We came to power on a CIA train,” according to A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite, by Said Aburish, a journalist and author. Aburish recounted that the CIA supplied Saddam and his cronies a murder list of people who “had to be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success.” Tim Weiner writes that Critchfield later acknowledged that the CIA had, in essence, “created Saddam Hussein.” During the Reagan years, the CIA supplied Hussein with billions of dollars in training, Special Forces support, weapons and battlefield intelligence, knowing that he was using poisonous mustard and nerve gas and biological weapons — including anthrax obtained from the U.S. government — in his war against Iran. Reagan and his CIA director, Bill Casey, regarded Saddam as a potential friend to the U.S. oil industry and a sturdy barrier against the spread of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. Their emissary, Donald Rumsfeld, presented Saddam with golden cowboy spurs and a menu of chemical/biological and conventional weapons on a 1983 trip to Baghdad. At the same time, the CIA was illegally supplying Saddam’s enemy, Iran, with thousands of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to fight Iraq, a crime made famous during the Iran-Contra scandal. Jihadists from both sides later turned many of those CIA-supplied weapons against the American people.

Even as America contemplates yet another violent Mideast intervention, most Americans are unaware of the many ways that “blowback” from previous CIA blunders has helped craft the current crisis. The reverberations from decades of CIA shenanigans continue to echo across the Mideast today in national capitals and from mosques to madras schools over the wrecked landscape of democracy and moderate Islam that the CIA helped obliterate.

A parade of Iranian and Syrian dictators, including Bashar al-Assad and his father, have invoked the history of the CIA’s bloody coups as a pretext for their authoritarian rule, repressive tactics and their need for a strong Russian alliance. These stories are therefore well known to the people of Syria and Iran who naturally interpret talk of U.S. intervention in the context of that history.

While the compliant American press parrots the narrative that our military support for the Syrian insurgency is purely humanitarian, many Arabs see the present crisis as just another proxy war over pipelines and geopolitics. Before rushing deeper into the conflagration, it would be wise for us to consider the abundant facts supporting that perspective.

In their view, our war against Bashar Assad did not begin with the peaceful civil protests of the Arab Spring in 2011. Instead it began in 2000, when Qatar proposed to construct a $10 billion, 1,500 kilometer pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey. Qatar shares with Iran the South Pars/North Dome gas field, the world’s richest natural gas repository. The international trade embargo until recently prohibited Iran from selling gas abroad. Meanwhile, Qatar’s gas can reach European markets only if it is liquefied and shipped by sea, a route that restricts volume and dramatically raises costs. The proposed pipeline would have linked Qatar directly to European energy markets via distribution terminals in Turkey, which would pocket rich transit fees. The Qatar/Turkey pipeline would give the Sunni kingdoms of the Persian Gulf decisive domination of world natural gas markets and strengthen Qatar, America’s closest ally in the Arab world. Qatar hosts two massive American military bases and the U.S. Central Command’s Mideast headquarters.

Syrians look down at a poster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad | Louai Beshara/AFP/Getty Images

Syrians look down at a poster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad | Louai Beshara/AFP/Getty Images

The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline, which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin’s stifling economic and political leverage. Turkey, Russia’s second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia’s conservative Sunni monarchy by giving it a foothold in Shia-dominated Syria. The Saudis’ geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the kingdom’s principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S.-sponsored Shiite takeover in Iraq (and, more recently, the termination of the Iran trade embargo) as a demotion to its regional power status and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.

Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin’s view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria “to protect the interests of our Russian ally.”

Assad further enraged the Gulf’s Sunni monarchs by endorsing a Russian-approved “Islamic pipeline” running from Iran’s side of the gas field through Syria and to the ports of Lebanon. The Islamic pipeline would make Shiite Iran, not Sunni Qatar, the principal supplier to the European energy market and dramatically increase Tehran’s influence in the Middke East and the world. Israel also was understandably determined to derail the Islamic pipeline, which would enrich Iran and Syria and presumably strengthen their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Secret cables and reports by the U.S., Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies indicate that the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline, military and intelligence planners quickly arrived at the consensus that fomenting a Sunni uprising in Syria to overthrow the uncooperative Bashar Assad was a feasible path to achieving the shared objective of completing the Qatar/Turkey gas link. In 2009, according to WikiLeaks, soon after Bashar Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline, the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria. It is important to note that this was well before the Arab Spring-engendered uprising against Assad.

  • occupyRUScom

    WOW!

    Great “Heart-Talk’n Story (Biblical-Like), YO…!

  • Male_Lesbian

    Wow that makes it all so much clearer.

  • TecumsehUnfaced

    Actually, the author’s father wasn’t murdered by an Arab. Sirhan Sirhan was the patsy. His gun went off, but the bullet hit someone standing next to his father. His father was actually murdered by a bullet delivered from behind.

  • TecumsehUnfaced

    Note that Mohammad Mosaddegh wasn’t the only one to mistake U.S. purpose after WW II, so did Ho Chi MInh.

  • Aquifer

    Thank you for this! I notice it was published in the Europe edit. of Politico …

  • DHFabian

    Thank you, Mr. Kennedy! This is, indeed, a complex issue, and tragically, Americans today tend to have little patience for the complex. Mixed into all of this, there is a particularly ugly streak of anti-Jewish sentiment that has reduced some to twisting themselves into pretzels to say why Israel is to blame.

  • DHFabian

    Ah, where did this theory come from? Who actually shot Robert Kennedy? And why? Sirhan Sirhan is a Palestinian who has openly admitted that he killed Kennedy because of Kennedy’s support for Israel.

  • TecumsehUnfaced
  • TecumsehUnfaced

    How is their any anti-Jewishness here? There is certainly anti-thuggery here, and the Zionist assault on Palestine was certainly a horrible example of thuggery.

  • Pingback: Newsletter – A Peek At Empire | PopularResistance.Org()

  • Smarter than Your Average Bear

    Awesome – thanks you. I’ve been looking for a video, or even a copy of JFK’s 1957 speech but have not been able to find it of yet.

  • And Fidel Castro.

  • An excellent article, Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. It confirms many of the seemingly isolated events I’ve read about individually from other sources and ties them all together in one neat package. The picture of our nation that emerges is a disturbing one, made all the more frightening by its grounding in reality. What is revealed is that we are a nation founded on greed, treachery and violence, and therefor are not as great as we suppose.

  • potshot

    You neglected to mention however, that the kill shot ricocheted off a piece of jade jewelry worn by one of Kennedy’s hoity-toity campaign donors in the second row. I’ve heard also that Sirhan was an agent of Castro – Fidel not Raul – who was paying Bobby back for the nigh on 500 attempts Bobby and the US “intelligence” establishment made on the life of Fidel.

  • TecumsehUnfaced

    And ricocheted back right behind his ear?

    You made that up.

  • potshot

    It just seemed logical given the Nakba and the 1967 war. Perhaps I wouldn’t agree with his methods, but in the same way I’d agree with bin Laden’s three main grievances against the United States – the US finances Israeli Apartheid, it spends a grossly disproportionate amount of money on its military, and it stations its troops in the Holy Lands of Mecca and Medina – I’d sympathize with Sirhan’s grievances if that what they were. I can’t think it’d be anything else. Let’s remember the history. Bobby came to the peace movement when it was politically expedient. He was as rabid an anti-“communist” as his brother when he served the latter as Attorney General.

  • TecumsehUnfaced

    Why does that seem logical? It was Johnson, who fed the Arabs to the Zionists.

    Besides, you admitted that you made the ricochet up. Why should we give credit to anything you say now?

  • TecumsehUnfaced

    Why?

  • The U.S. supported Castro’s overthrow of the Battista regime. When Castro came to power, the U.S. thought they had a puppet on a string; they thought wrong, hence the embargo on Cuba.

  • TecumsehUnfaced

    So you saying that the U.S. ruling elite thought they were going to eat Castro the way they ate Arbenz in Guatemala… while Che was there to watch them do it?

    As to actual support of the Battista regime, what are talking about here?

  • potshot

    I leave my defense to Mark Twain: “Through all the heartache, the senseless wars and bloodshed, the disease, the lack, the broken dreams, and all the infinite vicissitudes of the human condition, mankind has only one real weapon: laughter. And how very little often he uses it.” I don’t care if you believe me or don’t. On the contrary I would encourage your skepticism. But I do care that I keep you laughing!

  • potshot

    PS I’ve never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, and I hope I don’t need to tell you I’ve never voted for a Republican either.

  • TecumsehUnfaced

    Didn’t I observe right away that you made things up?

  • potshot

    I don’t know. Your mind impresses me as one much like Marilyn Milian’s. A lot faster than mine.

  • kevinzeese

    Paul Schrade makes a strong case that Sirhan Sirhan was not the killer of Bobby Kennedy. It seems physically impossible. http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/02/09/rfk-friend-to-raise-doubts-about-sirhan-guilt-at-parole-hearing/

  • Virginia Simson

    Even psychiatrists testify that he had been brainwashed, is easily brainedwashed and hypnotized .. He has NO recollection of the assassination at all. Drugs? Hypnotism? Who knows . but it’s very clear that he didn’t fire the shot that killed RFK from forensic evidence.

  • Terence quinn

    Lets not forget the connection between the west and Israel which are intertwined with most events described by Kennedy.

  • Terence quinn

    One must not forget that Israel has always been under assault by mostly Shiite muslims who use Israel to mask their own internal lack if democracy and human rights. Israel is not an innocent bystander but is not the devil some people think.

  • TecumsehUnfaced

    One must not forget that the Zionists have been assaulting their Arab neighbors with land seizure and ethnic cleansing ever since they first arrived in Palestine.

    Indeed, the Zionists have been the very soul of anti-Semitism.

    This “Israel” was created by floods of crimes against humanity…

    Over 750,000 people driven off their ancestral lands

    Over 600 Arab villages and towns BULLDOZED

    Ordered the attack on over 700,000 Arab Jews to drive them into conquered Palestine

  • Terence quinn

    Most Palestinians I have met would have no objection to having Palestine being part of Israel. They would be treated as citizens there but radical arabs will never allow this to happen.

  • TecumsehUnfaced

    That is a lie.

    Read Jabotinsky’s The Iron Wall to get rid of your silly delusions about the Zionist thug invasion of Palestine.

  • Terence quinn

    dealing with a closed mind is a waste of time…see ya.

  • TecumsehUnfaced

    You’re right! I have wasted my time with you, but for those with an open time…

    Israel’s Descent into Barbarism – Norman Finkelstein on Reality Asserts Itself (1/2)
    http://*therealnews.*com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=13880

    The Settlers’ Prussia By Uri Avnery
    Israeli democracy is sliding downwards, towards an ultra-nationalist, racist, religious society. – http://www*.informationclearinghouse.*info/article43159.htm

    In Israel, Racism Is The Law By Ben White
    Successive Israeli governments since 1948 are responsible for the institutionalised discrimination against Palestinians. http://www*.informationclearinghouse.*info/article44320.htm

    (Please remove * ‘s.)

  • marykreutz

    And you know this how????

  • Pingback: APPAF Newsletter 10-26-2016 | APPAF()