American policy regarding the issues of our region cannot exist or take its course without lies, trickery, deception, falsification and forgery. American policy claims one thing and implements another, pretending to fight terrorism while doing all it can to support terrorist organizations with money, arms and all the other means of support.

The latest tales of American lies and hypocrisy in this context can be found in White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest’s announcement that the lessons learned by the United States from the 2003 Iraq War confirm that there is no military solution to the crisis in Syria. This announcement was in response to Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, who gave assurances, before Earnest’s statement, that Moscow hoped the United States and its partners would not repeat the mistakes of the past by solving the crises with force.

The startling detail of the new American lie is Earnest’s contention that America’s current policy in Syria prevented a repeat of the mistakes that the previous administration committed. He then went on to also say that it is not possible for one to achieve success if one relies on a military solution in Syria.

The question is, then, what kind of lessons has America learned from the invasion of Iraq if until this moment it has known only the policies of invasion, support of terrorism, and public declarations of plans for anarchy throughout the region, in the name of creative chaos?

What kind of lessons has America learned from the events that came after the attack on the World Trade Center if it continues to use terrorism to target Syria through the support of armed terrorist groups that it sometimes describes as the “moderate opposition,” and at other times as the “new Syrian armed forces,” or thirdly as the “democratic forces of Syria?”

What kind of lessons have been learned when America still refuses to apply the decisions of the U.N. Security Council to combat terrorism, having not complied with its obligation to separate the so-called armed opposition, which is dependent on America, from the terrorist Islamic State — something that impedes the war on terror?

What is the essence of these lessons if America declares that a political solution to the crisis in Syria is preferable, while continuing with its military plans by means of its terrorist apparatus and allies? Or when 51 State Department officials sign a letter calling on President Barack Obama to target Syria militarily?

What is the nature of these lessons if dozens of analysts and observers of the alleged War on Terror are speaking out against America’s commitment to silence when discussing Syria, because the U.S. contributed to the spread of the Islamic State group, and in practice is indirectly funding the organization and trying, on the basis of this, to intervene in the group’s internal affairs, and to prescribe solutions to the crisis within the parameters of America’s agenda?

There is no doubt that they are false lessons when one looks at the thousands of reports that present the reality — the facts and the documents — about the funding of Islamic State group extremism by indirect means from the United States. The organization is inundated with money and funding by stealing Syrian and Iraqi oil. And the United States, until now, has taken no tangible action to forbid the practice of trading with them or to punish parties that are continuing such trade.

America’s lessons are inappropriate lessons, because the end of the crisis in Syria demands the defeat of this terrorist organization. But America supported the Islamic State group at a time when the U.S. claimed that it was establishing an international alliance to exterminate it and carried out more than 9,000 air strikes against it. But the result of this alleged annihilation of the Islamic State group equals almost zero, because Washington is the mastermind of the support arrangement offered to this extremist organization. The U.S. is also responsible for its coordination, in as much as Washington carried out the organization and coordination of all the states supporting the Islamic State group, and used its military systems in Turkey, Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia for this end.

Former Director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn demonstrated that these are contradictory lessons when he admitted country’s responsibility for the appearance of the Islamic State group, explaining that if the United States had not carried out the invasion of Iraq, this extremist organization would not have appeared. In the most recent admission of Western culpability around the issue, even former British Prime Minister Tony Blair conceded in a recent statement that the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 contributed to the appearance of the terrorist organization.

Flynn’s remarks illustrate that these are deceptive lessons when he says that the occupation of Iraq by the United States and its allies in 2003 resulted in the appearance of the Islamic State group. In his view, the same description can be applied to the elimination of the Libyan government in 2011, a country that today has become a failed state. He admits that the big historical lesson to be taken from the invasion of Iraq is that strategically it was an unbelievably bad decision, and that history will not be lenient toward his country, which continues to lie while claiming that it has learned the lessons of the past.