Damascus, the Objective of the Islamic State

According to Washington’s initial assumptions, the Islamic State was another selfless organization of the same name as the one located in the northern part of Syria. The old and new Islamic State group differentiate themselves but both had al-Qaida as their birthplace.

If we can manage to remember, it was recently asserted that the Islamic State group was more military and religiously extreme than its predecessor, considered by Republican Senator John McCain as a “moderate” force in 2013, and so much so that in just a few months, the Islamic State group conquered Mosul, the second most important city in Iraq, and laid down the foundations of a caliphate. It was this fundamentalist organization’s dramatic advance in Iraq that ignited the United States airstrikes. However, the first bombs fell on Aleppo, a Syrian city close to Turkey’s border.

Today, no one talks of the Islamic State group, not even of the caliphate with Iraq as its center. The context has changed. The focus has moved to the airstrikes by the United States and its allies, a precursor to gaining control of Syrian airspace. The most credible analysts have affirmed that Obama’s main objective is not the Islamic group, but abolishing an old enemy, President Bashar al-Assad.

For now, the bombing hasn’t ensured control of the situation in the theater of operations, thus the ground incursion will be essential. There was the uncelebrated reappearance of Henry Kissinger, who offered a solution: enlisting an army of mercenaries financed by the coalition, capable of fighting on various fronts, including the Russian border; a huge global Operation Condor-style crusade against terrorism, a plan which won the Nobel Peace Prize, and which is undertaken, always, of course, in defense of eternal “liberty and democracy.”

If the U.S. decides to invade Syrian territory, which internal group will it work with to form a government similar to that of former Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki once it has taken Damascus? This is just a little problem, and each time they accuse the main group—the Islamic State group—of committing the most aberrant war crimes. Nevertheless, Washington cannot be unaware of this organization’s success, which is at the point of opening a new border in Libya where they are fighting against Hezbollah, a political-military organization that is helping the Syrian government and which is a staunch enemy of the Israel, whose army the organization defeated in “the second war of Lebanon” in 2006. Although in all honesty, Damascus is worth the price of eliminating some useless friends that are in fact disguised enemies, according to the original law of capitalism: “The one who pays, rules!” Hence they have made it alchemy time; wolves are turned into lambs or substituted for sacrificial goats.

One thing is certain: The Islamic State group will become essential when the hour of reckoning arrives with Iran, a country which will offer very different resistance to the corrupt and ineffective Iraqi army, armed and trained by unappealing Pentagon generals. In short, $60 billion down the drain, and yes, all added to the debit column of the petroleum accounting department of the host country. As always, mistakes are easily rectified if someone else pays for them. There still remains some doubt as to North American intentions. What is most important is not the crime, the destruction and the beheadings, but the beginnings of new business ties. Take for example what happened in the Gaza Strip, where the Israeli army caused massive destruction, and which has now been converted into promising reconstruction projects.