Connect with us

Latest

News

STATE DEPARTMENT: US NOT to remain in Syria after ISIS “defeat”

The Kurds and the Americans cannot both be telling the truth.

Published

on

4,941 Views

US State Department Spokeswoman Heather Nauert has responded to questions from reporters about reports from Kurdish militants who last week stated that the US plans to remain in Syria for “decades”.

Nauert refuted these claims by stating the following,

“Syria must be governed by its own people and not by the United States or other force”.

She added that the US intends to “defeat” ISIS and not to stay beyond this mission.

This puts statements from the US and their militant Kurdish allies into direct contradiction. As I wrote recently in The Duran,

“Talal Silo has said that the Kurdish fighters in Syria have reached an agreement that would imply a de-facto Kurdish entity in Syria would form under the auspices of US military occupation of the territory which is recognised by every major international body, including the United Nations as Syrian territory.

The United States has yet to comment on the remarks and for good reason. The remarks open up a Pandora’s Box of problems for all those impacted, including Washington.

Here are three possible interpriations of the Kurdish statement:

1. Blackmail to the US 

Officially, the US does not back the creation of a Kurdish state anywhere, not in Syria, Iraq, Turkey or Iran, even though various Kurdish groups seek the creation of such an entity in all of these places. To this point, the US, like Russia, urges Iraqi Kurds to postpone a separatist referendum in Iraq which is currently scheduled for the 25th of September, 2017.

By implying that a deal has been reached between the SDF and United States to keep American occupying troops in Syria for decades to come, Kurdish leaders in Syria may be trying to force America’s hand in creating a state by default.

If SDF controlled regions of Syria become cut off from the legitimate authorities in Damascus through a line of US military occupation, one could witness a scenario similar to that which Serbia endured in the late 1990s. Starting in 1999, NATO troops brutally occupied the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija. This led the province being cut off from the rest of Serbia in spite of being an integral part of Serbian territory.

In 2008, occupied Kosovo and Metohija unilaterally declared itself a state and the US was quick to support this move.

Something similar could happen in Syria where a US occupation of Syria could eventually lead Kurdish regions being cut off from the rest of Syria, making a unilateral declaration of independence all the more likely in the future.

The biggest difference is that unlike in the Balkans where the unilateral declaration of a Kosovar entity could not reasonably have been militarily opposed due to the weakness of west Balkan military power, in Syria it is a different matter. Turkey has said that it will never accept a Kurdish state on its borders and if history is a guide, Turkey will do something about it and what’s more Turkey certainly is militarily capable of doing something about it.

2. A Truthful statement 

It may be that the US which is already effectively cutting off much of Syria east of the Euphrates with its stalwart support of Kurdish militants has already reached a deal with local Kurds for a long-term occupation of Syria.

The fact that the US has not said so publicly and has apparently not told Ankara is a further sign that the US is prepared to lose what is left of its historic Turkish alliance.

If the statement from the Kurdish spokesman represents covert but confirmed American policy, it means that Turkey’s exit from NATO could be even more rapid than many previously thought possible.

3. Wishful thinking 

Kurdish military spokesmen tend to be over-zealous and exaggerate the realities of many situations, especially when geo-political alignments are involved.

It could be that the US has given no more indication to the Kurds that they intend to occupy certain regions of Syria than they have given anyone else and that the Kurds are speaking from a position of desire rather than fact”.

Today’s remarks from the US State department leave only two possibilities: either the Kurds are trying in vain to entice the US further into Syria or that Heather Nauert is being dishonest and the future plans of the US.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Gonzogal
Guest
Gonzogal

“She added that the US intends to “defeat” ISIS and not to stay beyond this mission”

All they will do is ship in more ISIS fighters….there, problem solved….it will continue to be there forever, or until formally/forcefully made to leave,

7.62x54r
Guest
7.62x54r

US is inside Syria illegally- period. Neither Moscow nor Damascus needs a wider conflict, but the US never leaves a foreign country unless forced out.

Have a cigar!
Guest
Have a cigar!

Indeed. We all remember Yankee Vietnam Disaster. They came to spread horror and spend bloody money. Ended up in nationwide PTSD for decades.

Michellefescobar
Guest
Michellefescobar

Planet94e

Google is paying 97$ per hour! work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!au64d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobs354CashMarketPlanet/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!au64l..,…

Milly Vanilly
Guest
Milly Vanilly

So you are working for ONE of George Soros organizations ??

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

“US NOT to remain in Syria after ISIS “defeat””
They had no right to go there in the first place. They were neither invited by Syria, nor sanctioned by the international law – via a Security Council resolution.

Peter Hallam
Guest
Peter Hallam

Correct. They are there illegally. They were never invited. They never had permission. They never contributed to the War On Terror. The are conducting a War OF Terror by funding, arming, training, and working with terrorists in order to pretend there is some PLAUSIBLE Deniability. The Coalition have killed more innocent people in a few months than the Russians did since they were invited in. This is joke. A cruel joke even pretending that they are there to help. Open an independent war crimes tribunal. Put some of the terrorists on the stand and we’ll soon see who the real… Read more »

Shahna
Guest

Yes.
I like that idea …. an independent war crimes tribunal….

Gavin Allen
Guest
Gavin Allen

They were invited. The fact that you can’t see beyond the regime is your problem.

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

By whom? No one other than the government of Syria can invite foreign armies on Syrian soil. The US has NO bilateral treaty with Syria, not even diplomatic links. US didn’t either declare war to Syria (in order to send troops there), as Syria never attacked in ANY way the US. So stop up your garbage comments.

Tarciso Ribeiro
Guest
Tarciso Ribeiro

she is lying.

JPH
Guest
JPH

Anyway she is lying indeed.

cap960
Guest
cap960

Who to believe…The Kurds which they are getting closer to have a state of their own with American help or our exceptional friends which they have a well known reputation of lies and deceptions.

Graz Bugni
Guest
Graz Bugni

A look at a few tweets by Nauert at the State Dept’s Twitter page might give some insight. I almost had a bullshit overdose.

samo war
Guest
samo war

syria is project oil satan mafia from rookefelder ?

BobValdez
Guest
BobValdez

I’ll believe it when I see us troops and equipment LEAVE Syrian soil. Only then, will it be the truth.

BobValdez
Guest
BobValdez

“She added that the US intends to “defeat” ISIS and not to stay beyond this mission.”

comment image

Poor meter is off the charts.

Gavin Allen
Guest
Gavin Allen

More fake news and racist bias from the Duran… what a surprise. “Talal Silo has said that the Kurdish fighters in Syria…” – no he hasn’t. Tal represents the SDF, which is Syrian, and not characterised by any one ethnicity. “a de-facto Kurdish entity in Syria” – is in nobody’s heads except the author of this lame propaganda. The DFNS already exists. It’s polyethnic, Syrian, and elections begin next month. “Syrian territory” – exactly. The Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, Yazidis and others in the SDF and MDC are Syrians. Well done Adam, ask mummy for a cookie. “Kurdish leaders in Syria… Read more »

John C Carleton
Guest
John C Carleton

The State department had to say that?
When one gets their butts handed to them in a war where they have illegally invaded a country, i am not aware of one war in history where the loosing war criminal aggressor, was allowed to remain so they could try it again.

André De Koning
Guest
André De Koning

Still, as quoted elsewhere, we better watch Israel’s meeting with the US officials this coming week. The journalist who has done so much for Syria and media coverage of the realistic kind, Vanessa Beeley says: “An Israeli delegation will be received at the White House this week. The agenda: Syria. The three members of the Israeli delegation are: • Yossi Cohen (photo), Head of Mossad (Foreign Intelligence); • General Herzl Halevi, Head of Aman (Military Intelligence); • Colonel Zohar Palti, Head of Military and Political Affairs at the Ministry of Defense. This delegation will meet with the following US representatives:… Read more »

Shahna
Guest

“intends to use this visit as an opportunity to present compelling grounds for closing down the Silk Route.”
———–
WHAT?

So China, Russia, indeed all Asia, the Middle East, the Far East AND Europe+GOK who else are ALL going to bow down, throw away the Silk Road – because little Izzies are terrified?

Perhaps little Izzies should (i) grow up and (ii) stop creating the cause of their own terror.

Sheesh – but my heart bleeds custard for those murderers and warmongers!

foxenburg
Guest
foxenburg

I can’t see how a Kurdish state would be viable. No coastline. Oil would be its only source of income. But how would they bring it to the market? Iraq, Turkey, Syria & Iran wouldn’t let it pass through their territories. They would have no over-flying or transit rights and would be completely cut off from the rest of the world.

Shahna
Guest

And JUST THIS ONCE ….. America is not lying?

In your dreams.

richardstevenhack
Guest
richardstevenhack

Like the State Department would even know until they’re told…

seby
Guest
seby

My grandmother taught me to ignore what people say, but note what they do.

A widow at 26, with two small children to raise, she didn’t have time for blah, blah.

Putin's baby
Guest
Putin's baby

Defeated you again, yankees….

Keith Smith
Guest
Keith Smith

duran looks different. changed the layout .

SHAUN BYATT
Guest
SHAUN BYATT

Does the US consider bases inside an independant Kurdistan (after the
referendums) as being inside Syria, or will they use this “loophole” to
justify their actions when they contradict this statement of removing
their forces from the area?

disqus_Xx0Y3HsNsJ
Guest
disqus_Xx0Y3HsNsJ

Suuuure. Doesn’t anyone actually believe that? Tell that to Iraq and Afghanistan.

disqus_Xx0Y3HsNsJ
Guest
disqus_Xx0Y3HsNsJ

Does anyone actually believe that?

Milly Vanilly
Guest
Milly Vanilly

If the U.S.WANTED to eliminate isis all they have to do is STOP their paychecks & fire them. CIA CREATED, Trained & FUNDED isis to keep ‘THEIR’ UNJUSTIFIED wars going so the Military Industrial Complex keeps ROLLING in ILLEGAL money.

Latest

FBI recommended Michael Flynn not have lawyer present during interview, did not warn of false statement consequences

Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced on Dec. 18.

Washington Examiner

Published

on

Via The Washington Examiner…


Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who arranged the bureau’s interview with then-national security adviser Michael Flynn at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017 — the interview that ultimately led to Flynn’s guilty plea on one count of making false statements — suggested Flynn not have a lawyer present at the session, according to newly-filed court documents. In addition, FBI officials, along with the two agents who interviewed Flynn, decided specifically not to warn him that there would be penalties for making false statements because the agents wanted to ensure that Flynn was “relaxed” during the session.

The new information, drawn from McCabe’s account of events plus the FBI agents’ writeup of the interview — the so-called 302 report — is contained in a sentencing memo filed Tuesday by Flynn’s defense team.

Citing McCabe’s account, the sentencing memo says that shortly after noon on Jan. 24 — the fourth day of the new Trump administration — McCabe called Flynn on a secure phone in Flynn’s West Wing office. The two men discussed business briefly and then McCabe said that he “felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down” with Flynn to discuss Flynn’s talks with Russian officials during the presidential transition.

McCabe, by his own account, urged Flynn to talk to the agents alone, without a lawyer present. “I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between [Flynn] and the agents only,” McCabe wrote. “I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice. [Flynn] stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants.”

Within two hours, the agents were in Flynn’s office. According to the 302 report quoted in the Flynn sentencing document, the agents said Flynn was “relaxed and jocular” and offered the agents “a little tour” of his part of the White House.

“The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview,” the Flynn memo says. According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport.”

The agents had, of course, seen transcripts of Flynn’s wiretapped conversations with Russian then-ambassador Sergey Kislyak. “Before the interview, FBI officials had also decided that if ‘Flynn said he did not remember something they knew he said, they would use the exact words Flynn used … to try to refresh his recollection. If Flynn still would not confirm what he said … they would not confront him or talk him through it,'” the Flynn memo says, citing the FBI 302.

“One of the agents reported that Gen. Flynn was ‘unguarded’ during the interview and ‘clearly saw the FBI agents as allies,'” the Flynn memo says, again citing the 302.

Later in the memo, Flynn’s lawyers argue that the FBI treated Flynn differently from two other Trump-Russia figures who have pleaded guilty to and been sentenced for making false statements. One of them, Alexander Van der Zwaan, “was represented by counsel during the interview; he was interviewed at a time when there was a publicly disclosed, full-bore investigation regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election; and he was given a warning that it is a federal crime to lie during the interview,” according to the memo. The other, George Papadopoulos, “was specifically notified of the seriousness of the investigation…was warned that lying to investigators was a ‘federal offense’…had time to reflect on his answers…and met with the FBI the following month for a further set of interviews, accompanied by his counsel, and did not correct his false statements.”

The message of the sentencing memo is clear: Flynn, his lawyers suggest, was surprised, rushed, not warned of the context or seriousness of the questioning, and discouraged from having a lawyer present.

That is all the sentencing document contains about the interview itself. In a footnote, Flynn’s lawyers noted that the government did not object to the quotations from the FBI 302 report.

In one striking detail, footnotes in the Flynn memo say the 302 report cited was dated Aug. 22, 2017 — nearly seven months after the Flynn interview. It is not clear why the report would be written so long after the interview itself.

The brief excerpts from the 302 used in the Flynn defense memo will likely spur more requests from Congress to see the original FBI documents. Both House and Senate investigating committees have demanded that the Justice Department allow them to see the Flynn 302, but have so far been refused.

In the memo, Flynn’s lawyers say that he made a “serious error in judgment” in the interview. Citing Flynn’s distinguished 30-plus year record of service in the U.S. Army, they ask the judge to go along with special counsel Robert Mueller’s recommendation that Flynn be spared any time in prison.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Macron offers crumbs to protestors in bid to save his globalist agenda (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 36.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a quick look at French President Macron’s pathetic display of leadership as he offers protestors little in the way of concessions while at the same time promising to crack down hard on any and all citizens who resort to violence.

Meanwhile France’s economy is set for a deep recession as French output and production grinds to a halt.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Zerohedge


As if Brussels didn’t have its hands full already with Italy and the UK, the European Union will soon be forced to rationalize why one of its favorite core members is allowed to pursue populist measures to blow out its budget deficit to ease domestic unrest while another is threatened with fines potentially amounting to billions of euros.

When blaming Russia failed to quell the widespread anger elicited by his policies, French President Emmanuel Macron tried to appease the increasingly violent “yellow vests” protesters who have sacked his capital city by offering massive tax cuts that could blow the French budget out beyond the 3% budget threshold outlined in the bloc’s fiscal rules.

Given the concessions recently offered by Italy’s populists, Macron’s couldn’t have picked a worse time to challenge the bloc’s fiscal conventions. As Bloomberg pointed out, these rules will almost certainly set the Continent’s second largest economy on a collision course with Brussels. To be clear, Macron’s offered cuts come with a price tag of about €11 billion according to Les Echos, and will leave the country with a budget gap of 3.5% of GDP in 2019, with one government official said the deficit may be higher than 3.6%.

By comparison, Italy’s initial projections put its deficit target at 2.4%, a number which Europe has repeatedly refused to consider.

Macron’s promises of fiscal stimulus – which come on top of his government’s decision to delay the planned gas-tax hikes that helped inspire the protests – were part of a broader ‘mea culpa’ offered by Macron in a speech Monday night, where he also planned to hike France’s minimum wage.

Of course, when Brussels inevitably objects, perhaps Macron could just show them this video of French police tossing a wheelchair-bound protester to the ground.

Already, the Italians are complaining.  Speaking on Tuesday, Italian cabinet undersecretary Giancarlo Giorgetti said Italy hasn’t breached the EU deficit limit. “I repeat that from the Italian government there is a reasonable approach, if there is one also from the EU a solution will be found.”

“France has several times breached the 3% deficit. Italy hasn’t done it. They are different situations. There are many indicators to assess.”

Still, as one Guardian columnist pointed out in an op-ed published Tuesday morning, the fact that the gilets jaunes (yellow vest) organizers managed to pressure Macron to cave and grant concessions after just 4 weeks of protests will only embolden them to push for even more radical demands: The collapse of the government of the supremely unpopular Macron.

Then again, with Brussels now facing certain accusations of hypocrisy, the fact that Macron was pressured into the exact same populist measures for which Italy has been slammed, the French fiasco raises the odds that Rome can pass any deficit measure it wants with the EU now forced to quietly look away even as it jawbones all the way from the bank (i.e., the German taxpayers).

“Macron’s spending will encourage Salvini and Di Maio,” said Giovanni Orsina, head of the School of Government at Rome’s Luiss-Guido Carli University. “Macron was supposed to be the spearhead of pro-European forces, if he himself is forced to challenge EU rules, Salvini and Di Maio will jump on that to push their contention that those rules are wrong.”

While we look forward to how Brussels will square this circle, markets are less excited.

Exhausted from lurching from one extreme to another following conflicting headlines, traders are already asking if “France is the new Italy.” The reason: the French OAT curve has bear steepened this morning with 10Y yields rising as much as ~6bp, with the Bund/OAT spread reaching the widest since May 2017 and the French presidential election. Though well below the peaks of last year, further widening would push the gap into levels reserved for heightened political risk.

As Bloomberg macro analyst Michael Read notes this morning, it’s hard to see a specific near-term trigger blowing out the Bund/OAT spread but the trend looks likely to slowly drift higher.

While Macron has to fight on both domestic and European fronts, he’ll need to keep peace at home to stay on top. Remember that we saw the 10Y spread widen to ~80bps around the May ’17 elections as concerns of a move toward the political fringe played out in the markets, and the French President’s popularity ratings already look far from rosy.

And just like that France may have solved the Italian crisis.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Watch: Democrat Chuck Schumer shows his East Coast elitism on live TV

Amazing moment in which the President exhibits “transparency in government” and shows the world who the Democrat leaders really are.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

One of the reasons Donald Trump was elected to the Presidency was because of his pugnacious, “in your face” character he presented – and promised TO present – against Democrat policy decisions and “stupid government” in general.

One of the reasons President Donald Trump is reviled is because of his pugnacious, “in your face” character he presented – and promised TO present – in the American political scene.

In other words, there are two reactions to the same characteristic. On Tuesday, the President did something that probably cheered and delighted a great many Americans who witnessed this.

The Democrats have been unanimous in taking any chance to roast the President, or to call for his impeachment, or to incite violence against him. But Tuesday was President Trump’s turn. He invited the two Democrat leaders, presumptive incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and then, he turned the cameras on:

As Tucker Carlson notes, the body language from Schumer was fury. The old (something)-eating grin covered up humiliation, embarrassment and probably no small amount of fear, as this whole incident was filmed and broadcast openly and transparently to the American public. Nancy Pelosi was similarly agitated, and she expressed it later after this humiliation on camera, saying, “It’s like a manhood thing for him… As if manhood could ever be associated with him.”

She didn’t stop there. According to a report from the New York Daily News, the Queen Bee took the rhetoric a step below even her sense of dignity:

Pelosi stressed she made clear to Trump there isn’t enough support in Congress for a wall and speculated the President is refusing to back down because he’s scared to run away with his tail between his legs.

“I was trying to be the mom. I can’t explain it to you. It was so wild,” Pelosi said of the Oval Office meet, which was also attended by Vice President Pence and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). “It goes to show you: you get into a tinkle contest with a skunk, you get tinkle all over you.”

This represented the first salvo in a major spin-job for the ultra-liberal San Francisco Democrat. The rhetoric spun by Mrs. Pelosi and Chuck Schumer was desperate as they tried to deflect their humiliation and place it back on the President:

With reporters still present, Trump boasted during the Oval meeting he would be “proud” to shutdown the government if Congress doesn’t earmark cash for his wall before a Dec. 21 spending deadline.

Pelosi told Democrats that Trump’s boisterousness will be beneficial for them.

“The fact is we did get him to say, to fully own that the shutdown was his,” Pelosi said. “That was an accomplishment.”

The press tried to characterize this as a “Trump Tantrum”, saying things like this lede:

While “discussing” a budgetary agreement for the government, President Donald Trump crossed his arms and declared: “we will shut down the government if there is no wall.”

While the Democrats and the mainstream media in the US are sure to largely buy these interpretations of the event, the fact that this matter was televised live shows that the matter was entirely different, and this will be discomfiting to all but those Democrats and Trump-dislikers that will not look at reality.

There appears to be a twofold accomplishment for the President in this confrontation:

  1. The President revealed to his support base the real nature of the conversation with the Democrat leadership, because anyone watching this broadcast (and later, video clip) saw it unedited with their own eyes. They witnessed the pettiness of both Democrats and they witnessed a President completely comfortable and confident about the situation.
  2. President Trump probably made many of his supporters cheer with the commitment to shut down the government if he doesn’t get his border wall funding. This cheering is for both the strength shown about getting the wall finished and the promise to shut the government down, and further, Mr. Trump’s assertion that he would be “proud” to shut the government down, taking complete ownership willingly, reflects a sentiment that many of his supporters share.

The usual pattern is for the media, Democrats and even some Republicans to create a “scare” narrative about government shutdowns, about how doing this is a sure-fire path to chaos and suffering for the United States.

But the educated understanding of how shutdowns work reveals something completely different. Vital services never close. However, National Parks can close partly or completely, and some non-essential government agencies are shuttered. While this is an inconvenience for the employees furloughed during the shutdown, they eventually are re-compensated for the time lost, and are likely to receive help during the shutdown period if they need it. The impact on the nation is minimal, aside from the fact that the government stops spending money at the same frenetic pace as usual.

President Trump’s expression of willingness to do this action and his singling out of the Dem leadership gives the Democrats a real problem. Now the entire country sees their nature. As President Trump is a populist, this visceral display of Democrat opposition and pettiness will make at least some impact on the population, even that group of people who are not Trump fans.

The media reaction and that of the Democrats here show, amazingly, that after three years-plus of Donald Trump being a thorn in their side, they still do not understand how he works, and they also cannot match it against their expected “norms” of establishment behavior.

This may be a brilliant masterstroke, and it also may be followed up by more. The President relishes head-to-head conflict. The reactions of these congress members showed who they really are.

Let the games begin.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending