Andrew Korybko

Assad's loyalty to Palestine is one reason for Syria's crises: analyst

Democratically elected, President of Syria Dr. Bashar Al Assad, as well as his father, have always been loyal patrons of the Palestinian cause. This is one of the driving reasons why the Zionist entity hates the country so much and gives assistance to Al Nusra and other terrorists hell bent on destroying it.

Andrew Korybko is a political analyst, journalist and a regular contributor to  online journals. As a member of the expert council for the Institute of Strategic Studies and Predictions at the People’s Friendship University of Russia, Mr. Korybko serves as an expert on Russian politics and geopolitics, particulalry with relation to the US strategy in Eurasia. Among his other areas of interests are tactics of regime change, color revolutions and unconventional warfare. He is the author of “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change”, which extensively examines the situations in Syria and Ukraine and argues that they represent a new model of strategic warfare waged by the United States. In an exclusive interview with, Mr. Korybko shares his ideas on the issues of Syria, U.S.-Israel ties, state terrorism as well as Zionist influence in U.S. political system. The following is the full text of the interview:

Last week the staffer for Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) floated a bold statement saying: “What about assassinating [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad?” Is this not a clear example of state terrorism? How would you describe it?

This is the continuation of the US’ policy of state terrorism. The individual who advocates this view is ignorantly unaware that three Executive Orders from the same number of US Presidents expressly forbid assassination as the official policy of the US. These are Executive Order 11905 under Ford, 12036 under Carter, and 12333 under Reagan. No US President actually abides by these edicts, but officially speaking, they make assassination illegal and are supposed to boost the US’ soft power in response.


What’s disturbing about the incident mentioned is just how openly individuals in and around the US government feel that they can discuss assassinations. It speaks to the American Exceptionalism that infects the mindset of many people in the state. Although the individual in question isn’t in any position to carry through on this threatening suggestion, it’s still very telling that they felt comfortable enough to publicly air out these thoughts without fear of any legal punishment. People like that inadvertently undermine the ‘peaceful’ image that the US government endeavors to project and ironically expose the country for the aggressor that it truly is.

Talking to Palestinian paper, Zionist minister of war, Liberman said: "Israel would 'completely destroy' Hamas in next war". How similar are the Zionist and American officials' mindset about state terrorism?

There is no difference between the two because they are one and the same entity. The interlinked military-industrial complexes between the two are supported by political-lobbyist ties that seal them together. ‘Israel’ is the 51st state of the US just as much as the US is the godfather of ‘Israel’. They are inseparable and thus have the same grand strategic outlook as one another. In pertinence to the question, this means that they both support state terrorism and actively practice it whenever it suits their interests. A perfect example of these actors working together can be seen through the decades-long oppression of the Palestinians and the War of Terror on Syria, both of which are tragedies that would never have taken place had it not been for the complicity of these two entities in working hand-in-hand with one another.

Zionist intelligence service confirmed its role in killing Iranian nuclear scientists, over the last few years. The occupying forces of Palestine also have committed the most heinous crimes and atrocities against Palestinians during past decades. Is it safe to say the Zionist entity is the flagrant instance of state terrorism?

Absolutely. The creation of the Zionist entity itself is due to a combination of state terrorism and what Harvard scholar Kelly M. Greenhill termed as “Weapons of Mass Migration” in her 2010 publication of the same name. I explained this in more detail for my Katehon think tank analysis earlier this year about why everyone needs to “Acknowledge Weapons of Mass Migration Or ‘Legitimize’ “Israel””, but the main point is that European governments encouraged the post-World War II mass migration of their Jewish citizens to Palestine for the purpose of colonizing it on the grounds that this is some sort of geopolitical “reparation” for everything that this demographic suffered during the war.


This ‘normative’ pretext is exposed for the shallow falsehood that it always has been when one considers that the Palestinians have been forced to undergo similarly torturous hardships as the Jews did during World War II, except this time it’s ironically one of the victimized classes of that global conflict inflicting this on a people that had absolutely nothing at all to do with their wartime suffering. Granted, there are differences in tactical approach between what the Zionist entity has been doing to the Palestinians for generations and the Nazis and their Bulgarian, Croatian, Hungarian, and other conspirators did to the Jews for six years, but the most visibly common denominator between them is the use of state terrorism as a means of ethnically cleansing a targeted population. 


Why is no action being taken against the Zionist regime's state terrorism?

The first thing to remember is that the Zionists’ military-industrial complex is interlinked with that of the US and Western Europe, and that the political-lobbyist bodies active in those areas are very strong and influential. Moreover, establishment voices in those states reflexively accuse anyone of “anti-Semitism” the moment that they try to raise awareness about ‘Israel’s’ crimes , hoping that this will succeed in defaming and silencing all opposition. Journalists and politicians alike who dare to exercise their rights to free speech and critical thinking stand to lose their careers and thus be unable to sustain their livelihoods, which is especially threatening if they have a family to take care of. These factors combine in such a way as to self-censor many political and media activists who would otherwise do the right thing by talking about this issue. Sometimes, though, those who speak up are part of the ‘controlled opposition’ that works to discredit this cause, so this further complicates the whole state of affairs and is responsible for why social justice has yet to be served.


On the international level, one should remember that the US will never allow the UN Security Council to take any decisive action against its number one ally. Washington will always support Tel Aviv no matter what, and this is in spite of the distracting drama that has characterized bilateral relations between the two during the Obama Presidency. In the event that any state attempts conventional military action against ‘Israel’, they’ll have to face the wrath of its nuclear weapons, which acts as a strong deterrent to the formation of any liberation coalition to save Palestine. Even in the face of these obstacles, however, there are still important civil society and state voices which aren’t letting the world forget about Palestine. Democratically elected and legitimate President of Syria Dr.  Bashar Al Assad, as well as his father, have always been loyal patrons of the Palestinian cause, and this is one of the driving reasons why the Zionist entity hates the country so much and gives assistance to Al Nusra and other terrorists hell bent on destroying it and fracturing the Arab Republic into several “federalized” (internally partitioned) statelets.

How do you assess the records of Obama and Bush in defending state terrorism? Which of the running US presidential candidates would serve more to the idea of state terrorism?


The differences between the Bush and Obama Presidencies in regards to their support and defense of state terrorism are only stylistic and superficial. Both Presidents unwaveringly pursue this policy in their own country’s actions, they just carried it out in different ways. Bush was brash and unashamedly told the whole world what he was doing, whereas Obama is much craftier and cunningly disguises his actions behind the rhetoric of “human rights” and “democracy”, taking care to also exploit the fact that he’s the US’ first black president in order to infer that all of his critics are “racists”. In my opinion, this makes Obama infinitely more dangerous that Bush ever was, because at least no one in the world was fooled by Bush, though so many people have fallen under Obama’s spell.


Concerning the Zionist occupation of Palestine, Bush was a loud defender of the state terrorism being committed against the original inhabitants, although Obama has sought a more publicly nuanced approach. The personal animosity that defines relations between the sitting US President and Netanyahu is well known, but this hasn’t had any negative effects whatsoever on ties between the two polities. This is attributable to the fact that both of their “deep states” (the permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies) are in coordinated alignment as to their shared grand strategic goals, so public drama between their two leaders is of no tangible consequence to the essence of their deeper relationship. It’s important at this point to mention that Obama’s actions in this regard are just posturing intended to mislead Muslim audiences and disarm the suspicions of their gullible audiences into falsely thinking that the US supports them.


If we look at the candidates currently running for President, the two frontrunners’ positions towards ‘Israel’ are almost indistinguishable, but the notable difference among the bunch comes from third party representative Jill Stein. She’s taken a very principled stand against the state terrorism being committed against the Palestinians, but she has absolutely zero chance to enter into office and carry through on her platform. Even in the impossible event that she became President, she would have to find a way to reverse the pro-‘Israel’ policies of the US “deep state”, which would be tantamount to convincing it commit suicide and turn against itself.  In any case, regardless of who’s formally running the US, the military-industrial and political-lobbyist complexes tying the US to ‘Israel’ will not be dismantled by a single individual and will require a long-term, concerted, and cross-dimensional effort that all elements of the US “deep state” are totally resistant to pursuing.



  • 2016-11-06 14:55
    We should not forget the Golan Heights. In the sneak attacks by Israel in the 6 Day War, they tried to take the Golan Height but Hafez Assad's forces managed to hold onto one this of it. The Zionists have hated Syria venomously. In 1981 the Yom Kippur War, the truce gave back a little bit to Syria. That is still being separated by UN Peace-Keeping forces. Stepwise, the aggressive urges have been to create as much chaos as they can to kick the can to the future and keep building settlements in the occupied territories. As Manchem Begin pronounced, their plan has always been to create a final solution to set up "Judea-Samaria". The destruction of Sadam is just another trick step. Efforts to destroy Iran have failure, through Sadam's wars. The Libya. Now Syria in an all out effort to destroy this most ancient of communities. The USA efforts as proxy for Zionist forces has created untold humanitarian suffering for Syrians. Yet US has agreed to accept only 10,000 refugees.
  • 2016-11-06 17:19
    once the americans and their zionists have subjugated the gulf countries they will then Bomb saudi and hand the middle east oe ISIS ver to Israel in its entirety. they use Saudi to attack yemen and appoint an american friendly premier there and are trying to do the same in Southern Sudan. the ISIS is both american created and financed until no longer of use to them