11/10/2016 from Qatar
-On Aug. 17, 2014 — eight months before she declared her candidacy for president — Clinton sent a detailed strategy for combating the Islamic State, which she referred to as ISIL, in an email to John Podesta, then a White House counselor and now her campaign chairman.
-In one thread of correspondence from August 2014 Hillary Clinton sent an eight-point plan to John Podesta outlining a strategy on how to defeat terror group ISIS which involved supporting Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq with military advisers.
-The exchange also appears to show the presidential candidate identified the Gulf states of Saudi Arabia and Qatar as “clandestine” “financial and logistic” supporters of the terrorist group, despite surface cooperation between the US and the Sunni states on combating the militants and other actions in Syria’s multi-sided civil war.
-Analysts have speculated that the Podesta emails came from a recent cyberattack on the Democratic National Convention, fuelling suspicions that the Russian government is using Wikileaks as a tool to interfere in November’s presidential election.
The leaked emails present two issues, one of transparency in the United States’ foreign policy which implies accountability for the policy of regime change in the Middle East; another demanding justification for the alleged actions of Saudi Arabia and Qatar (both considered allies of the US).
According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ” The 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”.
This suggests that the Syrian Civil War is not entirely in the hands of its civilians (whether allied to Assad or in rebellion) – it would instead be a proxy war created by geopolitical tensions and economic rivalry between the US allied coalition of the Gulf states and the Russian-backed Iran, Iraq and Syria – sectarian on the surface but fuelled by the narrative of building pipes.
“Assad 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 Middle 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” wrote Kennedy.
It was not until the invasion of Iraq that such geopolitical and sectarian tensions became apparent. The Sunni majority states view the actions of the US as a deliberate takeover of their sovereignty similar to the case of the Ukraine crisis with Russia – it would only justification for violence when states are threatened. On the other hand, democratised states like Iraq offer an example that the real threat of terrorism is the reaction of military superpowers like the US or Russia that will put pressure on weak states – it would opportunities for violence to emerge in other means (genocide, rape, bioweapons, 5GW etc.).
The solution ought to be one that emphasises the importance of the US elections because little significance is given as to how the conflicts and policies in the Middle East came about and more is placed on what was said by either candidate. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. offers a conclusive remark that hits home:
“If our objective is long-term peace in the Mideast, self-government by the Arab nations and national security at home, we must undertake any new intervention in the region with an eye on history and an intense desire to learn its lessons. Only when we Americans understand the historical and political context of this conflict will we apply appropriate scrutiny to the decisions of our leaders.”