Syria, oil, the CIA, and big band swing music—it's all connected

What might seem like just another war is actually a new chapter in a long, tangled story filled with complexities and corruption. Worse still, it's a tale overrun with bandits.

The conflict in Syria is incredibly complex and challenging to comprehend. Many people either ignore its roots out of ignorance or choose to overlook them deliberately. Honestly, I'm not sure which is worse, and I doubt it makes much of a difference in the end.

What might seem like just another war is actually a new chapter in a long, tangled story filled with complexities and corruption. Worse still, it's a tale overrun with bandits, leaving no clear heroes in sight.

Some of the bandits I am going to mention definitely did unforgivable things and it is true that they may have deserved to die, but the ways in which they happen plus words full of truth do not change the reality of things.

There are other white collar bandits who are just as guilty or more guilty than the others, but they are too powerful to take them down because they are full of power and protected up to their ankles by their respective support groups anywhere in the world. These bandits who play with us and our taxes for fun only join more in this world of skulls and devils in which we are all simple chess pieces.

I’m not taking sides, nor do I intend to. This is simply an explanation of the reasons and players involved, supported by data and evidence, all set against a backdrop of undeniable truths.

One significant issue is that, here in the USA, freedom of speech—and to some extent, the freedom to have independent thoughts—is often compromised. Expressing unconventional ideas can quickly lead to being labeled as crazy or a conspiracy theorist. In my case, at least, that first accusation remains entirely unchallenged.

Questions lead to answers, and answers unlock the doors to the next stage of discovery, creating a cycle that drives us forward in life. It’s the only way to achieve something meaningful, something truly our own.

The challenge, however, is that answers often reveal the truth—and in most cases, the truth can be suffocating.

It's something like receiving a hook to the liver as if it came from the Great Julio Cesar Chavez, it leaves you breathless and you end up on the floor.

Or something similar to the huge hole you feel in your stomach when you realize that the last few months of your father's life, not realizing thats what it was, you were not physically present because you were building something based on "truths and realities" and the last thing he gave you was the deserving scolding of your life before hanging up the phone without saying goodbye and leaving the next day.

But you wake up with that gaping hole inside and keep moving forward, even though, for the first time, you feel like a traveler without a compass—directionless, utterly lost. Life hurts, and the truth hurts even more, yet it's a fight worth pursuing.

We need to start breaking things down, giving them full context, because life isn’t black and white. From now on, we must analyze more deeply and reject surface-level thinking. This should be the challenge for every reader who hasn’t already embraced it: start questioning everything. Not just simple questions with easy answers, but dig deeper. Read the whole story.

At this particular moment, I had to pause my writing and turned to the first person I came across: Miguel Roman, a hardworking member of our community. I asked him, “How would you feel if you found out your government has been supporting terrorism all along?”

Miguel, a man known for his constant smile and positive demeanor, suddenly grew grim and visibly disappointed. After a moment, he replied, “I would feel absolutely frustrated,” betrayed in a way.

If you're someone who enjoys binge-watching Netflix or similar platforms, I urge you to take a different approach this time: delve into every paragraph of this brief summary of world events, each documented across our short and turbulent history. I assure you, this real-life series—filled with drama, suspense, corruption, and total devastation—will keep you engaged for a lifetime.

At the start, close to the edge

Picture a time when big band swing music came to life, brought forth by the genius of Glenn Miller and his Orchestra or the legendary Benny Goodman. A time when the iconic film *The Wizard of Oz* was being created, and nightlife was a spectacle of tuxedos, tobacco, and flowing drinks.

By that time, the U.S. had already expanded westward, taking control of territories like Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and large portions of land previously belonging to Mexico in the 1800s. It had also acquired Alaska through a purchase from Russia. However, as the art of war evolved into larger-scale warfare with innovations like tanks and advanced aerial and land devices—all requiring oil to function—the U.S. shifted its focus toward securing this vital resource: oil. (Library of Congress, 1919)

At that time, the young American superpower was seeking ways to elevate itself to the next level, striving for world dominance and building a new empire amidst chaos. This pursuit was marked by money and weapons exchanges, political coups, and the establishment of new military bases in the Middle East—events that eventually escalated into full-blown massacres, claiming countless lives on all sides.

But this is the Middle East we're talking about—the cradle of civilization, a region steeped in conflict since biblical times. It had long been governed by religious authorities who were deeply wary of outsiders meddling in their affairs or occupying their lands.

After learning that neighboring Bahrain had discovered oil, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia decided to search its vast desert, unaware that years of exploration would eventually pay off. This led to the involvement of the Standard Oil Company of California (now Chevron), which ultimately paved the way for the creation of the oil giant we now know as Aramco. Originally a California-based company, Standard Oil persuaded King Abdulaziz to allow exploration of Saudi lands. With the expertise of American geologist Max Steineke and the guidance of Saudi Bedouin Khamis Bin Rimthan, oil was struck on March 4, 1938, in the Eastern Province near Dhahran.

The discovery, known as “Dammam No. 7,” came after six failed attempts, marking a turning point in the region’s history. (History and Editors, 2010)

This breakthrough spurred an influx of Americans to the area, who began settling in the Middle East. They established small American-style communities around oil camps in this deeply religious region. These enclaves introduced practices such as women driving and alcohol consumption, both of which were strictly prohibited in the broader Saudi society.

This is where it all began, with the first military landing strip built by the U.S. right next to the oil fields. And this is when things start to take a darker, more complex turn.

I won't go into all the contractors the U.S. used to build bridges, buildings, roads, or landing strips, but there's one company in particular that's significant, and you'll understand why in a moment. It was a large Saudi company that the Americans were fond of due to its connection with the royal family, founded and owned by a man named Mohammed.

At this point, we see a strange, almost forbidden relationship developing between a deeply religious kingdom and the Americans. This partnership was incredibly lucrative for both sides, bringing in millions of dollars. However, neighboring countries began to question why the Americans were so entrenched in the holy lands, raising suspicions and concerns.

The owner of the construction company was Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden, who went on to marry over 20 wives and father more than 50 children, one of whom was Osama, the infamous figure many of us are familiar with today. While we’ll put that fact on the backburner for now, it's important to mention this remarkable detail as it plays a significant role in the broader context of the story. (TTC, 2023

Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard

Fast forward a few decades, with millions turning into billions, and by the 1950s, the U.S. had become a full-blown superpower. In an effort to solidify its dominance, the U.S. sought to counter the Soviet Union’s influence, which was working to convince countries to join its communist cause. At the same time, Iran had elected a leader through a democratic process—Mohammad Mosaddegh—who promised to regain control of the country’s oil resources, which were then under the control of a British company. Mosaddegh's goal was to rightfully nationalize Iran’s oil, a move that was highly controversial and set the stage for major geopolitical tensions.

The British warned Iran against their desire to nationalize their oil, leading them to meet with Kermit Roosevelt, a CIA official in the Middle East, in London. Roosevelt, the grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, orchestrated a CIA-backed coup to restore the Shah, which was carried out from a basement in Tehran by a small group of agents using vast sums of money from the Eisenhower administration. This operation ensured American dominance in Iran for the next 25 years—an influence that only ended when Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Shah in 1979. (NY Times, 1950) (National Security Archives, 2013)

This brings us to yet another complex chapter involving Saddam Hussein, but I won’t bore you with more details of this intricate historical drama just yet.

Let's set aside the propaganda and the chaos, hostility, and distrust that surrounded Mosaddegh, and instead focus on the weapons. The CIA secretly stockpiled enough arms to support a 10,000-man guerrilla force for six months, preparing for a larger confrontation if necessary.

In the end, Mosaddegh was captured, convicted of treason, and sentenced. The U.S. successfully reinstated Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, to the throne. This marked the return of a friendly dictator in a powerful Middle Eastern country, one that welcomed American companies to exploit some of the largest oil reserves on the planet.

During the second part of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s rule, he ruthlessly eliminated the supporters of Mosaddegh, executing many, from military leaders to students and activists. Countless others were jailed, and the country was engulfed in violent turmoil. This led to widespread anger among the Iranian people, and by 1979, they had had enough. They rose up, overthrowing the Shah and forcing him out of the country.

This marked the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini, who transformed Iran into an Islamic Republic. The Iranian people's hatred for America grew as a result of U.S. interference in their country, supporting a police state and ensuring the Shah's reign. This resentment laid the foundation for the oppressive theocracy that still governs Iran today.

Iraq-US against Iran

The Iran-Iraq War, one of the most significant conflicts of the past 50 years, often goes underreported, but it was a brutal, eight-year struggle that saw some of the worst warfare since World War I, including the use of chemical weapons.

This war had a profound impact, fracturing the Middle East in ways that are still evident today, and it marked the beginning of a series of events that eventually led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Remember Ayatollah Khomeini, who took control of Iran after the overthrow of the last Shah? His full name was Ruhollah Khomeini, and now, as the leader of a newly hostile Iran, he created the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to protect the country’s interests.

Khomeini began encouraging neighboring communities to rise up in protest against their rulers and join the newly established power in Iran, aiming to export their revolution and gain regional allies. This effort was met with resistance from leaders like the Saudi Arabian king and Saddam Hussein, both of whom feared the potential for uprisings, particularly among their Shia populations.

However, Hussein also saw an opportunity. Iraq and Iran had long disputed access to the Persian Gulf, a vital passage for exporting resources. In a 1975 treaty, Iraq was forced to relinquish full control of its side of the waterway, along with access to a region rich in oil, which Iran subsequently took over. (UN, 1976)

Saddam despised the treaty and had long been considering reclaiming control through military force, setting the stage for a dynamic that would dominate the Middle East for nearly 50 years: the ongoing struggle between revolutionary change and the status quo.

Hussein initiated the war with aerial strikes, most of which were unsuccessful. Iran still had sophisticated jets, acquired from the US during the previous regime, giving them an edge over Hussein. The conflict quickly drew in surrounding nations.

This is when Israel entered the picture. It was strategically beneficial for Israel to keep both Iran and Iraq occupied with each other, weakening both sides. Israel began supplying parts and materials to Iran, helping them maintain air superiority. Meanwhile, Iran strengthened its military by releasing former military officers from prison.

Hussein, on the other hand, received financial support from the US, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and others. China also started selling weapons to both Iraq and Iran, eventually becoming Iran's main arms supplier during the conflict. (GPF, 2001)

The United Nations struggled to broker a peace treaty, as Khomeini's power continued to grow. He was focused on building his Islamic Revolution and appeared to gain control of the conflict.

In response, the US began providing Iraq with intelligence and satellite imagery of Iranian troop movements. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union entered the scene, supplying Iraq with weapons and, in a surprising twist, cooperating with the Americans despite the ongoing Cold War.

The situation became even more complicated for Iraq when the Kurds rose up, seeking to establish their own state. Hussein now found himself fighting two wars at once. In response, he escalated by using chemical weapons against both the Kurds and the Iranians—an act that was illegal under international law. However, the global community largely overlooked it, as defeating the Islamic Revolution seemed more urgent at the time. (GCRP, 2018)

Fast forward a few years, and innocent civilians were caught in the crossfire. As the conflict intensified, people began fearing a potentially deadly attack and started fleeing their countries. The US, in a shift of strategy, began secretly selling missiles to Iran, giving them a new advantage.

This move was part of a broader, covert operation under the Reagan administration known as the Iran-Contra affair, which aimed to raise money for anti-communist militias in Nicaragua. (National Security Archives, 1986)

Amidst this, Hussein continued to escalate his use of chemical weapons, leading to what became known as the Kurdish Genocide. He targeted his own Iraqi Kurdish population, killing between 50,000 and 100,000 people. Iranian communities began fearing that Hussein would apply the same genocidal tactics against them, causing widespread panic as people fled in all directions.

As the war continued, American leaders selectively ignored the atrocities and instead blamed Iran for the conflict, claiming they were responsible for initiating it by providing financial and military support to those who opposed Hussein.

Meanwhile, both sides targeted oil shipments in the Persian Gulf, exacerbating the strain on the world’s most important oil passage. This action further destabilized global oil supplies, worsening the impact of the war.

After eight years of brutal conflict, with both sides committing war crimes and over a million lives lost, it seemed nothing could stop the violence. The entire world was calling for a peace treaty. But in 1988, the situation took a tragic turn when the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655, a civilian aircraft, killing all 290 passengers aboard. The US claimed they had mistaken the plane for a hostile F-16 fighter jet. (CNN, 2020)

The US labeled the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 as an "unfortunate accident" and later paid compensation to the families of the victims. President Ronald Reagan personally apologized, but the US government never issued an official formal apology. Meanwhile, Captain William C. Rogers III, the commanding officer of the USS Vincennes, was awarded a military honor, which only fueled suspicions in Iran that the attack had been deliberate—possibly an attempt to pressure Iran into accepting a ceasefire. (MT, 1990)

Fearing further attacks from both the US and Hussein, Iran ultimately decided to withdraw its forces and accept a peace treaty. The agreement restored the borders of both countries to their pre-war positions with no changes, effectively bringing the conflict to an end. (UN 598, 1987)

Who stands to gain from this war, and how do we initiate it?

The same individuals who supported Hussein to keep Iran occupied were the ones who later betrayed their old Iraqi ally when they decided to link him to a horrific attack orchestrated by another former US ally, Bin Laden. It’s clear how my reference to "old bandits" fits, especially when naming US figures like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Colin Powell.

Let’s also acknowledge the fact that these congressmen are allowed to invest in the lucrative defense industry, often involving their family members to avoid direct links. Yet, the truth remains painfully obvious to anyone paying attention, though we largely choose to ignore it.

Today, companies like Boeing, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon rank among the most profitable defense contractors in the country, with the majority of their business reliant on selling to the U.S. government through congressionally approved funding. (DN, 2024)

These companies have extensive networks of people connected to them, and they also make significant financial contributions every year to elected officials. Many of these officials, who are also partial owners, are responsible for approving more defense aid for the country—disguised as military funding that the public never sees the benefit of, but which the contractors and officials profit from.

Bring out the old Genocide card

The Iraq-Iran War marked the beginning of a new chapter in this updated version of the "Great American Circus." The next conflict had been set in motion, and all that remained was to wait and see the new players take the stage.

After losing the war with Iran, deeply in debt to other countries, and facing increasing criticism both domestically and internationally, Saddam Hussein continued to use violence to maintain control over his people. He sought to retaliate against Kuwait by invading, hoping to seize oil-rich areas that he believed rightfully belonged to Iraq. His forces moved into Kuwait.

This was when his former ally, the United States, turned against him, swiftly driving him out of Kuwait through military action, forcing him to withdraw in just 43 days. In doing so, the U.S. made him a global enemy. A decade later, after Hussein had gassed his own people, the U.S. finally held him accountable for the atrocities. (H)

Everything came crashing down after 9/11, when the entire world was forced to buy into the “weapons of mass destruction” narrative. This spectacle must have been one of the greatest productions ever orchestrated, rivaling even the grand schemes in Shakespeare’s plays.

The very individuals who once supported and befriended Hussein—such as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others—suddenly turned against him.

Though that particular war ended decades ago, its consequences continue to reverberate today. The conflict also shaped Iran’s current stance toward the rest of the world, and its influence persists in regions like Yemen, Syria, Palestine, Israel, and other parts of the Middle East.

Afghanistan

By the end of the 1980s, the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan, and the U.S. began supporting the Mujahideen rebels—Islamist guerrilla fighters who fought against both the Soviet Union and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) during the Soviet-Afghan War. The U.S. was well aware that this coalition was made up of some very unsavory characters from around the world, driven by conflicting religious or military interests. But none of that mattered, as the primary goal was to oppose the "bad" Communist forces of Russia.

This strategy worked in removing Afghanistan's pro-Soviet president, Mohammad Najibullah, from power. Before he was ousted, Najibullah warned the U.S. that if they left the country in the hands of the rebels, it would become "a center of terrorism." Unfortunately, his prediction came true shortly thereafter.

Among the rebels who later came to power were Osama bin Laden, who founded Al-Qaeda, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who went on to form ISIS. The same weapons the U.S. had supplied to the Mujahideen to fight the Soviet Union and oust the Afghan president were ultimately used against U.S. soldiers when they returned after 9/11 for another regime change, this time with military intervention. After 20 years of military presence from 2001 to 2021, the U.S. withdrew in a chaotic and abrupt fashion, leaving behind significant amounts of weaponry. This, once again, enabled the Taliban to regain control of Afghanistan, now with even more resources at their disposal. (Cornelis, 2023)

Things I shouldn't say

In an interview conducted on October 3rd, 2007, by the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco, retired U.S. General Wesley Clark recounts a conversation he had and the insights he gained after meeting with an unnamed White House official, shortly after leaving Rumsfeld's office at the Pentagon. Clark spoke about the use of U.S. military force in the Middle East, stating that "the Soviets won’t stop us" and revealing that the plan was to dismantle old Soviet regimes in the region within the next 5-10 years. He specifically mentioned Syria, Iran, and Iraq as part of the strategy.

He doesn’t mention Libya, Egypt, or other coups the U.S. has been involved in, but at least he provides the basic framework.

This conversation took place during a time when Clark was returning from training and leading U.S. military forces overseas. He admits to feeling confused upon learning that U.S. soldiers could be used to instigate conflict rather than to deter it. Clark acknowledges that he had been so focused on his military role for so long that he hadn’t fully considered the broader geostrategic implications.

“This country was taken over by a group Of people with a policy coup. Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfelfd and you can name a half of dozen Of other collaborators from the project to a New American century. They wanted us To destabilize The middle east, to turn It upside down, make it under our control.” He added.

The general goes on to explain that these are the kinds of things that your representatives and senators don’t tell you, and things that the American people, when voting, aren’t made aware of either. ( FTV, 2007)

This should be the moment when you realize that much of what you’ve been told about Ukraine, Iraq, and probably many other topics has been a lie. We’ve all been indoctrinated and conditioned to think in a certain way. Now, it’s up to us to wake up from the comfort of ignorance and face a dose of reality—one that may not be what we want to hear, but is certainly what we need to hear.

That’s actually something Richie Rubio, director of "Battle Ready Street Ministry," shared with me during an interview on an unrelated topic, but his advice had a significant impact on me.

More things I should not say (and names)

During the 2008 Arab League summit in Damascus, Muammar Gaddafi delivered a speech in which he criticized fellow leaders for how events unfolded in Iraq. He reminded everyone that, as bad as Saddam Hussein was, he had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and was not the "head of the terrorist snake" as U.S. reports had portrayed him.

“Along comes a foreign power, occupies and Arab country, hangs its president, and we all sit on the sidelines laughing. Why didn't they investigate the hanging of Saddam Hussein. He was a prisoner of war. And they hanged. A president of an Arab country and a member of the Arab League no less. Im not talking about the policies of Saddam Hussein or the disagreements we had with him. We also have disagreements among ourselves here. An entire Arab leadership was executed by hanging. Any of you might be next,” Gaddafi remarked on this while some leaders appeared to nervously laugh.

“America fought alongside Hussein against Khomeini in Iran. He was their friend, Cheney was a friend of SH. Rumsfelfd, the US secretary at the time Iraq was destroyed, was a close friend of SH. Ultimately they sold him out and they hanged him,” He reminded everyone in the room, as the nervous chuckles continued. (WZ, 2011)

His last sentence was the only thing he got wrong, as he would be the next one assassinated on October 20, 2011, after the Battle of Sirte. The deposed leader of Libya was captured alive by NTC militia and executed shortly thereafter.

The self-proclaimed "King of Kings" of Africa, who ruled for 42 years with a bloody reign, spreading terror and violence, ended up being carried bloodied, half-dead, and unconscious in the back of a pickup truck after being captured inside a drainage pipe under the highway and subsequently, his body was kept in a freezer, stored underground.

I'm not adding another paragraph because I feel I've already dedicated enough to an undeserving piece of trash, but I do have to say that his killing can arguably be traced back to the early '80s. During that time, the U.S. supported convicted war criminal Hissène Habré, south of Libya, in an attempt to put pressure on the vicious leader. This eventually culminated when NTC forces, backed by the U.S. and NATO, were used to finally capture and kill him on October 20th of 2011. (TT, 2011)

And then they got rid of Assad.

Here’s where I’m going to quote an evil soul with a lot of power, someone who was in charge of many things then and continues to influence events now: Henry Kissinger, who once said, "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.”

Oded Yinon Plan

In 1982, the Oded Yinon Plan emerged as a blueprint for creating a "Greater Israel," outlining strategies to expand Israel’s borders beyond the river to the sea, encompassing parts of Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.

The plan explicitly states that "the dissolution of Syria and Iraq into ethnically or religiously distinct areas, like Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run. The dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the immediate objective." According to this vision, Syria would break apart along ethnic and religious lines, potentially forming multiple states: a Shiite-Alawi state along the coast, a Sunni state in Aleppo, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and a Druze state possibly in the Golan Heights, with further territorial ambitions extending into northern Jordan. The plan posited that such fragmentation would guarantee peace and security for Israel in the long term, an outcome that, according to the plan, was already within reach at the time. (The Corbett Report)

It’s almost as if we're witnessing the balkanization of Syria unfold right before our eyes, much like a Nostradamus prediction—except it wasn’t a prophecy, but part of a long-standing plan.

This is a piece of a broader strategy laid out by the Zionist movement in the '80s, but actually originating with the Balfour Declaration in 1917, when the British decided to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. We can’t place all the blame on Israel; Zionism was born when Britain had significant influence over the global stage. Now, it’s being supported by the U.S. for the same reasons. (JL, 1917)

So no, I'm not anti-Semitic. I don’t care how people choose to worship—or not worship—as long as they treat me with respect. What I do care about is the truth. And the truth is, right now, certain political leaders and countries are benefiting from the chaos and the fires we see all around us.

The Pipeline

But Wait, there's more to Syria than the decades of destruction that we've already talked about. This is the destabilization of something called the Shia landbridge, which connects Iran to its Hezbolla forces in Lebanon, and is actually far more complex than that.

Iran could also circumvent U.S. sanctions by using the trans-Iraq pipeline in order to avoid the Strait of Hormuz for oil transportation. The pipeline would link Iran with the Syrian port city of Biniyas on the Mediterranean Sea as a result of growing fears [the Strait of Hormuz] might be closed in the event of a direct military confrontation between the United States and its allies with Iran.

Approximately 1.25 million barrels of oil per day are estimated to flow through the pipeline, which is nearly half of Iran's crude oil exports before sanctions.

The source highlighted that Baghdad might not view the project as economically advantageous, mentioning that Iraq can export its own crude oil to Baniyas and then to neighboring Mediterranean countries.

For more details, refer to the publication from August 26, 2019, by the Tehran Times. (TT, 2019)

However, with Syria now out of control, that option is no longer viable.

Syria; where we started

We started my very summarized suspense novel with this country, one without law or order, and it is with this that we will conclude.

This is a prime example of what US sanctions can do to a country. This debacle took nearly a decade to unfold, and it ultimately paid off for those looking to exploit the situation, allowing "flesh eaters" to flock to Syria and dismantle the state as much as possible.

Economic sanctions and restrictions have been imposed on Syria by the European Union, the United States, Canada, Australia, and Switzerland, primarily due to the repression of civilians during the Syrian civil war that began in 2011. The US sanctions are the harshest, extending to third parties and effectively creating an embargo. Secondary US sanctions remained limited until 2020, when the Caesar Act came into effect. The aim of these measures is to prevent the Syrian government from using violence against its citizens and to encourage political reforms that could address the root causes of the conflict.

As of March 2022, Syria was ranked as the third most sanctioned country in the world, according to official reports.

Several humanitarian aid exemptions have been built into the sanctions framework to allow approved assistance to reach civilians in Syria. However, many humanitarian efforts have been hindered due to the broader effects of these sanctions.

After the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquakes, there were growing calls to lift sanctions on Syria, given their negative impact on the flow of humanitarian aid. In response, the U.S. temporarily lifted some sanctions, enabling charity organizations to send money to Syria. By December 2024, Assad's Baathist regime was overthrown following the collapse of its armed forces.

“Syria, given its size, its strategic location, its historical importance, is the pivot point for whether there can be an American-managed security system in the region. And so you’ve got this general alliance that is locked in with us. But …the stress point is greatest in Syria”.

That was James Jeffrey, in his 2021 interview with PBS, in which he explained the significance of the destabilization of Syria, offering valuable context from the perspective of a former Deputy National Security Advisor of the United States, as well as the U.S. Special Representative for Syria Engagement and the Special Envoy to the International Military Coalition against ISIL. (PBS, 2021)

Additionally, there was a group called the Syrian Economic Task Force (SETF), an economic research organization that plays an awareness role in international conferences, workshops, and media. SETF highlights Syria's historical and current economic crisis, while also presenting a vision for the future of the Syrian economy.

"Reconstruction costs for Syria are estimated at $300 billion, five times the 2010 GDP," stated Osama Kadi, President of the Syrian Economic Task Force, during an interview at a FEMISE conference in 2019. (FM, 2017)

Alistair Crooke, a former British diplomat, recently revealed in an interview that earlier in 2024, Assad traveled to Moscow seeking Russian assistance to retain control of his territory. However, both Putin and Tehran refused to help, instead advising Assad to step down and instruct his armed forces not to resist. They recommended allowing the militia to take control of Syria, which they did without facing any resistance. According to Crooke, there was already an agreement in place with Erdogan for Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia to step aside before HTS and its associated militia moved in, leading to a transition. As a result, Assad's regime was effectively over. (JN, 2024)

Whether it was the enormous cost of rebuilding Syria, estimated at $300 billion, or the fact that Assad had distanced himself from Russia and Iran while attempting to get his sanctions lifted, the true reason behind Putin's decision remains unclear. What is certain, however, is that Putin needed to focus on Ukraine and ultimately chose to let Syria go.

Currently, the leader in Syria, whom American and NATO leaders have effectively put in power, is Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, also known by his guerrilla name, Abu Mohammad al-Julani. This is the same individual whom the U.S. State Department designated as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" in May 2013, offering a $10 million reward for information leading to his arrest. The irony of the situation is not lost on me, and I almost feel like a hypocrite saying it, given how everything has unfolded.

By the time this article was published, the US State Department had removed the $10 million reward for Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a branch of Al Qaeda. US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Barbara Leaf, made the decision while meeting with Jolani and other HTS leaders.

According to Leaf, keeping the bounty in place would be "a little incoherent.” (US, 2024)

Originally an Al-Qaeda member, Abu Mohammad al-Julani worked his way through various similar terrorist organizations. His rise through these groups, and his eventual prominence in Syria, adds another layer of irony to the situation, especially considering the U.S. government's has supported his current actions but also trying to condemn him at the same time.

One more for the road; L Fletcher Prouty

A retired U.S. Air Force colonel, he shifted to a banking career and became a vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy, especially the covert operations of the CIA. He believed the agency was serving the interests of a hidden global elite.

In 1955, he was appointed to coordinate operations between the U.S. Air Force and the CIA. His work earned him a CIA commendation, the Legion of Merit from the U.S. Air Force, a promotion to colonel, and an assignment to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

While not widely recognized, he is arguably one of the most significant figures you’ve never heard of. His contributions within the Air Force and CIA preserved his untarnished reputation, and he gained recognition in the U.S. for the far-reaching influence of his work across various domains.

Before his death, he gave several interviews, and books have been written about his work. These works cover topics we discussed here, as well as others, providing detailed accounts of events and revelations that were once controversial but have since been increasingly supported by unfolding world events and additional sources, lending credibility to his perspective.

In a 1994 interview at his home, he stated that all the information was “as open and available as a telephone book” (keeping in mind that phone books were widely used at the time, instead of Google), but that the media fails to provide the public with the most important things every day,” said the retired coronel. (OS, 1994)

I’ll be probably focusing on an upcoming series of short stories, *The Pouty Diaries*, to delve into the significant work he did, including his insights on the CIA, Air Force operations, and the U.S. involvement in the opium drug trade, among other topics. If you're interested in how intelligence agencies function and their connection to government leaders, this series promises to captivate your mind.

And if, after reading these pieces, you don’t feel like a puppet in a world of strings, one that has been mapped out for almost a century, I think I’ve failed to give you a proper dose of reality—or maybe you just didn’t want to wake up.