*(2) Israeli Think Tank: Destruction of Islamic State is a Strategic Mistake**(3) Jerusalem Post article calls for a "weak but functioning Islamic State"**(4) Salon: Israeli think tank says ISIS serves a "strategic purpose" in the West's interests**(5) Don’t Destroy ISIS; It’s A “Useful Tool” Against Iran, Hezbollah, Syria**(6) Syria's Survival signals end of Jihadi & Israeli "regime change" project****(1) Netanyahu threatens military action in Syria to curtail Iran; hints that he prefers Islamic State*http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-24/netanyahu-putin-iran-must-leave-syria-or-we-will-actNetanyahu To Putin: Iran Must Leave Syria Or "We Will Act"**by Tyler DurdenAug 24, 2017 5:55 AMFor Netanyahu and other Israeli officials the chief concern was never the black clad death cult which filmed itself beheading Americans and burning people alive."Let the Sunni evil prevail," they say.*Israel is threatening to escalate military action in Syria* against perceived Iranian interests. This week Netanyahu declared, "we will act when necessary according to our red lines" while hinting he *prefers ISIS presence in Syria* as opposed to Iran aligned fighters at his border. This comes as ISIS is now crumbling, and at a time when most world leaders of nations driving the external proxy war in Syria have toned down their rhetoric regarding the future fate of the Assad government.After years of a regular drumbeat of bellicose statements emanating from the West and repeat talk of "Assad must go", "red lines", and years of constantly failed predictions that "regime demise is imminent," there now seems a general acceptance that the Syrian government has emerged victorious in the 6-year long conflict. Not only did *Trump* this summer *order the closure of the CIA's regime change program *which targeted Assad, but it appears even Gulf nations - lately embroiled in their own inter-GCC political civil war and airing of dirty laundry - have been forced to temper their rhetoric. Turkey also has reluctantly shifted its priorities in Syria after its well-known and documented regime change machinations - which included facilitating the transfer of tens of thousands of foreign jihadists (the core of which joined ISIS) across its southern border - have largely backfired. International media too, generally reflecting undeniable geopolitical realities, have bluntly headlined stories with "And the winner is: Assad" and "We have to accept that Assad will win in Syria" and "How Assad is Winning".But it appears Benjamin Netanyahu didn't get the memo. On Wednesday the Israeli Prime Minister told Russian President Putin that Israel would not tolerate an Iranian presence in Syria and further signaled willingness to go to war in Syria to curtail Iranian influence. "Iran is already well on its way to controlling Iraq, Yemen and to a large extent is already in practice in control of Lebanon," Netanyahu told Putin, adding further that, "We cannot forget for a single minute that Iran threatens every day to annihilate Israel. Israel opposes Iran's continued entrenchment in Syria. We will be sure to defend ourselves with all means against this and any threat."The two leaders met for three hours in the Black Sea resort of Sochi - their sixth such meeting since September 2015. Putin did not respond publicly to the provocative words on Syria during the portion of the meeting open to reporters. Netanyahu later told Israeli reporters covering the meeting that:Bringing Shi'ites into the Sunni sphere will surely have many serious implications both in regard to refugees and to new terrorist acts. We want to prevent a war and that's why it's better to raise the alarm early in order to stop deterioration.Netanyahu's reference to "the Sunni sphere" came after he summarized the closed door part of the discussion as dealing with "Iran’s attempt to establish a foothold in Syria in the places where ISIS was defeated and is leaving." Netanyahu's comments are a reflection of an extremely disturbing view which has become so prominent within Israeli defense circles as to be considered establishment: that ISIS is ultimately preferable to Iran and Assad. This is to say that continued ISIS presence in Syria and Iraq is a viable option and possibly better than pro-Iranian or even Russian spheres of influence in the Israeli prime minister's mind. Of course, this "lesser evil is ISIS" view is nothing new. In Israel, for example, there are even "respected" think tanks tied in with major public universities which openly call for allowing ISIS to thrive in Syria.The *Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies*, for example, which is one of Israel’s most internationally visible and influential think tanks (and located on the campus of Israel's second largest university), published a policy paper last year which made a direct appeal to Israel’s Western partners with the unambiguous message contained in the essay’s title: "The *Destruction of Islamic State is a Strategic Mistake*." Author and Director of the Begin-Sadat Centre, Efraim Inbar, argued against a Western military campaign to destroy ISIS while envisioning the group as an effective tool in sowing terror and chaos in Iran and Syria, with the added benefit of keeping Russia bogged down in defense of the Assad government. Inbar spelled this out clearly:The continuing existence of IS [Islamic State] serves a strategic purpose. The American administration does not appear capable of recognizing the fact that IS can be a useful tool in undermining Tehran’s ambitious plan for domination of the Middle East.While acknowledging the Islamic State's utter genocidal brutality, the paper concluded:The Western distaste for IS brutality and immorality should not obfuscate strategic clarity.Various current and former Israeli defense officials have echoed this point of view over the years, including former Israeli Ambassador to the US *Michael Oren*, who in 2014 surprised the audience at Colorado's Aspen Ideas Festival when he said in comments related to ISIS that, "the lesser evil is the Sunnis over the Shias." Oren, while articulating Israeli defense policy, fully acknowledged he thought ISIS was "the lesser evil". Likewise, for Netanyahu and other Israeli officials the chief concern was never the black clad death cult which filmed itself beheading Americans and burning people alive, but the possibility of, in the words of Henry Kissinger, "a Shia and pro-Iran territorial belt reaching from Tehran to Beirut" and establishment of "an Iranian radical empire."{photo} Former Israeli Ambassador *Michael Oren: "Let the Sunni evil prevail."* {end}Of course, such a perspective also tends to assume that Syrian and Iraqi sovereignty is non-existent (but instead seen as a mere extension of Iran and Russia), even as both countries now stand in better position in terms of operational sovereignty with Syria having liberated Aleppo and Iraq having regained Mosul. And that's perhaps why there's increasingly uninhibited truth-telling in Israel, the Gulf, and D.C. these days: the party is over in terms of the hoped for regime change in Syria. Perhaps now there's simply more blunt and open talk wherein assumptions are laid bare as introspective strategists realign their talking points while still eyeing the ultimate neocon prize of regime change in Iran.Though still rarely acknowledged in international reports, *Israel has engaged in overt acts of war in Syria* since at least 2012 and 2013, when it launched a massive missile attack against a Syrian defense technology facility in Jamraya outside of Damascus. In 2016 Israel went so far as to target Damascus International Airport, killing a well-known Hezbollah commander. In a significant admission last week, the head of Israel's air force acknowledged nearly one hundred IDF attacks on convoys inside Syria over the course of the past 5 years. Earlier this summer Netanyahu himself was caught on a hot mic bragging that Israel had struck Syrian targets at least "a dozen times". And this is to say nothing of Israel's covert support to al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria's south, which has reportedly involved weapons transfers and treatment of wounded jihadists in Israeli hospitals, the latter which was widely promoted in photo ops involving Netanyahu himself. As even former Acting Director of the CIA Michael Morell once directly told the Israeli public, Israel's "dangerous game" in Syria consists in getting in bed with al-Qaeda in order to fight Shia Iran.Perhaps the biggest blow to Israeli plans for rolling back Iranian presence in Syria came mid-summer of this year, when Trump agreed to a southwest Syria 'de-escalation zone' with Russia, which would necessarily involve Iranian cooperation. The agreement implicitly acknowledges Iran's troop presence in Syria as legitimate, and as reported at the time further "ignored Israel’s positions almost completely." But analysts are in general agreement that the US-Russia brokered deal has been relatively successful and a step in the right direction. Even the Reuters report on this week's Netanyahu-Putin meeting seemed to acknowledge the deal's effectiveness:Russia has so far shown forbearance toward Israel, setting up a military hotline to prevent their warplanes or anti-aircraft units clashing accidentally over Syria.But given that Israel has already invested itself so heavily in the push to remove Assad while routinely launching attacks on Hezbollah with impunity, it is unlikely to disengage from Syria anytime soon, even as close Western allies publicly change their tune. Netanyahu's brazen words to Putin that 'preventative' escalation in Syria to destroy what Israeli defense officials commonly call the "Iranian land bridge" (or the so-called 'Shia crescent') may in reality be empty diplomatic posturing, yet it does reveal increased Israeli desperation as even the West is seeming to ignore Netanyahu's repeatedly declared "red lines".Regardless, Netanyahu remains the Syria regime change lobby's best hope. Already, within less than 24 hours of Netanyahu's Russia visit, neocon columnists are calling for him to unilaterally "take action":If he really expects others , especially Putin, that he means business this time, he will have to go beyond words and into actions, as clearly Israel could not and should not allow Iran to turn South Syria into another South Lebanon.With ISIS folding, refugees returning to their homes, stability taking root over large swathes of Syria, and successful de-escalation zones holding over parts of the country, it appears that only Netanyahu (along with terror groups like ISIS) is left unhappy in the region. Yet Syria continues on its current hopeful trajectory and path to recovery.*(2) Israeli Think Tank: Destruction of Islamic State is a Strategic Mistake*http://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/destruction-islamic-state-strategic-mistake/The Destruction of Islamic State is a Strategic Mistake**By Prof. Efraim InbarAugust 2, 2016The West should seek the further weakening of Islamic State, but not its destruction. A weak but functioning IS can undermine the appeal of the caliphate among radical Muslims; keep bad actors focused on one another rather than on Western targets; and hamper Iran’s quest for regional hegemony.BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 353, August 2, 2016Hebrew version of this articleEXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The West should seek the further weakening of Islamic State, but not its destruction. A weak but functioning IS can undermine the appeal of the caliphate among radical Muslims; keep bad actors focused on one another rather than on Western targets; and hamper Iran’s quest for regional hegemony.US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter recently gathered defense ministers from allied nations to plan what officials hope will be the decisive stage in the campaign to eradicate the Islamic State (IS) organization. This is a strategic mistake.IS, a radical Islamist group, has killed thousands of people since it declared an Islamic caliphate in June 2014, with the Syrian city of Raqqa as its de facto capital. It captured tremendous international attention by swiftly conquering large swaths of land and by releasing gruesome pictures of beheadings and other means of execution.But IS is primarily successful where there is a political void. Although the offensives in Syria and Iraq showed IS’s tactical capabilities, they were directed against failed states with weakened militaries. On occasions when the poorly trained IS troops have met well-organized opposition, even that of non-state entities like the Kurdish militias, the group’s performance has been less convincing. When greater military pressure was applied and Turkish support dwindled, IS went into retreat.It is true that IS has ignited immense passion among many young and frustrated Muslims all over the world, and the caliphate idea holds great appeal among believers. But the relevant question is what can IS do, particularly in its current situation? The terrorist activities for which it recently took responsibility were perpetrated mostly by lone wolves who declared their allegiance to IS; they were not directed from Raqqa. On its own, IS is capable of only limited damage.A weak IS is, counterintuitively, preferable to a destroyed IS. IS is a magnet for radicalized Muslims in countries throughout the world. These volunteers are easier targets to identify, saving intelligence work. They acquire destructive skills in the fields of Syria and Iraq that are of undoubted concern if they return home, but some of them acquire shaheed status while still away – a blessing for their home countries. If IS is fully defeated, more of these people are likely to come home and cause trouble.If IS loses control over its territory, the energies that went into protecting and governing a state will be directed toward organizing more terrorist attacks beyond its borders. The collapse of IS will produce a terrorist diaspora that might further radicalize Muslim immigrants in the West. Most counter-terrorism agencies understand this danger. Prolonging the life of IS probably assures the deaths of more Muslim extremists at the hands of other bad guys in the Middle East, and is likely to spare the West several terrorist attacks.Moreover, a weak and lingering IS could undermine the attraction of the caliphate idea. A dysfunctional and embattled political entity is more conducive to the disillusionment of Muslim adherents of a caliphate in our times than an IS destroyed by a mighty America-led coalition. The latter scenario perfectly fits the narrative of continuous and perfidious efforts on the part of the West to destroy Islam, which feeds radical Muslim hatred for everything the West stands for.The continuing existence of IS serves a strategic purpose. Why help the brutal Assad regime win the Syrian civil war? Many radical Islamists in the opposition forces, i.e., Al Nusra and its offshoots, might find other arenas in which to operate closer to Paris and Berlin. Is it in the West’s interests to strengthen the Russian grip on Syria and bolster its influence in the Middle East? Is enhancing Iranian control of Iraq congruent with American objectives in that country? Only the strategic folly that currently prevails in Washington can consider it a positive to enhance the power of the Moscow-Tehran-Damascus axis by cooperating with Russia against IS.Furthermore, Hizballah – a radical Shiite anti-Western organization subservient to Iran – is being seriously taxed by the fight against IS, a state of affairs that suits Western interests. A Hizballah no longer involved in the Syrian civil war might engage once again in the taking of western hostages and other terrorist acts in Europe.The Western distaste for IS brutality and immorality should not obfuscate strategic clarity. IS are truly bad guys, but few of their opponents are much better. Allowing bad guys to kill bad guys sounds very cynical, but it is useful and even moral to do so if it keeps the bad guys busy and less able to harm the good guys. The Hobbesian reality of the Middle East does not always present a neat moral choice.The West yearns for stability, and holds out a naive hope that the military defeat of IS will be instrumental in reaching that goal. But stability is not a value in and of itself. It is desirable only if it serves our interests. The defeat of IS would encourage Iranian hegemony in the region, buttress Russia’s role, and prolong Assad’s tyranny. Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus do not share our democratic values and have little inclination to help America and the West.Moreover, instability and crises sometimes contain portents of positive change. Unfortunately, the Obama administration fails to see that its main enemy is Iran. The Obama administration has inflated the threat from IS in order to legitimize Iran as a “responsible” actor that will, supposedly, fight IS in the Middle East. This was part of the Obama administration’s rationale for its nuclear deal with Iran and central to its “legacy,” which is likely to be ill-remembered.The American administration does not appear capable of recognizing the fact that IS can be a useful tool in undermining Tehran’s ambitious plan for domination of the Middle East.Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is professor emeritus of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family*(3) Jerusalem Post article calls for a "weak but functioning Islamic State"*http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/ISIS-Threat/Comment-The-destruction-of-Islamic-State-is-a-strategic-mistake-463107Comment: The *Destruction Of Islamic State Is A Strategic Mistake***By Efraim InbarJerusalem Post, August 3, 2016 12:51A weak but functioning IS can undermine the appeal of the caliphate among radical Muslims, keep bad actors focused on one another and hamper Iran’s quest for regional hegemony.US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter recently gathered defense ministers from allied nations to plan what officials hope will be the decisive stage in the campaign to eradicate the Islamic State (IS) organization. This is a strategic mistake.IS, a radical Islamist group, has killed thousands of people since it declared an Islamic caliphate in June 2014, with the Syrian city of Raqqa as its de facto capital. It captured tremendous international attention by swiftly conquering large swaths of land and by releasing gruesome pictures of beheadings and other means of execution.But IS is primarily successful where there is a political void. Although the offensives in Syria and Iraq showed IS’s tactical capabilities, they were directed against failed states with weakened militaries. On occasions when the poorly trained IS troops have met well-organized opposition, even that of non-state entities like the Kurdish militias, the group’s performance has been less convincing. When greater military pressure was applied and Turkish support dwindled, IS went into retreat.It is true that IS has ignited immense passion among many young and frustrated Muslims all over the world, and the caliphate idea holds great appeal among believers. But the relevant question is what can IS do, particularly in its current situation? The terrorist activities for which it recently took responsibility were perpetrated mostly by lone wolves who declared their allegiance to IS; they were not directed from Raqqa. On its own, IS is capable of only limited damage.A weak IS is, counterintuitively, preferable to a destroyed IS. IS is a magnet for radicalized Muslims in countries throughout the world. These volunteers are easier targets to identify, saving intelligence work. They acquire destructive skills in the fields of Syria and Iraq that are of undoubted concern if they return home, but some of them acquire shaheed status while still away - a blessing for their home countries. If IS is fully defeated, more of these people are likely to come home and cause trouble.If IS loses control over its territory, the energies that went into protecting and governing a state will be directed toward organizing more terrorist attacks beyond its borders. The collapse of IS will produce a terrorist diaspora that might further radicalize Muslim immigrants in the West. Most counter-terrorism agencies understand this danger. Prolonging the life of IS probably assures the deaths of more Muslim extremists at the hands of other bad guys in the Middle East, and is likely to spare the West several terrorist attacks.Moreover, a weak and lingering IS could undermine the attraction of the caliphate idea. A dysfunctional and embattled political entity is more conducive to the disillusionment of Muslim adherents of a caliphate in our times than an IS destroyed by a mighty America-led coalition. The latter scenario perfectly fits the narrative of continuous and perfidious efforts on the part of the West to destroy Islam, which feeds radical Muslim hatred for everything the West stands for.The continuing existence of IS serves a strategic purpose. Why help the brutal Assad regime win the Syrian civil war? Many radical Islamists in the opposition forces, i.e., Al Nusra and its offshoots, might find other arenas in which to operate closer to Paris and Berlin. Is it in the West’s interests to strengthen the Russian grip on Syria and bolster its influence in the Middle East? Is enhancing Iranian control of Iraq congruent with American objectives in that country? Only the strategic folly that currently prevails in Washington can consider it a positive to enhance the power of the Moscow-Tehran-Damascus axis by cooperating with Russia against IS.Furthermore, Hezbollah – a radical Shiite anti-Western organization subservient to Iran – is being seriously taxed by the fight against IS, a state of affairs that suits Western interests. A Hezbollah no longer involved in the Syrian civil war might engage once again in the taking of western hostages and other terrorist acts in Europe.The Western distaste for IS brutality and immorality should not obfuscate strategic clarity. IS are truly bad guys, but few of their opponents are much better. Allowing bad guys to kill bad guys sounds very cynical, but it is useful and even moral to do so if it keeps the bad guys busy and less able to harm the good guys. The Hobbesian reality of the Middle East does not always present a neat moral choice.The West yearns for stability, and holds out a naive hope that the military defeat of IS will be instrumental in reaching that goal. But stability is not a value in and of itself. It is desirable only if it serves our interests. The defeat of IS would encourage Iranian hegemony in the region, buttress Russia’s role, and prolong Assad’s tyranny. Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus do not share our democratic values and have little inclination to help America and the West.Moreover, instability and crises sometimes contain portents of positive change. Unfortunately, the Obama administration fails to see that its main enemy is Iran. The Obama administration has inflated the threat from IS in order to legitimize Iran as a “responsible” actor that will, supposedly, fight IS in the Middle East. This was part of the Obama administration’s rationale for its nuclear deal with Iran and central to its “legacy,” which is likely to be ill-remembered.The American administration does not appear capable of recognizing the fact that IS can be a useful tool in undermining Tehran’s ambitious plan for domination of the Middle East.Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is professor emeritus of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.This article was originally published by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies*(4) Salon: Israeli think tank says ISIS serves a "strategic purpose" in the West's interests*http://www.salon.com/2016/08/23/israeli-think-tank-dont-destroy-isis-its-a-useful-tool-against-iran-hezbollah-syria/WEDNESDAY, AUG 24, 2016 06:00 AM AEST*Israeli think tank: Don’t destroy ISIS; it’s a “useful tool” against Iran, Hezbollah, Syria***Head of a right-wing think tank says the existence of ISIS serves a "strategic purpose" in the West's interestsBen NortonAccording to a think tank that does contract work for NATO and the Israeli government, the West should not destroy ISIS, the fascist Islamist extremist group that is committing genocide and ethnically cleansing minority groups in Syria and Iraq.Why? The so-called Islamic State “can be a useful tool in undermining” Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and Russia, argues the think tank’s director.“The continuing existence of IS serves a strategic purpose,” wrote Efraim Inbar in “The Destruction of Islamic State Is a Strategic Mistake,” a paper published on Aug. 2.By cooperating with Russia to fight the genocidal extremist group, the United States is committing a “strategic folly” that will “enhance the power of the Moscow-Tehran-Damascus axis,” Inbar argued, implying that Russia, Iran and Syria are forming a strategic alliance to dominate the Middle East.“The West should seek the further weakening of Islamic State, but not its destruction,” he added. “A weak IS is, counterintuitively, preferable to a destroyed IS.”Inbar, an influential Israeli scholar, is the director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, a think tank that says its mission is to advance “a realist, conservative, and Zionist agenda in the search for security and peace for Israel.”The think tank, known by its acronym BESA, is affiliated with Israel’s Bar Ilan University and has been supported by the Israeli government, the NATO Mediterranean Initiative, the U.S. embassy in Israel and the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs.BESA also says it “conducts specialized research on contract to the Israeli foreign affairs and defense establishment, and for NATO.”In his paper, Inbar suggested that it would be a good idea to prolong the war in Syria, which has destroyed the country, killing hundreds of thousands of people and displacing more than half the population.As for the argument that defeating ISIS would make the Middle East more stable, Inbar maintained: “Stability is not a value in and of itself. It is desirable only if it serves our interests.”“Instability and crises sometimes contain portents of positive change,” he added.Inbar stressed that the West’s “main enemy” is not the self-declared Islamic State; it is Iran. He accused the Obama administration of “inflat[ing] the threat from IS in order to legitimize Iran as a ‘responsible’ actor that will, supposedly, fight IS in the Middle East.”Despite Inbar’s claims, Iran is a mortal enemy of ISIS, particularly because the Iranian government is founded on Shia Islam, a branch that the Sunni extremists of ISIS consider a form of apostasy. ISIS and its affiliates have massacred and ethnically cleansed Shia Muslims in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.Inbar noted that ISIS threatens the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. If the Syrian government survives, Inbar argued, “Many radical Islamists in the opposition forces, i.e., Al Nusra and its offshoots, might find other arenas in which to operate closer to Paris and Berlin.” Jabhat al-Nusra is Syria’s al-Qaida affiliate, and one of the most powerful rebel groups in the country. (It recently changed its name to Jabhat Fatah al-Sham.)Hezbollah, the Lebanese-based militia that receives weapons and support from Iran, is also “being seriously taxed by the fight against IS, a state of affairs that suits Western interests,” Inbar wrote.“Allowing bad guys to kill bad guys sounds very cynical, but it is useful and even moral to do so if it keeps the bad guys busy and less able to harm the good guys,” Inbar explained.Several days after Inbar’s paper was published, David M. Weinberg, director of public affairs at the BESA Center, wrote a similarly-themed op-ed titled “Should ISIS be wiped out?” in Israel Hayom, a free and widely read right-wing newspaper funded by conservative billionaire Sheldon Adelson that strongly favors the agenda of Israel’s right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.In the piece, Weinberg defended his colleague’s argument and referred to ISIS as a “useful idiot.” He called the U.S. nuclear deal with Iran “rotten” and argued that Iran and Russia pose a “far greater threat than the terrorist nuisance of Islamic State.”Weinberg also described the BESA Center as “a place of intellectual ferment and policy creativity,” without disclosing that he is that think tank’s director of public affairs.After citing responses from two other associates of his think tank who disagree with their colleague,Weinberg concluded by writing: “The only certain thing is that Ayatollah Khamenei is watching this quintessentially Western open debate with amusement.”On his website, Weinberg includes BESA in a list of resources for “hasbara,” or pro-Israel propaganda. It is joined by the ostensible civil rights organization the Anti-Defamation League and other pro-Israel think tanks, such as the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).Weinberg has worked extensively with the Israeli government and served as a spokesman for Bar Ilan University. He also identifies himself on his website as a “columnist and lobbyist who is a sharp critic of Israel’s detractors and of post-Zionist trends in Israel.”Inbar boasts an array of accolades. He was a member of the political strategic committee for Israel’s National Planning Council, a member of the academic committee of the Israeli military’s history department and the chair of the committee for the national security curriculum at the Ministry of Education.He also has a prestigious academic record, having taught at Johns Hopkins and Georgetown and lectured at Harvard, MIT, Columbia, Oxford and Yale. Inbar served as a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and was appointed as a Manfred Wörner NATO fellow.The strategy Inbar and Weinberg have proposed, that of indirectly allowing a fascist Islamist group to continue fighting Western enemies, is not necessarily a new one in American and Israeli foreign policy circles. It is reminiscent of the U.S. Cold War policy of supporting far-right Islamist extremists in order to fight communists and left-wing nationalists.In the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the CIA and U.S. allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia armed, trained and funded Islamic fundamentalists in their fight against the Soviet Union and Afghanistan’s Soviet-backed socialist government. These U.S.-backed rebels, known as the mujahideen, were the predecessors of al-Qaida and the Taliban.In the 1980s, Israel adopted a similar policy. It supported right-wing Islamist groups like Hamas in order to undermine the Palestine Liberation Organization, or PLO, a coalition of various left-wing nationalist and communist political parties.“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” Avner Cohen, a retired Israeli official who worked in Gaza for more than 20 years, told The Wall Street Journal.As far back as 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower insisted to the CIA that, in order to fight leftist movements in the Middle East, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect.”Ben Norton is a politics reporter and staff writer at AlterNet. You can find him on Twitter at @BenjaminNorton.*(5) Don’t Destroy ISIS; It’s A “Useful Tool” Against Iran, Hezbollah, Syria*http://countercurrentnews.info/2016/08/israeli-think-tank-says-dont-destroy-isis-useful-tool-iran-hezbollah-syria/August 30, 2016 4:08 pmAn*Israeli think-tank wrote a paper entitled “The Destruction of Islamic State Is a Strategic Mistake,”* believes that ISIS is a useful tool to undermine Iran, Russia, and Assad.Efraim Inbar, director of Begin-Sadat center for strategic studies(BESA) said in his august second paper that the west cooperating with Russia against Assad is a “strategic folly”. Inbar said that if the US participated in the fight against ISIS with Russia will further enhance the “Tehran-Moscow-Damascus Axis”. In other words, Inbar sees Syria a way to fight Israel enemies by proxy forces.When talk of defeating ISIS to make a more stable middle east, Inbar maintained: “Stability is not a value in and of itself. It is desirable only if it serves our interests”. Israel is not our ally nor is it a friend. It is certainly friends with “our” enemies because it benefits them directly.Inbar also warns that ISIS is not the real threat that Iran is.This is a redundant theme in Israeli politics and academics. Iran is the enemy of Israel so that mean Iran is the enemy of the world. In the paper Inbar accuses Obama of “inflat[ing] the threat from IS in order to legitimize Iran as a ‘responsible’ actor that will, supposedly, fight IS in the Middle East.” Contrary to Inbar’s sentiments Iran has been fighting IS because Iran is a Shiite nation a group specifically targeted by IS.David Weinberg, BESA’s director of public affair published an op-ed piece a few day later ambiguously titled, “The destruction of Islamic State is a Mistake”.In this piece, Weinberg refers to IS as a “Useful Idiot” and argued that Russia and Iran pose a “far greater threat than the terrorist nuisance of Islamic State”. I think the thousands killed by IS would seriously disagree.Israel has had some history with this “Useful Idiot” in the Golan Heights.The Yarmouk Valley is run by ISIS – and left alone by Israel. September 2014 Israel shot down a Syrian Air Force fighter jet for straying into Golan airspace: Israel has shown during the Syrian civil war that it is willing to attack those who threaten its territorial integrity – but not ISIS.Remember the Golan Heights is Israeli-occupied territory that once belonged to Syria but allows ISIS to operate uninhibited. Israel is not our ally nor is it a friend. It is certainly friends with “our” enemies because it benefits them directly.Israel is an ally only to itself. Israel embodies the sociopathic tendencies the nation-state engenders. Israel looks out for no one but Israel and it will use the US until is no longer useful.Israel’s alliance with the US is only for the benefit of Israel. Because of that alliance is the reason they get away with their crimes. If the US took away that protection then Israel would cease to commit crimes.But with the most powerful nation on earth by your side, Israel can do what Israel wants.Allowing Israel to get away with crimes against humanity has to stop but that’s only going to work if Americans know what Israel has done.(Article by Jafari Tishomingo)*(6) Syria's Survival signals end of Jihadi & Israeli "regime change" project*https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/08/syrias-survival-is-blow-to-jihadists/Syria's Survival Is Blow to Jihadists**September 8, 2017Despite last-ditch efforts by Israel and its allies to salvage the "regime change"project in Syria, the looming defeat of the Western-backed jihadists marks a turning point in the modern Middle East, says ex-British diplomat Alastair Crooke.By Alastair CrookeSyria's victory in remaining still standing - still on its feet, as it were - amid the ruins of all that has been visited upon her, marks effectively the demise of the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East (of "the New Middle East"). It signals the beginning of the end - not just of the political "regime change"project, but also of the *Sunni jihadi project* which has been used as the coercive tool for bringing into being a "New Middle East."Just as the region has reached a geopolitical inflection point, however, so too, has Sunni Islam. Wahhabi-inspired Islam has taken a major hit. It is now widely*discredited amongst Sunnis*, and reviled by just about everyone else.Just to be clear how linked were the two projects:In the wake of the first Gulf War (1990-91), General *Wesley Clar*k, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, recalled: "In 1991, [*Paul Wolfowitz*] was the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy ...And I had gone to see him (...)"And I said, "Mr. Secretary, you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm.'"And he said: "Yeah, but not really, because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein, and we didn't ...But one thing we did learn is that *we can use our military in the region -in the Middle East -and the Soviets won't stop us*. And *we've got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes - Syria, Iran, Iraq - before the next great superpower comes on*, to challenge us.'"Wolfowitz's thinking was then taken up more explicitly by *David Wurmser in his 1996 document, Coping with Crumbling State*s (following on from his contribution to the infamous Clean Break policy strategy paper written by Richard Pearle for Bibi Netanyahu earlier in the same year).The aim here for both these seminal documents was to directly counter the allegedly "isolationist"thinking of Pat Buchanan (now arisen again in parts of the U.S. New Right and Alt-Right).Libertarian writer Daniel Sanchez has noted:"Wurmser characterized *regime change* in Iraq and Syria (both ruled by Baathist regimes) as "expediting the chaotic collapse' of secular-Arab nationalism in general, and Baathism in particular. He [asserted that] "the phenomenon of Baathism,' was, from the very beginning, "an agent of foreign, namely Soviet policy' ...[and therefore advised] the West to put this anachronistic adversary "out of its misery' - and to press America's Cold War victory on toward its final culmination.Baathism should be supplanted by what he called the "Hashemite option.' After their chaotic collapse, Iraq and Syria would be Hashemite possessions once again. Both would be dominated by the royal house of Jordan, which in turn, happens to be dominated by the US and Israel."Influencing WashingtonWurmser's tract, Coping with Crumbling States, which together with Clean Break was to have a major impact on Washington's thinking during the George W. Bush administration (in which David Wurmser also served).What aroused the deep-seated neocon ire in respect to the secular-Arab nationalist states was not just that they were, in the neo-con view, crumbling relics of the "evil"USSR, but that from 1953 onwards, Russia sided with these secular-nationalist states in all their conflicts regarding Israel. This was something the neo-cons could neither tolerate, nor forgive.Both Clean Break and the 1997 Project for a New American Century (PNAC) were exclusively premised on the wider U.S. policy aim of securing Israel. The point here is that while Wurmser stressed that demolishing Baathism must be the foremost priority in the region, he added: *"Secular-Arab nationalism should be given no quarter" - not even*, he added, "*fo*r the sake of *stemming the tide of Islamic fundamentalism"*. (Emphasis added).In fact, America had no interest in stemming the tide of Islamic fundamentalism. The U.S. was using it liberally: It had already sent in armed, fired-up Islamist insurgents into Afghanistan in 1979 precisely in order to "induce"a Soviet invasion (one which subsequently duly occurred).Asked, much later, in view of the terrorism that subsequently occurred, whether he regretted stoking Islamic extremism in this way, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor Zbig Brzezinski replied:"Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: "We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.'"Fired-up Sunni radicals have now been used by Western states to counter Nasserism, Ba'athism, the USSR, Iranian influence, and latterly to try to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. One former CIA official in 1999, described the thinking at the time thus:"In the West, the words Islamic fundamentalism conjure up images of bearded men with turbans and women covered in black shrouds. And some Islamist movements do indeed contain reactionary and violent elements. But we should not let stereotypes blind us to the fact that there are also powerful modernizing forces at work within these movements. Political Islam is about change. In this sense, modern Islamist movements may be the main vehicle for bringing about change in the Muslim world and the break-up of the old "dinosaur' regimes."(Emphasis added).Protecting the EmirsPrecisely: This was what the Arab Spring was about. The role allocated to Islamist movements was to break up the nationalist-secular Arab world (Wurmser's "Secular-Arab nationalism should be given no quarter"), but additionally to protect the kings and Emirs of the Gulf, to whom America was obliged to tie itself - as Wurmser explicitly acknowledges - as the direct counter-party in the project of dissolving the nationalist secular Arab world. The kings and emirs of course, feared the socialism that was associated with Arab nationalism (‚Äî as did the Neocons).Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl) Dan Sanchez perceptively writes (well before Russia's intervention into the Middle East), that Robert Kagan and fellow neocon, Bill Kristol, in their 1996 Foreign Affairs article, Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy, sought to inoculate both the conservative movement and U.S. foreign policy against the isolationism of Pat Buchanan:"The Soviet menace had recently disappeared, and the Cold War along with it. The neocons were terrified that the American public would therefore jump at the chance to lay their imperial burdens down. Kristol and Kagan urged their readers to resist that temptation, and to instead capitalize on America's new peerless pre-eminence ...[that] must become dominance wherever and whenever possible. That way, any future near-peer competitors would be nipped in the bud, and the new "unipolar moment' would last forever ...What made this neocon dream seem within reach, was the indifference of post-Soviet Russia."And, the year after the Berlin Wall fell, war against Iraq marked the d√©but of the re-making the Middle East: for America to assert uni-polar power globally (through military bases); to destroy Iraq and Iran; to "roll-back Syria"(as Clean Break had advocated) - and to secure Israel.Russia Is BackWell, Russia is back in the Middle East - and Russia is no longer "indifferent"to America's actions - and now "civil war"has erupted in America between those who want to punish Putin for spoiling America's unipolar moment in the region so thoroughly, and so finally - with Syria - and the other policy orientation, led by Steve Bannon, which advocates precisely the Buchanan-esque U.S. foreign policy which the neocons had so hoped to despoil (...plus √ßa change, plus c'est la m√™me chose).It is very plain however, that one thing has changed: *Sunni jihadists' long "run"as the tool of choice for re-making the Middle East is over*. The signs are everywhere:The leaders of the five emerging market BRICS powers have for the first time named militant groups based in Pakistan as a regional security concern and called for their patrons to be held to account:"We, in this regard, express concern on the security situation in the region and violence caused by the Taliban, (Islamic State) ..., Al-Qaeda and its affiliates including Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, TTP and Hizb ut-Tahrir,"the leaders said in the declaration. (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will need to take note).Similarly, an article published in an Egyptian newspaper written by Britain's Middle East minister, Alistair Burt, suggests that London now whole-heartedly supports the Sisi regime in Egypt in its war on the Muslim Brotherhood. Burt attacked the M.B. for links to extremism, while emphasizing that Britain has imposed an outright ban on any contact with the organization since 2013 - adding that "now is the time for everyone who defends the Brotherhood in London or Cairo to put an end to this confusion and ambiguity."Not surprisingly, Burt's remarks have been greeted with profound pleasure in Cairo.While it is quite true that there were well-intentioned and principled men and women amongst Sunni Islamists who originally had wanted to recover Islam from the doldrums it had found itself by the 1920s (with the abolition of the Caliphate), the fact is (unfortunately), that this same period coincided with the first Saudi king, Abdul Azziz's notion (enthusiastically supported by Britain) to use fired-up Wahabbism as the means for him to rule all of Arabia. What subsequently happened (ending with the recent violent attacks in European cities) is not so surprising: most of these Islamist movements were tapped in to the Saudi petro-dollar spigot, and to the Wahhabist notion of its own violent exceptionalism (Wahhabism is alone in claiming to be "the one true Islam").Politically InstrumentalAnd as Islam became increasingly instrumentalized politically, so the more violent strain in it, inevitably, became predominant. Inevitably, the spectrum of Sunni Islamist movements - including those viewed as "moderates"- became incrementally closer to Wahhabi intolerant, dogmatic, literalism - and to embracing extremist violence. In practice, even some nominally non-violent movements - including the Muslim Brotherhood - have allied themselves, and fought with, Al-Qaeda forces in Syria, Yemen and elsewhere.So, what now: the failure of Wahabbist movements to make political achievements is complete. It seems so short a time since young Muslim men - including ones who had lived their lives in the West - were truly inspired by the very radicalism and the promise of Islamic apocalypse. The Dabiq prophesy (of arriving redemption) then seemed close to fulfillment for these young adherents.Now that is dust. Wahabbism is thoroughly discredited by its careless brutality. And Saudi Arabia's claims to political savoir faire, and Islamic authority, has suffered a major blow.What is less obvious to the outside world is that this blow has been delivered in part by the mostly Sunni Syrian Arab Army. For all the stereotyping and propaganda in the Western world of the Syria conflict as Shi'a versus Sunni, it was Syrian Sunnis who fought - and died - for their Levantine Islamic tradition, against the blown-in, exceptionalist, intolerant, orientation recently brought (post-World War Two) into the Levant from the Saudi Nejd desert (Wahabbism originally arose in the Nejd desert of Saudi Arabia).In the aftermath of the Syria war and the aftermath of ISIS murderous brutality in Mosul, many Sunnis have had more than enough of this Wahabbi orientation of Islam. There is likely to be a revival of the notion of secular, non-sectarian nationalism in consequence. But also, the traditional Levantine model of a tolerant, more inwardly orientated, quasi-secular, Islam will enjoy a revival.Whereas fired-up Sunnism used as a political tool may be "down,"radical reformist Sunni Islam, as a sub-culture, is certainly not "out."Indeed, as the pendulum now swings against Sunni movements globally, the hostility already being generated is very likely to feed the sense of Islam being besieged and attacked; of usurpation of its lands and authority; and of dispossession (of the state, which Sunnis have tradition thought as being "of them"). The puritan, intolerant strain in Islam has been present since the earliest times (Hanbali, Ibn Taymiyya and, in the Eighteenth Century, Abd-el Wahhab), and this orientation always seems to arise at times of crisis within the Islamic world. ISIS may be defeated, but this orientation is never fully defeated, nor disappears completely.The "victor"in this sub-sphere is Al Qaeda. The latter predicted the failure of ISIS (a physically-situated Caliphate being premature, it argued). Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has been proved to have been correct in his judgment. Al Qaeda will sweep up the remnants from both ISIS, on one hand, and the angry and disillusioned members of the Muslim Brotherhood, on the other. In a sense, we may see a greater convergence amongst Islamist movements (especially when the Gulf paymasters step back).We are likely to witness a reversion to Zawahiri's virtual, global jihad intended to provoke the West, rather than to defeat it militarily - as opposed to any new attempt to seize and control a territorial Emirate.Expect the shrines at (Shi'i) Kerbala and Najaf to start outshining those of (Sunni) Mecca and Medina. In fact, they already are.Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat who was a senior figure in British intelligence and in European Union diplomacy. He is the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum.-- Peter Myerswebsite:http://mailstar.net/index.html

*