“The US tries to split up any country they encounter,” he told Radio VR. “For the most part, the US wants to prevent any type of regional hegemony staying hegemonic itself. This has been the US policy since the early 1919s. Just in 2000, it had accelerated towards regime change and color revolutions.”
“And what we see now in Syria, for example, is a mixture of a color revolution,” Korybko went on. “When it does not work, they bring in international mercenaries that happen to be affiliated with terrorist Islamic groups. Sometimes they get out of hand and the US sometimes can’t control them.”
And Iraq, he thinks, is an attractive target for an outside manipulation and for internal destabilization, as it has the demographic mixture of the Sunnis, the Shias and the Kurds.
Korybko therefore suggested the US wants to use ISIL as a balance of power mechanism to weaken the central government and empower the Kurds. As in the long term they want to have a type of tri-state solution where Iraq fractures into a Kurdish part, a Sunni part and a Shia part.
And that, he is convinced, corresponds with the US idea of a “New Middle East”, part of which becomes quite a different Iraq divided into three different states – a Sunni Iraq, a Shia Iraq and a Kurdish Iraq. And then the further plan for the region is that the Sunni Iraq joins with the Sunni part of Syria and they, in turn, create a Sunni state.
But, he said, Syria has got in the way for the US plans, hence there is all the violence in the country.
Syria has never been against the US, it has never been anti-American. But for the most part its President Bashar Assad has been fighting a war against terrorism. And, Korybko said, this goes against US plans for a “New Middle East” or a “Greater Middle East” – a fundamental re-drawing of the map and the reversion of the agreement, which set the fundamental boundaries that we see today.
Thus, his predictions for the future of the region are the following.
“More than likely, whether the US gets involved or not, whether Iran gets involved to try to defend its national interests having a huge terrorist state at its national border, ISIL will probably have their advance halted, will stay put and will probably try to move into Syria,” he said.
“Or you can have a full terrorist takeover which will create a black hole in the Middle East”
“Or, what you could have, what would be the best option for the world and the worst option for the US foreign policy – ISIL gets completely defeated, Syria wipes them from Syria, Iraq wipes them from Iraq and Iran comes into Iraq to help them,” he supposed.
“Basically, if you see this tri-state coordination in regional approach – that would be the preferred method, and if that happens, there is not going to be any third will to help propel American foreign policy and help propel this state [Iraq[ fracturing,”
Korybko is convinced that it is all going to depend on what happens with Syria:
“if there is a successful resolution of the crisis, by successful I mean that legitimate authorities remain at power and defeat the terrorists, then you are going to see a lot less destabilization,” he told Radio VR.
“But if ISIL are successful in Syria and if they completely collapse the state of Iraq you are going to see a huge black hole which is going to suck in all the countries. Primarily, it is going to be a main threat to Iran. Iran is one of the main targets here. I actually, heard a quote a couple of years ago back in the US: “Path to Tehran runs through Damascus”.
If Syria is not out of the game, Iran can survive.