Bashar al-Assad (not Iran, PMF, or Hamas) was the last bulwark of resistance against Zionism

There is no more (read: *ZERO*) state-sponsored countering of Judeonazism—get out of the dialectical sewer whirlpool (if you haven’t already) before it’s too late!

What is “resistance” exactly? Firing inane missiles until you get your way? Enlisting on Tehran’s payroll in the name of jihad to accomplish works-based salvation before God? Plunging your own constituency into unprecedented danger by launching an attack purportedly “against” the very Nazi regime that begged Qatar to fund you?

If your actions consistently place the very people you claim to champion in perpetual danger while providing every extra convenient excuse for your enemies to attack your constituency whose suffering you need to legitimize your bloodshed-validated ideology, YOU ARE NOT RESISTANCE. That is Sabbatean-Frankist modern human sacrifice, which in the simplest terms is hardly any different from how Third Reich Nazis used everyday Germans as expendable pawns and especially no different from now Fourth Reich Judeonazis use their own rank-and-file Israelis as human shields.

What is the end goal of “resistance” as desired in its utopian root? It is the none other than the proliferated human advancement of one’s own oppressed people whose desire for prospering bright futures are championed. Especially national liberation endeavors necessitate by definition a long-term sustained national sponsorship overseen by a publicly accountable government representing sovereign interests of pluralistic unity, cultural stability, and communal social welfare against all supremacist extremists and unwanted foreign interlopers. Without any legitimate national sponsorship present or in sight, there can be no national liberation.

I: what defines a legitimate ruler?

Long story short: prioritized repression of rebellious threats to societal stability and order. Yes, it really is that simple.

Though in any case I will provide the longer explanation nonetheless for the few of you who stick around to read the longer recension. A common myth persists that “[all] government is evil and society will be utopia if only The People™ would unite an overthrow tyrants!” This assumption is demonstrably false—the divide between good and evil is not a simple matter of “anti-government vs. pro-government,” but rather a distinction between illegitimate government vs. legitimate government. Oh, “but there’s no such thing as legitimate government!” so I can already hear some of you exclaim. Please at least finish reading this section.

What defines a legitimate government, you ask? I just told you above—prioritized repression of rebellious threats to societal stability and order. Legitimate authorities do not govern by relying on public “democratic” opinion to sustain itself, but rather enforces colorblind justice and punishes criminals to make sure constructive upright citizens are naturally rewarded for their good deeds to human society and meddlesome delinquents are punished for their detriments posed to human society.

“But isn’t this fascistic authoritarianism,” you might ask? No. Fascism is not the same as traditional paternalistic tyranny by reason that fascist ideology depends on channeling revolutionary maximalist populist fervor—a.k.a. the spirit of rebellion and lawless anarchy—into a co-opted culturally authoritarian syncretism propelled into the halls of government wherein the spirit of rebellion is installed into power ruling from the top down in a position it is not supposed to find itself in. That is why fascism is the menace it is—it co-opts the energy of “direct action” and “democracy” into a synarchist unholy fusion of power-grabbing and decadent Machiavellian-Faustian lack of morality.

The obstacle to fascism is not anarchy or Communism. The obstacle to fascism is traditional tyranny, plain and simple. Traditional tyrants suppress the very forms of anarchic rebellion which fascism views as necessary breeding grounds for its own synarchic ascension to power. In a traditional monarchically oriented “tyranny,” the tyrant-in-chief can with far greater unilateral will direct wars and force systematic overhauls in domestic institutional policy, but he must lead its implementation and take responsibility for the consequences in outward-facing public accountability, and his incompetence can easily result in his own top generals plotting a—yes—conspiracy to overthrow him in a palace coup to install a more competent tyrant in charge.

In a parliamentarian “free and fair” democracy where officials are elected into power, the outward-facing so-called leaders are nothing more than stooges of the bankers, public bureaucracy, military-industrial aristocracy, and industrial monopolists.¹ No crime too great they partake in is ever avenged for the sake of justice and their hides punished, because in a “democracy” they can claim the excuse of representing whoever voted them in, and the brainwash-“illuminated” masses of the West are too blinded by their own egos to admit they as a collective are accomplices to the very problems they hypocritically lament of. (as

Arabi Souri

puts it, humanitarian bastards)

Paul the Apostle commanded the early Christians in the 1st century:²

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

² Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

³ For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

⁴ For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

⁵ Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

⁶ For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

⁷ Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

All illegitimate forms of governance—populism-capitulating direct “democracy,” Bolshevism, Fascism, Qutbist “jihad”-ism, Zionism, and Nazism—are intrinsically rooted in a disregard for legitimate authority and find their manifested physical roots of political organization in a Jesuitic, casuistrically defined “we are illuminated chosen perfectibilists and have the right to take over the world because we said so” cyclically reasoned supremacist dogma.

Unlike the precipitous descent of mass-energy “democratic”-fascistic collective synarchy pools into unprecedented bouts of amoral decadence, decriminalized criminality, Orwellian perceptual inversion, and publicly sanctioned mass murder:³

The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

That is why the Apostle Paul told his own disciple Timothy:⁴

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

² For KINGS, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

³ For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

⁴ Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

What was the accompanying follow-up to the messianic promise in Zechariah 9? If you might recall this tidbit from this previous article of mine…⁵

And I [Yahweh] will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.

That is 100% consistent with Jesus’s statement to Pilate at His crucifixion show trial:⁶

My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Another feature of legitimate rulers a.k.a. “traditional tyrants” is that they are possible to be abased and their attention turned towards catering to the interests of the masses’ social welfare. When Nebuchadnezzar’s vision was interpreted by the prophet Daniel, the latter beseeched the king’s penitence:⁷

Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.

Did Nebuchanezzar ultimately repent? Yes.⁸

We find throughout history that traditional tyrants are in relative terms honest and realistic—unlike “democracy” co-opting duplicitous populist demagogues who lie through their teeth every other sentence and ramble loftily untenable promises they hold zero intention to honor while endlessly profiting off the cruelest repression of innocent civilians, legitimate “tyrants” just plainly govern, mandate stability by ruthlessly crushing all rebellious delinquents, and that’s that. They end up far more consistently susceptible to the pleas of oppressed innocents because their primary objective is the quelling of immoral and illegitimate mass movements, and therefore possess the nuanced farsightedness to recognize intrinsically edification-yearning individuals and movements who are resisting illegitimate authorities installed into the positions of power the latter do not belong in.

In the context of the West’s so-called “War on Terror,” Syrian president Bashar al-Assad strenuously emphasized:⁹

…that an effective war on terrorism meant dealing with the injustice that breeds it. Syrian commentators argued that ‘[U]surping and sucking the resources of the helpless third world countries’ was a source of the resentment and frustration that generated terrorism. So was ‘undermining other cultures’ values, and trying to impose on them specific dictates.’ More than any other root cause, ‘occupation stands as the main cause for hating the occupier and whoever supports it.’ In other words, Syria was arguing that the behavior of the United States’ Israeli ally in continuing its violent suppression of Palestinians and occupation of Palestinian land in defiance of international law, was the root cause of much terrorism. By implication, if the United States wished effectively to deal with the roots of terror, it had to change its Middle East policy.

Allow us to revisit the history of the Middle East’s beating heart.

II: Syria–Iraq, revisited: a story of two Assads

Through an idealistic lens deemed far more fantasized than necessary for the average dumbed-down catechumen today, Syria and Iraq under the Ba’athist programme of pan-nationalism should—and I strongly emphasize SHOULD—have unified into an Arab socialist republic during the 1960s. The Ba’ath Party in both countries during the fall of 1963 made a proposition for:¹⁰

…a union of the two countries, but this initiative proved abortive because on 18 November a military coup removed the Ba`th from power in Iraq. Five years later, the Ba`th Party again seized power in Iraq, but the Iraqi Ba`th represented the faction that was loyal to Michel Aflaq, which had been violently driven from power in Syria by the February 23, 1966 coup. Thus two hostile factions of the same party inherited the pattern of troubled relations between Damascus and Baghdad.

Now, was CIA, MI6, DGSE (French foreign intelligence), and/or Mossad involved in planting subversion agents to sow seeds of disruptive agitation preventing Syro-Iraqi unity? I don’t know. Possibly—possibly—there is something over at the archives of Executive Intelligence Review which discuss Anglo-French imperialist divide-and-conquer schemes in the context of 1960s Arab Ba’athism down to the level of foreign meddling in those palace coups. I cannot as of typing make presumptuous assertions with greater self-anticipated certainty than I possess at the utmost present moment. If you feel particularly savvy and up for the challenge, you are by all means welcome to forward me in good faith any bombshell findings I potentially overlooked. (LaRouche articles can be very dense to read through, requiring robust attention)

Pt. I: Hafez the disruptive peacebreaker

Various indications point to Hafez al-Assad as the troublemaker who drove Saddam Hussein into making the inter-Ba’athist enmity a mutually agreed sentiment for over the next one-and-a-half decades. Yes, Saddam Hussein was in many respects a deranged loon throughout the 1980s who made Machiavellian-Faustian decisions (although on the flipside his “tyrannical regime” was notably devoid of political corruption¹¹¹²), namely his choice of enlisting as a CIA patsy in addition to sponsoring the Syrian “Muslim”-Brotherhood terrorists destroyed by Assad’s forces in Homs and Hama. This however might be of value studying through the lens of a cynical self-fulfilling prophecy wherein Hafez drove Saddamist Iraq into an enemy of Assadist Syria—in at least several instances Saddam demonstrated a willingness to maintain diplomatic, military, and economic relations before Hafez broke them.

When Syria was fighting the Zionist regime in Oct. 1973, two armored divisions and infantry units were sent by Iraq (whose president then was Saddam’s predecessor Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr) for assistance, only to quickly find that Damascus agreed to a ceasefire—the Iraqi forces withdrew in a sign of disapproval.¹³ Two years later, Syria-Iraq relations sunk in a dispute over the Euphrates, though found themselves in a brief window of unity from 1978-79 in mutual revulsion against the Egyptian-Israeli Camp David Accords.¹⁴

Saddam’s ascension to power in the middle of 1979 saw a deterioration of Syria-Iraq relations as Hafez al-Assad was accused of subversion against the Iraqi government, but not all was lost—the border was closed by Syria and the Iraqi-Syrian Kirkuk-Baniyas pipeline was only shut down by Syria later in 1982 when Pres. Hafez al-Assad out of support for Iran severed all diplomacy with Iraq.¹⁵¹⁶ On April 8, 1982, the pipeline was shut down at Hafez’s orders, a decision the Iraqis found:¹⁷

…devastating[; Iraq] had lost a major outlet for its oil and consequently a crucial part of its income. In October 1983, Iraq signed a contract with Turkey to build a new pipeline to the Mediterranean. Saudi Arabia also agreed to connect Iraq’s pipeline network with its own pipelines ‘which links oil-fields near the Persian Gulf with Yanbu on the Red Sea (and so bypasses the straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab)’.

Yes, Saddam Hussein made a cynically calculated decision in the 1980s to align himself with the same Turks, USAians, and Gulfies (who later pulled a bait-and-switch in the Gulf War when it came to Kuwait), but it should be remembered that it was Hafez al-Assad and not Saddam who was the ultimate wrecking ball decimating the Syria-Iraq alliance. There was no coherently sound reason for Syrian President Hafez al-Assad—professed Ba’athist adherent to secular nationalist principles—to align with the Qutb-inspired violently reactionary faux-revolutionist Khomeini against Iraq. Khomeini’s “Little Satan” quip was even used to denigrate the Ba’ath Party!¹⁸

Hafez’s coldly calculated decision to shut down the Kirkuk-Baniyas demonstrated his lack of commitment to the traditional Ba’athist goal of pan-nationalist Arab unity—apart from conveniently crippling Iraq, shutting down the oil transfer only meant a returning loss for Syrian national interests, but it appears Hafez’s loyalty was far more owed to his French “Grand Orient”¹⁹ Freemasonic imperial controllers, himself listed as a Freemason.²⁰ In a nutshell, French intelligence in its implementation of Sykes-Picot divide-and-conquer policy selectively elevated members of the Shi’a splinter Alawite religious grouping in Syria wherein Hafez’s ironic Ba’athist (a.k.a. pan-nationalism, which was diametrically opposed to Sykes-Picot imperialist-driven division) credentials may have been far more nominal than commonly assumed.²¹ I’m not diving any further into this for the time being.

Later when Saddam Hussein was duped by the ambiguous duplicity of the United States into believing he could invade Kuwait without reaping American ire, the Iraqi dictator became rapidly frantic as he:²²

…attempted to gain [Hafez] Assad’s support and requested the establishment of a unified front between Baghdad and Damascus against ‘Arab foes’. It also asked that the Kirkuk-Baniyas pipeline be reopened. Assad refused to be dragged into Saddam’s mess. He rejected the Iraqi calls and called for an immediate end to the Iraqi occupation.

During the Gulf War, Syrian president Hafez al-Assad found himself standing on the same side with the CIA, MI6, Saudis, Osama bin Laden, and the so-called “State of Israel,” all devoted to crush the Iraqi nation’s strive for economic dignity against Anglosubversive²³ meddling. The interim prime minister of Syria’s neighboring country Lebanon, Michel Aoun, rallied with majority Lebanese approval a liberation movement to expel the Syrian occupation, though:²⁴

…the United States needed President [Hafez] Assad as an ally against Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War and gave a green light to Syria to mount a military campaign to dislodge Aoun from the Lebanese presidential palace on October 13, 1990. Thus Lebanon came under total Syrian domination and lost its independence and sovereignty for the next fifteen years.

Sound a bit like Iran 1953? You did read that right: the administration of George H. W. Bush in 1990 allowed Hafez al-Assad to occupy Lebanon in a show of thanks for the elder Assad’s blessings towards the Western-Zionist-Gulf conspiracy against Saddam.²⁵²⁶²⁷²⁸ The ordinary Syrian people at the time stood on the right side of the fence while their president did not:²⁹

When Syria joined its old foe, the United States, in going to war against Iraq, the public here was shocked and outraged.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was highly popular in Syria, and a group of Syrian writers and other intellectuals took the almost unprecedented step of issuing a public protest over Syria’s involvement in the war.

The centrality of a sturdy Syria-Iraq regional alliance. anyhow, was the oil.³⁰ Pres. Hafez al-Assad promised to reopen the Kirkuk-Baniyas pipeline but in his lifetime never achieved that stated goal—Damascus’s attitudes towards Baghdad reportedly softened during the spring of 1992,³¹ and in Jul. 1998 (about one year after a limited entente opened up) a memorandum of understanding was signed between the two countries to reopen the pipeline, and sources from the oil industry even rumored on the eve of the 21st century that operational oil transfer running through the pipeline would resume.³² It was however only his son Bashar who made that happen.

Pt. II: Bashar the disrupted peacemaker

Whatever revitalized Syrian-Iraqi alliance President Bashar al-Assad—the true (and last) lion of Damascus—hoped to cultivate, it was ultimately cut short by the ever-conveniently timed American savagery against Iraq beginning Mar. 20, 2003. More on this in the closing sections of this article.

The younger Assad by various accounts was a genuine reformer whose ambitions for a vibrant Syria were sabotaged by conservative obstructionists from Hafez’s Old Guard on top of foreign meddling. He emerged as a “a vociferous critic of bureaucratic corruption” and strayed from the expectations of a Machiavellian-Faustian personality which defined his late father—per Financial Times in 2012:³³

People who worked with Bashar al-Assad at the start of his reign say his lack of experience manifested itself in a sense of insecurity. Former associates say Assad is an anxious man by nature, with a nervous laugh and sudden mood swings. ‘In his early years, he was learning on the job and he wasn’t confident,’ says one. ‘He spoke about some of his father’s aides as enemies and he didn’t have his own advisers – the security people would tell him it would be a threat to him because they wanted to control him.’

In [Bashar’s] first year, Syria did appear to be on a new path. Political prisoners were released and discussion forums thrived in a rare bout of free expression that became known as the Damascus Spring. Technocrats were brought into the government, as were European advisors to help reform the administration. But the Damascus Spring was stillborn and the economic change remained superficial. When I asked Assad in a meeting with journalists in 2002 about the crackdown on democracy advocates whose cause he had once championed, he was visibly displeased, his aides later chiding me for raising the question.

But Assad appeared to be concealing his insecurity with an overt arrogance that was on full display in annual Arab League summits, where he would lecture his older, more experienced peers about Arab nationalism, speaking in a rhetorical style that irritated the audience. And at home, too, Assad was not listening to the technocrats. Says a young Syrian who worked for the government at the time: ‘Bashar used to go to the economic committee in the government and wanted to give lessons to the economists.’ Abdelnour says Assad did want to change Syria, so long as he continued to rule it. ‘If Syria became a great country, if it attracted 20 million tourists and had a civil society, then he would be the president of a great country. But nothing could happen that would threaten his chair.’ Assad ‘had no visions and no opinion of his own’, adds Abdelnour. ‘He could say yes one day to one thing and no to the same thing the next day.’

Yes, even the best of tyrants are still tyrants. Though that is beside the fundamental point—in a sin-plagued world of downward-spiraling amoral dilapidation, sometimes that is the best you can get if national autonomy and self-determination is what you aspire from the bottom of your heart—freedom is not free. The younger Assad in spite of self-centered endeavors to preserve his own top-down rule, was nonetheless a renegade in the face of archconservative reactionary fogeys, and certainly was more than correct to characterize a number of his father’s Old Guard aides as enemies. Remember this article of mine published last month?

Saddam–Assad unity was the *REAL* Axis of Resistance against Anglo-Zionist criminality

When President Bashar al-Assad initiated an actually meaningful expansion of Syrian-Iraqi entente, “it was the Old Guard surrounding Bashar that prevented the development of closer relations between Syria and Iraq.”³⁴ The new, young, vibrantly well-received President of Syria nonetheless accomplished within months into his prestigious office the restoration of a Syrian-Iraqi economic powerhouse—Iraq finally began pumping oil to Syria at an estimated 150,000-200,000 barrels per day (bps), the first time since 1982 that the pipeline was utilized between the two nations.³⁵

Defying the globalist plutocracy of the so-called “United Nations” in addition to internal obstruction by Hafez’s Old Guard, Syria under President Bashar al-Assad’s bold leadership accomplished tremendously vigorous strides towards bridging the diplomatic gap. Prime Minister Muhammad Mustafa Miru visited Baghdad to sign a free trade agreement with Iraq in Jan. 2001 outside the approval of the UN Sanctions Committee.³⁶³⁷ As Syrian policy permitted its citizens free travel to Iraq without restriction as passports would no longer bear an “excluding Iraq” sign, the Iraqi vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan al-Jazrawi towards the end of Jan. 2001 headed a delegation visiting Damascus where they were greeted by Assad.³⁸ Syrian prime minister Miru announced to the delegation:³⁹

“You will find in Damascus hearts that have been supportive of fraternal Iraq. The two countries are bound by historical, deep and continuous relations. We are bound by pan-Arab ties… Syria has much love and amity to Iraq… Syria is opposed to all forms of pressure and unjust siege imposed on dear Iraq. Syria is always prepared to extend all requirements of the fraternal Iraqi people, so that will be able to face the circumstances they are experiencing. Syria considers this a pan-Arab duty.” —Muhammad Mustafa Miru (Jan. 2001)

(for those intrigued in intensely detailed economic records, here you go)

Direct flights were also permitted at Bashar’s orders between Baghdad and Damascus, this avenue of rapprochement in direct violation of resolutions put forth by the United Nations Security Council.⁴⁰ Breaches against Anglo-American and UN unofficially stated policy to “starve Iraq”⁴¹ led to intense pressure on Syria to drop state sponsorship of Iraqi diplomatic conduits, demands posed by American Secretary of State Colin Powell Assad paid lip service to and adamantly refused to take ultimate orders from. These details are recorded in my previous article on Saddamist-Assadist 2000-03 unity, so I’m not going to restate the comprehensive substance here.

Additionally worth pointing out here is the extent of Iraqi solidarity with their Syrian neighbors in spite of previous top-down political rivalry:⁴²

The illicit sales of Iraqi oil provided Asad’s regime with urgently needed foreign currency, probably at the value of $400 million annually. No less importantly, selling Syrian agricultural and light industrial products to Iraq at around $1 billion annually in 2001 represented a huge boost to Syrian economy. To further cement the newly found friendship, in June 2002 Iraq sent large amounts of relief aid to Syria to help in the aftermath of a dam collapse, as well as medical teams. Iraq pledged continued support.

When the wonderfully progressive USAian citadels of freedom invaded Iraq to install “democracy” (read: Khomeinist/Qutbist-hijacked sectarianism) and “free” markets (read: foreign plunder of natural resources),⁴³ Assadist Syria condemned the horrific coup d’etat which permanently destroyed the fabric of Iraqi society and mercilessly sold its sons and daughters to be slaughtered by their thousands by the occupational war criminals and their puppets. Guess who cheered the occupation by contrast?⁴⁴

Bashar showed more hostility toward American policies than his father ever did, and his appreciation of the importance of the relationship with Iran was more modest too. The 2003 American invasion of Iraq revealed a deep schism between the two long-standing allies. Iran supported American efforts to remove the regime of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, whereas Syria opposed the American invasion and was accused by the George W. Bush administration of supporting Iraq's war efforts. From 2003 to 2010 Syria backed the Sunni opposition to the American occupation of Iraq and the Iran-backed Shi’ite government in Baghdad.

The US invasion of Iraq was a major shock to the Iran-Iraq-Syria relationship. It led to reshuffling the alignments and shifting the policies of the three countries. In a repetition of the different views and interests that prevailed at the time of the removal of the Shah's regime in 1979, Syria and Iran saw the US invasion of Iraq differently. For Iran, the US invasion was an opportunity to remove a major foe with whom it had fought an eight-year war. Iran was, in fact, the major beneficiary from the US military intervention in Iraq. With the fall of the Iraqi regime, the Iran-based Shi’ite opposition groups, acting on instruction from Tehran, rushed to fill the vacuum. Iran became, therefore, the major power broker in Iraq. Its newly empowered Shi’ite allies, some of whom had pledged allegiance to the supreme leader in Tehran, moved quickly to replace the secular pan-Arab nationalist regime of Saddam Hussein.

By contrast, Syria, which had established better relations with Iraq in the last few years of Saddam's regime, saw its removal as a major loss. It also regarded the US invasion of Iraq as a major threat to its security and economic interests. Hence, unlike its position in 1991, when it supported the American-led war to liberate Kuwait from Iraq, Syria opposed the US invasion of Iraq. In early April 2003 Syrian president Bashar al-Assad expressed hopes that the invasion of Iraq would fail and that ‘popular resistance’ would ensue and prevent the United States from controlling the country.

Yes, the Iranian Khomeinists cynically supported the toppling of Iraq as a convenient opportunity to expand their own influence in 2003 (never mind the outrageous human suffering), just as the Vatican cynically supported the Bolshevist takeover of Russia as a convenient opportunity to expand their own influence in 1917. (lest you believe anything new is under the sun—I explained the Vatican-Bolshevik connection here)

The Iranian Khomeinists—who by the way were Zionist agents in the 1980s⁴⁵—manifested very well the traits of dialectical Janus two-faced duplicity in 2003: they technically were jubilant at the toppling of Saddam brought about by the United States occupiers of Iraq which hollowed out a vacuum allowing exiled nominal Iraqis loyal to Iran to fill,⁴⁶ but at the same time opposed specifically the American influence over divided-Iraq that interfered with Tehran’s maximalist hopes of unilateral control over the new “Iraqi” government in Baghdad.⁴⁷

As did Syria,⁴⁸ so too did Libya denounce the execution of Saddam Hussein. Three days of national mourning were observed by the Libyans in honor of the late Iraqi president, and a statue of Saddam was erected.⁴⁹ When Gaddafi met his own grisly demise as Anglo-American color revolutionaries would reduce Libya into a horror specter one-upping the Zionist balkanization of Iraq, the Iranian and now-Iranian-controlled “Iraqi” Khomeinist governments cheered the Libyan nation’s destruction while Syrian president Bashar al-Assad denounced the extrajudicial regicide.⁵⁰

By studying the contrast between Ba’athist Syria and Khomeinist Iran, it is crisp-clear apparent that Bashar al-Assad remained the consistently legitimate ruler who upheld the ethics of stability-preserving moral authority. Iran, by contrast, is on an equal plane of the spirit of perdition with the British, Americans, and Nazisraelis in a common disregard for societal order which is thrown aside to prioritize “might makes right” brutal empire-expanding liquidation of other nations’ sovereign self-determination through divide-and-conquer balkanizing sectarianism.

Yes, Assad and his governed Syrian nation—that lasted all the way into the fateful day of Dec. 8, 2024—was the last pillar of legitimate moral authority on this entire planet who represented structurally formidable real opposition to nazijew criminality. Hamas is a Zionist front, the Houthis operate as quasi-reckless Khomeinists, and Hezbollah ceased to pose any continued obstacle to Fourthreichi (a.k.a. “Israeli”) criminality once Nasrallah was assassinated (which, if you will recall, was well before the color revolution “lightning blitz” which overtook Damascus in December) and his quisling successor Naim Qassem ordered Hezbollah units to retreat into perpetual suicidal do-nothing zero-retaliation as Zionist terrorism against the Lebanese people continued with savage impunity in violation of the lopsided “ceasefire.” And Iran and its right-arm “Popular Mobilization Forces” (PMF) in Iraq are Machiavellian-Faustian sectarian Khomeinists. On the day Assad escaped to Moscow as Damascus was overrun by Zionist-unleashed salafi-jihadist al-Qaeda death squads, whatever remaining diminished hope of earthly Palestinian liberation irrevocably perished for good. No Assad in Damascus means no Syrian state sponsoring of Hezbollah to deter Zionist savagery, handing Tel Aviv nazijews the free pass they desperately craved.

Does Iran care about the people of Syria deprived of their legitimate Assadist government? No—it began cultivating diplomatic conduits to its supposed “enemy” HTS right after the rebranded barely-Syrian al-Qaeda terrorist organization took over Damascus.⁵¹ Does the Iranian-Khomeinist dominated “Iraqi” government care? No.⁵²⁵³ Not even Hezbollah’s head Naim Qassem? And, nope, not even Hassan Nasrallah’s successor!⁵⁴⁵⁵

It gets worse—Iran and the so-called “Iraqi resistance” withheld military support from Assad as the Judeonazi Revolution’s HTS takfiri thugs stormed through Syria during Damascus’s final moments preceding its overthrow:⁵⁶

By early 2024, both Iran and Russia had changed when it came to the Syrian president. Russia was particularly incensed by his repeated violations of the Idlib deescalation agreement and stubborn resistance to any form of a negotiated settlement. Meanwhile, Iran found its once-considerable influence over Damascus steadily eroding, with Assad increasingly charting an independent course that often conflicted with Tehran’s regional objectives. Iran’s suspicions of Assad deepened after a series of leaks disclosed the movements of IRGC officials that culminated in Israeli strikes on these officials in Syria. The Quds Force, once given relatively free rein in Syria, now found its movements increasingly restricted by the Syrian authorities, with Assad refusing to allow the use of the Golan Heights as a potential front against Israel. Perhaps most provocatively, Damascus had begun limiting Shiite religious activities throughout Syria—a direct challenge to Iran’s efforts to expand its ideological and cultural influence in the region.

By the time rebels launched their offensive, neither Iran nor Russia saw sufficient value in expending further resources to prop up a regime that had become more liability than asset. Assad’s growing independence had effectively undermined the very partnerships that had sustained his rule for over a decade.

…

Iran’s initial response suggested a familiar playbook—the mobilization of Iraqi militias to shore up Assad’s defenses. However, the Iraqi government refused to allow these forces to cross into Syria. Rather than challenge this decision, Iran acquiesced with surprising ease. In a stunning development, Iranian-backed forces abandoned their most strategic asset—control of the Syrian-Iraqi border crossing—without any resistance. The IRGC and pro-Iran Iraqi fighters had already pulled out of Deir al-Zor before Kurdish forces moved in, leading to the swift capture of the crucial Qa’im-Bukamal border crossing by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

…

Iran’s withdrawal from Syria extended far beyond abandoning Deir al-Zor, marking a complete reversal of its military presence across the country. The night before Assad fled Damascus, the New York Times revealed that Iran had begun evacuating its military commanders and personnel from Syria.

And Hezbollah? Under Naim Qassem’s direction, on cir. Dec. 2 a spokesperson declared no intention of Hezbollah to intervene on Assad’s behalf,⁵⁷ and backtracked some three days later in professed intentions to militarily assist the Syrian government without providing any meaningful clarifications as to how.⁵⁸ Were any sent by Qassem to fight on the frontlines at all? I found no reporting of such.

(Tehran wasn’t free from blowback, however—the very HTS/al-Qaeda they licked the boots of in Dec. 2024 would later give the nazijews a free pass to use the Syrian airspace to strike Iran⁵⁹)

What remains undoubtedly clear is that the ongoing descent into “Iran-Israel WWIII” bore no chance of manifesting had Assad remained in power.⁶⁰

Retrospective lessons

The epitome of noble resistance against the scourge of Nazi-Zionism is not embodied by Hamas, Iran, tankie Bolshevists, or Iraqi Khomeinist “Islamic Resistance” sectarian militias. It was when Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad refused to let the Anglo-Zionist global criminals humiliate their nations, when the two Ba’athist presidents of Iraq and Syria united in a Semitic brotherhood of mutual trust and affectionate regard to uplift one another’s populations from Western-imposed dilapidated misery and strive for a brighter future never fully attained because they earned the wrath of all humanity-despising, nation-couping, child-starving unworthy rulers on this planet who rebel against the moral precepts of the Most High and who chose to manifest the fruits of the devil by waging a not only brutal but callously duplicitous war to destroy, torture, and slaughter the beautiful people of the Levant and Mesopotamia. All that the people of Iraq and Syria endured at the hands of Anglo-Zionist regime-changing fascists and their DAESH/al-Qaeda lackeys speaks volumes to the shame of all ungodly rebellious misers who participate in the Shinar-Freemasonic Janus-headed game of dialectical inversion.

So before you imagine yourself a capable arbiter to declare a government tyrannical enough to merit revolutionary overthrow by an earthly vanguard you champion, take a step back and consider whether you were deceived: “what if a higher power installed this legitimate authority in place to curtail people like myself from sowing seeds of anarchic woe and to preserve structural order in a sinful world, and I am resisting the eternal God’s plans superior to my own vain imagination’s delusions by choosing to participate in a repulsively selfish rebellion against Him?” (spoiler: when it comes to actual NWO fronts in the “illegitimate authority” camp, no effort you pose will stand a chance at barring the incoming “New” World Order because the dialectical fabric is set up to make sure anyone participating in the ouroboros whirlpool fuels its spin cycle towards “synthesis”—it’s not a question of “if,” but rather “how soon?”)

When the abhorrent sewers of ungodly rebellion set up by the enemies of providential order have succeeded at overthrowing the last vestiges of legitimate authority to the point of Freemasonically inverting the outward-facing power pyramid and reducing human society into institutionalized casuistic degeneracy all over as synarchist-neofascist syncretisms consolidate their grips, there is no earthly hope of “organized collective liberation” left to turn to, period. The only eternal hope of deliverance from the woes of this temporal realm is one that is not of this world.

“Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” —Isaiah 55:6-9

“For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” —Titus 3:3-7

1. Cf. Lelliĭ P. Zamoĭskiĭ (1989), “Behind the Façade of the Masonic Temple,” p. 9.

2. Rom. 13:1-7.

3. Prov. 21:1.

4. I Tim. 2:1-4.

5. Zech. 9:10.

6. Jn. 18:36.

7. Dan. 4:27.

8. Dan. 4:34-37, cf. 5:18-21.

9. Raymond Hinnebusch (2003), “Support for qualification: Syria,” Global Responses to Terrorism: 9/11, Afghanistan and Beyond, ch. XI, p. 137.

10. David Commins (Jul. 11, 1996), “Historical Dictionary of Syria,” p. 119.

11. Neil MacFarquhar (Dec. 30, 2006), “Saddam Hussein, Defiant Dictator Who Ruled Iraq With Violence and Fear, Dies,” The New York Times.

12. Robert F. Worth (Jul. 29, 2020), “Inside the Iraqi Kleptocracy,” The New York Times.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid., pp. 119-20.

16. John Laughland, Michael Korinman (2007), “Shia Power: Next Target Iran?” p. 316.

17. Meysam Tayebipour (2023), “Ayatollah Khomeini Through the Lens of the Iran-Iraq War,” ch. VI, p. 121.

18. Ibid., p. 117.

19. It is worth pointing out that the Grand Orient of France (GODF: Grand Orient de France) branch of Freemasonry was fundamentally reshaped after its destruction at the hands of Jesuitically beholden Vichyite fascists in World War II. In the post-WWII era the “Grand Orient” of continental Freemasonry was consolidated into a subsidiary of neo-Templar Scottish Rite credos unknown to the earliest and non-Jesuit-influenced blue lodges.

20. Nicolas Laos (2016), “Methexiology: Philosophical Theology and Theological Philosophy for the Deification of Humanity,” p. 16.

21. Joseph Brewda, Linda de Hoyos (Nov. 8, 1996), “The Anglo-French patrons of Syria’s Hafez al-Assad,” Executive Intelligence Review, vol. XXIII, no. XLV, pp. 25-32.

22. Amjed Rasheed (2023), “Power and Paranoia in Syria-Iraq Relations: The Impact of Hafez Assad and Saddam Hussain.”

23. Scott Thompson (Sep. 21, 1990), “British economic warfare against Iraq triggered invaston of Kuwait,” Executive Intelligence Review, vol. XVII, no. XXXVI, pp. 7-8.

24. Marius Deeb (2013), “Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah: The Unholy Alliance and Its War on Lebanon,” ch. I.

25. Thomas L. Friedman (Sep. 15, 1990), “Confrontation in the Gulf; Assad Assures Baker of Support in Gulf,” The New York Times.

26. John Kifner (Nov. 25, 1990), “The World; Assad of Syria, The Smoother Of Two Evils,” The New York Times.

27. Alan Geyer, Barbara G. Green (Feb. 1992), “Lines in the Sand: Justice and the Gulf War,” ch. V, p. 103.

28. Ibrahim Hamidi (Aug. 29, 2023), “How Bush gave al-Assad the green light to neutralise Aoun and Geagea,” Al Majalla.

29. Mar. 12, 1991, “Syria’s Support of U.S. in Gulf War Paying Dividends,” Chicago Tribune.

30. Brian Whitaker (Mar. 16, 2001), “Syrian rehabilitation is in the pipeline,” The Guardian.

31. Ihsan A. Hijazi (Mar. 26, 1992), “Syria Reported to Discuss Oil Deal With Iraq,” The New York Times.

32. Flynt Leverett (Apr. 15, 2005), “Inheriting Syria: Bashar’s Trial by Fire,” p. 245.

33. Roula Khalaf (Jun. 15, 2012), “Bashar al-Assad: behind the mask,” Financial Times.

34. Rasheed (2023), op. cit.

35. Leverett (2005), op. cit., p. 169.

36. Ibid., p. 86.

37. David Cortright, George A. Lopez, Linda Gerber (2002), “Sanctions and the Search for Security: Challenges to UN Action,” ch. II, p. 33.

38. Jerrold M. Post, Amatzia Baram (2002), “Saddam is Iraq: Iraq is Saddam,” pp. 33-34.

39. Ibid.

40. Leverett (2005), op. cit., p. 87.

41. Jay Gordon (2020), “The Enduring Lessons of the Iraq Sanctions,” Middle East Research and Information Project, iss. 294.

42. Post, Baram (2002), op. cit., p. 36.

43. Neil MacFarquhar (Mar. 20, 2004), “The Struggle for Iraq: Damascus; Hussein's Fall Leads Syrians To Test Government Limits,” The New York Times.

44. Imad Mansour, William R. Thompson (2020), “Shocks and Rivalries in the Middle East and North Africa,” p. 117.

45.

Trita Parsi

(2007), “Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States,” chs. X-XI, pp. 97-126.

46. Hossein Mousavian, Shahir Shahidsaless (May 22, 2014), “Iran and the United States: An Insider’s View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace,” p. 193.

47. Ronen Bergman (2007), “The Secret War with Iran: The 30-Year Clandestine Struggle Against the World's Most Dangerous Terrorist Power,” p. 292.

48. Dec. 30, 2006, “Saddam hanged: Reaction in quotes,” BBC News.

49. Jan. 21, 2007, “Libya to erect statue of Saddam on the gallows,” Reuters.

50. Jul. 9, 2012, “Syria's Assad doesn't fear Gaddafi or Mubarak fate,” Reuters.

51. Parisa Hafezi (Dec. 9, 2024), “Exclusive: Iran in direct contact with groups in Syria's new leadership, Iranian official says,” Reuters.

52. Hamza Mustafa (Apr. 2, 2025), “Iraq and Syria Open ‘New Chapter’ in Ties to Confront ‘Common Challenges,’” Asharq Al-Awsat.

53. Qassim Abdul-Zahra (Apr. 23, 2025), “Baghdad invites new Syrian president to a summit, sparking political division in Iraq,” Associated Press.

54. Dec. 14, 2024, “Naim Kassem: We Lost Our Military Supply Route After Assad Fall,” The Syrian Observer.

55. David Daoud (Dec. 19, 2024), “Naim Qassem on Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon and about-face on Syria,” Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

56. Nicole Grajewski (Dec. 9, 2024), “Why Did Iran Allow Bashar al-Assad’s Downfall?” Carnegie Endowment: Diwan.

57. Tom O’Connor (Dec. 2, 2024), “Exclusive: Hezbollah Says Syria's Assad 'Does Not Need' Help Against Rebels,” Newsweek.

58. Dec. 5, 2024, “Hezbollah backs Syria’s al-Assad as opposition forces intensify offensive,” Al Jazeera.

59. Ali Haj Suleiman (Jun. 17, 2025), “Syria’s new rulers face unprecedented criticism as Israel uses air space to attack Iran,” Middle East Eye.

60. Sebastien Roblin (Jun. 17, 2025), “Why Assad’s Fall Made Israel’s Large-Scale Air War With Iran Possible,” Forbes.