Back Story on Syria: Sibel Edmonds & Journalist Pepe Escobar

Peter B. Collins Podcast Show Interview

TurkeySyriaCutting through the disinformation and spin, Sibel Edmonds and Pepe Escobar reveal back stories about the conflict in Syria that are not reported in the mainstream media.

Edmonds has deep sources in Turkey, Iran, Syria, and the US policy community, and has broken a number of recent developments at Boiling Frogs Post.  Pepe Escobar has also done great enterprise reporting and analysis at Asia Times.  Together, they add a great deal of information about the players who are fighting the Assad regime, the increasingly shrill calls for Assad’s removal from Washington and Paris, and recent reports of likely NATO-aligned fighters assembling near the Jordan-Syria border. 

Escobar sees this as a proxy battle between US/NATO/Israel and a growing alliance between Russia and China, with all eyes on the oil and gas reserves of the Caspian basin.  We discuss Turkey’s role in some depth, and its desire to crush the Kurds of northern Iraq and southern Turkey; we talk about Iran’s intentions toward Syria and Iraq after the US withdrawal, and Iran’s own “Kurdish problem”.  Escobar predicts that 2012 will be a year of “creative destruction”, and sees a return to pre-9/11 dynamics in the region.  He also describes the House of Saud as the international center of the counter-revolution in response to the “Arab Spring”. 

Edmonds, who lived in Iran at the start of the Islamic revolution, talks about Iran’s interests and Jordan’s billions of dollars in US military aid since 2007.  It’s best to look at a map of the region as you listen, so you can appreciate the geographical and resource ties of the various neighbors.

Listen to the interview here @ the Peter B. Collins Show: Click Here

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .


FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. Here’s an angle that nobody’s considered so far.

    Let’s assume Sibel’s sources are all correct and we’re helping to overthrow the Syrian govt. The MSM finally “officially” reports this. Now to many it’s a “legitimate” story.

    What then? Look at all the factors happening right now. The President can now legally have you indefinately detained and/or killed anywhere in the world if he says you’re a “terrorist”. Yet, there aren’t millions in the streets fighting this. Why? That’s not a value judgement in any way. That’s a legitimate question.

    The point is this. If these other things can happen and nobody (other than tiny groups of Occupy and various other protestors) says/does anything, would anybody do anything about stopping a Syrian govt. overthrow? I’m seeing and hearing a lot of people who are for whatever reason deliberatley not paying attention. Lots of Obama supporters say he still needs time. Just like the Afghan police need more time? The neocons are blocking everything he does. It’s not his fault. First part true and the second is false. How is it NOT his fault.

    Same thing with Ron Paul. There’s a growing amount of evidence that he’s racist, homophobic and has no viable policies. Do you want a President who says you should die if you get into a car accident because it’s YOUR responsibility? It’s not the govt.’s job to help you. If you die, that’s your problem. I listened to a progressive call-in show today (one of the few still on the air). One topic was Ron Paul and his newsletters. Every single Paul supporter who called in (a) was putting out soundbites and not facts. Then when challenged by the host, (b)they tried to talk past his skepticism thinking that would justify their logic. Sorry, but it won’t.

    If Paul did win, do you seriously think that the Powers that Be would let him implement any of his ideas? If you do, you’re not paying attention.

  2. I have expressed frustration on this site more than once with Peter B. Collins. But I have to give him a big cyber-standing ovation for this interview and his recent interview with Jack Abramhoff. While I disagree with much of Peter’s politics, he takes a back seat to no one when it comes to producing internet audio news and interviews. The audio quality is excellent, the content is excellent, his voice is marvelous, and his interviewing skills are top shelf. The way he handled both these interviews was outstanding – he makes it appear so easy that the level at which he is executing goes unnoticed. So, Peter, if you read these comments, a big thanks and a big round of applause from me to you for the excellent productions you do here and at

  3. @ Yoshi,

    There will be national elections in the U.S. next November. In the Presidential race it appears Obama will be the nominee of the Democrat Party, but the GOP slot is still up for grabs. So with regard to the Presidential election, there’s Obama and whomever the GOP nominates. If that’s my choice, I choose Ron Paul. Why? Because if elected, one way or another, change will begin.

    The “Powers that Be” have consolidated so much power within the Executive branch that they would have to kill Ron Paul to stop him from ending the overt wars we are waging around the globe. For me, that is reason enough to support Ron Paul. It’s not about whether he wrote newsletters 20 years ago that contained racist or homophobic material. It’s about whether he can stop our government from killing innocent people and otherwise destroying innocent lives around the world. Forget the newsletters, the man has served some 20 years in Congress, so he has a record we can examine for evidence of racism and homophobia, or whatever. We can stop President Paul from acting on any racist or homophobic tendencies, but without President Paul, tell me how we are going to stop our government from killing and maiming children outside our borders. If the choice is a President who expressed racist and homophobic views decades ago but is committed to stop using my tax money to kill children, or a President who continues the status quo – which includes everyone else who has any chance of winning – then I choose the former. I have had enough of blowing up people and places – if you had to see, smell and hear the results of that political agenda, I think you would agree.

    Yet, I fully expect Ron Paul would be executed if he became the GOP nominee or President. But if that happened, I believe we would see a revolution within the U.S. Although I can’t predict what form and consequence it would have without knowing the economic conditions at the time, I think it would be significant and enduring. So, if Ron Paul is the GOP nominee, I believe the status quo is altered one way or another.

    Finally, I have to disagree with you on your assertion that Ron Paul has no viable policies. I think sound money, elimination of the Federal Reserve, reduction of the size and scope of the federal government, and peace are all viable policies.

  4. Sibel,

    I believe you argued that Iran has not really been involved in any terrorist activity. I’m sure you are more informed than I am on that issue, but as far as I am able to determine, Iran was the driving force behind the bombing of PanAm 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. It is pretty clear now that Libya was framed by falsified evidence, and the people who have studied this event closely all seem to think this was an Iranian operation using surrogates, undertaken in retaliation for the U.S. downing of an Iranian passenger jet.

    For what it’s worth, I don’t buy the Wiki-Leaks story that Gaddafi threatened UK commercial interests in Libya, thereby forcing them to release Al-Megrahi. Rather, I believe it was clear to all parties that the conviction was going to be overturned on the pending appeal because the key evidence in the case had been thoroughly discredited. Rather than have the conviction thrown out, the UK and US decided it would be better to let the guy go. Maintaining the image of Gaddafi as a terrorist was critical to justifying the recent war to remove him from power. It appears they made the right choice because 9 of 10 Americans still believe Gaddafi was behind the Lockerbie bombing, and Gaddafi is dead. Last I heard, Al-Megrahi who was supposed to die in 2009, was still alive in Libya. Oceania wins again.

Speak Your Mind