US ‘worked directly’ with terrorists in Syria on Israel’s behalf – Trump’s ex-counterterrorism chief
Analysis Summary
This article claims that the US government, under both the Obama and Trump administrations, knowingly worked with terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria to try and overthrow Bashar Assad. It suggests that these actions unintentionally led to extremist groups gaining power. The article bases these claims on statements from Joe Kent, a former US counterterrorism official.
FATE Analysis
Four dimensions of psychological manipulation: how content captures Focus, exploits Authority, triggers Tribal identity, and engineers Emotion.
Focus signals
"Washington colluded with Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria to topple Bashar Assad, Joe Kent has said"
The headline presents a highly controversial and unexpected claim that is designed to immediately capture attention due to its sensational nature and the idea of 'collusion' with designated terrorist organizations.
"The US “worked directly with Al-Qaeda” and Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) to topple former President Bashar Assad and destroy Syria, US President Donald Trump’s former counterterrorism chief, Joe Kent, has said."
The claim that the US 'worked directly' with Al-Qaeda and ISIS is an unprecedented accusation against a major world power, framed to shock and maintain reader focus due to its gravity and controversial implications.
Authority signals
"US President Donald Trump’s former counterterrorism chief, Joe Kent, has said."
The article heavily relies on the authority of Joe Kent, identifying him by his high-level government position ('former counterterrorism chief') to lend credibility and weight to his extraordinary claims. This leverages his past official role to persuade the reader.
"Kent, who resigned as head of the US National Counterterrorism Center in protest of the US-Israeli war against Iran..."
Further enhancing Kent's perceived authority, his resignation 'in protest' from a significant counterterrorism role is presented to suggest insider knowledge and a principled stance, making his claims more compelling to the reader.
"Hillary Clinton’s emails confirm this."
This statement functions as an appeal to an implied, yet unverified, external source of authority ('Hillary Clinton's emails') to bolster Kent's claims, suggesting there's documented evidence supporting his allegations without providing direct access or specific citation within the article.
Tribe signals
"The former senior official reiterated his take on the Iran conflict as the latest in a series of wars waged by the US on behalf of Israel..."
This statement frames a 'us-vs-them' dynamic (the US 'on behalf of Israel' against other nations/people), suggesting a hidden agenda and creating an 'other' to be wary of, fostering a sense of betrayal or injustice among readers who might identify with the 'us' being manipulated.
"The number one way to fool Americans as a jihadist is just put on a suit."
This quote creates an 'us vs. them' dynamic between 'Americans' (implying the unsuspecting public) and 'jihadists' who are presented as deceptive. It primes the reader to be suspicious of figures who appear conventional but harbor ill intent, reinforcing a tribal separation.
Emotion signals
"Washington colluded with Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria to topple Bashar Assad..."
The claim of 'collusion' between the US government and notorious terrorist groups is designed to provoke strong outrage and anger, as it suggests a profound betrayal of public trust and national security interests.
"The US “worked directly with Al-Qaeda” and Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) to topple former President Bashar Assad and destroy Syria..."
The accusation that the US 'worked directly' with these groups to 'destroy Syria' is framed to generate intense outrage and moral indignation, implying a malicious and destructive foreign policy that caused immense suffering.
"“We had him in jail; [he] joined ISIS, broke off from ISIS, hand-selected by Bin Laden’s right-hand man, Ayman Zawahiri, to lead Nusra, and then they rebranded,” Kent said, adding that the “number one way to fool Americans as a jihadist is just put on a suit.”"
This statement uses language to elicit a sense of moral outrage and intellectual superiority by highlighting the perceived naivety of 'Americans' being 'fooled' by a rebranded jihadist, suggesting a cynical manipulation that the reader should be aware of, thus elevating their understanding.
Narrative Analysis (PCP)
How the article reshapes thinking: Perception (what beliefs are targeted), Context (what information is shifted or omitted), and Permission (what behavior is being encouraged).
The US government, specifically under the Obama and Trump administrations, actively collaborated with and utilized terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS as proxies in Syria to achieve geopolitical objectives, specifically the overthrow of Bashar Assad, despite public claims of fighting terrorism. This collaboration ultimately led to the ascendancy of Islamist groups.
The article shifts the context of the Syrian Civil War and the 'War on Terror' from a narrative of humanitarian intervention or a fight against extremism to one of calculated geopolitical maneuvering and direct collusion with terrorist entities. This reframes the US's historical actions in the region (e.g., intervention in Iraq) as part of a continuous pattern of generating conflict for specific aims.
The article omits detailed context regarding the complex and multi-faceted origins of ISIS and other factions in the Syrian civil war, the various international actors involved and their motivations, and the full spectrum of US foreign policy objectives and strategies in the region beyond 'toppling Assad.' It also omits the extent to which other countries and non-state actors supported various opposition groups, some of whom later became radicalized or aligned with extremist elements. Additionally, the broader historical context of US intelligence operations in the Middle East and the specific challenges of distinguishing between 'moderate' and extremist rebel groups in a fluid conflict zone are not elaborated, which would add nuance to the claims of direct collusion.
The reader is nudged towards a stance of deep skepticism and distrust regarding official US government narratives concerning foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East and regarding counterterrorism. It encourages a belief that the US government routinely engages in deceptive practices and uses morally reprehensible means (like supporting terrorists) to achieve its goals, thereby validating a cynical view of state power and its actions. It may also permit a sense of resentment or a desire to challenge these perceived deceptions.
SMRP Pattern
Four manipulation maintenance tactics: Socializing the idea as normal, Minimizing concerns, Rationalizing with logic, and Projecting blame.
"We came in and we said: We’re going to work with the Israelis, but we’re also going to have to work heavily with the Sunni population on the ground in Syria to create an uprising,” he added.“And that’s where ISIS came from. We worked directly with Al-Qaeda; Hillary Clinton’s emails confirm this. The operations that we were doing to support the so-called Free Syrian Army, and there were some moderates there, but the most effective guys initially were Al-Qaeda and then eventually ISIS.”"
Red Flags
High-severity indicators: silencing dissent, coordinated messaging, or weaponizing identity to shut down debate.
"The US “worked directly with Al-Qaeda” and Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) to topple former President Bashar Assad and destroy Syria, US President Donald Trump’s former counterterrorism chief, Joe Kent, has said.Kent, who resigned as head of the US National Counterterrorism Center in protest of the US-Israeli war against Iran, made the remarks in an interview with MintPress News on Friday."
Techniques Found(5)
Specific propaganda techniques identified using the SemEval-2023 academic taxonomy of 23 techniques across 6 categories.
"And that’s where ISIS came from. We worked directly with Al-Qaeda; Hillary Clinton’s emails confirm this."
This quote attributes the complex emergence of ISIS to a single, direct cause: US cooperation with Al-Qaeda, supported by a reference to 'Hillary Clinton's emails.' This simplifies a multi-faceted geopolitical and historical development into a singular, conspiratorial origin without acknowledging other contributing factors.
"Washington colluded with Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria to topple Bashar Assad"
'Colluded' is an emotionally charged word that implies secret, illegal, or unethical cooperation, pre-framing the US actions negatively from the outset rather than using neutral language like 'cooperated' or 'worked with'.
"The US “worked directly with Al-Qaeda” and Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) to topple former President Bashar Assad and destroy Syria"
The phrase 'destroy Syria' is highly hyperbolic and emotionally charged. While US actions in Syria had severe consequences, attributing the entire 'destruction' of a country solely to US efforts in this context, especially in direct connection with 'working with Al-Qaeda,' is an overstatement designed to evoke a strong negative emotional response.
"The efforts to destroy Syria ultimately resulted in the fall of the Assad government in late 2024 and the Islamist takeover led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a rebranded Al-Qaeda offshoot."
This statement oversimplifies the complex and multifaceted Syrian Civil War and its outcomes, attributing the 'fall of the Assad government' and 'Islamist takeover' solely to US 'efforts to destroy Syria' as a direct and singular consequence, ignoring numerous other internal and external factors.
"The former senior official reiterated his take on the Iran conflict as the latest in a series of wars waged by the US on behalf of Israel"
Labeling complex geopolitical conflicts as 'wars waged by the US on behalf of Israel' is a pejorative and simplifying label often used to discredit US foreign policy by suggesting it's not based on genuine national interest but rather subservience to another nation, appealing to existing biases or anti-Zionist sentiments among some audiences.