Home | About | Donate

Thomas Friedman's Perverse Love Affair With ISIS


Thomas Friedman's Perverse Love Affair With ISIS

Adam Johnson

For the second time in as many years, Thomas Friedman has explicitly advocated that the United States use the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria as a proxy force against Syria, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. The New York Times foreign affairs columnist made this suggestion in his Wednesday column, “Why Is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria?” (4/12/17):


Well, I still think we should stay out of the Syrian Civil War. Nothing good can come of it that I can see.


Who can be sure that this hasn't already been the strategy? Maybe Friedman's task here is just to acclimate the public to speak openly about naked imperialism and amoral power calculus?


It's too bad that you don't have a direct line to this Presidents ear Greg.

Our chances of survival would be much better if this was so.


Friedman has a great gig! He gets very well paid, I assume, for being for many years, full of hot
air and B.S.........there are many who do it better, and do it for free.


Thomas Friedman is seeking to posit his Israeli interests as America interests.


Thomas Friedman: "Trump should want to defeat ISIS in Iraq. But in Syria? Not for free, not now. In Syria, Trump should let ISIS be Assad’s, Iran’s, Hezbollah’s and Russia’s headache — the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan."

This bears repeating: "the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan."

He wrote that. In The New York Times. A newspaper published in New York City. The city where 9/11 happened. And The New York Times published it. He actually wrote it and The New York Times actually published it.

This is beyond appalling. I'm speechless.


"According to one 2015 poll by Virginia-based research firm ORB International, 82 percent of Syrians and 85 percent of Iraqis believe ISIS to be a creation of the United States."

Anyone who has spent meaningful time in the "rest of the non-US world" (not just Iraq or Syria), knows that the majority of the population of the world...believes the same thing as the Iraqis and the Syrians. Whether ISIS or any other similar group - this is all old news - except to the emperor with no clothes. Thomas Friedman's colonial mentality is just a symptom of a larger system.


Yes, indeed! A system of hubris and entitlement, willfully blind to reality, devoid of empathy, proud of its ignorance.


Ah, It wasn't Iran that attacked the US on 9-11, even if the official narrative is correct. It was not Shia Iran; it was extremist Sunni forces. So why should the US go after Iran?

Iran actually was very supportive after 9-11 and offered the US to use bases in Iran to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

But the way this despicable and terrible excuse for a human being, this creep, expresses it, it sounds like Iran was behind 9-11. This is the same sick and disgusting manipulation without being overt that led people in 2002 and 2003 to believe Iraq was behind 9-11 when it wasn't, even though Bush and his water carriers (like Friedman) never actually asserted that. Now the goal is to fool people into believing Iran was behind 9-11 and Assad is bad because he's a 'tool' of Iran.

This is my attitude towards Friedman. I'd like him to &#% off.


Right you are! I don't understand this 38-year long demonization of Iran. The people in Washington who are so obsessed with Iran, and their stenographers in the MSM, try to blame everything on Iran, either directly or indirectly. It's been this way ever since the embassy takeover, which ended peacefully, by the way. Once someone thumbs their nose at the U.S. it is never forgotten or forgiven, or even seen in the context of our actions and/or policies.

They have managed, through endless repetition, to brainwash millions of Americans, most of whom
know next to nothing of Iran, that Iran is our mortal enemy. As a citizenry, we must somehow stop
believing everything they say on TV, especially when it is repeated over and over and over.

Castro was not the evil incarnate that they made him out to be. Neither was Ho Chi Minh. Neither
is Iran! The history we are taught in this country is at best incomplete, at worst it is simply lies.


Friedman thinks the world is flattening. It's his brain. His comments are becoming ever more nonsensical, and if there ever was a narcissist in love with the product of his tippee typee fingers, it's him.


Friedman on just about everything is too optimist and he is aware he is an optimist. It took him the longest time tor realize that things were not going to work out in Iraq after the invasion in 2003. His books are interesting but also are filled with too much optimism. We do need some optimism but Friedman needs a reality check now and then to not get carried away. Many people have a problem of being too pessimistic but with Friedman it is the reverse.


That is not his real problem. His real problem is he is a $%^#ing sociopath who only cares about what benefits the top 1% elite. He doesn't give a flying $%^# about the people who get killed by his war he promotes and that's why he is all gung ho for ISIS because they'll help the elite get what they want, the dismemberment of Syria.

Yeah, that's being an optimist. What other nonsense are you peddling today, Lrx?

I am seriously losing my patience with you.


The evidence certainly points to that being the case.


I'm not surprised in the least by this article by Friedman. For years he appears to be driven by Israeli interests, NOT the interests of this country. As AIPAC advocates, so advocates Friedman.

The "civil war" in Syria is ultimately caused by Israeli interests in destabilization of Syria and full control of Golan.


In answer to you and others above who wonder why US gov policy is so anti-Iran: they, along with Assad to a lesser extent, are the foremost backers of Israel's number one threat, fellow Shiites, Hezbollah.

The Saudi's--the true financial supporters of all things Sunni-fundamentalist, including ISIS--have crafted a kind of tentative peace with Israel, based upon oil interests, fear and loathing of all things Shia and Iranian, and the US weapons and influence conduit that protects their current status.

In a region where there is no good side to be on, I tend to support Shia interests over Sunni-Wahabists. Iran is no bastion of freedom, but they stand out as clearly more modern than other power centers in the MidEast. When they reached out to us post-9/11, we should have grabbed the opportunity--Israel, however, would have been horrified.

Thomas Friedman, otherwise known as Israel's best rich-kid mouthpiece in Washington, is a shill for all things that back up the scenario I describe above. So, frankly, are Hilary and Kissinger. I have numerous qualms with Obama, but on this topic, he positioning was better than most in DC.


I had not thought of it in the term of 'anti-Iran' before, but you make a good point I suppose. I'm 69 and my whole life the issue of Sunni and Shia never ever entered into my life. I know nothing about all that except that they exist.

Yes, Thomas Friedman is a player.


WHy don't we arm ISIS? I think we do; maybe not directly but one way or the other, we do.


In the US, the ultimate raison d'etre is $$$$. Forget all that jazz about Shia/Sunni, Iran's "ambitions" etc. America's ruling elite could give a shit less about that. It's about control of resources, oil and PIPELINES! Assad has agreed to a Russia/Iran/Syria pipeline and American corporate interests want their own pipeline through Qatar, which they would control. Iran has refused to be America's puppet, so they are an enemy. End of story. See http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/rfk-jr-why-arabs-dont-trust-america-213601

Of course the neocons do have a pro-Israel agenda, but that doesn't conflict with the above. Since the Iranians have made extreme anti-Israel statements from time to time (allegedly), that's just more grist for their anti-Iran mill.