Recently, media outlets have been publishing more and more articles claiming to be impressive "revelations of the century." Their common point is simple: every leader in the Middle East, whether a prince or a president, is allegedly a product of Western intelligence agencies. From Libya to Iran, from Yemen to Syria, these articles always contain familiar acronyms: CIA, MI6, sometimes even Mossad, and, as proof, a collection of half-truths assembled into an impressive and emotionally charged mosaic.
At first glance, such texts give the impression of "insider reports." They are full of excerpts from "anonymous sources" and are covered by a fog of secret operations, conspiracies, and diplomatic backroom deals. But if one removes the dramatic veneer, it becomes clear that we are living in an information war, where real events are rearranged to serve political purposes.
A "sensation" from Baku
Another example of this kind was an article published on the haqqin.az website titled "A brilliant operation by the British secret services: a jihadist wears a suit and tie. Wars of the secret services." The article claims that the current Syrian president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, better known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani, was a "CIA target" while imprisoned in the American Camp Bucca in Iraq.
There, according to the authors, a team of British MI6 agents began working on him, aiming to "create a manageable leader" who would head a "new Syria" years later. The plot is essentially manufactured. There is a prison, there are secret services, there is recruitment, and all this converges into a beautiful political conspiracy theory. But if one examines the facts, the main question arises: "Who could possibly 'recruit' in an American prison run by the Pentagon and the CIA?"
Camp Bucca: Fact, not fiction
Camp Bucca, a prison that actually existed in southern Iraq, was under US military jurisdiction from 2003 to 2009. Al-Qaeda fighters and Saddam Hussein supporters were held there.
According to the BBC, Reuters, the Guardian, and the Carnegie Middle East Center, al-Julani was indeed held at Camp Bucca, an American detention camp in southern Iraq—the same place where dozens of future Islamist leaders were held in the 2000s, including ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Researchers believe that this prison did not just become a place of detention but a breeding ground for radical networks that later spread throughout the region.
But the very idea that British MI6 agents were operating within the facilities of an American military installation is doubtful. MI6 had no jurisdiction in Iraq, much less in facilities under the complete control of the United States. Any intelligence activity on another country's facilities requires official permission, which is impossible in such cases.
This raises a logical question: if "Camp Bucca" was run by the CIA and the US military, then why were the British suddenly involved in "recruitment"? The answer is obvious: they were not involved. The mere mention of MI6 is effective—it adds intrigue, broadens the scope of the story, and gives it an international character. A conspiracy theory always requires a second player. The information alone is not enough. A duo—the CIA and MI6—is required for a story to be "serious."
Truth mixed with myth
The article mentions elements that are based on reality, such as the fact that al-Julani was indeed at Camp Bucca. Inter Mediate, Jonathan Powell's British NGO, works on conflicts (Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Syria). The renaming of Jabhat al-Nusra to HTS took place in 2017 and was accompanied by attempts to present the movement as "moderate Syrian resistance."
However, all these are just real fragments, assembled into a false logical chain. Among professional analysts such as the RAND Corporation, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the International Crisis Group (ICG), and UN Security Council experts, there is not a single confirmation of the version of al-Julani's "recruitment" by Western intelligence services.
Thus, no international institution confirms the position of "special recruitment operation." On the contrary, all sources indicate that HTS remains under international restrictions and Ahmed al-Sharaa (al-Julani), until literally yesterday, was included in the sanctions lists of the US and the UN Security Council.
And here a logical question arises: if al-Julani was indeed an agent of the CIA and MI6, why did it take his "creators" a whole year to lift the sanctions and clear him and Syria of suspicion? Was it a "cover-up operation" spanning months of diplomatic maneuvering, or, conversely, a major political move where a former fighter managed to turn his vulnerability into an advantage, exploiting Syria's strategic position and concluding agreements with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United States?
In reality, however, the lifting of sanctions against Syria and the removal of Ahmed al-Shara'a from the list of terrorists was not just a diplomatic act but a symptom of a deep shift in international relations. Contrary to the traditional principles of international law and diplomatic ethics, the armed coup and the leader of HTS were legitimized under the pretext of "pragmatism and the search for stability." Modern politics is increasingly guided not by moral or legal principles but by reasons of expediency and geopolitical calculations.
The example of Syria demonstrated that in the 21st century, the line between "terrorist" and "partner" is fluid—it is defined not by one's past but by one's usefulness to global centers of power. Ultimately, the very fact that a man who began his career in the Al-Qaeda underground is now negotiating with the leaders of the great powers speaks less about espionage and more about how flexible and cynical modern geopolitics has become.
When the CIA is too boring and the MI6 is beautiful
The paradox is that conspiracy theories are always based on a critical point. MI6 is a brand that has absorbed the aura of espionage, James Bond, and intrigue. Compared to the American CIA bureaucracy, the British look like the elite of the secret game. Therefore, in such articles, the British intelligence service is interwoven with any scenario—from Ukraine to Syria, from Libya to Latin America. This gives the text a cinematic quality, but it deprives it of its credibility. In practice, if anyone had any possible contact with personalities like al-Julani, it was exclusively the CIA, and only through interrogations or interviews by the intelligence services, not through "leadership development" programs.
The real motive behind such publications
The appearance of such material in the regional media is simply explained: it is an information tool that helps create a stable image in which any political success or failure in the East is attributed to Western intervention. In such a narrative, there is no room for internal causes—only for external "orchestrators."
Removing the superficial embellishments and the impressive titles, it becomes clear: the purpose of such publications is not to reveal or pursue the truth. Their primary goal is to influence perceptions and shape the desired social and political framework. In this case, we are talking about legitimizing an old political position, known since the Cold War era: all radicals, coups, and instability in the East are the result of secret Western games.
At the same time, there is a "persistent view" that this narrative can benefit several parties simultaneously:
-
Iran - to present its own expansion and support for Shia groups as a "battle against a Western conspiracy"
-
Russia - to highlight the hypocrisy of the West and reinforce anti-American rhetoric in the region
-
Syrians loyal to the old regime - to prove that the new government in Damascus is a "puppet" and therefore the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad was illegal.
At first glance, everything is obvious. All the "bad things" are needed by the "bad guys." After all, these countries have clearly lost their president, so they are trying to install a "foreign" president. But if one looks deeper, it becomes clear: a publication of this kind is not just an ideological tool but an element of a hybrid operation that uses mirroring techniques of information warfare.
Information camouflage
In today's media landscape, the most effective approach is the use of an "inverted message"—that is, an article created on behalf of a supposed opponent, but at the same time hitting the interests of many parties. In our case, the article published in the Azerbaijani part of the internet fulfills exactly this role.
Superficially, it appears to be a blow to Ahmed al-Sharaa, a man who, according to the authors, allegedly "originated from the CIA and MI6." Thus, his image as a legitimate leader of Syria is discredited: he is portrayed not as a reformer but as a project of the secret services.
But at a secondary level, this is also a blow to Russia and Iran. The text implies that these countries are "exposing" a Western proxy, thereby undermining confidence in their positions in the region. This creates a logic that resembles mirroring: while accusing the West, the material simultaneously discredits the anti-Western bloc, presenting it as an accomplice in a "new information game." It is a typical dual-use information tactic: a stone thrown at one person ricochets back at everyone. But that's not all.
A classic example of modern disinformation
This approach is widely used in modern information and psychological warfare. The idea is simple. A narrative is created on behalf of a "third party" (regional media, pseudo-analyst, "leak" from an insider). The material contains partially true data but is constructed in such a way as to provoke mutual distrust among the players. Then comes the self-reinforcement, meaning the publication is picked up by news aggregators and within 24 hours becomes a "cited source."
As a result, the one who remains in the shadows wins. No one admits responsibility for the information leak, but its result works: the West is justified, the East is annoyed, Russia and Iran suspect a leak, and the public learns a catchy story about a secret service conspiracy.
Information operations of the 21st century
Modern politics increasingly resembles not a diplomatic process but a continuous war of concepts. Where cannons were once fired, today headlines are launched. Every media project, every leak, and every article becomes part of a global battle for perception—for who will determine what is good and what is bad, who is the victim and who is the puppeteer.
The story of the "British operation to create a Syrian president" is only one such example. It is not about Syria or even the intelligence services, but about the struggle for control of the narrative: "Whoever tells the story first will prove its 'truth'." And if today someone turns a former militant into a president and journalists into unwilling spies, then tomorrow the same can be done in any other country, with any other name. In the age of hybrid warfare, reality no longer belongs to facts—it belongs to those who can convincingly synthesize.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών