The truth behind Max Blumenthal's misinformation on Syria
Holes in Max Blumenthal's and Aaron Mate's deceptive narrative
I went down the rabbit hole of examining Grayzone’s work on Syria, which serves as a cornerstone for leftist arguments against the Syrian rebels. The effort is spearheaded by Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate. I was rather alarmed by what I discovered, and felt compelled to share what I learned.
I've observed that leftist arguments on Syria often rest on:
Reducing rebels to US-funded, Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists
Turning a blind eye to Russian involvement and Alawi supremacy
Seeing the world in terms of pro-U.S. versus anti-U.S. empire
Displaying antipathy toward Sunni Islamists while welcoming Shia Islamists
The narrative rests on shaky foundations. By no means are the rebels a monolithic group. Yet the leftist narrative reduces the rebels to Al-Qaeda terrorists and claims they are pawns in Israel’s established agenda to fracture Syria, based on the assertion that they are U.S.-funded cells.
Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate go to great lengths to link HTS to Al-Qaeda, framing HTS’s 2017 dissociation from the group as nothing more than a superficial rebranding effort. In 2020, HTS actively fought against the Al-Qaeda group — Hurras al-Din — in Idlib. In fact, HTS successfully eradicated their bases from the region. Perhaps this is why al-Qaeda leader Zawahiri angrily denounced HTS for rounding up its leaders?
The Grayzone dismisses all evidence supporting HTS’s claims. Everything from Christian celebrations proceeding without interference to Christians reporting life as normal under HTS governance. In fact, its worth noting that a Christian bishop expressed greater fear of Russian airstrikes on civilians ruining Christmas.
HTS officially opposes minority oppression and its social media is filled with proclamations for peaceful coexistence for minorities under its governance. They do not want to establish a global caliphate like ISIS, nor do they espouse global attacks like Al-Qaeda. Their focus has become localized to replacing Assad in Syria. Tellingly, their leader stated in his 2021 interview with PBS, “We haven’t posed any threat to Western or European society: no security threat, no economic threat, nothing.”
This tactic of labeling HTS as part of Al-Qaeda is a deliberate strategy to discredit them. For many, Al-Qaeda is synonymous with 9/11. And the association triggers an automatic, emotional rejection, especially among Americans. This strategy is designed to provoke fear and vilify HTS by linking them to a universally condemned organization. It’s the same reason Zionists always parrot “Hamas is ISIS”.
Such arguments also fail to recognize that organizations can evolve. For instance, Hamas, which carried out suicide bombings in the early 2000s, operates today in a significantly different capacity compared to its earlier terrorism.
Although Aaron Mate effectively documents the U.S.'s support of approximately $1 billion to some Syrian rebel groups between 2011 and 2017, there is no evidence that this funding continued beyond that timeframe. The Washington Post used this number to make speculative estimates that it was $1 of every $15 in the CIA budget.
After this article's publication, Mate falsely claimed the NYT said it was $1 billion annually. Worse, he employs circular reasoning, he uses the Washington Post ratio to speculate that the aid to Syria must be larger than reported.
Regarding the money itself, much of this money was squandered on training fewer than 100 fighters in the program, who quickly proved ineffective. Even a US commander gripes, “I’m telling you, this amount of weapons, once they are spread across the province is considered nothing.” Even worse, he inflates the figure to “tens of billions of dollars” in global arms support. So far, he has provided no evidence or receipts to substantiate this claim.
The discourse surrounding Max Blumenthal's claims about the Syrian conflict highlights significant manipulation and omission of context to paint misleading narratives. For example, Max references a Turkish source to assert that 21 of the 28 factions within the Syrian National Army were U.S.-funded. He omits that the same source says that the Army comprises 41 factions in total. Additionally, the same source notes that while 21 factions did receive U.S. support in the past, none are currently funded by the U.S., and 13 factions were formed after such support ceased.
This pattern of selective framing extends beyond data manipulation, and into Max Blumenthal's depiction of Syrian rebels. It’s evident when he shares a video of a bearded, smiling Muslim man in military fatigues walking through Aleppo after its capture. The man says nothing inflammatory or threatening, yet Max derisively refers to him as part of “pro-freedom forces” and sarcastically says “looks like some real democratic allies.” Because to Max, his appearance and presumed faith are inherently at odds with democratic values.
In another instance, Max states, “Watch one of the many medieval executions in which the White Helmets participated in areas controlled by the 'rebels.'” If you watch the video it becomes readily apparent that the White Helmet involvement was minimal. What exactly did the White Helmet volunteers do besides load an alleged murderer who was executed on to a stretcher? Notably, Max omits the detail that the White Helmets reported the “medieval” execution was carried out with the consent of both the murdered victim's father and the convicted murderer's father. While I agree that executions should have decorum, I couldn’t hear the crowd say anything other than takbeer as the authorities form a perimeter. Is it barbaric for the public to remember God after administering justice? Why mock these "medieval executions" as if the Western approach to capital punishment—spending tens of thousands annually to cage them in the prison-industrial complex and using costly lethal injection drugs—is inherently more humane?
Similarly, Aaron Mate has misrepresented events. For example, while he claims that 1,200 Christians in Idlib were being threatened to convert to Sunni Islam, the New York Times article he references tells a different story: Christians fled the city in 2015 after an alcohol seller was killed, a pastor was detained for 19 days, a church was closed, and public displays of Christianity were banned. If true, these are clear acts of persecution and suppression of religious expression. While these actions create a hostile environment for Christians, there is no mention of forced conversions. I can even overlook this (possibly genuine?) error by Aaron Mate, if he wasn’t displaying an overwhelming pattern.
Blumenthal’s critical thinking goes out the window in Syria. He argues that the rebels are targeting Syria’s air defense systems to make the Assad regime more vulnerable to Israeli attacks, claiming this puts Iranian officials at greater risk from Israel's air force. However, he completely glazes over that Israel's air force has almost always operated with near-total impunity in Syria. For instance, Israel conducted airstrikes in Damascus — the Syrian capital — as far back as 2003. They destroyed Syria’s nuclear reactor in 2007. In 2024, they continue to carry out airstrikes directly in Iran. In what world is Max Blumenthal living?
Has Syria’s weak and ineffective air defense system ever stopped Israeli airstrikes? To be fair, Syrian air defenses managed to shoot down an Israeli fighter jet in 2018—the only such incident since 1982. And granted, while additional air defenses are always beneficial, the rebels have a clear interest in neutralizing them as they can be effective against insurgent drones.
Of course, you have your rudimentary low-IQ (but probably well-intentioned) figures piling on like Jackson Hinkle, Richard Medhurst, Hadi Nasrallah, and Syrian Girl. While my primary focus is on the thought leaders driving these narratives, it’s important to highlight the absurdity of these surface-level commentators.
These cheerleaders stubbornly ignore the fact that not all rebel groups receive U.S. funding. They will throw in a picture of Netanyahu shaking someone’s hand at an IDF field hospital in Golan Heights in 2014. To amplify the narrative, they might also highlight an unknown Syrian opposition leader expressing gratitude to Netanyahu. Additionally, they might share a widely circulated image showing Syrian rebel children thanking Israel. Of course, a quick search reveals that the image was originally posted on MEMRI, who Finkelstein calls a “main propaganda arm of Israel”. Regrettably, Aaron Mate engages in similar behavior, such as sharing an article based on anonymous sources to support his narrative, despite mocking others for using anonymous sources.
They fail to comprehend the nuance of some rebel groups accepting Western arms out of necessity, while ignoring their own double standard by skimming past Russia's air support for the Assad regime. They are quick to point out foreign fighters who are Uyghur, but shrug off Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia. They jump to label Sunni Islamists as problematic, but won’t do the same label tagging for Hezbollah. Most embarrassing is when Blumenthal rushes to decry Syrian activists like Celine Kassem as employees for US assets, but fails to consider his wife Anya Prampil got her start as an employee for Kremlin asset Russia Today. What’s the phrase — “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”
Max Blumenthal’s "Management of Savagery"- A study in narrative manipulation
Max Blumenthal’s book Management of Savagery serves as a case study in the fusion of half-truths with anti-Muslim prejudice. He used the word “jihadist” 126 times. A central theme of the book is the claim that there are no moderate rebels in Syria. Blumenthal dismisses the notion outright, stating that “there was no shortage of public sources to put the lie to the CIA-spun idea of ‘moderate’ rebels.” To support this claim, he leans on assessments from figures like Adam Schiff, a well-known Zionist, to bolster his argument. To put it simply, to Blumenthal, all Syrian rebels are extremists.
Blumenthal reveals his weak grasp by starting the book with a reference to “proto-Wahhabi clerics like Ibn Taymiyyah, the medieval scholar who laid the basis for takfiri doctrine.” Umm... what? It quickly becomes clear that he has no idea what takfir even means. He incorrectly defines takfir as "self-hating apostates," a glaring error that sets the tone for the rest of his claims. But it gets worse.
To support his claim that Shaykh Ibn Baz was a fanatic, Blumenthal points to the fact that he “forbade [women] from shaking hands with men.” But how does this common religious belief constitute fanaticism? This stance is not unique to Ibn Baz; it reflects the near-unanimous position of mainstream Islamic scholars worldwide. Labeling a widely accepted religious belief as fanaticism reveals a lack of understanding. Or a deliberate misrepresentation of Islamic practices.
Without citations, Blumenthal asserts that the Saudi royals were "forced to turn to their sworn foe, bin Baz, for a fatwa authorizing the use of force to retake the mosque from Utaybi’s militia. In exchange for his edict, the royals entered into a Faustian bargain with the country’s rigidly conservative clerical class, agreeing to spend billions in petro-cash to project Wahhabism across the Muslim world.”
Seriously? Since when has Shaykh Ibn Baz been described as a foe of the Saudi government? In what world does this make sense? Furthermore, the Saudi government has never needed the permission of clerics to pursue military action, let alone Ibn Baz specifically. In fact, it would be a far more robust argument that the clerics need permission from Saudi, not vice versa.
Why would the Saudi royal family even require his fatwa when there are countless clerics, both in Saudi Arabia and globally, who would readily issue the same ruling? This makes it painfully obvious that the book wasn’t reviewed by anyone with even a basic understanding of Islamic theology or Saudi governance.
His book goes to extraordinary lengths to frame the 2011 protests in Syria as part of an ultra-conservative agenda. Among the myriad chants from the March 2011 protests, he cherry-picks one outlier to represent them all: “We demand, first, banning [gender] mixed schools!” Wait, what? Disregarding the countless chants of “Get out, Bashar,” he zeroed in on one about demanding segregated schools. Imagine attempting to encapsulate the Egypt or Tunisia uprisings with such an angle—it’s absurd.
For Blumenthal, the protests weren’t about widespread frustration with a brutal, decades-old regime. No, in his view, they were primarily about reversing the niqab ban (as if undoing such a ban is inherently sinister). This reductionist portrayal is consistent throughout the book.
As you read Chapter 6, “The Next Dirty War”, it’s evident Blumenthal’s objective isn’t to offer an honest account of events in Syria but to push a biased agenda that paints Islamists in the most negative light possible. His work sacrifices objectivity in favor of reinforcing his own preconceived narratives.
Of course, there’s no mention of the government’s Alawite supremacy—the glaring injustice of a 10% minority imposing its rule on the majority. Instead, take note of how he characterizes them: “the heart of the Syrian government’s popular base, the Alawite communities along the Mediterranean coast.” A laughably sanitized description to sidestep stark realities. As Blumenthal dehumanizes the Syrian resistance as extremist jihadists, he ignores how the Syrians have been fed up with Alawi’s institutionalized inequality. And so continues the French legacy of leveraging Alawite security forces to sustain colonial dominance in Syria.
There is no recognition of Syria’s apparatus that silenced dissent with ruthless efficiency. No mention of Assad’s political prisoners, many detained for years without trial. No acknowledgment of the savage mistreatment of Kurds, Syria’s largest non-Arab minority. No reference to the regime's use of torture or forced disappearances. To be fair, Blumenthal concedes that Syria is a "dictatorship" and a "police state”. But he can’t piece the puzzle together on how this frustration served as a backbone for a legitimate revolution.
Ghost of Blumenthal’s past
Before Max Blumenthal transformed into a fervent counterrevolutionary fiction writer on Syria, he parted ways with Al Akhbar newspaper in 2012, citing its biased pro-Hezbollah coverage of the Syrian conflict. In his resignation, he decried that Assad’s abuses “makes Israel look like, you know, a champion of human rights.” He stated that the Assad regime operates torture prisons with around 100,000 detainees and has killed up to 13,000 people to maintain power. He lamented, “Just because there are Western imperial designs on Syria doesn’t make him a freedom fighter.”
As late as November 2013, he compared the plight of Syrians to that of Palestinians, stating, “The left in America, the anti-war movement, has abandoned these people—farmers and workers whose lives have been destroyed. As an advocate for Palestinian rights, I cannot separate that from the suffering of these refugees.”
Well said, Max. Your decision to forgo a life of privilege, power, and wealth to stand as a force for justice for Palestine commands my utmost respect. Your outstanding work on Palestine earns my forgiveness, but the pain still lingers.
Dan Cohen wrote a similarly misleading article on December 9, 2024, which relied on sources that fail to support his arguments. I came across an excellent rebuttal in a worth-sharing Twitter thread.