The US Ponders a Strike Against Syria: What’s Behind This Aggressive Approach?

The US is considering the option of military action against Syria. The alleged use of chemical weapons (CW) by the Syrian government, which is not backed by any solid evidence, is to serve as the pretext. Syrian President Assad is going to be “punished.” On March 6, US President Trump and Israeli PM Netanyahu discussed the threat posed by Iran’s presence in Syria and ways to counter it.

Chemical weapons? But why should Syria’s President Assad use them if he has had no trouble winning with conventional weapons wherever he goes? Couldn’t the rebels be using CW? Instances of that have been uncovered and confirmed. But no, US officials don’t even bother to give a passing thought to such “unimportant and irrelevant” considerations. They know better who to blame and who deserves to be made to pay for the wrongdoings they believe have taken place. In April, 2017, the US delivered a missile strike against a Syrian military facility, in flagrant violation of international law.

It’s worth noting that a group of US senators visited Israel in late February. According to them, a conflict between Israel and the pro-Iranian forces in southern Lebanon was imminent and that fighting would likely encompass Syria as well. Israel has been increasing its support of proxy groups in Syria recently.

Senator Lindsey Graham believes that Tehran is “testing” the US and Israel and that the administration is not doing enough to push back against Iran in Syria and throughout the Middle East.

On Feb. 28, just three days before Israeli PM Netanyahu arrived in the US on March 4, Fox News offered its audience an exclusive report on a military base being built by Iran in Syria. It claimed this information was evidence that Tehran was preparing for a permanent presence in the country. The story was presented as a real scoop and the timing was carefully chosen. The report plays into the hands of both the administration and as well as those in Congress who are calling for a more resolute stand on Syria.

Israel enjoys almost unlimited US backing, which forces America to become involved directly or indirectly in the hostilities. Last month, French President Emmanuel Macron said he would order airstrikes against Syria if the use of CW were confirmed.

Israel is a privileged ally but it’s not only Israeli security that drives American policy. And it’s not so much Syria but Iran the US has in its crosshairs. If America allows Iran a land bridge linking it to the Mediterranean via Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, this will frustrate its main Middle East allies – the Persian Gulf monarchies. Lebanon will leave the sphere of Western influence. The tensions between Sunni Arab states and Iran boost US arms sales to rich Middle Eastern countries, which is hugely profitable. Thus a belligerent stand toward Tehran allows America to preserve its political clout in a region where its policy has been such a disaster in recent years.

It will be too hard to reach any agreement on the recently discovered offshore gas deposits in the eastern Mediterranean, which are a bone of contention between Israel and Lebanon. And the gas exports from these fields could diminish or eliminate the need to import Russian gas to Southern Europe, which would kill the prospects for the Turkish Stream project. Without Iran, Lebanon could be pressured into an agreement on terms dictated by Israel and America’s European allies.

With access to the Mediterranean, Iran could build naval bases that would threaten the NATO naval forces there. The ability to ship exports by sea would boost Iran’s income, making the country richer and more powerful.

Attacking Syrian forces to force a retreat will reduce Moscow’s influence and hamper the diplomatic efforts to bring peace to Syria that have been so successful recently. So-called “rebel groups,” so recently and spectacularly defeated, will reemerge as a force to be reckoned with. From Washington’s perspective, a divided Syria with vast swaths under the control of pro-US and Israel-backed groups is better than a united country in which the West can take part in the peace talks but not as a party that controls territory or exerts significant influence on the balance of power.

Inventing a reason to use force against Syria is a way to fight Iran and roll Russia back. This is a very dangerous policy. As a result, Syria will become a battlefield where powerful actors clash in their pursuit of strategic goals. That will be much worse than fighting jihadists. This scenario can be avoided through diplomatic efforts headed by Russia with the input of all. That’s what Moscow is talking about but the US does not listen. There were times when the US ignored Moscow’s concerns about Russia’s security. On March 2, Russian President Putin unveiled information about the new super weapons Russia alone possesses in the world today. In this same manner Washington may find that participating in Moscow-sponsored peace initiatives is a much better way to settle the Syrian conflict than instigating tensions as it is now doing, but it may already be too late.

By Peter Korzun of Strategic Culture.

Evidence Calls Western Narrative About Syrian Chemical Attack Into Question

 Via Disobedient Media

The April 4th, 2017 incident at Khan Sheikhoun has provoked an emotional response around the world after images began to emerge showing civilian adults and children apparently suffering from the effects of chemical weapons. President Donald Trump has stated that the attack has totally changed his views towards the Syrian civil war, and may alter his intended strategy there.

Although Western media immediately accused Bashar al-Assad of participating in a gas attack against his own people, the evidence indicates that the intended target was not immediately in a civilian area and was in fact a location where Syrian White Helmets were on the scene with rebel groups at what observers have claimed was a storage facility for conventional and chemical munitions. Additionally, evidence indicates that rebel groups may have had prior knowledge of the attack and knew that there was a risk of chemical weapons being unleashed. The attack also came in the aftermath of a trip by Senator John McCain to meet with groups known to associate with radical jihadist factions in Syria, at a time when the United States government has been engulfed in a power struggle between different political factions who disagree strongly over what should be appropriate policy in regards to the Syrian civil war.

I. Evidence From Khan Sheikhoun Does Not Support Assertions Of Airborne Chemical Weapons Use

Evidence which has emerged in the aftermath of the attack at Khan Sheikhoun indicates that not only was the nature of the attack misreported by the media, but that certain individuals on the ground in Syria may have had foreknowledge of the attack up to several days before it happened. On April 3rd, 2017, an anti-Assad journalist tweeted that the next day he would be launching a media campaign to cover airstrikes on the Hama countryside, including the use of chemical weapons. It is not clear how the reporter was able to know that chemical weapons would be used an entire day before the attacks occurred.

Tweet from journalist one day before the attack indicating foreknowledge about chemical weapons usage

Observers further noted that on April 1st, 2017, a doctor on the ground in Khan Sheikhoun, Dr. Shajul Islam, had received several shipments of gas masks in the days running up to the chemical incident. The revelations on Twitter fueled speculation that opposition figures were aware of the chemical attack days before it actually happened, contesting the narrative that the Syrian government was responsible. Daily Mail has reported that Dr. Shajul Islam was at one point sought by the British government in connection with the abduction of two journalists in Syria, and security services have stated that Islam and his brother may have had ties to ISIS executioner “Jihadi John.”

Additionally, footage from the scene of the incident taken by the Syrian White Helmets appears to show that their operatives were not assisting victims in a manner that was consistent with established protocol on how to handle sarin saturated bodies. Images appear to show that Syrian White Helmet operatives were handling purported sarin victims with their bare hands, rather than with gloves, which is necessary to prevent the rescuer being injured by the chemical themselves. They also appear to be using simple dust masks, which are not suitable protection in the event of a sarin attack.

Image released by the Syrian White Helmets which shows rescue workers handling victims with their bare hands and inadequate gas masks, undermining claims of sarin usage

Disobedient Media has reported in January that the Syrian White Helmets are heavily supported by the United State government via USAID, are implicated in war crimes committed in Aleppo and other parts of Syria during the civil war and appear to have a large number of members who are involved with local Syrian militia groups and jihadist organizations.  The White Helmets have also been caught staging rescue footage for propaganda purposes in the past.

United Arab Emirates-based Al-Masdar News has also cited Twitter users who noted that photos of the Khan Sheikhoun attack appear to show storage facilities rather than a residential area and speculated that the White Helmets may have been using the location alongside rebel groups who were storing munitions in the area. The Russian Ministry of Defense have stated that the release of any chemicals was a result of a Syrian government airstrike against rebel supply depots in the area where chemical arms were being produced.

II. Rebels Are Known To Have Possessed And Used Chemical Weapons In Syria For Some Time

While the Syrian government surrendered their chemical arms stockpiles for destruction several years ago, evidence indicates that rebel groups in Syria have ramped up their own supplies of the deadly weapons systems and have not hesitated to deploy them in combat. On June 23rd, 2014, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Syrian government had completed the removal of all chemical weapons from the country per and agreement they had reached with the United States. The handover was confirmed by the United Nations Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. While the Syrian government have surrendered their chemical weapons, rebel groups have acquired and used them in increasing numbers.

The supplies for these weapons appear to come from multiple sources. Before they were handed over to the U.S. military, rebel groups such as ISIS were able to capture stockpiles of chemical weapons from Syrian army depots. On July 9th, 2014, just weeks after the Syrian army’s handover, The Guardian reported that ISIS had captured a massive former Iraqi chemical weapons facility northwest of Baghdad, confiscating over 2,500 degraded chemical rockets filled with sarin. Research has also led to speculation that ISIS and other rebel groups may have been able to access materials for chemical weapons stored by Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.  In November 2016, The New York Times acknowledged that ISIS had used chemical arms at least 52 times in Syria and Iraq.

Daily Mail: Rebel tests weaponized chemical agent on rabbits in Syria

ISIS is not the only rebel group to possess sarin and other kinds of chemical munitions in Syria however. Video obtained by Daily Mail shows that Syrian rebel groups in Libya have been experimenting with various kinds of chemical weapons for some years now. In 2014, the United Nations acknowledged that “abandoned” sarin gas cylinders had been located in the city of Aleppo. On April 8th, 2016, Voice of America reported that jihadist group Jaysh al-Islam used chemical weapons in attacks against Kurdish troops in Aleppo.

III. The Khan Sheikhoun Incident May Be Part Of An Ongoing Power Struggle Over U.S. Policy In Syria

The chemical attack also appears to play into the ongoing power struggle between the American political establishment and members of the new Trump administration. Political figures who are hawkish towards the Syrian government have noted with some dismay that President Trump had until this week been apparently unwilling to prosecute the United States’ stated goal of enacting regime change in Syria, citing the larger threat of ISIS and other jihadist terror groups as a priority.

The United States politicians who have taken funds from countries known to supply rebel groups with materials for the production of chemical weapons were also meeting with rebel factions who are reported to associate with jihadist groups in the run up to the attack. On February 22nd, 2017, CNN reported that McCain had made a secret trip to northern Syria the week prior. McCain’s made the trip despite the fact that since late 2015, the Western media has finally admitted that there were no longer any “moderate” rebel groups in Syria. In January 2017, Representative Tusli Gabbard returned from a visit to Syria to confirm these reports, as well as to reveal that U.S. support was effectively delivering arms to jihadist groups such as al-Nusra, al-Qaida, Ahrar al-Sham and ISIS who are operating inside Syria. McCain claimed to be meeting with forces who are preparing to combat ISIS in Eastern Syria, but The Guardian has reported that these groups are mainly comprised of mercenaries who have and will fight for jihadist groups if the price is right. Disobedient Media has also previously reported that in 2014, McCain accepted a donation of $1 million from Saudi Arabia. The CEO of Al-Masdar News, Leith Abou Fadel, recently posted images on Twitter in April 2017 showing Saudi-made chlorine agents found in East Aleppo which were being used to create chemical bombs.

Saudi-made chlorine agent captured in East Aleppo

The trip to meet with rebel groups is not McCain’s first. On May 27th, 2013, The Daily Beast ran an exclusive report revealing that Senator John McCain had made another secret trip into Syria to meet with “assembled leaders of Free Syrian Army.” McCain made the trip in spite of the fact that documents obtained by Judicial Watch which state that the United States was fully aware of the growing jihadi presence among Syrian rebel groups, and reports emerging in the American press indicating that rebels were increasingly engaging in war crimes. In August 2013, three months after McCain’s visit, civilians in the Ghouta neighborhood of Damascus were hit with a chemical attack after rockets containing sarin struck the area. Though most of the mainstream press immediately blamed the Syrian government for the tragedy, German paper Die Welt has since run a report alleging that the sarin did not come from the Syrian government, but from stockpiles held by jihadist rebel group Al-Nusra.

ZeroHedge has reported that McCain angrily slammed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson after the White House backed comments Tillerson and ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley made stating that the United States would no longer primarily focus on regime change in Syria. McCain’s desire to push regime change in Syria, his constant drive to seek confrontation with Russia, his close financial relationship to a state which is known to have supplied rebel groups with materials for crude chemical weapons and the now common knowledge that there are no “moderate” rebels remaining in Syria raises serious questions about the true nature of McCain’s secret missions he has embarked on in the country over the past few years.

The Syrian government has been making serious gains in the civil war, recapturing the city of Aleppo and pushing against rebel groups in many other parts of the country with the support of the Russian Federation. It is strategically counterintuitive to assume that Bashar al-Assad would engage in a chemical attack on Syrians just one week after figures in the American government expressed the opinion that they would be willing to allow him to remain in power. The Syrian government no longer even possesses chemical weapons, as the United Nations and U.S. Department of State have already confirmed.

The involvement of the US-supported White Helmets, who have a history of association with war crimes and extremist groups in Syria and the apparent anger from the factions in the American government who oppose President Trump’s policies in Syria suggests that the facts surrounding the Khan Sheikhoun attack are being intentionally distorted for political gain. The apparent association of Senator John McCain with groups linked to extremism in Syria just weeks before the attack and his financial ties to states which have supplied rebel groups with chemical arms only serves to create further concerns that factions of the United States government are illicitly attempting to promote confrontation and drive increased U.S. military involvement in Syria. It may be some time before the full picture about the Khan Sheikhoun tragedy becomes apparent, but is more than clear that Syrian rebel groups hope to use the incident as a means of provoking increased Western support in their fight against the Russian-backed government.

Syria Strikes “Cripple US-Russia Relations”

Responding to Trump’s unexpected military attack on Syria in which 59 cruise missiles were launched (of which only 23 allegedly hit their target), Russian President Vladimir Putin “regards the strikes as aggression against a sovereign nation,” his spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, noting that the president believes the strikes were carried out “in violation of international law, and also under an invented pretext.”

The Kremlin spokesman insisted that “the Syrian army doesn’t have chemical weapons,” saying this had been “observed and confirmed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a special UN unit.”

“It makes perfect sense that Assad would use chemical weapons he doesn’t have in a war he’s nearly won just to draw the west in to this war.”— from Twitter

The Russian president said he sees the US missile strikes as an attempt to distract attention from civilian casualties in Iraq, Peskov added.

“This step deals significant damage to US-Russian ties, which are already in a deplorable state,” Peskov said and added that the US has been ignoring the use of chemical weapons by terrorists and this is dramatically aggravating the situation, in Putin’s opinion.

“The main thing, Putin believes, is that this move [by the U.S.] doesn’t draw us nearer to the end goal in the fight with international terrorism and on the contrary, deals a serious setback to the creation of an international coalition in the fight with it,” Peskov said.

* * *

Other Russians took the opportunity to opine as well, led by Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov who said the US missile attack on a Syrian airbase is an act of aggression under a far-fetched pretext and is reminiscent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Quoted by Tass, the top Russian diplomat said “It is an act of aggression under a completely far-fetched pretext. This is reminiscent of the situation in 2003, when the US and the UK, along with some of their allies, invaded Iraq without the consent of the UN Security Council and in violation of international law.”

“When speaking about the military intervention in Iraq many years after it happened, Tony Blair (who served as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007) acknowledged that they had misled everybody,” Lavrov emphasized. “Now they did not even bother to provide any facts referring only to photos,” he noted. “They indulged in speculations on children’s photos, on evidence provided by various non-governmental organizations, including the so-called White Helmets, which staged various ‘incidents’ to instigate action against the Syrian government.”

Moscow will demand truth of Idlib events, Lavrov stressed. “It is regrettable that all these causes do more harm to the already damaged relations between Russia and the United States. Hope remains that these provocations will not entail irreversible effects,” Lavrov said.

Russian lawmakers also took to the microphone on Friday, warning that the U.S. airstrikes in Syria could lead to an escalation of conflict in the Middle East and dash any plans for a U.S.-Russian coalition against terrorism.

“It’s a new round of escalation in the Middle East. These ill-judged, irresponsible actions don’t contribute to global security, security in the Middle East,” Andrei Krasov, the first deputy head of the defense committee in the Russian lower house of parliament, told state news agency RIA. “Other military conflicts, an expansion of military conflicts, are entirely possible,” he added.

Russian Senator Konstantin Kosachev said the airstrikes meant the possibility of a broad antiterror coalition in Syria “bites the dust before it was even born.”

He said the aim of the U.S. strike was to “rubber stamp” responsibility on Mr. Assad’s for the chemical attack in Idlib province on Tuesday. “‘The walls of Trump’ are multiplying. And everything started so well. It’s a real shame,” said a post on the Facebook page of Mr. Kosachev, head of the international relations committee in Russia’s upper house of Parliament.

Another lawmaker, Mikhail Emelyanov, warned against the risk of clashes between Russian and U.S. forces. “The U.S. is being dragged into the war in Syria in the full knowledge that Russia is supporting Syria and our troops are there, which means it’s fraught with direct clashes between Russia and the U.S. and the consequences could be the most serious, even armed clashes and exchanges of strikes,” Mr. Emelyanov told Interfax news agency.

* * *

In immediate response, Moscow suspended its memorandum of understanding on flight safety in Syria with the US following the missile strike, calling the attack “a demonstration of force.” The Russian military has supported the Syrian government’s version of the events in Idlib, saying that Damascus attacked an arms depot where chemical weapons had been stockpiled by Islamic State and Al-Nusra Front militants.

“Without bothering to investigate anything, the US went forward with a demonstration of force, a military confrontation with a country that is fighting international terrorism,” the Foreign Ministry’s statement reads.

“Obviously, the cruise missile attack was prepared beforehand. Any expert can tell that the decision to strike was made in Washington before the events in Idlib, which were used as a pretext for a demonstration,” the statement reads.

The Memorandum on air safety was signed in October 2015, after Russia came to Syria to fight international terrorism at the invitation of the country’s government. The document of understanding was designed to prevent possible mishaps between the Russian and US Air Forces operating independently in the region.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry has condemned the attack as an example of the “reckless attitude” that has only worsened “existing world issues” and created a “threat to international security.”

* * *

Additionally, according to Tass, in response to the strikes, the Russian frigate Admiral Grigorovich armed with Kalibr cruise missiles will be deployed to the Tartus naval base in Syria. The Russian Black Sea Fleet’s frigate The Admiral Grigorovich, currently on a routine voyage, will enter the Mediterranean later on Friday, a military-diplomatic source in Moscow told TASS, adding that the ship would make a stop at the logistics base in Syria’s port of Tartus.

“The Russian ship armed with cruise missiles Kalibr will visit the logistics base in Tartus, Syria,” the source said.

The Admiral Grigorovich is currently near the Black Sea straits. It is scheduled to enter the Mediterranean at about 14:00 Moscow time. The ship left on a voyage after replenishing supplies at Novorossiisk and taking part in a joint exercise with Turkish ships in the Black Sea. Tass’s source said the frigate’s presence off Syria’s shores will depend on the situation.

Source: Zero Hedge