Archive

Archive for the ‘Syria’ Category

Syria Says US Airstrike Killed Several Soldiers Near Jordan Border

(ANTIWAR.COMInformation continues to slowly trickle in related to last week’s US airstrike against a Syrian military convoy in thee nation’s south, with Syrian officials accusing the US of having committed a “massacre” and launching strikes which killed several soldiers. Exact figures were not released.

The US claimed the attack targeted a convoy which had gotten within 55 km of a military base at which US special forces were conducting training exercises. The exact location of the strike is as yet not public knowledge, though the Pentagon insisted that it meant the killings were “defensive in nature.”

We’re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.

The area around the Syria-Iraq-Jordan border, which by all indications is where the strike occurred, is split between Syrian military forces and US-backed rebels. Both are fighting ISIS in the area primarily, though the US presented the Syrian convoy is inherently a threat to American troops.

Russia was critical of the attack, declaring it “unacceptable” and a violation of Syrian territorial sovereignty. Since the US troops didn’t have permission to have a base in Syria in the first place, nor to launch airstrikes inside Syria, that seems a fair point.

The US insists that the attack was not indicative of a change in Syria policy, though it is only the second strike they’ve launched against Syrian military targets throughout the entire war. The previous attack targeted a Syrian air base, with a flurry of cruise missiles.

US Aggression against Syria and the Principles of a “Just War”. “Make America a Global Empire, Again!”

The US military forces committed a classical example of aggression on a sovereign and independent state on April 6th, 2017 by bombing the territory of Syrian Arab Republic with 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles killing civilians who are proclaimed as “collateral damage”.

A formal excuse for the aggression was based as many times before (from Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya… cases) on traditional political false flags and mainstream media fake news used by the US propaganda machine to sanction the Pentagon’s hegemonic policy of the Pax Americana.

The Fundamental Dilemma

The fundamental question is why the Obama and Trump administrations  supporting various Islamic fundamentalist jihadist organizations in Syria and the Mideast, labelled by the White House as “moderate rebels”?

The terrorist is simply the terrorist and there is no any difference between “moderate” or “hardcore” terrorist if the first term can exist at all for both logical and moral reasons.

It is already known that all of these terrorists in Syria, including primarily the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/DAESH), are armed and sponsored by the US (and Israel) and their regional quisling states (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar…).

The terrorists’ original warfare of partisan strategy [i], like by the Muslim Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army in 1995−1999, was based only on direct provoking of the legal and legitimate Syrian state security forces to respond by attacking the terrorists’ posts. Later, well armed and equipped terrorists occupied immense portion of Syria and establishing full scale of ideological and religious terror against the civilians that simply forced a regular Syrian security forces to launch large scale military actions in order to stop the jihadist terror and liberate the country from the criminals but as it is expected with unavoidable number of civilian casualties.

However, these civilian victims are not understood by the White House as a “collateral damage” but rather as the victims of deliberate ethnic cleansing and war crimes committed by the legitimate Syrian Government. Nevertheless, all civilian victims of the US bombing of Syria are (and will be in the future) presented by the US administration exactly as a “collateral damage” of the American “Just War”[ii] against the “oppressive” regime in Damascus.

The Principles of a “Just War” and the American Aggression on Syria

Here we will present the basic (academic) principles of a “Just War”:

  1. Last resort – All diplomatic options are exhausted before the force is used.
  2. Just cause – The ultimate purpose of use of force is to self-defend its own territory or people from military attack by the others.
  3. Legitimate authority – To imply the legitimate constituted Government of a sovereign state, but not by some private (individual) or group (organization).
  4. Right intention – The use of force, or war, had to be prosecuted on the morally acceptable reasons, but not based on revenge or the intention to inflict the damage.
  5. Reasonable prospect of success – The use of force should not be activated in some hopeless cause, in which the human lives are exposed for no real benefits.
  6. Proportionality – The military intervention has to have more benefits than loses.
  7. Discrimination – The use of force must be directed only at the purely military targets as the civilians are considered to be innocent.
  8. Proportionality – The used force has to be no greater than it is needed to achieve morally acceptable aims and must not be greater than the provoking cause.
  9. Humanity – The use of force can not be directed ever against the enemy personnel if they are captured (the prisoners of war) or wounded.[iii]

Nevertheless, if we analyze the last US (but probably not and the final) military campaign in regard to above presented basic (academic) principles of a “Just War”, the fundamental conclusions are:

  1. The US administration did not use any real diplomatic effort to settle the Syrian crisis as Washington simply gave the political-military ultimatum only to one side (the Syrian Government) to either accept or not in full required blackmails.
  2. This principle was absolutely misused by Washington as the USA was never attacked or occupied by Syria. The legal Syrian Government is waging a classic anti-terroristic war against the illegal military movements sponsored by the Mideast America’s quisling regimes and the US administration itself. In other words, the second principle of a “Just War” can be only applied to the anti-terroristic operations waged by the state authorities of Syria against the jihad militants and other terrorists rather than to the US military intervention against Syria.
  3. The Legitimate authority principle in the Syrian conflict case can be applied only to Syria and her legitimate state institutions and authority which are recognized as legitimate by the international community and above all by the UN.
  4. The morally acceptable reasons officially used by Washington to justify its own military action against Syria are quite unclear and above all unproved and misused for the very political and geostrategic purposes in the coming future. It was the same case with the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 but today we know that the NATO military campaign was not based on the morally proved claims to stop a mass expulsion of the ethnic Albanians from their homes in Kosovo as a mass number of refugees appeared during the NATO military intervention but not before. If Washington with its Western quislings was lying in the 1999 Kosovo case, it is logically quite expected to lie and today in the case of Syria.
  5. The consequences of the fifth principle are selectively applied as only the terrorists will benefit from both short and long term perspectives by the US military engagement in Syria if somebody will not stop further American (in fact Israeli) imperialism in the Mideast.
  6. The sixth principle is also practically applied only to the jihad terrorists in Syria, especially to the Islamic State, what is in fact and the ultimate task of the US policy in the Syrian conflict from its very beginning in 2013. In other words, the benefits of the American military intervention in Syria are overwhelmingly single-sided. From the long-term geostrategic, political as well as economic aspects, the intervention is considered to be very profitable with minimum loses for the US military during the further aggression on Syria.
  7. The practical consequences of the seventh principle is and it is going to be mostly criticized as the US obviously did not make any difference between the military and civilian targets similarly as it was in the case of the aggression on Serbia and Montenegro by the NATO in 1999 when it was even deliberately bombed much more civilian objects and non-combat citizens than the military objects and personnel – something what Syria can expect if Washington will continue with its aggression on the country. In this case, all civilian victims of the bombing of all nationalities will be simply presented by Washington as an unavoidable “collateral damage”, but in fact it is already and probably it will be a clear violation of the international law and one of the basic principles of the concept of a “Just War”.
  8. The eighth principle of a “Just War” surely was not respected by Washington on April 6th, 2017, and it is not going to be respected in the future, as the used force was much higher as needed to achieve proclaimed tasks and above all was much stronger that the opposite side had. However, the morally acceptable aims of the American policymakers are based on the wrong and deliberately misused “fact” in regard to the use of the chemical weapons (ChW) against civilians by the regular Syrian army. In this context, we have to remind ourselves that Washington used the same false flag strategy against Serbia and Montenegro in 1999 when the “brutal massacre of forty-five civilians in the Kosovo village of Račak in January 1999”[iv] by the Serbian security forces became a formal pretext for the NATO aggression. Nevertheless, it is known today that those Albanian “brutally massacred civilians” were in fact the members of the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army killed during the regular fight but not executed as the civilians as it was deliberately presented by the neocon warmongers in Washington.[v]
  9. Only the last principle of a “Just War” is respected by the US in the case of the American recent aggression on Syria but for the very reason that there are no captured soldiers from the opponent side. The same case was and concerning the NATO aggression on Serbia and Montenegro in 1999 when the Serbian authorities respected this principle as all (two) NATO captured pilots were treated as the prisoners of war according to the international standards and even were free very soon after the imprisonment.[vi]

Make America a Global Empire Again!

The US post-WWII imperialistic foreign policy of global hegemony is obviously not to be changed by a new 45th US President who only after three months obliterated all his pre-electoral campaign promises to keep hands off from Syria and to finally stop with the American practice of interventionist policies across the world.

Unfortunately, the unlimited US imperialism is going to be on agenda and of the 45th American President whose motto “Make America Great Again” is nothing else but only the intention to restore the US role of the post-Cold War global policemen “for behalf of the American people” as it is written on his presidential Twitter account (@POTUS). Therefore, Donald Trump (Einstein) as international law breaker and another war criminal in the Oval Office is going to be a good American President like his predecessor Barack Obama the Bomber who created the civil war in Syria by direct sponsoring the jihad Mideast terrorists.

Notes

[i] The “partisan” or “guerrilla” war is fought by irregular troops using mainly tactics that are fitting to the geographical features of the terrain. The crucial characteristic of the tactics of the partisan war is that it uses mobility and surprise but not direct frontal battles with the enemy. Usually, the civilians are paying the highest price in the course of the partisan war. In the other words, it is “war conducted by irregulars or guerrillas, usually against regular, uniformed forces, employing hit-and-run, ambush, and other tactics that allow smaller numbers of guerrillas to win battles against numerically superior, often heavily-armed regular forces” [P. R. Viotti, M. V. Kauppi, International Relations and World Politics: Secularity, Economy, Identity, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2009, 544]. With regard to the Kosovo War in 1998−1999 the reconstruction of the Albanian guerrilla strategy is as following:

“…a police patrol is passing a village, when a sudden fire is open and some policemen killed and wounded. The police return the fire and the further development depends on the strength of the rebellious unit engaged. If the village appears well protected and risky to attack by the ordinary units, the latter stops fighting and calls for additional support. It arrives usually as a paramilitary unit, which launches a fierce onslaught” [P. V. Grujić, Kosovo Knot, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: RoseDog Books, 2014, 193].

[ii]A “Just War” is considered to be a war that has a purpose to satisfy certain ethical standards, and therefore is (allegedly) morally justified.

[iii] A. Heywood, Global Politics, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, 257.

[iv] R. J. Art, K. N. Waltz (eds.), The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics, Lanham−Boulder−New York−Toronto−Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2004, 257.

[v] В. Б. Сотировић, Огледи из југославологије, Виљнус: приватно издање, 2013, 19−29.

[vi] On the NATO “humanitarian” intervention in the FRY in 1999, see more in [G. Szamuely, Bombs for Peace: NATO’s Humanitarian War on Yugoslavia, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013].

ISIS Crumble Under Syrian And Russian Army – Media Blackout

Russian and Syrian military personnel killed scores of ISIS militants on Wednesday amid a total mainstream media blackout in the West.

Russian and Syrian military personnel killed scores of ISIS militants on Wednesday amid a total mainstream media blackout in the West.

According to military sources in Deir Ez Zour, ISIS militants attempted to carry out an assault in the surrounding areas of the graveyards and Al Muwazafin neighborhood in Deir Ez Zour city.

Fort-russ.com reports: However, their attempts were thwarted by units of the Syrian Army. 28 terrorists were killed and at least 30 were left wounded, in addition to destruction of a tank, 2 BMPs, 2 vehicles equipped with 23 mm machine-guns, all of which belonged to ISIS.

A booby trapped bulldozer was seized by the army.

Later, army units, backed by the Syrian Air Force, engaged in fierce clashes with ISIS terrorists after they attacked army checkpoints in the surrounding areas of of Deir Ez Zour Airport and Liwa Al Tamin, killing more than 20 terrorists.

New progress was reported in the eastern countryside of Aleppo province.

Earlier on Wednesday, Tiger Forces special units managed to liberate the villages of Jirah Kabir and Daroubiyah.

This is a very important achievement as it means that the Syrian Army already entered the northern part of strategically important Maskanah Plains that link the provinces of Aleppo and Raqqah, following its withdrawal from the area back in the Summer of 2012.

Russia, Iran, Turkey Impose “No-Fly Zone” Against U.S. Over Parts of Syria

(ZHERussia said it’s ready to send peacekeepers to Syria after Turkey and Iran agreed on Thursday to Russia’s proposal for “de-escalation zones” in Syria. The move, welcomed by the United Nations, has been met with skepticism from the United States as the so-called safe-zones will closed for warplanes of the United States and those of the U.S.-led coalition.

As Bloomberg reports, the three countries signed a memorandum on the creation of so-called de-escalation areas on Thursday after two days of talks in Kazakhstan that also included representatives of the Syrian government and rebel groups.

We’re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.

Opposition leaders distanced themselves from the plan, saying they can’t accept Iran as a guarantor of the truce and that they want “clear and tangible” guarantees the deal will be enforced.

The U.S. also expressed doubts, as State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Thursday that the U.S. has “concerns” about the accord, “including the involvement of Iran as a so-called “guarantor,”’ and said Russia should do more to stop violence.

The four safe zones to be established in Syria will be closed for flights by US-led coalition warplanes, said the Russian envoy to the Astana peace talks, where the zones were agreed upon.

“Russia is ready to send its observers” to help enforce the safe zones, President Vladimir Putin’s envoy to Syria, Alexander Lavrentiev, told reporters in the Kazakh capital. “We believe the Syrian crisis can only be resolved through political methods.”

“As for [the coalition] actions in the de-escalation zones, starting from now those zones are closed for their flights,” Aleksandr Levrentyev told journalists in the Kazakh capital.

The Russian Ministry of Defense notes that the deal on safe zones in Syria will come into effect 21:00 GMT on May 5.

We wonder how long Washington will stand for what effectively amounts to a “no-fly zone” against U.S. war planes over parts of Syria.

US-Led Coalition Planes Banned From Syria Safe Zones

 

Russia has said that the four safe zones that are to be established in Syria will be closed to all US-led coalition warplanes.

“As for [the coalition] actions in the de-escalation zones, starting from now those zones are closed for their flights,” Russian envoy Aleksandr Levrentyev told journalists.

A memorandum was signed on Thursday establishing four “safe zones” in the Syrian provinces of Idlib, Latakia and Homs, as well as parts of Aleppo.

Press TV reports:

Russian news agencies quoted Russian envoy at Syria peace talks Alexander Lavrentyev as saying on Friday, a day after the fourth round of negotiations between the Damascus government and armed opposition in the Kazakh capital, Astana.

During the talks, Iran, Russia and Turkey, as mediators and guarantors of the ceasefire regime in Syria, brokered a memorandum on the creation of four de-escalation zones in areas where the most intense fighting is taking place between Syrian government troops and different militant groups.

Iran and Russia are allies of the Syrian government, while Turkey backs different militant factions. The trio is tasked with observing the implementation of the ceasefire regime, which was agreed last December and helped launch the Astana peace process a month later.

The memorandum was adopted based on a Russian proposal to single out four hot spots in violence-hit areas of Syria, including the provinces of Idlib and Homs as well as the eastern Ghouta region near Damascus.

Under the plan, Damascus and the militant groups, which are party to the Syria-wide truce, will stop all clashes and the use of any kinds of weapons in the security zones. The measure is meant to facilitate the progress of the diplomatic process as well as aid deliveries to civilians in the troubled areas.

Lavrentyev said Thursday that that under the plan Russia could send observers to safe zones. He said third-party monitors could be invited provided Iran and Turkey agreed.

Also on Thursday, top Syrian negotiator Bashar al-Ja’afari praised the latest round of Astana talks as an “unprecedented” leap forward in the peace process aimed at finding a political solution to the deadly Syria crisis.

 

Syria Chemical Weapons Attack: Without Any In Situ Inspection, OPCW Confirms “Sarin Exposure”

April 24, 2017 Leave a comment

Without Any In Situ Inspection, OPCW Confirms Sarin Exposure During the Explosion That Took Place in Idlib (Syria) Last April 4th

Prof Nicolas Boeglin

On April 19, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), confirmed that “the analysis indicate that the victims were exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance” during the events occurred in Idlib, Syria, last April 4th (see full text of the press release issued a the end of this note).

The explosion that took place in Syria last April 4th has been followed 48 hours later by a missiles strike of United States, with 59 Tomahawk missiles sent to the Syrian aerial base to which, in accordance to United States intelligence report (see full text), the alleged “chemical weapon attack” has been carried out by Syrian airforces. This strike constitutes a clear violation of United Nations Charter, as no military action can be taken without prior approval of UN Security Council. See on this particular point the analysis published by Professor Marko Milanovic (University of Nottingham) entitled: “The Clearly Illegal US Missile Strike in Syria” published by EJIL-Talk.

A well known scientist from MIT (Massachusetts), Theodor Postol has analyzed the intelligence report issued by United States, and has expressed some doubts about the United States thesis and conclusions on direct responsibility of Syria (see Postol´analysis published by GlobalResearch in which we read that:

We again have a situation where the White House has issued an obviously false, misleading and amateurish intelligence report“.

Syrian officials have stated since April 4th 2017 that they have no responsibility in the events that took place in Idlib and that no chemical weapons are used by Syria army since their complete destruction in 2014 (see Syrian representative´s statement at Security Council session, S/PV.7921 of last April 12, pp. 17-20). Early, Israel Defense Minister affirmed been “100% certain” that Syria top authorities were directly involved in the events of April 4th (see note of Haaretz).

A range of independent evidence fairly quickly showed the claims of Syrian Army involvement in the chemical weapons incident at East Ghouta were false.

While France, United States and United Kingdom have accused Syria to use chemical weapons against rebels group in Idlib (see the official statement made by their representative at the same session of April 12), Russia has asked for an immediate investigation in situ to clarify the exact origin of the chemical substances found in Idlib. On April 5th, three drafts resolution have circulated among the Members of the UN Security Council: see Document 1 (Russia´s draft), Document 2 (E-10 draft) and Document 3 (P-3 draft) reproduced at the end of our note entitled: “Chemical weapons in Syria and UN Security Council: no resolution adopted. Would you like to know why?“.

On the results announced by OPCW concerning Sarin presence in Idlib, Russia top officials have made a few questions related to the physical absence of an investigation team in Idlib:

According to Konashenkov, “in the past two weeks, not a single OPCW representative was seen there.” “Where do these samples come from? Who of the OPCW members was able to study them so fast while standard procedures stipulate a complex research which requires time, as we can see in the case of mustard gas use in Aleppo,” Konashenkov said” (see press note of TASS). At the end of this note, see official press release of Russia Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) reproduced.

The Convention for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has been ratified by 192 States, including Syria (in 2013). The only State that has not ratified this international treaty is Israel (see official list of signatures and ratifications).

OPCW PRESS RELEASE OF APRIL 19th, 2017

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — 19 April 2017 — The Executive Council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) reconvened today to further address the allegation of chemical weapons use in the Khan Sheikhun area of southern Idlib in the Syrian Arab Republic. OPCW’s Director-General, Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü updated Council members on recent developments regarding the OPCW Technical Secretariat’s activities.

Ambassador Üzümcü underscored that the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) continues its work using procedures and methodologies consistent with its mission and reaffirmed that the FFM has been endorsed by the relevant decisions of the Executive Council and applicable resolutions of the UN Security Council. He reiterated his full confidence in the professionalism and impartiality of colleagues comprising the Fact-Finding Mission teams.

The bio-medical samples collected from three victims during their autopsy were analysed at two OPCW designated laboratories. The results of the analysis indicate that the victims were exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance. Bio-medical samples from seven individuals undergoing treatment at hospitals were also analysed in two other OPCW designated laboratories. Similarly, the results of these analyses indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance.

Director-General Üzümcü stated clearly:

“The results of these analyses from four OPCW designated laboratories indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance. While further details of the laboratory analyses will follow, the analytical results already obtained are incontrovertible.”

In the meantime, the Fact-Finding Mission is continuing with interviews, evidence management and sample acquisition. The Director-General reported that an FFM team is ready to deploy to Khan Sheikhun should the security situation permit. He reminded the Executive Council of the 27 May 2014 attack on an FFM team and the action the Council subsequently took in emphasising the importance of safety and security of OPCW experts deployed to Syria.

The FFM is still anticipated to complete a first report of its findings to be submitted to States Parties of the Chemical Weapons Convention within two weeks and the Director-General will make the report available to the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism. Ambassador Üzümcü repeated his request for the continued support of all States Parties, including through the provision of relevant information, to ensure that the Technical Secretariat is able to pursue its work, and to allow it to fulfil the OPCW mission within a reasonable time frame.

The Executive Council decided to reconvene tomorrow, 20 April, to vote on a draft decision under discussion.

PRESS RELEASE OF RUSSIA MFA OF APRIL 20th, 2017

20 April 2017, 21:40

Comment by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov for TASS on the OPCW Executive Council session

The outcome of today’s vote at a special session of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Executive Council shows that the Western group of countries and some of the states that joined it are not interested in establishing the truth. They failed to demonstrate their willingness to take the only right step in this situation, specifically, to send a team of investigators to the scene of the chemical incident in Khan Sheikhun and to the Al-Shayrat air base, from which the alleged “chemical attack” was supposedly carried out, as they claim. Those countries continue to stick to their line, disregarding any argument, and continue to impose on the international community the same pseudo conclusions that they pushed on the UN Security Council.

They do not need the truth. For them, everything has been settled: Damascus is to blame, according to them, and Moscow, they say, is just obscuring the matter, preventing the OPCW from doing its job.

However, without collecting evidence at the location and establishing the facts, all their accusations against the legitimate government of Syria remain groundless. The West always has its own “pocket” specialists on hand, who are ready to write any report at the first signal and fit pseudo evidence into pre-formulated conclusions. Today, our diplomats in The Hague and the Russian Defence Ministry’s official representative talked about this amply and convincingly.

We are grateful to the countries that supported the joint Russian-Iranian draft solution. We heard many reasonable arguments in statements by representatives of the countries that abstained from voting.

And we strongly condemn the irresponsible stance of those that voted against it. The Western group has once again revealed the essence of its destructive approach.

These countries caused serious damage to the reputation and authority of the OPCW. By disrupting this badly needed process, they have again complicated the search for a way out of the Syrian crisis.

CIA Hell-Bent on Destroying Syria Over Oil, Declassified Document Reveals

April 22, 2017 Leave a comment

A declassified CIA document from 1983 reveals the real reasons behind destabilizing Syria and how “the US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey.”

destroying Syria

On April 11, the Saudi regime was highlighted for its continued deployment of chemical weapons against civilians – backed by the US coalition. In the context of the Syria strike, a decades-old plot to overthrow the Syrian government through means of war was revealed after WikiLeaks drew attention to a declassified CIA document published in 1983.

Where Saudi Arabia has an extensive history of human rights abuses and the US has an unwavering ability to turn a blind eye to the atrocities engaged in by the Saudis, the Assad regime – with unproven association to the recent chemical strikes – appears to be the target of a US military assault.

destroying Syria

A crime scene on an international scale that should have been investigated – to draw the appropriate conclusions – was very quickly decimated by Tomahawk missiles. What was left of the proposed storage space containing chemicals such as sarin, were utterly destroyed in fires and explosions instigated by the US military. This makes a conclusive investigation near on impossible to conduct.

The 1983 CIA documents, written by former CIA officer Graham Fuller, highlight the ongoing attack against the Assad regime. Starting in the 1970’s, when current Syrian President Bashir al-Assad’s father held office, the CIA examined plausible possibilities to overthrow the Syrian government. The CIA outlined possible allies – including Saddam Hussein and Iran – to help create Middle Eastern tensions in the name of geopolitical pipelines.

In the Key Summary of the report on page 1, the CIA outlines the necessity of war to lock in “US interests” in the region. The discussion hints at the pipeline running through Iraq and how Syria presents a challenge for “US interests in Lebanon and in the Gulf.” The summary of the document blatantly states:

“The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey.”

The reasoning behind such an ‘orchestration’ in the CIA’s own words was for the “sole goal of opening the pipeline.”

destroying Syria

From there, the document goes on to cover points on how to go about such an activity, and the benefits versus the consequences and possible responses from the nations they wished to participate in the conflict.

“Saddam Husayn,” the document reads, “is fighting for his life. It is only Iraqi desperation in a losing economic war of attrition that has caused Iraq to consider the extremely risky option of internationalizing the war in the Gulf, potentially leading to closure of shipping there.”

The declassification of the document, titled Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria demonstrates the arrogance of a department(s) that are unbashful about the Devil’s details. For what has now been ongoing anti-Syrian propaganda for a little over 3 decades, the US appears to have finally won – at least – a small part of the battle.

destroying Syria

According to the document’s between the lines rhetoric, were a means to destabilize a region, protect Israel, overthrow a strong-standing nation (Syria) and to fulfil the west’s desire and lust for fossil fuels:

“Syria continues to maintain a hammerlock on two key U.S. interests in the Middle East.

  • Syrian refusal to withdraw its troops from Lebanon ensures Israeli occupation in the south;
  • Syrian closure of the Iraqi pipeline has been a key factor in bringing Iraq to its financial knees, impelling it towards dangerous internationalization of the war in the Gulf.”

The document outlines how diplomatic efforts with the Assad regime drew very little result. And how the United States Empire ran out of patience.

destroying Syria

Fuller asserted that the most practical step forward was to portray Syria as an evil nation and corner Assad through the manipulation of other nearby countries’ grudges:

“Israel would simultaneously raise tensions along Syria’s Lebanon front without actually going to war. Turkey, angered by Syrian support to Armenian terrorism, to Iraqi Kurds on Turkey’s Kurdish border areas and to Turkish terrorists operating out of northern Syria, has often considered launching unilateral military operations against terrorist camps in northern Syria. Virtually all Arab states would have sympathy for Iraq. Faced with three belligerent fronts, Assad would probably be forced to abandon his policy of closure of the pipeline.”

Only months after Fuller’s report, on October 23, 1983, a suicide truck containing explosives caused 241 US military personnel deaths at a Marine barracks at neutral Lebanon’s Beirut International Airport. A simultaneous attack occurred kilometers away, killing 58 French servicemen, and two weeks later an attack against the Israeli military headquarters in Tyre killed 60.

In 2012, Micah Zenko wrote When America Attacked Syria. He recalls the explosions as a precursor to publicly blame Syria. Zenko wrote:

“According to a Pentagon commission formed to investigate the attack, it was “tantamount to an act of war using the medium of terrorism.” Within weeks, the CIA determined that “the bombings…of the United States and French MNF headquarters were carried out by Shia radicals, armed, trained, and directed by Syria and Iran.”

Similarly, in the last weeks, chemical attacks were linked to Syria’s Assad without any investigation and based only on ‘belief.’ A public outcry followed the Mainstream Media’s hype despite the vehement denial from both Syria and Russia that the attack was not of Syrian government authorization.

destroying Syria

For Assad to authorize a chemical attack, the self-sabotaging act isn’t logical. To kill the small amount of people that died, Assad only needed to put boots-on-ground soldiers.

It also begs the question why Assad would also carry out a chemical attack only days after Trump announced he’d leave Assad alone? Why risk US intervention?

As the 1983 report demonstrates, the United States has had their sights set on Syria for more than 3 decades. In 2013, the UN stated enough evidence pointed to the Syrian rebels (US backed) for the chemical attack then. Evidence was destroyed this year before an investigation was conducted. The Pipeline politics continues unabated, and there is no reason to believe that the current situation is any different from the last historical accounts.

%d bloggers like this: