to 60 cruise missiles fired by the US military struck a Syrian military
air base near Homs – which currently constitutes the font line between
Syrian Arab Army forces and multiple US State Department designated
terrorist organizations, including Al Nusra and the self-proclaimed
strike was allegedly carried out as retaliation for a supposed
“chemical weapons attack” near the northern Syrian city of Idlib, which
currently serves as the defacto capital of Al Qaeda forces remaining in
Rushed Strikes Based on Dubious WMD Claims
The strikes were carried out based on dubious claims unsubstantiated
with material evidence – claims made by militants and foreign-funded
fronts posing as aid organizations. Similar claims have been made, and
verified as false since and including the Ghouta chemical attack in
The US decision to rush unilaterally
without UN approval and before any form of formal investigation could be
carried out verifies the staged nature of the attacks. Were the US
confident genuine use of chemical weapons were carried out by the Syrian
government, a formal investigation would not only lead to a definitive
UN resolution against the Syrian government, but likely also to
long-desired regime change in Damascus.
Knowing that a formal investigation
would reveal the staged nature of the attack, the US has rushed into
action seeking to provoke a response from the Syrian government that
will retroactively justify an otherwise unjustifiable first strike.
The rushed strikes resemble a
small-scale repeat of fabricated evidence produced before the US
invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 which resulted in long-planned
regime change, the destruction of Iraq as a functioning nation-state,
and now well over a decade of chaos, conflict, division, and
Similar “humanitarian” grounds were used
by the US in 2011 to justify direct military intervention in Libya,
also resulting in regime change as well as the division and destruction
of Libya as a nation-state. Libya now exists as a breeding ground for
terrorist organizations and a springboard into Europe for African
refugees who had for decades sought life and work in Libya before the
2011 US intervention.
It appears now that the US has taken the
next, incremental step, to repeat this process of division and
destruction, this time in Syria.
Strikes Aid Al Qaeda, Defend Terrorists’ Last Bastion in Syria
The northern Syrian city of Idlib currently serves as the last significant stronghold of Al Qaeda in Syria.
The eastern city of Raqqa serves as a sister city for the Islamic
State. Despite claims that the two groups are ideologically and
strategically opposed, they have coordinated their efforts in Syria for
the entirety of the Syrian conflict.
Al Qaeda openly running the dysfunctional city – held together almost
entirely by foreign aid – US policymakers have repeatedly called for it
to be transformed into the defacto capital of an opposition government.
Much like the decades-long terrorist capital of Benghazi in Libya was
transformed into a front for US-backed regime change, Idlib would
function as a political front as US, European, NATO, and Persian Gulf
states dismembered the existing Syrian state.
With the city facing imminent liberation
by Syrian forces and their allies, the staged chemical weapons attack
and the rushed unilateral US missile strike that followed it seeks to
slow down or entirely reverse Syrian gains versus Al Qaeda’s stronghold
Ironically, US President Donald Trump
ran on a hardliner anti-terror platform in 2016 only to find himself
presiding over a foreign policy aiding and abetting the literal
perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and
Washington D.C. he predicated his immigration ban list’s creation on.
“Trump’s Policy” is Merely Continuity of Agenda
use of US cruise missiles to strike at Syria’s air force is in no
shape, form, or way “President Trump’s policy.” Instead, it is merely
the final execution of policy that sat on former US President Barack
Obama’s desk since attempts at swift regime change failed against Syria
use of ‘stand-off’ weapons like cruise missiles was tabled in 2013
after a staged chemical weapons attack near Damascus, and again in 2015
after Russia’s military intervention in Syria prevented more direct use
of US military force within and above Syrian territory. The use of such
weapons are required due to the nature of Syria’s air defense networks.
Bloomberg in its 2013 article, “Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Likely in U.S. Strikes on Syria,” would report:
cruise missiles are likely to be launched at night against hundreds of
Syrian targets, including some of President Bashar al-Assad’s elite
military units, if the U.S. and allies launch a military strike in
retaliation for the use of chemical weapons.
“I’m thinking a pretty significant initial wave” of several
hundred Tomahawks “and an assessment period and maybe a second wave if
we don’t think we accomplished the destruction we wanted to,” said
Jeffrey White, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who’s now a
defense fellow with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Again in 2016, the New York Times would publish in an article titled, “51 U.S. Diplomats Urge Strikes Against Assad in Syria,” that:
than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo sharply
critical of the Obama administration’s policy in Syria, urging the
United States to carry out military strikes against the government of
President Bashar al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a
cease-fire in the country’s five-year-old civil war.
The article would specifically mention the use of stand-off weapons like cruise missiles, claiming (emphasis added):
memo, a draft of which was provided to The New York Times by a State
Department official, says American policy has been “overwhelmed” by the
unrelenting violence in Syria. It
calls for “a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would
undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic
Clearly, then, regardless of the alleged
“pretext,” the US sought to escalate military action against Syria and
as an incremental prerequisite for eventual regime change, the use of
stand-off weapons including cruise missiles has been part of a singular
agenda since the Obama administration.
With US policy collapsing both within Syria and
around the world, the veneer of partisan politics and convincing
narratives used to convince Americans and the world that some sort of
legitimate representative government exists in Washington has been
peeled away. What is left is a dangerously desperate corporate-financier
oligarchy who is pursuing its agenda openly and with little regard to
public opinion, international law, or even fear of the consequences of
executing such poorly laid plans in front of an increasingly aware and
capable alternative “international order.”
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.