The Real Reasons. Defeat in Syria is more than defeat in one Arab state. It portends a significant shift in the power balance in the entire region.
By Dr. Chandra MuzaffarGlobal Research, April 17, 2018
Url of this article:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/
The United States government has once again shamelessly violated international law. There was no legal or moral justification for launching more than a 100 missile strikes against so-called chemical weapons’ sites in Syria on the 14th of April 2018. Unlike the last strike targeting a single airfield in April 2017 which was also in retaliation for President Bashar Assad’s alleged use of sarin gas against civilians, the US was joined in its assault this time by its allies, Britain and France.The three Western powers claimed that they had strong evidence that the Assad government had again employed chemical weapons in Douma on the 7th of April, killing scores of civilians, including children.
If
the evidence was so compelling, why didn’t the US President present it
to the US Congress and seek its endorsement for military action, as
required by law? Why didn’t the British Prime Minister seek approval
from her Parliament, instead of getting a Cabinet cabal to endorse her
war plan? The French President also erred in this respect. One could go
further and ask why Washington did not share the evidence it had with
Moscow, Syria’s staunchest protector? Or, with other members of the UN
Security Council, apart from Britain and France?
Is
it because the so-called evidence was obtained from dubious sources —
such as the terrorist group, Jaish al- Islam which was fighting the
Assad government and in control of parts of Doumaon the 7th of
April? Were the White Helmets, a fake civil defence outfit established
by British intelligence and funded by both Britain and the US yet
another supplier of ‘evidence’? Or as it has happened on numerous
occasions in the past, was the ‘evidence’ generated by Mossad, Israel’s
intelligence network, in pursuit of its own nefarious agenda ?
The
source or sources of evidence of Assad’s alleged use of chemical
weapons is an issue that has to be explored thoroughly for an obvious
reason. Since the beginning of the war in Syria in 2011, there have been
at least half a dozen alleged episodes of Assad resorting to chemical
weapons in order to eliminate his adversaries which after independent
investigations have turned out to be false flag operations or gross
distortions of what had really occurred. In fact, some analysts are of
the view that a terrorist group had stage managed the 7th April
Douma episode and then put the blame upon the Syrian government to
justify foreign intervention. Ghouta in 2013 was also a false flag
operation, according to the celebrated investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh. Let’s not forget that Syria’s neighbourhood has witnessed some major false flag operations including that monstrous lie about Saddam Hussein’s ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ in 2002-3.
What
lends credence to this view about fabricating evidence and false flag
operations is the actual situation on the ground. Why should Assad
employ chemical weapons when he is on the cusp of total victory over his
terrorist opponents and other militants? How does it benefit him? Why
should he deliberately elicit the wrath of people everywhere when he is
already in a position of strength? Besides, he had surrendered his
arsenal of chemical weapons to the UN affiliated Dutch based
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in 2013.
This was verified by the OPCW. It was also the OPCW that established
some time ago that one of the three facilities destroyed by Western
missiles on the 14th of April was in fact a civilian
pharmaceutical and chemical research centre manufacturing among other
things drugs for cancer treatment necessitated by the embargo imposed
upon Syria.
With all this as the backdrop, one is not surprised that the US and its allies chose to attack Syria on the eve of the visit of the OPCW to Douma to verify whether, and what type of, chemical weapons were used on the 7th of April. Were the aggressors afraid that the truth about the 7th April episode would expose them? Was the attack a move meant to render the OPCW investigation academic?
Given
these and a multitude of other questions hanging over the allegation
about Assad’s chemical weapons, why were the US and its allies in such a
hurry to strike Syria? Before we attempt to answer that question, we
must understand that the US and Israel have for decades regarded Syria,
together with Iran and the Hezbollah, as the unyielding obstacle to
their persistent drive to dominate and control the region. To put it in
another language, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah constitute the triumvirate
of resistance to the US-Israel Agenda of Hegemony over West Asia and
North Africa (WANA). Israel in particular seeks to curtail and if
possible crush each of the three for similar and dissimilar reasons.
Since our concern is with Syria we shall examine why the leadership of
that country is in Israel’s radar.
For
Israel, control over Syria’s Golan Heights is vital for its security.
Israel’s notion of security is defined by its ability to control and
dominate its neighbours such as Syria and Lebanon. The Golan Heights
which Israel captured in the 1967 War was formally annexed on 14
December 1981. It is important to note that it supplies water to Israel
and contains oil, gas and minerals. With annexation, Israel asserted
its perpetual sovereignty over Golan which to this day international law
recognises as part of Syria. To translate its illegal annexation into
political reality, Israel has for a number of years sought to oust the
independent minded government in Damascus and replace it with a puppet
regime. It saw the uprising that broke out in March 2011 in a small
township in Syria as an opportunity and backed the rebels. Very soon,
the rebels were joined by militants, many of whom were linked to various
terrorist outfits. These terrorist outfits such as Al-Qaeda were
financed by countries in the region and trained and equipped by groups
in WANA and from Europe and the US. It is not widely known for instance
that Israel itself has provided arms to seven different terror groups in
Syria.
By
the middle of 2015, Israel and other supporters of these groups within
WANA such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey and those outside the region
such as the US, Britain and France, were confident that they would be
able to oust Bashar Assad, based upon the vast swathes of land and
resources that the anti-Assad forces had seized. Realising that its
longstanding ally in WANA was in mortal danger, Russia decided to
intervene militarily in September 2015. It fortified the Syrian Army,
and with the assistance of Hezbollah and Iranian advisers and militias,
Russia intensified the fight against terrorist groups in Syria. Within
20 months it was obvious that the tide had changed. The Bashar
government, buttressed by Russia, had regained control of most of Syria
by the last quarter of 2017. Douma was in a sense one of the last
footholds of one of the terrorist groups. With defeat staring in the
face of not only the terrorists but also Israel, some other regional
players and of course the US and its allies, the latter decided hastily
to strike against Syria on the 14th of April.
Defeat
in Syria is more than defeat in one Arab state. It portends a
significant shift in the power balance in the entire region. Russia may
well emerge as the pivot of this change with crucial roles for Iran and
Syria and other players. It is a scenario that is totally unacceptable
to the US and its allies like Britain and France. Incidentally, all
three at various points in the present and the past have been
imperialist powers in the region.
It
is not a coincidence that in all these three countries, Israel and
Zionism exercise inordinate influence. Israel has always viewed the US
and to a lesser extent Britain and France as the protectors of a power
structure in WANA that guarantees its own regional hegemony. It is
because Israel and its protectors are now uncertain about their
dominance that they have chosen to flex their muscles.
*
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST). He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.
Copyright © Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, Global Research, 2018