Let's Keep Our Eyes Peeled for Another Bogus Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria

The New York Times editorial board is calling for the leadership of Syria, Russia and Iran to be tried for war crimes (see "Who Has Innocent Syrians’ Blood on Their Hands?") as it laments the lack of a broader U.S.-led UN-backed regime-change operation to collapse the Syrian government.

Jordan Shilton of Word Socialist Web Site answers that the U.S. has plenty of innocent Syrian blood on its hands (see "Syrian government offensive prompts calls for intensified US military intervention"):

When the battle shifted to Raqqa last summer, US war planes were slaughtering more than 100 innocent civilians every week as they dropped high-powered explosives on residential areas. In the end, to pursue its broader strategic goals of preventing Iran from consolidating control of eastern Syria and opening up a land corridor from Tehran to Damascus, Washington allowed thousands of ISIS fighters to escape Raqqa so they could take on pro-Assad forces.

Throughout both of these shameful episodes, which international rights groups criticized as war crimes, the Times and other establishment media mouthpieces not only buried reports of civilian casualties, not to mention images or videos from the war zone, but positively praised the US military for its supposed restraint in carrying out air strikes.

Elijah J Magnier sees the ongoing developments in Afrin as the beginning of the end for Rojava:

Only one month after the beginning of the “Olive Branch” operation, the Afrin administration began to understand the reality of the power struggle- but yet not completely. Russia is teaching the Kurds a lesson so that these understand the price of plying for favors from the US. The US feels impotent towards the Kurds and exposed, forced to reveal its plans for staying in Syria and for occupying a piece of its territory regardless of the defeat of ISIS. The Kurds can’t yet fully grasp the extent to which they are wood for the Syrian fire, caught between two superpowers.

In Syria, there are only two alternatives: either Moscow or Washington forces will remain in Syria (if the game remains rough), or they will cohabit as they did in Berlin after the Second World War.

The Afrin administration doesn’t understand that for every day that goes by there will be new Syrian demands. If the Kurds continue to resist these demands, Damascus will ask for further concessions and further withdrawal of the Kurds to the east of the Euphrates, to join the US forces (and remain as a burden on them). This is also allowing Turkey to be more determined in allowing the Syrian army to regain control of Afrin.

Although the central government in Damascus agreed to send several hundreds of local militants from Nubbl and Zahraa and other national forces as a preliminary support, it is likely that the negotiations over Afrin will continue until mid-March in Kazakhstan between Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria (indirectly), discussing not only Afrin but also Idlib- unless the Kurds acknowledge without delay all of Damascus’s conditions. Otherwise, with every day that goes by Turkey increases its influence and occupies more territory in the enclave.

Russia is not expected to be satisfied with one hit against the US in Afrin but is accelerating the end of control by al-Qaeda and other militants (Faylaq al-Rahman and Jaish al-Islam) over al Ghouta, east of Damascus. The Russians would like to see the US alone (Russia considers Turkey is the lesser evil in Syria and can deal with it later) in Syria to point out its illegal presence and therefore illegal occupation of north east Syria, particularly when the remaining of ISIS concentration is situated within the area on the Syrian-Iraqi borders which is under the US control. The US forces are now looking like a force protecting the terrorist group and allowing it to continue its existence and operations in Syria and in Iraq.

Erdogan is promising to attack Afrin city within days. If this happens, and Afrin falls to the Turks/Free Syrian Army, Rojava will not be able to deny that for all intents and purposes it is but a fig leaf for the outlaw U.S. occupation of northeast Syria.

On the other hand, if the pro-Syrian Shiite militias entering Afrin are successful in blocking "Operation Olive Branch," then, as Magnier says, the Kurds will have to accommodate further Syrian demands.

So it doesn't look good for the Kurds. And if we accept Magnier's reasoning, what is bad for the Kurds is bad for the United States.

Anytime the U.S. is looking at the "jaws of defeat" it is always wise to consider the "make the problem bigger" scenario, a favorite page in the U.S. playbook. Here, as in the past, not to mention the signal offered by the NYT editorial, it would likely be in the form of an airstrike retaliating for alleged SAA chemical weapons use. Moon of Album warned of this last week.

There would be no support in the American electorate for such an attack. But people are distracted with the Mueller indictment -- we are being told basically that all social media is compromised by Russian bots -- and the popular uprising to ban the sale of assault weapons. So if McMaster wanted, and he was able to convince Trump to front it, he could get away with it now.