U.S./French Attack on Syria Likely in the Works

In the wake of Israel's bombing of a Syrian military airfield in Homs Province, which apparently killed a number of Iranians, we need to keep focused on the possibility of a double tap. The second strike would be delivered by France and/or the United States.

Macron and Trump conferred by phone prior to today's UNSC special meeting on the alleged chlorine attack in Douma. They will be united in opposition to whatever Russian position is put forward.

Is Trump foolish enough to have another go at a Tomahawk attack as he did last year in response to Khan Sheikhoun? How about Macron? He's facing an unwinnable situation with a calendar chock full of rolling strike dates. France will be largely paralyzed in April. What better way to look tough to the rail unions than bombing the Syrian Arab Army?

Trump will be happy to have Emmanuel Macron as a wing man. Say what you will about Trump, but he is generally a quick study. He knows by know that the Saudis and Israelis are running U.S. policy on Syria. 

Jaysh al-Islam is a Salafi terror group guided by Saudi Arabia. It staged the chlorine attack in Douma prior to agreeing to an evacuation. The Saudis have Trump in a box. They stage a chemical weapon attack and they know Trump has to respond.

The problem here is that Russia is going to respond sooner or later, and that response will be designed to bring us to the brink of nuclear confrontation.

Read the Saker's informative post, "Russia Is Ready for War -- Mood on Prime-Time TV Is Grim":

I just spend about 2 hour listening to a TV debate of Russian experts about what to do about the USA. Here are a few interesting interesting points.

1) They all agreed that the AngloZionist (of course, they used the words “USA” or “Western countries”) was only going to further escalate and that the only way to stop this is to deliberately bring the world right up to the point were a full-scale US-Russian war was imminent or even locally started. They said that it was fundamentally wrong for Russia to reply with just words against Western actions.

2) Interestingly, there also was a consensus that even a full-scale US attack on Syria would be too late to change the situation on the ground, that it was way too late for that.

3) Another interesting conclusion was that the only real question for Russia is whether Russia would be better off delaying this maximal crisis or accelerating the events and making everything happen sooner. There was no consensus on that.

4) Next, there was an consensus view that pleading, reasoning, asking for fairness or justice, or even for common sense, was futile. The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been hopelessly zombified. The authority of the so-called “western values” (democracy, rule of law, human rights, etc.) in Russia is now roadkill.

5) There was also a broad consensus that the US elites are not taking Russia seriously and that the current Russian diplomatic efforts are futile (especially towards the UK). The only way to change that would be with very harsh measures, including diplomatic and military ones. Everybody agreed that talking with Boris Johnson would be not only a total waste of time, but a huge mistake.

6) To my amazement, the notion that Russia might have to sink a few USN ships or use Kalibers on US forces in the Middle-East was viewed as a real, maybe inevitable, option. Really – nobody objected.

Reach your own conclusions. I will just say that none of the “experts” was representing, or working for, the Russian government. Government experts not only have better info, they also know that the lives of millions of people depend on their decisions, which is not the case for the so-called “experts”. Still, the words of these experts do reflect, I think, a growing popular consensus.