Trump's Last Gasp in Syria

UPDATE: Today a Pentagon spokesman backed up last night's White House statement that the Syrian government was mixing up a batch of chemical weapons (in order to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory). According to "U.S. Has Seen Chemical Weapons Activity in Syria, Pentagon Says," by Helene Cooper and Ben Hubbard, which has run all day with only modest changes:

Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters that what looked like active preparations for a chemical attack were seen at Al Shayrat airfield, which was struck in April by American cruise missiles two days after the Syrian government dropped bombs loaded with toxic chemicals in northern Syria. Another Defense Department official said that an aircraft shelter at Al Shayrat that had been hit by an American Tomahawk missile was being used for the preparation.

 Syrian and Russian officials rejected the accusation, calling the White House statement a provocation.

The Pentagon comments appeared to shore up the unusual statement Monday night by the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, who warned that Syria was preparing for what looked like another chemical weapons attack, and said that the United States would not hesitate to act if one was launched. But that statement appeared to take defense officials off guard. An official with the United States Central Command, which oversees combat operations in the Middle East, said Monday night that he had “no idea” what the White House statement was referring to.

A White House official said on Tuesday that relevant agencies, including the Pentagon, the State Department, the C.I.A. and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, had been involved in issuing the statement.

A defense official said that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis was aware of the movements at Al Shayrat and that the White House statement was coming. The situation “was very fast-moving,” the official said on Tuesday.

Since the divulged intelligence is so specific -- a bombed aircraft shelter at Al Shayrat -- why not go further and describe the suspicious movements? Are there men in hazmat bunny suits screwing canisters together?

Judging from the story's comments section, NYT readers are not buying it one bit. RoseMai from Boston, Mass. provides a representative point of view:

Between the WMDs, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Iran-Contra affair, etc. etc., I do not trust any US "intelligence" to tell United States citizens the truth. I would not be a single bit surprised if our government used false information to drag us into another foreign conflict.

And why Syria? There have been whole genocides thate've turned a blind eye to. This country does nothing on conscience alone.

No more! Focus on fixing what's wrong at home before even entertaining the idea of venturing abroad. We certainly have enough problems to keep us busy for a long time.

This contrasts will the lone opinion attached to the AP story of last night's White House statement that appears on the Kurdish news site Rudaw, The Kurdish Boy comments

Go ahead , and destroy all the enemies of America . Help the Kurds to bring peace and some humanity into a region ravaged by savagery. May God bless Trump and the Kurds.

I don't think he's being facetious.

The sentiment is not that much different on Eliot Higgins' Bellingcat website; it is just that with Higgins there is a greater degree of obfuscation. Take for instance Higgins' attempted refutation of Sy Hersh's latest, "Trump's Red Line." Higgins picks apart the inconsistencies between initial Syrian and Russian explanations of what happened at Khan Sheikhoun with the confidential source(s) Hersh relies on for his reconstruction of events:

In the face of allegations of chemical weapon use neither Russia nor Syria mention targeting “a jihadist meeting site”, and described the location as a “large warehouse” on the “eastern outskirts of Khan Shaykhun”, not a “two-story cinder-block building in the northern part of town” with “security, weapons, communications, files and a map center.” In fact, the only thing Hersh’s account and the Russian and Syria account agrees on is it was a Syrian aircraft which conducted the attack.

But Higgins completely ignores the 900-lb.gorilla that is the main focus of Hersh's piece in Die Welt. Information about the flight of the Syrian warplane that Higgins believes was the source of the sarin attack was fully shared by Russia with the United States over the deconfliction channel.

Does Higgins imagine that Russia would alert the U.S. to Syria's use of sarin? Maybe Higgins believes that the Syrians tricked the Russians and replaced the conventional bomb with a chemical weapon (which sounds like something from a 1960s situation comedy).

But now we're in "magic bullet" territory, which is where most of Higgins' arguments lead once the smoke clears and the mirrors crack. Higgins cannot ask the basic "Cui bono," but a commentator on his web site does:

Jim Miles - June 27, 2017
Follow the ‘needs’ – the U.S. needs an excuse to go after Assad regardless of Russia’s presence. The U.S. is the single largest purveyor of violence and creator of terror in the world. Another country dismembered (after Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya) will greatly help its control of US fiat petrodollar hegemony as well as to contain and deconstruct both Russia and China. The U.S.’ wonderful democratic progressive government of Saudi Arabia is fully in on this deal, along with its sidekick, Israel.The U.S. also has a first strike nuclear policy and the crazies within the deep state – and its not all that deep – are willing to create a situation In which it could use those weapons.

****

It appears the follow-up false flag to the April 4 Khan Sheikhoun attack is here. As the NYT reports:

WASHINGTON — The White House said late Monday that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria appeared to be preparing another chemical weapons attack, and warned that he would “pay a heavy price” if one took place.

Several military officials were caught off guard by the statement from President Trump’s press secretary, but it was unclear how closely held the intelligence regarding a potential chemical attack was.

In the statement, the White House said that Mr. Assad’s preparations appeared similar to the ones Western intelligence officials believe the Syrian government made before a chemical attack in April that killed dozens of Syrians, including children.

“As we have previously stated, the United States is in Syria to eliminate the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria,” the statement said. “If, however, Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price.”

I'm surprised that it took this long. Moon of Alabama explains that the timing has to to do with the G-20 summit in July:

During the last three days Al-Qaeda attacks on Syrian army position near the Israeli occupied Golan heights were supported by Israeli air attacks.

This all is clearly a coordinated operation by the "western" supporters of the Takfiris in Syria. Their aim is to prevent the victory of Syria and its allies and to split up the country.

The announced fake "chemical attack" and the "retaliation" it is supposed to justify will likely happen in the south-west of Syria around Deraa where all recent attempts by Israel and the U.S. supported Takfirs to dislodge the Syrian government forces have failed. The provocation, now prepared and announced by Macron and the White House and supported by the UK, is likely planned to happen shortly before or during the upcoming G-20 meeting in Hamburg:

President Trump and members of his administration are requesting a full bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit in Germany next month....

While some administration officials have pressed for a quick "pull-aside" meeting at the Group of 20 summit or lower officials talking privately instead of the heads of state, Trump wants an event that includes the media and time for work sessions, according to one government official.

Trump has to make a deal (or war) with Russia and the announced fake "chemical attack" will be the pressure point against Putin. The neoconservatives want to break up Syria and Trump is tasked to get the Russian agreement for that (... or else.) 

Syria insists that its has no chemical weapons nor any intention to use any indiscriminate weapon. Russia warns of any further military aggression and calls such U.S. threats unacceptable.

At this point Russia cannot buckle. To turn the other cheek again after the military campaign against the jihadists is progressing to its final stages would be to acquiesce to perpetual meddling by the U.S., Israel and the Gulf monarchies. Syria would be carved up; so too Iraq. Iran would be next as NATO marches continually eastward.

This appears to be the moment that Syria has been moving toward for the last six years. Remember Hassan Nasrallah explaining why Hezbollah was going all in in Syria? Because if Syria falls we're next. Syria is now on the verge of a victory, something that Israel and Saudi Arabia cannot abide. Trump is being made to walk the plank.

The anti-Trump prestige press I'm sure would like to protest, but they've painted themselves into a corner with their past fulsome support for Ghouta and Khan Sheikhoun. The best we get is from The Times story:

Monday’s message appeared designed to set the stage for another possible military strike. After Mr. Assad allegedly used chemical weapons in April, the American military fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the air base his government had used to launch the attack.

"[A]llegedly used chemical weapons" is an improvement on the usual bald assertion that Syria used sarin at Khan Sheikhoun. Maybe Sy Hersh's "Trump's Red Line," though assiduously ignored in the mainstream, is having an impact nonetheless.

Yesterday I contacted the guy, Paul McLeary, who aggregates Foreign Policy's daily Situation Report and asked him why no link to Hersh's story in Die Welt. He replied, "We squeeze in all we can, but some things, like a Hersh piece, need some serious vetting first."

To which I responded:

According to Die Welt, not what you would consider a fringe publication to begin with, "Trump's Red Line" has been vetted: "As has always been his practice, Hersh has told Welt am Sonntag [German Sunday paper; same publisher, Axel Springer, as Die Welt] the identities of all the sources he quotes anonymously in his story about Trump's retaliatory strike against Syria. The paper was thus able to speak independently to the central source in the U.S."

Andrew Cockburn tweeted yesterday about the universal silence that greeted "Trump's Red Line" in the mainstream: "No surprise. Reference Upton Sinclair: their salaries absolutely depend on not listening to Hersh."

Now at least we have arrived at the 11th hour. Either the war draws down or it becomes much larger. Better hope for the former

Hold the Pivot to Asia: Al Qaeda and the House of Saud

What is interesting about today's frontpage story, "Jihadist Groups Gain in Turmoil Across Middle East," by Robert Worth and Eric Schmitt, a decent sketch of the growing Al Qaeda hot spots in Yemen, southern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula and Syria, is the almost total absence of any explanation of the role of Saudi Arabia. Worth and Schmitt frame the Qaeda renascence in terms of a realignment of the Obama administration's relationship with the Baathist government of Bashar al-Assad:

“We need to start talking to the Assad regime again” about counterterrorism and other issues of shared concern, said Ryan C. Crocker, a veteran diplomat who has served in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. “It will have to be done very, very quietly. But bad as Assad is, he is not as bad as the jihadis who would take over in his absence.” 

It is not clear whether or when the White House would be willing to make such an abrupt shift in approach after years of supporting the Syrian opposition and calling for Mr. Assad’s ouster. It would certainly require delicate negotiations with Middle Eastern allies who were early and eager supporters of Syrian rebel groups, notably Saudi Arabia.

The role of the House of Saud in the explosive turmoil in the Middle East is given greater mention in a story this morning by Rick Gladstone, "Syria Crisis Is Worsening, U.N. Relief Official Says":

Mr. Jaafari [Syrian ambassador to the United Nations] also had harsh words for Saudi Arabia, long accused by his government of financing, recruiting and arming Sunni jihadist militants linked to Al Qaeda that are waging war in Syria. He said “thousands of Saudi fighters” had been killed in Syria and that the government had taken 300 Saudis prisoner. Saudi diplomats did not return telephone calls for comment. 

“Somebody should hold the Saudis responsible for what they are doing,” Mr. Jaafari said. 

In Lebanon, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, the militant Shiite group that is fighting on Mr. Assad’s side in Syria, accused Saudi Arabia directly for the first time on Tuesday of involvement in the deadly double bombing at the Iranian Embassy in Beirut last month. Mr. Nasrallah, on the Lebanese television channel OTV, said Saudi intelligence had collaborated with Qaeda-linked militants to carry out the attack, which was a direct challenge to Iran, Saudi Arabia’s regional rival for power. 

But Mr. Nasrallah also pushed with new vigor for a political solution in Syria. He praised the signs of reconciliation between Iran and the United States as having averted regional war.

The assassination of senior Hezbollah leader Hassan Laqees is more proof (though Hezbollah is blaming Israel) of Saudi-fueled escalation of sectarian conflict.

The end game? Region-wide destabilization that keeps U.S. military forces fully engaged in the Middle East and the ballyhooed "pivot to Asia" on the drawing board for the foreseeable future.

Here's the last paragraph of the Worth and Schmitt story on the flowering of Al Qaeda groups:

“Whether they are dismayed by the way things played out in Egypt or by the growth of Al Qaeda in Syria, the worm has turned in the Middle East in the minds of American foreign policy makers,” said William McCants, an expert on jihadist movements and a former senior adviser at the State Department. “It seems we are back to counterterrorism as a guiding focus for American policy.”

How successful Obama will be in staying out of the Middle East briar patch is a tough question to answer. His agreement with Russian on Syria's chemical weapons and the nascent deal with Iran on its nuclear program have been spectacular successes given the outsize influence of the Saudis and Israelis on U.S. foreign policy. In our pay-to-play system, Congress is pretty much Saudi and Israeli occupied territory.

That's why keeping on an eye on events in Syria is so important. How Obama treads there -- whether a meaningful Geneva II deal is reached -- will point the way forward in terms of the Greater Middle East.

Who is Fomenting Sectarian Hatred?

If there's any doubt who is attempting to broaden the Syrian civil war to engulf neighboring Lebanon, look no further than this morning's story, "Soldiers Clash With Sunni Sheik’s Followers in Southern Lebanon," by Ben Hubbard and Hania Mourtada. 

Sheik Ahmad al-Assir is a Sunni firebrand who has recently achieved notoriety thanks to several blistering speeches criticizing Hezbollah and attacking Hassan Nasrallah. Al-Assir's armed followers attacked Hezbollah offices earlier this month in the southern Lebanese port city of Sidon. The Lebanese Army said it was attacked yesterday by al-Assir gunmen in Abra, east of Sidon. According to the Daily Star, seventeen soldiers have been killed, along with 35 gunmen. The Lebanese commandos seized the al-Assir complex in Sidon as fighting continued for a second day:

Army eavesdropping devices indicated that Assir was still in the vicinity of the complex, the sources said, adding that the fiery sheikh was heard as urging his gunmen not to surrender to the military and "fight to the death". 

The seizure of the complex at noon came after an attempt late Monday by a group of Salafi preachers to mediate a truce reached a dead end, with the Army determined to continue its operations until Assir was captured and his followers crushed, the sources said. 

In overnight fighting, the Army had tightened the noose around Assir and his some 250 gunmen barricaded in the Abra complex, 40 km south of Beirut, the sources said. 

Fighting erupted Sunday after armed supporters of Assir attacked a military checkpoint near the Abra complex, killing three soldiers and wounding several others.

Al-Assir is seen in Lebanon as performing deeds dictated by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two monarchies who thus far seem to be willing to go to any length, no matter the lives lost or the chaos caused, to oust Bashar al-Assad. I interpret this attack by al-Assir's group as proof that things are not going well for the rebels in Syria. There is a tried and true pattern to the conflict so far: when the opposition is getting its clock cleaned, terrorist attacks spring up in other countries in the region. In all of this, to the extent that the United States is facilitating this Saudi- and Qatari-led destabilization, the Obama administration looks truly feckless.

For a snapshot of this hopelessly confused, conflicted and dithering mindset, read Thomas Friedman's column, "Syria Scorecard," from yesterday. It seems simple to me. If you're from the "realist" school of foreign policy you apply the same standard you applied in Bahrain -- regional stability over ideology. But apparently anti-Shiite/anti-Iranian blinders are securely fastened.

A balanced, sober, lengthy piece, "The Price of Loyalty in Syria," written by Robert Worth, appeared in the New York Times Magazine yesterday. It's worth reading. It provides some insight into what it's like being an Alawite in Syria; also, it makes a convincing argument that anti-Shiite sectarianism crept in quickly to the Syrian Arab Spring uprising. It is commonly stated in the Western media that sectarianism was first introduced by the al-Assad government to raise doubts about the democratic bona fides of the opposition.

Doubts About Sarin Gas + Nasrallah Tamping Down Discord

The rationale for flooding the Middle East with weapons is provided in a story this morning by Lesley Wroughton and Amena Bakr reporting for Reuters from Doha where officials from 11 nations met to plan more bloodshed for Syria:

Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, whose country has been one of the most open backers of the anti-Assad rebels, said that supplying them with weapons was the only way to resolve the conflict. 

"Force is necessary to achieve justice. And the provision of weapons is the only way to achieve peace in Syria's case," Sheikh Hamad told ministers at the start of the talks.

"We cannot wait due to disagreement among Security Council members over finding a solution to the problem," he said. He also called on Lebanon's government to halt intervention by Lebanese factions in the neighboring conflict.

When in doubt use force. The rationale is anti-rational. The rule of law is tossed out in favor of the law of the jungle. Might equals right. We all know how this ends. It's not going to be pretty. But leaders in the West and the Gulf Arab monarchies must feel they will be insulated from the catastrophic results of their decisions.

C.J. Chivers, along with Eric Scmitt and Mark Mazzetti, has a frontpage story that outlines how the Libyan weapons pipeline to the rebels works. Arms once stockpiled by Qaddafi are transported from Libya by Qatari military cargo plane to Turkey where they cross the border into Syria. The Central Intelligence Agency provides logistical support. This has been the primary pipeline up until now. But since the United States announced last week its intention to begin providing military aid, the floodgates are already begin to crank open. Saudi Arabia promptly shipped antitank guns to rebels fighting in Aleppo.

Let's not forget that this deluge of weaponry into an unstable environment was justified by the Obama administration based on U.S. intelligence that Syrian government forces used sarin gas. Colum Lynch and Joby Warrick reported yesterday in the Washington Post that such claims are unsupportable:

Jean Pascal Zanders, who until recently was a research fellow at the European Union Institute for Security Studies, said he has scoured the Internet for photographs, video and news reports documenting alleged nerve agent attacks in Syria. What he has seen has made him a skeptic. 

Few of the photographs, Zanders said, have borne the trademark symptoms of a chemical weapons attack. In a paper he presented last week to the E.U. Non-Proliferation Consortium, he compared photographs documenting Iraq's 1998 chemical weapons attack against Kurds in the town of Halabja. 

The Halabja victims appeared to have died instantaneously from chemical agents, he said, and their bodies showed tell-tale signs of exposure to sarin: blue lips and fingertips caused by suffocation and a pink hue brought on by excessive sweating and high blood pressure. "No press reports from Syria refer to those descriptions, which is one of the reasons why I am skeptical about those reports," he said. 

Zanders said the problem with the U.S., British and French evidence is that it cannot be tested by independent scientists. Some of the published reports of chemical weapons use "make certain alarm bells ring," he said, but it is impossible to reach a definitive conclusion on the basis of what governments have put forward. "We don't have the barest of information. There is not even a fact sheet documenting the samples," he said. "This is an immensely political process, and there is no way of challenging the findings."

Anne Barnard has a good story today about Hermel, the Shiite Bekaa Valley town in Lebanon that has suffered since Hezbollah stepped up its defense of Syria. An interesting item that Barnard reveals is that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has been working actively to tamp down sectarian strife. Keep that in mind the next time you read about a state-supported Sunni cleric issuing a fatwa for jihad against Syria.

On the other hand, some followers chafe when the party urges restraint and reconciliation and forbids them to attack rebels and their supporters in the Lebanese Sunni village of Arsal across the valley. In the past week, the son of a Sunni leader from Arsal was killed near Hermel, and four Shiites were killed near Arsal, including two from the powerful Jaafari tribe.

Mohammed Jaafar, a tribe member, said that the family was refraining from traditional revenge killings at Hezbollah’s request — for now. 

“We won’t stay silent over our sons’ blood,” he said. 

Even though Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, forbade celebratory gunfire in a recent speech, as the funeral procession passed on Wednesday, relatives of the dead fighter honored him with barrages of gunfire. Asked why, the Hezbollah supporter said it was impossible to contain people’s emotions — and, eventually their demands. 

“I told Sayyed Hassan myself, there is a point at which we can’t control the people,” he said. “If we could, then people from Arsal wouldn’t have been killed, nor the Jaafari people.” 

After the funeral, he awaited a meeting with a sheik from Arsal, part of a flurry of talks that aims to keep tensions low. Hezbollah, according to multiple Hermel residents and Sunnis visiting from Syria who do not support the uprising, has worked behind the scenes to keep Sunnis safe in Shiite-majority villages on both sides of the border, once even paying compensation to Shiites who wanted to take revenge on antigovernment Sunnis they said destroyed their homes. 

But the Hezbollah supporter said he believed the rebels had not reciprocated. “That’s what hurts,” he said.

The United States continues to foment discord. You reap what you sow. Isn't that what the Good Book says?

France Calls for End to Syrian Rebel Arms Embargo

Reporting from Beirut Anne Barnard has an end-of-the-week rundown on civil war news coming out of Syria. Hassan Nasrallah gave a televised speech yesterday saying that Hezbollah would acquire "unique weapons" from Syria that would be a "strategic response" to Israel's Sunday bombing of a military installation in a Damascus suburb. John Kerry, still in Rome, was quoted as saying that the United States "would prefer that Russia not supply assistance" to Syrian air defenses; he said there will soon be a date announced for peace talks. Subsequently, Lakhdar Brahimi, special UN and Arab League envoy for Syria, has agreed not to resign.

But the most interesting news is a change of heart underway in France on lifting the arms embargo on the Syrian rebels:

In Paris, the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, said in an interview with Le Monde that France favored the diplomatic solution advanced by Mr. Kerry, but that it also wanted to rethink the European Union arms embargo in order to help the Syrian rebels. He also proposed that the United Nations should declare Syria’s Islamist Al Nusra Front a terrorist organization to separate it from other rebel groups. 

The United Nations Security Council has already looked informally at whether to impose sanctions on Al Nusra Front after it pledged allegiance last month to Al Qaeda. The State Department designated Nusra a terrorist organization in December, but the group has strengthened since then. It is considered one of the Syrian insurgency’s most effective fighting forces.

Senior French officials said that the French position toward the Syrian rebels had become noticeably more cautious in the last few weeks, especially since the resignation last month of Sheik Moaz al-Khatib, the leader of the main political opposition group, the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, amid political infighting. 

They said they would like to see the opposition’s main armed wing, the Free Syrian Army, become more centralized and come under the command of a civilian hierarchy before moving ahead with arms transfers.

Sunni-Shia Unrest

Yesterday Middle East expert Robert Fisk was interviewed on Democracy Now! It's worth checking out. He's a prickly guy and his take on Syria is sort of a "pox on both your houses." He says the Syrian government is fighting to win and taking no prisoners. Fisk, who maintains high-level contacts within the Syrian military, casts doubt on Israeli-U.S. claims that the government is using poison gas. He thinks the civil war will most likely continue for another couple of years.

The main Syria story in the paper today is about Secretary of State John Kerry's trip to Moscow where an announcement was made about a peace conference to take place as soon as the end of this month.

Anne Barnard has a story about Hezbollah's widening role in the civil war, leaving me with the impression that momentum is definitely going Assad's way. The Wahhabi rebel groups are Keystone Cops compared to the Party of Allah. The last thing Israel wants is a successful proving ground for Hassan Nasrallah's men. And it's why you can expect more Israeli bombing runs.

But I found that the most enlightening story this morning was Tim Arango's, "Iraq’s Worsening Sunni Protests Revolve Around Antiterrorism Tactics." Sunnis are protesting the Maliki government's continued reliance on a U.S.-created policy of indefinite detention based on a network of confidential informants (a.k.a., a police state). The government's harsh crackdown on the protest camp in Hawija that left 50 dead has exacerbated the fissure between Sunnis and Shiites. And at this point, with a Sunni-Shiite civil war raging next door in Syria, there appears to be no going back:

Now, Iraqis on both sides of the divide say the chance to quell Sunni anger by revising these practices seems to have been lost. Sunni protesters have symbolically set fire to their list of demands. Shiite leaders say reconciliation is politically impossible, given the sectarian polarization set off by the recent violence here and the continuing civil war in Syria, which is increasingly aggravating the region’s sectarian fault lines. 

“To be realistic, in the current environment, there is no support for this,” said Sami al-Askari, a Shiite member of Parliament who is close to the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. “This is the impact of Syria. The whole region is talking about clashes between Sunnis and Shiites.” 

Something greater seems to have been lost here, some Iraqis say, the dream of a sectarian coexistence in which disagreements are contested through politics. The prospect for political blocs comprising Sunnis and Shiites to emerge in advance of next year’s national elections, as they did before the previous vote in 2010, seems far-fetched. 

“The Shiite feeling is that they are under threat,” Mr. Askari said. “The Sunnis feel like they are marginalized. In this environment, it is madness to say, ‘I have a list of Sunnis and Shiites and people will vote for it.’ ”