Syria: The Never Ending Neocon Story

[David Guyatt]

Alastair Crooke is a former senior man at Vauxhall Bridge (SIS). His below article is quite alarming, in that he thinks that a major war against Russia is quite possibly in the running.

Alastair CROOKE| 01.09.2018 | FEATURED STORY

Is a Suez' Event Being Prepared for Syria?

So, the metamorphosis is done. President Trump has finally, fully, shed his 2016 Campaign skin' of loosely imagining a grand foreign policy bargain that could be the foundation for "WORLD PEACE, nothing less!" as Trump tweeted when imposing sanctions on Iran. We wrote, on 3 August, quoting Prof Russell-Mead, that Trump's 8 May metamorphosis' (the US exit from JCPOA), constituted a step-change of direction: one that reflected "[Trump's] instincts, telling him that most Americans are anything but eager, for a "post-American" world. Trump's supporters don't want long wars, "but neither are they amenable to a stoic acceptance of national decline".It all began, very precisely, with Trump's 8 May metamorphosis' - which is to say, to the moment when the US president definitively took the Israeli line': exiting from the Iranian nuclear accord, deciding to sanction and to lay siege to Iran's economy, and when he endorsed the (old, never materialized) idea of a Sunni Arab NATO', led by Riyadh, that would confront Shi'a Iran. In practical terms, Trump's Art of the Deal geo-strategy, as we now see, became thus transformed into the search for radical US leverage (through weaponising a strong dollar and tariffs) -- looking always to the means to force the capitulation of the counter-party. This cannot be rightly termed negotiation: It is rather, more as if the script has been lifted from The Godfather.But, when Trump unreservedly took the Israeli (or, more properly the Netanyahu) line', he assumed to himself all the baggage' that comes with it, too. The 1996 Clean Break document, prepared by a study group led by Richard Perle for Binjamin Netanyahu, meshed the Israeli and US neocon camps into one. And they are still umbilically linked. Team Trump' now is filled with neocons who are unreserved Iran-haters. And Sheldon Adelson (a major Trump donor, a patron of Netanyahu, and the instigator for the US embassy move to Jerusalem), consequently has been able to implant his ally, John Bolton (a neocon), as Trump's chief foreign policy advisor.The Art of the Deal has effectively been neocon-ised into a tool for enlarging American power and there is nothing of earlier mutual advantage' to be heard of, or to be seen, these days.And now, this week, the metamorphosis has been cemented. After the Helsinki summit between Trump and President Putin, there seemed to have opened a small window of opportunity for co-operation between the two states - to return stability to Syria. Many hoped that from this small terrain of tentative Syria co-ordination, some lessening of tensions between the US and Russia, might have found fertile soil. Trump said some positive things; the area around Dera'a, in south Syria, was smoothly cleared of insurgents, and was retaken by the Syrian army. Israel did not demur in having the Syrian army as their near neighbours. But then co-operation rather obviously stalled. It is not clear why, but perhaps this was the first sign of power fracturing apart in Washington. The Helsinki understandings' somehow were melting away (though military-to-military co-ordination continued). Putin dispatched the head of the Russian Security Council to a meeting with Bolton in Geneva on 23 August, to explore whether there was still any possibility for joint co-operation; and, if so, was such activity politically viable'. But before even that bilateral meeting with a Russian envoy could be held, Bolton - speaking from Jerusalem (from what was billed as a roll-back Iran' brainstorming with PM Netanyahu) - warned that the United States would respond "very strongly" if forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were to use chemical weapons in the offensive to retake Idlib province (expected to commence early September), claiming that the US had intelligence of the intent to use such weapons in Idlib.The Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, however, said on August 25 "Militants of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), [trained by a named British company], are preparing to stage a chemical attack in northern Syria that will be used as a pretext for a new missile strike by the U.S., the UK and France - on facilities of the Damascus government". Russian officials said they had full intelligence on this false flag operation.What is clear is that since early August the US has been moving a task force (including the USS The Sullivans and USS Ross) into position that would be able to strike Syria, as well as positioning air assets into the US airbase in Qatar. French President Emmanuel Macron too has declared that France was also ready to launch new strikes against Syria, in case of a chemical weapons attack there.The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet says that the US military is laying the groundwork to close the airspace over northern Syria. US military freighters are reported to have transported radar systems to the city of Kobanî, controlled by the Kurdish militia, and to the US military base in Al-Shaddadah in southern al-Hasakah. Hurriyet claims that the US plans to use these complexes to establish a no-fly zone over the territory between Manbij in Aleppo and Deir ez-Zor. (This claim however, is unconfirmed)Evidently, Russia takes this US threat seriously (it has deployed 20 naval vessels into the E. Mediterranean, off Syria). And Iran evidently takes the threat seriously, too. The Iranian Defence Minister on Sunday made a rapid unscheduled visit to Damascus in order to agree a tri-partite (Russia, Syria Iran) response to any US attack on Syria.Then, in the wake of Bolton's chemical weapons claims, and the pre-positioning of US guided-missile vessels close to Syria, Petrushev and Bolton met. The meeting was a disaster. Bolton insisted that Petrushev admit to Russian interference in the US elections. Petrushev refused. Trump said we have secret' evidence. Petrushev retorted if that were so, what was the purpose of demanding admission. Bolton said effectively: We sanction you anyway. Well… not surprisingly, the two were unable to agree on Iranian withdrawal from Syria (which Petrushev put on the table). Bolton not only said flatly no', but afterwards went public with the Russian initiative to talk possible Iran withdrawal thus killing it, and killing the initiative as a gambit to leverage further diplomacy. Even the customary, bland, uninformative, final communiqué that is usual in such circumstances, could not be agreed.The message seems clear: any Helsinki understandings on Syria are dead. And the US is prepared it seems (they have actually moved assets into position) to strike Syria. Why? What is going on?One obvious element is, that until now, Trump's hand in all this is not visible. Now, power appears to have fractured in Washington with regard to Middle East policy. The neocons are in the lead. This is very significant, since the slender pillar on which Trump's rapport with President Putin had been built, was the prospect of US-Russian co-operation over Syria. And that hat seems, now, to be a dead letter. Lawrence Wilkerson, now a professor, but formerly the Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell during the infamous Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction' episode says it cold':"It has to do… with the return of the Neoconservatives (Neocons)… what is happening today, as Trump is preoccupied increasingly with the considerable, ever-growing challenges to him personally and to his presidency institutionally, is the re-entry into critical positions in the government of these people, the people who gave America the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Even those many of them who declared "Never Trump"as arch-Neocon Eliot Cohen summed it upare salivating at the prospect of carrying out their foreign and security policy - while Trump essentially boils in his own corrupt juices."A vanguard, of course, is already in our government to beckon, comfort, and re-establish others of their type. John Bolton as national security advisor to the president leads this pack though he's not, strictly speaking, a card-carrying Neocon …"Presently, their first and most identifiable target is the unfinished businesswhich they largely commencedwith Syria and Iran, Israel's two most serious potential threats. If the Neocons got their wayand they are remarkably astute at getting their wayit would mean a reignited war in Syria and a new war with Iran, as well as increased support for the greatest state sponsor of terrorism on earth, Saudi Arabia".Bolton, Pompeo and the neocons have made it abundantly clear that they at least have not abandoned 'regime change' in Syria, as their objective - and they remain set on delivering somehow a strategic setback to Iran (Bolton has said that sanctions alone, on their own, and without Iran suffering some extra strategic blow, would be insufficient to alter Iranian malign behaviour').Whether or not Mattis and Votel are fully on board with Bolton's "very strong" military reprisal on Syria threat (for alleged chemical weapons use) is not clear. (Mattis succeeded in mitigating the last missile strike by Trump on Syria, and to co-ordinating with Moscow a nil response' to Trump's Tomahawk salvo). Will it be the same this time if the US again makes an unsubstantiated (and later unproven) claim of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government?Will Israel join in any attack using the pre-text of its self-awarded right' to attack Iranian forces anywhere in Syria? Given the new strategic fact' of the Iranian Defence minister's surprise' Sunday visit to Damascus to sign a common resolve on countering any such attack on Syria. Will Netayahu bet' on the Russians not responding to hostile Israeli aircraft entering Syrian airspace?Who will blink first? Netanyahu? Or will Trump surface from his domestic tribulations sufficiently, to take notice and to say no'?Whatever happens, Presidents Putin and Xi can read the runes' of this affair which is to say that President Trump's highest officials remain committed, openly, or through false flags', to defend the American global order'. These officials share a disdain for the Obama administration's retrenchment and retreat. They want to arrest, and even truncate the rise of America's rivals, whilst restoring to their former position, those former pillars to U.S. world power: i.e. America's military, financial, technological and energy, dominance.Russia is trying to defuse the critical situation by sharing their intelligence with Washington that Tahrir al-Sham (formerly known as al-Nusra), was plotting a chemical attack that would then be misrepresented as another atrocity' committed by the Syrian regime'. Eight canisters of chlorine have been delivered to a village near Jisr al-Shughur city, and a specially trained group of militants, prepped by a British security company, have also arrived in the area, to imitate a rescue operation to save the civilian victims'. Militants plan to use child hostages in the staged incident, Russian officials say.But will Washington listen? From the moment that the Syrian or the Iranian regime' is subjected to a judgement of moral delinquency (irrespective of evidence) in the context of America's claim to its own Manifest (moral) Destiny these regimes' become transformed from being a temporary, relative adversaries, into an absolute enemy. For, when one is upholding humanity's destiny' and seeking "WORLD PEACE, nothing less!", how can one wage war - unless it is in the name of a self-evident good. What is afoot is not attacking an adversary, but punishing and killing the guilty.Faced with the radical moral devaluation of the Other' across western media; and - on the other hand - with the virtue signaling of western good consciousness, can Russia's rational presentations hope to carry weight? The only fact that might just weigh in the balance is the threat that Russia will use its missile arsenal assembling in the East Mediterranean. But what then?

Crooke is far from alone in his analysis either. The next article is by Peter Ford at Middle East Eye. Ford was formerly British Ambassador to Syria.

Is a Syrian Suez approaching?

#SyriaWar


Another tripartite aggression based on pretexts and plotting appears imminent, this time involving the US, UK and France















Peter Ford


Wednesday 29 August 2018 10:15 UTC


Thursday 30 August 2018 16:59 UTC







Topics: SyriaWar

Tags:
Syria War, US, UK, france, Conflict, politics, chemical weapons



Show comments



September 1 will mark the 62nd anniversary of the secret formal request by the government of France to Israel for Israel to attack Egypt.
The plan was for France, soon joined by the UK, to invade Egypt on the pretext of safeguarding the Suez Canal, in hopes of precipitating the overthrow of President Gamal Abdel Nasser. The Tripartite Aggression, as the Arabs call it, was duly triggered on 29 October 1956, when Israel invaded.
September 2018 is likely to witness another tripartite aggression based on pretexts and plotting, this time involving the US alongside the UK and France. The victim now is Syria.

Chemical weapons allegations

The three governments in April staged a rehearsal for the upcoming performance, responding with bombing raids to the alleged use of chemical weapons in Douma. While Plan A for the raids involved heavy attacks on presidential offices and armed forces command and control centres, President Donald Trump was reportedlytalked down from this by Secretary of Defence James Mattis, concerned by the prospect of possible clashes with Russia and risks to US forces stationed in Syria.
Aspects of the Douma operation conspired to make it likely that Plan A would be given a fresh run, which is now imminent.

From the point of view of the tripartite group, they painted themselves into a corner of bombing more heavily, because that is exactly what they promised to do

From the point of view of the tripartite group, they painted themselves into a corner of bombing more heavily, because that is exactly what they promised to do after the Douma round in the event of further use of chemical weapons.
The worst fears were not realised. It proved possible to bomb multiple sites without many civilian casualties or, more importantly, any significant military counteractions by Russia, Iran or Syria itself. And thanks to pliant media and legislators, it proved easy to bomb without having to go to the United Nations first, consult legislatures, or allow an inspection by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
The bombing increased Trump's approval ratings dramatically, and did no harm to the fortunes of UK Prime Minister Theresa May or French President Emmanuel Macron.
From the point of view of the militants opposed to President Bashar al-Assad, the lesson can only have been that a further incident was something devoutly to be wished for, if not actually engineered.

Ignoring evidence

It is not necessary to rehash the mountain of evidence pointing to the probability that Douma was fabricated. Suffice to say that OPCW inspectors, in their interim report presented on 6 July, stated that they had found no evidence that chemical weapons such as nerve agents had been used, and that the evidence for the use of chlorine as a weapon was inconclusive.
Helped again by pliant media and sleepy legislators, the tripartite governments have simply ignored this assessment, continuing brazenly to claim that President Assad was responsible.
A photo released on 14 April 2018 on the website of the official Syrian Arab News Agency shows an explosion on the outskirts of Damascus after Western strikes (HO/Syrian Government's Central Military Media/AFP)
The joint statementof the US, UK and France issued on 21 August, threatening Syria with intervention if chemical weapons are used again, was peremptory. As regardless of grammar as of facts, the three said they "reaffirm [their] resolve to preventing the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime, and for holding them accountable … As we have demonstrated, we will respond appropriately to any further use."
Oblivious to the amassing in Idlib of a jihadi strike force of thousands of fighters, spearheaded by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the powers claimed piously to be "gravely concerned over reports of a military offensive by the Syrian regime against civilians and civilian infrastructure".
Possibly calling to mind that their planned action will be illegal, they proclaimed that "the unchecked use of chemical weapons by any state presents an unacceptable threat to all states", laying the groundwork for a flimsy legal defence.

The precedents of Iraq and Libya

Were there any doubt that skulduggery was afoot, it was removed by media reports, based on Russian statements and briefings, of the White Helmets being on manoeuvres in the vicinity of Jisr al-Shughur, and the transfer to a nearby village of canisters of chlorine, under the direction of English-speaking special forces or contractors.
Simultaneously, reportsappeared of the US bolstering its naval presence in the Gulf and land forces in Iraq on the borders with Syria. Russia has moved more of its naval forces into Syrian territorial waters in response to the warning of imminent action, say reports.
How could anybody be so credulous as to believe a conspiracy theory like this, and from such tainted sources? Was it for a moment believable that the British or the Americans could be so duplicitous as to create for themselves a pretext to bomb a weak country in the Middle East? No need to go back as far as Suez to answer that; a quick recap of events in Iraq (weapons of mass destruction again) and Libya (baselessly alleged imminent massacres in Benghazi) would suffice.

READ MORE â–º
Syria's war is far from over

But surely, it might be thought, wise counsels would prevail in Washington, London and Paris, given that Operation Douma did no great harm, but only because the scenario was pre-cooked with the Russians, on the basis that the targets were limited?
Given also that the Iranians, with little to lose now that US sanctions are back on, would react if Assad and the Syrian state structure were threatened existentially? Or given that the 2,000 US troops in northeastern Syria and the al-Tanf enclave were hostages as well as tripwires, as exposed as any US troops ever were in neighbouring Anbar?

Caution swept aside

The precedent of Suez suggests that considerations of well-founded caution will be swept aside. Senior military and diplomatic advisers begged former British prime minister Anthony Eden not to attack. Is Trump, more under pressure even than he was in April to demonstrate that he is not subservient to Russia President Vladimir Putin, more likely to resist the temptation of the fuite en avantthan Eden?

Assad has only to survive physically a few days' barrage ... to emerge just as Nasser emerged from Suez, bloodied but unbowed

Suez was a fiasco. While militarily it was a mitigated success, politically it achieved the opposite of what was planned. Nasser emerged stronger than ever.
Will history repeat itself? Assad has only to survive physically a few days' barrage (if he is wise, he will repair to the Russian base near Latakia for the duration) to emerge just as Nasser emerged from Suez, bloodied but unbowed. Eden's career was over when he resigned two months after the armistice in Egypt.