By CIV KEVIN J. TOSH, USAF [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
The spectre of the US responding to yet another false flag chemical weapons provocation is once again coming sharply into focus, despite the fact that Erdogan, Putin and Rouhani signalled a more cautious approach to dealing with the last remaining terrorist stronghold in Idlib, Syria.
Russia has stated today that they have obtained irrefutable evidence that terrorist groups, including Jabhat an-Nusra met with the White Helmets in Idlib province. It is claimed that the proposed attacks by the Syrian Army will occur in the cities of Jisr al-Shugur, Serakab, Taftanaz and Sarmin. Moscow has also claimed that the terrorists will receive a “special” signal from some “foreign friends of the Syrian revolution” to launch this operation.
This come a few weeks after the Russian military reported that eight canisters of chlorine had been delivered to a village near the city of Jisr al-Shughur city and that a foreign-trained group of militants had also arrived in the area to simulate a rescue operation after the staged attack.
Despite these warnings, we should note that the Pentagon is preparing military options for Trump should, in their words, Assad carry through with the threat to use chemical weapons in Idlib, despite the fact that there is no evidence that is the case.
Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Marine Corps, has stated that the Pentagon has provided Trump with updates on the development of those military options. It would seem that from the US perspective, this false flag chemical weapons attack is a near certainty and that they are in the planning phase of instigating a counterstrike against Assad forces.
This comes on the back of reports that Washington has been expanding its mission in Syria this week, after the State Department confirmed that U.S. forces would remain in Syria after the defeat of Daesh. It is clear that, despite the fact that the US is illegally occupying Syria, the military intends staying in Syria after the defeat of Daesh to assist the State Department through the Geneva negotiation process on a future government in Syria. The lengths with which Washington will go to justify their presence in Syria, truly beggars belief.
We recall that the U.S. has already responded twice with airstrikes against Assad forces in relation to previous staged chemical weapons attacks, namely in 2017 when two U.S. destroyers fired dozens of cruise missiles at the Syrian Shayrat airfield and in April 2018 when U.S., French and British ships and aircraft launched missile attacks against Syrian government targets.
It should therefore come as no surprise that they are considering the same course of action for a third time in yet another act of reckless stupidity. It is clear that every time Syrian and Russian forces seek to implement a major offensive to bring the seven year war to an end, there is often this convenient chemical weapons attack. It should be clear to everyone that such chemical weapon provocations having nothing to do with the Assad government and are merely designed to ensure that the war in Syria continues and seeks to blunt the Syrian offensive to liberate its nation from the terrorists who infest their country. This has never been a civil war, it is merely an attempt by foreign backed proxy extremists to overthrow the Assad government against the will of the Syrian people.
Given Trump has fallen for this same modus operandi twice already seriously brings into question those providing Trump with intelligence. However given the lengths to which Russia has gone to prove the case that there are attempts to stage this a third time, one could argue that if Trump responds with missile attacks, should this provocation become a reality, one would then have to question Trump directly to explain the justification of such an action. After all this is likely to result in grave consequences for his own military forces, never mind those of Syria. Trump needs to give serious consideration to the risk that a hot war with Russia in the Mediterranean could be an indirect consequence of such a chemical weapon provocation.