Skip to content

Opposing Armageddon

Recent events in Syria (it is 21 September 2016) have taken American foreign policy to new levels of sickening hypocrisy, falsehood and treachery. First was the American airstrike on Syrian Army troops at Deir al-Zor airport, killing over 80 according to the Syrians.  The Americans, after first of all denying it, called it “unintentional”. Then Samantha Powers in the UN security Council expressed furious outrage at Russia’s statement that this was not only unacceptable but may possibly have been deliberate.  Let’s remember the Americans (and Western mainstream media) still refuse to believe the shooting down of MH17 by untrained Donbass rebels fighting off Kiev’s bombers was an accident, but now ask us to believe the hour-long bombing of a Syrian army base by the US Air Force was an accident. How credible is the Russian insinuation? The US claimed it was targeting ISIS forces and hit the Syrian troops who were fighting them by mistake.  But has the US Air Force ever before bombed ISIS when it was engaged in battle with the Syrian Army, thereby helping the latter to advance? Has the US ever come to the aid of Syrian Army troops and helped them gain territory? Of course not. The Syrian Army remains America’s main enemy. And the primary US goal in the region is the overthrow of Assad’s government. (The reason for this, Assad’s refusal to co-operate in a gas pipeline taking Qatari gas to Turkey and Europe and cutting Russia out of the European gas market, thus freeing Europe from Russian influence and bankrupting Russia, has been brilliantly exposed by Robert Kennedy Junior in an article in Politico.) So given the US hostility to the Syrian Army, why would they help it against ISIS? They don’t want the Syrian Army to gain any territory; they want only anti-Assad rebels to gain territory. It seems logical this operation was designed to attack the Syrian Army, to give it a taste of what US air power can do to it if it chooses, and to placate the anti-Assad rebels, including ISIS. This cynical brutality was then compounded a hundredfold when the aid convoy was suddenly blown up 2 days later. Why? First, to unleash hysteria against Russia as a war criminal to distract attention from Russian demands for an investigation of the bombing of the Syrian Army. Unsupported US accusations that Russian jets attacked the convoy drove the US airstrike on the Syrian Army off the front pages. Editorialists rejoiced: they were back to the Russia-bashing norm. It was a cynical lie worthy of Goebbels. What interest would the Russians have in attacking an aid convoy and making themselves international pariahs? It is the US which wanted to get out of the ceasefire agreement which Kerry had reluctantly signed up to over Pentagon objections (and which they bizarrely wanted kept a secret.) Better still they want the ceasefire transformed from joint US and Russian airstrikes on ISIS into a no-fly zone, which Kerry has now demanded. This has always been America’s goal and is Hillary Clinton’s policy. The reason is the rebels that America supports (including ISIS) have received very sophisticated artillery and rocket launchers from the US, including TOW anti-tank missiles.  The regime and the Russians rely on air power to counter this. The US wants to disarm the Russians and the Syrian Army of their air power to give the rebels a crucial military advantage. And they were ready to get their rebel surrogates to destroy an aid convoy with TOW missiles to achieve their goal: a worldwide surge of indignation against the Russians, forcing them to ground their aircraft. It remains to be seen whether their cynical lies succeed. The gullibility of mainstream media, primed by an unending stream of anti-Russian propaganda, makes it all too likely.

%d bloggers like this: