TEHRAN, Sep. 1 (MNA) – The U.S. Navy’s sixth fleet battle group, which includes the USS Mahan, USS Barry, USS Gravely and USS Ramage guided missile destroyers, is deployed in the Mediterranean along with the British Royal Navy’s rapid reaction force which includes the HMS Illustrious, two Type 23 frigates and seven support ships.
“If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as Al-Qaeda.” – Journalist Robert Fisk
The U.S. Navy’s sixth fleet battle group, which includes the USS Mahan, USS Barry, USS Gravely and USS Ramage guided missile destroyers, is deployed in the Mediterranean along with the British Royal Navy’s rapid reaction force which includes the HMS Illustrious, two Type 23 frigates and seven support ships. Also in the vicinity are the HMS Westminster and possibly the HMS Tireless, a Trafalgar-class, Tomahawk cruise missile-firing submarine. U.S. F-16 fighters stationed at Incirlik, Turkey along with British warplanes at Akrotiri, Cyprus stand ready to scramble. The U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, with two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and about 70 fighters each, is close by in the Persian Gulf for backup.
Why the assemblage of this massive armada of aggression in the Mediterranean? Once again, the Great Satan and its partner in crime the Little Satan, the same Anglo-American pair that has been bringing death and destruction to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, and generally throughout the Middle East for over a decade, are once again partnering with the Zionist regime to further their agenda of atrocities. This time, the target picked by the Washington warmongers is Syria, which has been accused of using chemical weapons against its own citizens on August 21, 2013. Russian Deputy Prime Minister and former NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin colorfully described the West’s actions as resembling a “monkey with a hand grenade.”
News media are reporting that U.S. officials have hinted that a 3-day assault may begin anytime. Probable targets include air defense installations, military bases and supply depots, and key government offices. Most likely on the target list are military facilities in the cities of Damascus, Khan Abu Shamat, al-Furqlus, Homs, Hama, Latakia and al-Safir.
The media barrage of misinformation about Syria is isomorphic, if the reader will excuse my use of a mathematical term, to the one employed in the prelude to the joint Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, the only difference in the Syrian case seems to be the time frame. The same technique of false accusations intended to demonize the target country’s leader and frighten the gullible American public are being implemented. Syria is alleged to possess chemical weapons — weapons of mass destruction, WMD — just like Iraq reportedly possessed. Even the slogans and sound bites have a familiar ring: the Syrian crisis today threatens world peace, we cannot allow Syria to use chemical weapons with impunity, Syria must be punished, etc., etc., all of which seems to be part of a concerted Western effort to derail at any cost all efforts toward a diplomatic solution of the Syrian crisis.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed suspicions that the U.S. and UK had brought the bogus charges intentionally to sabotage peace efforts. “Moscow is, as before, particularly worried about the dangerous and already clear line towards a conscious undermining by a number of countries of the conditions for a political-diplomatic solution to the conflict,” he stated. Concurring, Syrian Ambassador to the UN Bashar Jaafari also accused the U.S., the UK and France of undermining the UN investigation of the chemical attack. “They are behind arming and supplying the armed terrorists groups with all kind of logistical support, as well as with weapons,” he added.
France’s socialist President Francois Hollande, who seems to be spearheading the push for military action for the U.S. /UK /Zionist axis based on his bellicose rhetoric, stated in a televised speech on August 27, “France is ready to punish those who took the vile decision to gas innocent people.” Implying the blame for the chemical attack lay with the Syrian government, he added, “I have decided to increase our military support to the Syrian National Coalitiod!(.INC).” Voicing their agreement with their French counterpart, UK Prime Minister David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared in a statement, “The Syrian regime must not hope to be able to continue this warfare that violates international law.” British Foreign Secretary William Hague joined in saying, “We cannot in the 21st century allow the idea that chemical weapons can be used with impunity and there are no consequences.”
Demonstrating that the U.S. holds the same position, that the government of President Bashar al-Assad is responsible for the chemical attack and there is no question about it, Vice President Joe Biden declared, “There’s no doubt who’s responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria: the Syrian regime.” Implicating Syria, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated, “Information available from a wide variety of sources points to the Syrian regime as responsible for the use of chemical weapons in these attacks.”
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf indicated that the planned attack, which currently would be directed at less than 50 targets using two or three missiles at each one, is neither intended to bring about regime change, nor to force President Assad to the negotiating table. It is only intended to “deter and degrade” the Syrian government’s ability to launch chemical WMD, and is “not about regime change.” Contradicting her is Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, who suggested the expected missile attack would indeed be to “tip the battle in favor of the insurgents.”
While the West points an accusing finger at Syria for not signing the UN chemical weapons convention, neither has Egypt, whose U.S. trained and funded officer corps deposed the democratically-elected president in July and never interrupted financial aid payments. Even more peculiar is the Western concern over the allegations of 1,000 Syrians being killed in a chemical attack to the extent of launching punishing retaliatory strikes, which contrasts dramatically with the lack of concern over the 1,000 Egyptians killed in attacks perpetrated by their military protégés in Cairo against protestors.
Strangely missing from the media accounts in the West are reports that three Hezbollah fighters, who were fighting alongside Syrian government soldiers, were among victims of the gas attack. Also missing were reports that Syrian forces had found nerve gas components in the tunnels used by the foreign-backed militants. While the Western media did report that the UN team came under fire from snipers in the Damascus suburb of Moadamiyeh, most failed to connect the dots and condemn this obvious attempt by Western-allied Al-Qaeda militants to intimidate the inspectors into abandoning their mission. The question to be asked here is why would the U.S. and its accomplices NOT want the inspectors to finish their job, convinced as they seem to be that Damascus is the guilty party, unless they knew in advance the UN teams would find evidence implicating the West.
President Assad accused the West of putting the cart before the horse, so to speak, in their zealous attempt to find an excuse for an attack. In an August 26 interview with the Russian newspaper Izvestia, he stated, “The statements made by the politicians in the USA and in other Western countries represent an insult to common sense and neglect of the public opinion of citizens in those countries. It’s nonsense: first, they bring charges, and then they collect evidence.” And geopolitical researcher Tony Cartalucci claims there is no evidence, since according to a Wall Street Journal report, the main source of “evidence” was fabricated by the Zionist spy agency, Mossad. Cartalucci writes, “The U.S. then, not Syria, is attempting a cover-up, with fabrications in place from discredited, compromised intelligence sources and the threat of impending military strikes that would endanger the UN inspection team’s safety should they fail to end their investigation and withdraw.”
The deeper question begging to be asked is why would President Assad order a chemical attack in the first place when his forces were gaining the upper hand in their struggle to rid the country of foreign-backed insurgents and at a time when UN inspectors had just arrived? Western pundits have offered many illogical and irrational explanations, among them: to intimidate foreign-backed militants, to defy the international community, or to force out entrenched pockets of militants. One source even suggests that the chemical attack was executed without the Syrian president’s consent. However, none of these answer the question of the timing, for if we assume elements loyal to President Assad would plan do such a thing, we are still left asking why would they be so stupid as to choose a time when there was nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts points to the obvious non sequitur in the U.S. call for an attack on Syria. He writes, “Originally, the excuse for Washington’s wars was to keep Americans safe from terrorists. Now Washington is endeavoring to turn Syria over to… terrorists by helping them to overthrow the secular, non-terrorist Assad government.” Journalist Robert Fisk puts it more bluntly, “While the Americans drone Al-Qaeda to death in Yemen and Pakistan — along, of course, with the usual flock of civilians — they will be giving them, with the help of Messrs Cameron, Hollande and the other Little General-politicians, material assistance in Syria by hitting Al-Qaeda’s enemies.” Commenting on this dangerous and duplicitous U.S. policy, President Assad, warned, “To those politicians I would like to explain that terrorism isn’t a bargaining chip to pull out and use anytime one wants, and then put back. Terrorism, as a scorpion, can bite anytime. You can’t be for terrorism in Syria and against it in Mali.”
So, if the pathological liar in Washington, Obama, concurs with all the other Western warlords and executes a “surgical strike” on Syria — and as of this writing, it appears to be a done deal — expect to see something like the War of Tammuz in 2006 between Hezbollah and the Zionist regime, only on a grander scale.
The Iran Project is not responsible for the content of quoted articles.