On April 11, the Saudi regime was highlighted for its continued deployment of chemical weapons against civilians – backed by the US coalition. In the context of the Syria strike, a decades-old plot to overthrow the Syrian government through means of war was revealed after WikiLeaks drew attention to a declassified CIA document published in 1983.
Where Saudi Arabia has an extensive history of human rights abuses and the US has an unwavering ability to turn a blind eye to the atrocities engaged in by the Saudis, the Assad regime – with unproven association to the recent chemical strikes – appears to be the target of a US military assault.
A crime scene on an international scale that should have been investigated – to draw the appropriate conclusions – was very quickly decimated by Tomahawk missiles. What was left of the proposed storage space containing chemicals such as sarin, were utterly destroyed in fires and explosions instigated by the US military. This makes a conclusive investigation near on impossible to conduct.
The 1983 CIA documents, written by former CIA officer Graham Fuller, highlight the ongoing attack against the Assad regime. Starting in the 1970’s, when current Syrian President Bashir al-Assad’s father held office, the CIA examined plausible possibilities to overthrow the Syrian government. The CIA outlined possible allies – including Saddam Hussein and Iran – to help create Middle Eastern tensions in the name of geopolitical pipelines.
In the Key Summary of the report on page 1, the CIA outlines the necessity of war to lock in “US interests” in the region. The discussion hints at the pipeline running through Iraq and how Syria presents a challenge for “US interests in Lebanon and in the Gulf.” The summary of the document blatantly states:
“The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey.”
The reasoning behind such an ‘orchestration’ in the CIA’s own words was for the “sole goal of opening the pipeline.”
From there, the document goes on to cover points on how to go about such an activity, and the benefits versus the consequences and possible responses from the nations they wished to participate in the conflict.
“Saddam Husayn,” the document reads, “is fighting for his life. It is only Iraqi desperation in a losing economic war of attrition that has caused Iraq to consider the extremely risky option of internationalizing the war in the Gulf, potentially leading to closure of shipping there.”
The declassification of the document, titled Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syriademonstrates the arrogance of a department(s) that are unbashful about the Devil’s details. For what has now been ongoing anti-Syrian propaganda for a little over 3 decades, the US appears to have finally won – at least – a small part of the battle.
According to the document’s between the lines rhetoric, were a means to destabilize a region, protect Israel, overthrow a strong-standing nation (Syria) and to fulfil the west’s desire and lust for fossil fuels:
“Syria continues to maintain a hammerlock on two key U.S. interests in the Middle East.
- Syrian refusal to withdraw its troops from Lebanon ensures Israeli occupation in the south;
- Syrian closure of the Iraqi pipeline has been a key factor in bringing Iraq to its financial knees, impelling it towards dangerous internationalization of the war in the Gulf.”
The document outlines how diplomatic efforts with the Assad regime drew very little result. And how the United States Empire ran out of patience.
Fuller asserted that the most practical step forward was to portray Syria as an evil nation and corner Assad through the manipulation of other nearby countries’ grudges:
“Israel would simultaneously raise tensions along Syria’s Lebanon front without actually going to war. Turkey, angered by Syrian support to Armenian terrorism, to Iraqi Kurds on Turkey’s Kurdish border areas and to Turkish terrorists operating out of northern Syria, has often considered launching unilateral military operations against terrorist camps in northern Syria. Virtually all Arab states would have sympathy for Iraq. Faced with three belligerent fronts, Assad would probably be forced to abandon his policy of closure of the pipeline.”
Only months after Fuller’s report, on October 23, 1983, a suicide truck containing explosives caused 241 US military personnel deaths at a Marine barracks at neutral Lebanon’s Beirut International Airport. A simultaneous attack occurred kilometers away, killing 58 French servicemen, and two weeks later an attack against the Israeli military headquarters in Tyre killed 60.
In 2012, Micah Zenko wrote When America Attacked Syria. He recalls the explosions as a precursor to publicly blame Syria. Zenko wrote:
“According to a Pentagon commission formed to investigate the attack, it was “tantamount to an act of war using the medium of terrorism.” Within weeks, the CIA determined that “the bombings…of the United States and French MNF headquarters were carried out by Shia radicals, armed, trained, and directed by Syria and Iran.”
Similarly, in the last weeks, chemical attacks were linked to Syria’s Assad without any investigation and based only on ‘belief.’ A public outcry followed the Mainstream Media’s hype despite the vehement denial from both Syria and Russia that the attack was not of Syrian government authorization.
For Assad to authorize a chemical attack, the self-sabotaging act isn’t logical. To kill the small amount of people that died, Assad only needed to put boots-on-ground soldiers.
It also begs the question why Assad would also carry out a chemical attack only days after Trump announced he’d leave Assad alone? Why risk US intervention?
As the 1983 report demonstrates, the United States has had their sights set on Syria for more than 3 decades. In 2013, the UN stated enough evidence pointed to the Syrian rebels (US backed) for the chemical attack then. Evidence was destroyed this year before an investigation was conducted. The Pipeline politics continues unabated, and there is no reason to believe that the current situation is any different from the last historical accounts.
From: Anon HQ