ThereAreNoSunglasses

American Resistance To Empire

Russia Takes Possession of 2 US JASSM Cruise Missiles Allegedly Recovered Intact

[Syria Strike Story Shifting; AFCENT Says F-22s Flew Strike Cap, Basic JASSMs Used]

According to Viktor Murakhovsky, member of the advisory council of the Russian Military-Industrial Commission, two cruise missiles that had failed to detonate during the US-led strike on Syria and were reportedly handed over to Russia by the Syrian military may come in handy for Russian specialists.

“These findings may be very useful for our country. Russian experts do not copy western arms patterns, since we have our own development strategy, but it will be interesting for them to get acquainted with the latest western developments in this field. Some missiles, used to strike Syria, were not new, while others were exploited for the first time,” Murakhovsky told Sputnik.

READ MORE: Ex-DoS Official Warns of Another Possible False Flag Provocation Blaming Syria

The missiles found by the Syrian forces were reportedly transferred to Russia on April 18, and, as Murakhovsky explained, they will be of special interest because the rockets were quite new.

“It would be interesting to look at the American missile – JASSM-ER – that the US used in the battlefield for the first time. Studying these rockets will help Russia improve its missile defense systems and electronic warfare systems,” the military analyst elaborated.–[Syria Strike Story Shifting; AFCENT Says F-22s Flew Strike Cap, Basic JASSMs Used]

Nearly a week ago, a trilateral alliance, comprised of the United States, France and the United Kingdom, delivered a massive missile strike on numerous Syrian targets as retaliation for an alleged chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the Damascus government in the city of Douma which supposedly took place on April 7.

READ MORE: West Realizes No Military Solution Possible in Syria Judging by Libya — Brussels

According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, a total of 71 rockets out of the 103 cruise and air-to-surface missiles were shot down by Syrian air defenses. The airstrikes came on the same day that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons was set to launch a fact-finding mission and inspect the site.

The West’s decision to hit Syria with over a hundred of missiles was triggered by reports, covered in several media outlets, citing militants in Douma claiming the Syrian government forces had dropped a chlorine bomb on civilians – information that was “substantiated” by the White Helmets-provided footage, showing the aftermath of the alleged use of chemical weapons.Both Damascus and Moscow dismissed the claims, slamming the entire incident as a false flag, with the Russian Defense Ministry sending a chemical corps commission to Douma to investigate the alleged use of toxic agents, days after the reports emerged on media; the expert group did not find any traces of chemical poisoning either with chlorine or sarin.

Advertisements

Syrian Father and Son Interviewed About Boy’s Appearance in FAKE Chemical Attack Video

Earlier the White Helmets, a Western-backed NGO known for its ties with terrorist groups, released a video showing alleged victims of the false-flag chemical attack in Douma. The US and its allies used the video as a pre-text to conduct a missile strike on Syria.

The Russia 24 TV channel released an exclusive interview on April 18 with a boy, who participated in filming a fake video, as evidence of the false-flag chemical attack in Douma by the White Helmets. In the interview, Hassan Diab says that he and his mother heard loud voices on the street, urging everyone to rush to the hospitals. When Hassan entered the hospital, unknown people grabbed him, poured water on him and then put him with other patients.

“We were in the basement. Mom told me that today we don’t have anything to eat and that we will eat tomorrow. We heard a cry outside, calling “go to the hospital.” We ran to the hospital and as soon as I entered, they grabbed me and started pouring water on me,” Hassan Diab said.

His father continued the story. He was at his work when he heard that his son was in hospital. He rushed to the hospital and found his family there in good health. He added that he was on the street, smoking and didn’t feel any chemical weapon. According to him, it turned out militants gave all the participants food — dates, cookies and rice — and then released them.

“There were no chemical weapons. I smoked outside and felt nothing. I entered the hospital and saw my family. Militants gave them dates, cookies and rice for participating in this film and released everyone to their homes,” Hassan’s father said.

READ MORE: WATCH Ex-Pink Floyd Member Slams Syria’s White Helmets as ‘Terrorist Propaganda’

The TV channel also broadcast an interview with a doctor who was in the hospital when the White Helmets filmed their fake video. He said that no patients with signs of chemical weapons-related injuries arrived that day, but there were many people with respiratory problems due to smoke and dust from the recent bombing. All doctors were busy taking care of them and didn’t have time to react to the White Helmets’ film crew.

The White Helmets is a Syrian NGO, financed by several Western countries, which is associated with staging and filming false-flag chemical attacks. They have been seen several times working with terrorist groups in Syria.

READ MORE: WATCH Douma Doctor Blow Lid Off White Helmets’ ‘Chemical Attack’ Claims

On April 9 the group published another video suggesting that doctors in one of the Douma hospitals were treating patients that had suffered from the chemical attack and accused Damascus of the ordeal. However, the information that later surfaced, as well as witness testimonies, demonstrated that it was staged, performed by the White Helmets.

READ MORE: Syrian Army Discovers White Helmets’ Filming Site in Eastern Ghouta

Immediately after the alleged attack, Moscow dispatched its chemical corps to determine whether there was an actual attack and if there were victims in need of treatment. The Russian crew didn’t find any traces of chemical weapons or any victims in the nearby hospital. Moscow and Damascus invited the OPCW to come to Douma and investigate the incident.

Trump’s Zionist Embassy Move Scheme Causing Conflict w/Saudi Big Boss

Saudi King rejects US plan to transfer embassy to Jerusalem, announces $150 million for East Jerusalem

AFP

File photo shows US President Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia's King Salman
File photo shows US President Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia’s King Salman
DHAHRAN: Saudi Arabia’s King Salman on Sunday opened an Arab League summit by criticising US President Donald Trump‘s decision to transfer the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

“We reiterate our rejection of the US decision on Jerusalem,” the king said in a speech in Dhahran in eastern Saudi Arabia.

“East Jerusalem is an integral part of the Palestinian territories,” he added.

The move has sparked deep anger among the Palestinians, who see East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state, and across the Arab world.

The King announced a $150-million (120 million euro) donation for the maintenance of Islamic heritage in East Jerusalem.

“Saudi Arabia announces a $150-million grant to support the administration of Jerusalem’s Islamic property,” the monarch said at the opening of the Arab League summit in the kingdom’s eastern city of Dhahran.

“I name this summit in Dhahran the Jerusalem Summit so that the entire world knows Palestine and its people remain at the heart of Arab concerns,” he said.

Islamic holy sites in the city, including the revered Al-Aqsa mosque, are administered by a Jordanian-run trust known as the Waqf.

King Salman also announced a $50 million donation to UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees.

The organisation, which provides aid to more than three million people, faces serious financial difficulties after the US announced it was cutting its funding of the body.

In mid-March, UNRWA said it did not have the necessary funds to continue running until the summer.

UNRWA head Pierre Krahenbuhl recently said the agency was seeking $441 million to continue operating, but that donors had only pledged $100 million.

New Senate Terror War Authorization Makes Pentagon Into “World Police Force”

[New War Authorization for U.S. Military Getting Bipartisan Push]

Senators Offer Up Unprecedented War Powers to President

New AUMF would cement forever war and give the phrase ‘world police’ new meaning.

President Donald Trump walks with U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Michael Howard, commander of Joint Force Headquarters, at Arlington National Cemetery, May 29, 2017. Behind them are Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and U.S. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Flickr/CreativeCommons/DOD photo by U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Brigitte N. Brantley)

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate Monday would give the president sweeping authority to wage endless war anywhere in the world with limited congressional intervention.

Perversely billed as a plan to “reassert” Congressional power to “authorize where, when and with who we are at war,” the proposal for a new AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) falls way short of that promise. In fact, it achieves quite the opposite. The bill, if passed, would not only codify all of the authority the president has now to fight Al Qaeda and Taliban and “associated forces” as interpreted in the current 2001 AUMF, but allow the president to add as many targets as desired in the future. Congress can only reverse these add-ons with a veto-proof supermajority, and the White House is not mandated to fully disclose any new “associated forces” publicly or even to the full Congress. Nor is there a sunset provision requiring Congressional reauthorization, only a mere “review” every four years.

War critics on both the Left and Right were up in arms Tuesday over the details of the bill, which was introduced by Republican Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.). Unlike the 2001 AUMF, it names the Islamic State with the Taliban and Al Qaeda and five designated “associated forces” (Al Qaeda in Syria, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), Al Shabaab, and the Haqqani Network), which would essentially allow the U.S. military to engage in hostilities in Yemen, several countries in East and North Africa, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else these and any new groups may pop up in the future.

In short, it’s a rubber stamp for the global war on terror.

“Beyond being all but a full abdication of war powers vested to Congress in the Constitution, an AUMF that encourages perpetual, indefinite war is fundamentally at odds with fiscal conservatism and wise use of taxpayer dollars, as well as with wise use of our armed forces and its men and women who deserve robust debate over when and where they are asked to put their lives on the line for their country,” exclaimed Sarah Anderson, policy analyst for FreedomWorks, one of the conservative groups in Washington lining up against the bill, in an email to TAC.

There have been many efforts over the years, particularly by Corker and Kaine, to update the legal framework for current military actions overseas—whether that be bombing, hunting or detaining terrorists abroad—so that the administration would not have to keep stretching the 2001 (signed after 9/11) and/or the 2002 AUMF (signed ahead of the Iraq invasion) to cover new targets. There’s a sense that Presidents Bush, Obama and now Trump have been using the old AUMFs to engage in unilateral war without Congressional debate or blessing, and many lawmakers want to weigh in. Heralding his bill on Twitter, Sen. Kaine said it would take away Trump’s “blank check” for those White House wars and open them up to debate in the Congress.

Sadly this proposal essentially gives him the entire bank, with Congressional approval.

“It’s a well-intentioned effort that is unfortunately going to achieve the opposite,” said Rita Siemion, international legal counsel for Human Rights First. Blame the competing interests on the Hill: everyone knows the hawks would rather keep the status quo and won’t go for a bill that appears to tie the president’s hands. Any legislation with sunsets or transparency or even a stronger Congressional hand would be dead on arrival under the current Republican leadership.

“They (lawmakers) think they will have weighed in, and there’s this idea that it’s better than not weighing in at all, but I just don’t share it,” she told TAC Tuesday. “It’s going to be handing over significant powers to President Trump and any future president with no limits on which groups the nation goes to war with.”

At a time when Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have been arguing that the Congress should have a vote on whether the U.S. continues to assist in the Saudi war on the Houthi in Yemen under the War Powers Act, this bill would in essence abdicate those powers. Here, the president gets to make war on anyone he wants with Congress only voting after the fact. And without a veto-proof two-thirds majority, Congress cannot overrule him.

“When the founders wrote the Constitution they understood that military conflict was a big deal,” charged Kurt Couchman, vice president for public policy at the conservative Defense Priorities, in an interview with TAC. “They saw sovereigns go bankrupt over a series of wars started by kings, and they did not want our president to be king. You need the people to be on board through their representatives. (This proposal) ensures wars will continue on auto-pilot only subject to the president’s discretion.”

If that doesn’t sound monarchical enough, consider this: under the current rules any new interpretations of the AUMFs—including new “associated forces”—can remain classified. While the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) finally incorporated some reporting procedures requiring that changes like new targets must be shared with key congressional committees and leaders, most of the important stuff has been redacted from the public record, said Siemion, and will continue to be classified under the new measure.

In a primer on the Corker-Kaine bill Tuesday, Robert Chesney at the Lawfare blog said the lack of transparency has been status quo for some time:

“…as things currently stand there is no requirement for the public to be told when new groups are so designated. To be sure, the public sometimes is told, but nothing in current law requires this, and the track record involves much less clarity than one might like. For a considerable time, even Congress apparently had trouble acquiring this information, though that seems to have changed recently.

So what will change under Corker-Kaine? Absolutely nothing, said Siemion. The president can initiate drone strikes against targets operating under new flags (there is some effort to define “associated forces” in the bill, but there is a lot of wiggle room), and only has to inform certain members of Congress. Furthermore that information will likely never see the light of day.

“At a minimum, the public, the American people, should know who we are going to war with,” said Siemion.

Mark-ups could begin as early as next week—without a hearing. Sources say that members are already lining up to load the bill with amendments that would put restrictions on the president’s power, including a sunset clause, and that might spell its doom. Or it could be pushed to a vote as is. Tensions are already running high after the president initiated strikes against Syria last week without Congressional approval.

“My fear is that this new authority will not constrain the president but expand presidential power,” Sen. Rand Paul told Fox News Tuesday morning, signaling his own opposition to the Corker-Kaine proposal.

Couchman said a rush to pass–or not pass–the proposal may gloss over serious debates the Congress should be having on war policy, including how effective the U.S. military strategy is for the safety and health of the nation.

“A broader debate needs to happen. It’s not necessarily about legal authority, because legal authority is not sufficient for these questions. We also need to get back to core issues—issues of national interest, diplomacy, the use of force, and other foreign policy tools—and how best to keep Americans safe, free, and prosperous.”

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is the executive editor of The American Conservative. Follow her on Twitter @Vlahos_at_TAC.

Trump/Little King Hope To Revive “Islamist NATO” Idea To Replace US Troops In Syria

Saudi Arabia says open to sending troops to Syria under wider coalition

Donald Trump asks SAUDI ARABIA and others to establish ‘Arab ARMY’ to replace US in Syria

DONALD Trump is looking to end US engagement in Syria by forming an Arab military force to replace the US presence in the region and to help stabilise the north-eastern part of the country following the defeat of so-called Islamic State, it has been reported.

Donald Trump
GETTY

Donald Trump has asked Arab nations to contribute more to the ongoing conflict in Syria

The US administration has asked Arab countries including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to contribute billions of dollars and a large number of troops to help reestablish stability in the war-torn country, and in particular in northern regions.

Expressing his growing concern surrounding the cost and duration of the military intervention in Syria, President Trump said: “We have asked our partners to take greater responsibility for securing their home region, including contributing larger amounts of money.”

A US administration official confirmed this statement, saying: “Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the U.A.E. have all been approached with respect to financial support and more broadly to contribute.”

Trump’s new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, also reportedly contacted Egypt’s intelligence chief Abbas Kamel to determine whether the North African nation would contribute to the effort.

 

We have asked our partners to take greater responsibility for securing their home region, including contributing larger amounts of money

Donald Trump

Certain US officials have been quick to highlight the large obstacles that the US faces in establishing an Arab coalition force in Syria.

Michael O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, warned of external intervention, saying: “A new force has to be strong enough to face down Assad or Iran if either seeks to reclaim territory, perhaps with Russia’s help.”

And Charles Lister, a Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute, cast doubt over the project, saying: “There is just no precedent or established basis for this shaping into a successful strategy.”

He also noted that Arab countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia would be reluctant to enter into new military action, as they are currently involved militarily in Yemen.

This would be exacerbated by the uncertain role that the US would play in the project, with questions remaining surrounding whether the US would continue to provide training, support and air cover for troops.

US military officials however signalled in January that they were hoping to end their military campaign in Syria in a matter of months, but maintain a certain number of troops in the region to ensure the ongoing stability of key Islamic State locations such as Raqqa.

Mr Trump also said in early April that he desired a speedy withdrawal of the 2,000 US troops currently positioned in Syria.

This has caused rising fears among other military officials and international politicians that a rapid US withdrawal would create a power vacuum for ISIS to regain ground, or for nations such as Iran and Russia to gain further control.

Emmanuel Macron
GETTY
Emmanuel Macron has tried to persuade President Trump to keep US troops in Syria

Syria airstrike
GETTY

It is estimated that between 5,000 and 12,000 Islamic State fighters remain in Syria

French President Emmanuel Macron commented on President Trump’s desires to remove US troops from Syria, stating: “Ten days ago, President Trump was saying the United States of America had a duty to disengage from Syria.

“I assure you, we have convinced him that it is necessary to stay for the long term.”

It is estimated that between 5,000 to 12,000 Islamic State fighters still remain in eastern regions of Syria, with fighters still operating in a location south of the town of Al-Hasakah and in a 25-mile stretch along the Euphrates river near Abu Kamal.

Senators Push New AUMF (Auth. to Use Military Force) Limited To “Non-State” Actors

  • Proposal covers applies to war on terrorism, not Syrian regime
  • Congress could use fast-track procedure to block new actions

U.S. Will Decide in `Near Future’ on Additional Russia Sanctions

 

A bipartisan group of senators proposed updating Congress’s authorization for U.S. military action in the Middle East, days after President Donald Trump ordered strikes on Syria to retaliate against a chemical weapons attack.

The authorization would apply to the war on terrorism and not action against the Syrian regime, said Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker Tennessee, who with Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine led the senators in introducing the measure.

“It’s very specific that it cannot be used against nation-states,” Corker said. “I don’t think the Syria issue helps or hinders” drawing support in Congress.

The measure would repeal an authorization Congress passed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and would allow the use of military force against non-state terrorist groups abroad, including al-Qaeda, Islamic State and other associated groups. It would give Congress a fast-track opportunity to block the expansion of actions to new territories or groups, and would establish a process to review the measure every four years to prevent a lapse in authorization. Corker told reporters he hopes his committee will consider it on April 23.

Corker reiterated that he believes Trump has separate, existing authority to conducted the type of “surgical strike” the U.S., U.K. and France made against Syria. He said if administration requests authorization for it as part of the bill he is open to providing that.

Syrian Civil War

The possibility that the U.S. may become more deeply engaged in Syria’s seven-year civil war is reviving a longstanding and unsettled debate over Congress’s role in authorizing the use of military force. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, an authority it largely ceded to the president over the last 70 years.

So far, the administration — including Defense Secretary James Mattis — has operated under the assumption that the existing 2001 authorization for use of military force gives legal cover for military operations in Syria and elsewhere.

House members are scheduled to receive a classified briefing Tuesday from administration officials including Mattis and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford on last week’s military action in Syria, a House aide said. Senators will also get a briefing.

Resistance From Leaders

Any effort to update the use of military force could run into resistance from leadership in both chambers even if the Foreign Relations panel approves it. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, is unlikely to bring the measure up without a specific request from the Trump administration.

Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, said Thursday that the existing AUMF gives the president “the authority he needs to do what he may or may not do” regarding Syria.

Corker said his first priority is to see if the proposal can get out of his committee. He acknowledged it has been “difficult” for many years to pass a new authorization.

Corker said the co-sponsors of his measure also include Democrats Bill Nelson of Florida and Chris Coons of Delaware, and Republicans Jeff Flake of Arizona and Todd Young of Indiana.

“Trump’s decision to launch airstrikes against Syria without Congress’s approval is illegal,” Kaine said Saturday on Twitter. “We need to stop giving presidents a blank check to wage war.”

Democrats and Republicans have disagreed previously on new legislation. Democrats have sought limits to a new AUMF, while Republicans don’t want any caveats to tie the U.S. military’s hands in future operations.

— With assistance by Laura Litvan

Trump‘s Red Line

Seymour M. Hersh
Retaliation: Tomahawk missiles from the "USS Porter" on the way to the Shayrat Air Base on April 6, 2017
Retaliation: Tomahawk missiles from the “USS Porter” on the way to the Shayrat Air Base on April 6, 2017

Quelle: picture alliance / Robert S. Pri/dpa Picture-Alliance / Robert S.

President Donald Trump ignored important intelligence reports when he decided to attack Syria after he saw pictures of dying children. Seymour M. Hersh investigated the case of the alleged Sarin gas attack.
Anzeige

On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun. Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon.

The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives. Details of the attack,  including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose mission is to coordinate all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.

Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president’s determination to ignore the evidence. “None of this makes any sense,” one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. “We KNOW that there was no chemical attack … the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real intel and know the truth … I guess it didn’t matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump.“

Within hours of the April 4 bombing, the world’s media was saturated with photographs and videos from Khan Sheikhoun. Pictures of dead and dying victims, allegedly suffering from the symptoms of nerve gas poisoning, were uploaded to social media by local activists, including the White Helmets, a first responder group known for its close association with the Syrian opposition.

Seymour M. Hersh exposed the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam 1968. He uncovered the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and many other stories about war and politics
Seymour M. Hersh exposed the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam 1968. He uncovered the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and many other stories about war and politics

Quelle: Getty Images/Getty Images North America

The provenance of the photos was not clear and no international observers have yet inspected the site, but the immediate popular assumption worldwide was that this was a deliberate use of the nerve agent sarin, authorized by President Bashar Assad of Syria. Trump endorsed that assumption by issuing a statement within hours of the attack, describing Assad’s “heinous actions” as being a consequence of the Obama administration’s “weakness and irresolution” in addressing what he said was Syria’s past use of chemical weapons.

To the dismay of many senior members of his national security team, Trump could not be swayed over the next 48 hours of intense briefings and decision-making. In a series of interviews, I learned of the total disconnect between the president and many of his military advisers and intelligence officials, as well as officers on the ground in the region who had an entirely different understanding of the nature of Syria’s attack on Khan Sheikhoun. I was provided with evidence of that disconnect, in the form of transcripts of real-time communications, immediately following the Syrian attack on April 4. In an important pre-strike process known as deconfliction, U.S. and Russian officers routinely supply one another with advance details of planned flight paths and target coordinates, to ensure that there is no risk of collision or accidental encounter (the Russians speak on behalf of the Syrian military). This information is supplied daily to the American AWACS surveillance planes that monitor the flights once airborne. Deconfliction’s success and importance can be measured by the fact that there has yet to be one collision, or even a near miss, among the high-powered supersonic American, Allied, Russian and Syrian fighter bombers.

Anzeige

Russian and Syrian Air Force officers gave details of the carefully planned flight path to and from Khan Shiekhoun on April 4 directly, in English, to the deconfliction monitors aboard the AWACS plane, which was on patrol near the Turkish border, 60 miles or more to the north.

The Syrian target at Khan Sheikhoun, as shared with the Americans at Doha, was depicted as a two-story cinder-block building in the northern part of town. Russian intelligence, which is shared when necessary with Syria and the U.S. as part of their joint fight against jihadist groups, had established that a high-level meeting of jihadist leaders was to take place in the building, including representatives of Ahrar al-Sham and the al-Qaida-affiliated group formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra. The two groups had recently joined forces, and controlled the town and surrounding area. Russian intelligence depicted the cinder-block building as a command and control center that housed a grocery and other commercial premises on its ground floor with other essential shops nearby, including a fabric shop and an electronics store.

“The rebels control the population by controlling the distribution of goods that people need to live – food, water, cooking oil, propane gas, fertilizers for growing their crops, and insecticides to protect the crops,” a senior adviser to the American intelligence community, who has served in senior positions in the Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency, told me. The basement was used as storage for rockets, weapons and ammunition, as well as products that could be distributed for free to the community, among them medicines and chlorine-based decontaminants for cleansing the bodies of the dead before burial. The meeting place – a regional headquarters – was on the floor above. “It was an established meeting place,” the senior adviser said. “A long-time facility that would have had security, weapons, communications, files and a map center.” The Russians were intent on confirming their intelligence and deployed a drone for days above the site to monitor communications and develop what is known in the intelligence community as a POL – a pattern of life. The goal was to take note of those going in and out of the building, and to track weapons being moved back and forth, including rockets and ammunition.

One reason for the Russian message to Washington about the intended target was to ensure that any CIA asset or informant who had managed to work his way into the jihadist leadership was forewarned not to attend the meeting. I was told that the Russians passed the warning directly to the CIA. “They were playing the game right,” the senior adviser said. The Russian guidance noted that the jihadist meeting was coming at a time of acute pressure for the insurgents: Presumably Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham were desperately seeking a path forward in the new political climate. In the last few days of March, Trump and two of his key national security aides – Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley – had made statements acknowledging that, as the New York Times put it, the White House “has abandoned the goal” of pressuring Assad “to leave power, marking a sharp departure from the Middle East policy that guided the Obama administration for more than five years.” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told a press briefing on March 31 that “there is a political reality that we have to accept,” implying that Assad was there to stay.

Russian and Syrian intelligence officials, who coordinate operations closely with the American command posts, made it clear that the planned strike on Khan Sheikhoun was special because of the high-value target. “It was a red-hot change. The mission was out of the ordinary – scrub the sked,” the senior adviser told me. “Every operations officer in the region” – in the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, CIA and NSA – “had to know there was something going on. The Russians gave the Syrian Air Force a guided bomb and that was a rarity. They’re skimpy with their guided bombs and rarely share them with the Syrian Air Force. And the Syrians assigned their best pilot to the mission, with the best wingman.” The advance intelligence on the target, as supplied by the Russians, was given the highest possible score inside the American community.

The Execute Order governing U.S. military operations in theater, which was issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,  provide instructions that demarcate the relationship between the American and Russian forces operating in Syria. “It’s like an ops order – ‘Here’s what you are authorized to do,’” the adviser said. “We do not share operational control with the Russians. We don’t do combined operations with them, or activities directly in support of one of their operations.  But coordination is permitted. We keep each other apprised of what’s happening and within this package is the mutual exchange of intelligence.  If we get a hot tip that could help the Russians do their mission, that’s coordination; and the Russians do the same for us. When we get a hot tip about a command and control facility,” the adviser added, referring to the target in Khan Sheikhoun, “we do what we can to help them act on it.” “This was not a chemical weapons strike,” the adviser said. “That’s a fairy tale. If so, everyone involved in transferring, loading and arming the weapon – you’ve got to make it appear like a regular 500-pound conventional bomb – would be wearing Hazmat protective clothing in case of a leak. There would be very little chance of survival without such gear. Military grade sarin includes additives designed to increase toxicity and lethality. Every batch that comes out is maximized for death. That is why it is made. It is odorless and invisible and death can come within a minute. No cloud. Why produce a weapon that people can run away from?”

This photograph by the Syrian opposition (Edlib Media Center) shows the aftermath of a strike against the town of Khan Sheikhoun. A large building was hit, but it’s unclear were the strike took place exactly
This photograph by the Syrian opposition (Edlib Media Center) shows the aftermath of a strike against the town of Khan Sheikhoun. A large building was hit, but it’s unclear were the strike took place exactly

Quelle: picture alliance / ZUMAPRESS.com/Shalan Stewart

The target was struck at 6:55 a.m. on April 4, just before midnight in Washington. A Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA) by the U.S. military later determined that the heat and force of the 500-pound Syrian bomb triggered  a series of secondary explosions that could have generated a huge toxic cloud that began to spread over the town, formed by the release of the fertilizers, disinfectants and other goods stored in the basement, its effect magnified by the dense morning air, which trapped the fumes close to the ground. According to intelligence estimates, the senior adviser said, the strike itself killed up to four jihadist leaders, and an unknown number of drivers and security aides. There is no confirmed count of the number of civilians killed by the poisonous gases that were released by the secondary explosions, although opposition activists reported that there were more than 80 dead, and outlets such as CNN have put the figure as high as 92. A team from Médecins Sans Frontières, treating victims from Khan Sheikhoun at a clinic 60 miles to the north, reported that “eight patients showed symptoms – including constricted pupils, muscle spasms and involuntary defecation – which are consistent with exposure to a neurotoxic agent such as sarin gas or similar compounds.” MSF also visited other hospitals that had received victims and found that patients there “smelled of bleach, suggesting that they had been exposed to chlorine.” In other words, evidence suggested that there was more than one chemical responsible for the symptoms observed, which would not have been the case if the Syrian Air Force – as opposition activists insisted – had dropped a sarin bomb, which has no percussive or ignition power to trigger secondary explosions. The range of symptoms is, however, consistent with the release of a mixture of chemicals, including chlorine and the organophosphates used in many fertilizers, which can cause neurotoxic effects similar to those of sarin.

The internet swung into action within hours, and gruesome photographs of the victims flooded television networks and YouTube. U.S. intelligence was tasked with establishing what had happened. Among the pieces of information received was an intercept of Syrian communications collected before the attack by an allied nation. The intercept, which had a particularly strong effect on some of Trump’s aides, did not mention nerve gas or sarin, but it did quote a Syrian general discussing a “special” weapon and the need for a highly skilled pilot to man the attack plane. The reference, as those in the American intelligence community understood, and many of the inexperienced aides and family members close to Trump may not have, was to a Russian-supplied bomb with its built-in guidance system. “If you’ve already decided it was a gas attack, you will then inevitably read the talk about a special weapon as involving a sarin bomb,” the adviser said. “Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun? Absolutely. Do we have intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the president did not say: ‘We have a problem and let’s look into it.’ He wanted to bomb the shit out of Syria.”

At the UN the next day, Ambassador Haley created a media sensation when she displayed photographs of the dead and accused Russia of being complicit. “How many more children have to die before Russia cares?” she asked. NBC News, in a typical report that day, quoted American officials as confirming that nerve gas had been used and Haley tied the attack directly to Syrian President Assad. “We know that yesterday’s attack was a new low even for the barbaric Assad regime,” she said. There was irony in America’s rush to blame Syria and criticize Russia for its support of Syria’s denial of any use of gas in Khan Sheikhoun, as Ambassador Haley and others in Washington did. “What doesn’t occur to most Americans” the adviser said, “is if there had been a Syrian nerve gas attack authorized by Bashar, the Russians would be 10 times as upset as anyone in the West. Russia’s strategy against ISIS, which involves getting American cooperation, would have been destroyed and Bashar would be responsible for pissing off Russia, with unknown consequences for him. Bashar would do that? When he’s on the verge of winning the war? Are you kidding me?”

Trump, a constant watcher of television news, said, while King Abdullah of Jordan was sitting next to him in the Oval Office, that what had happened was “horrible, horrible” and a “terrible affront to humanity.” Asked if his administration would change its policy toward the Assad government, he said: “You will see.” He gave a hint of the response to come at the subsequent news conference with King Abdullah: “When you kill innocent children, innocent babies – babies, little babies – with a chemical gas that is so lethal  … that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line . … That attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. Big impact … It’s very, very possible … that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.”

Within hours of viewing the photos, the adviser said, Trump instructed the national defense apparatus to plan for retaliation against Syria. “He did this before he talked to anybody about it. The planners then asked the CIA and DIA if there was any evidence that Syria had sarin stored at a nearby airport or somewhere in the area. Their military had to have it somewhere in the area in order to bomb with it.” “The answer was, ‘We have no evidence that Syria had sarin or used it,’” the adviser said. “The CIA also told them that there was no residual delivery for sarin at Sheyrat [the airfield from which the Syrian SU-24 bombers had taken off on April 4] and Assad had no motive to commit political suicide.” Everyone involved, except perhaps the president, also understood that a highly skilled United Nations team had spent more than a year in the aftermath of an alleged sarin attack in 2013 by Syria, removing what was said to be all chemical weapons from a dozen Syrian chemical weapons depots.

At this point, the adviser said, the president’s national security planners were more than a little rattled: “No one knew the provenance of the photographs. We didn’t know who the children were or how they got hurt. Sarin actually is very easy to detect because it penetrates paint, and all one would have to do is get a paint sample. We knew there was a cloud and we knew it hurt people. But you cannot jump from there to certainty that Assad had hidden sarin from the UN because he wanted to use it in Khan Sheikhoun.” The intelligence made clear that a Syrian Air Force SU-24 fighter bomber had used a conventional weapon to hit its target: There had been no chemical warhead. And yet it was impossible for the experts to persuade the president of this once he had made up his mind. “The president saw the photographs of poisoned little girls and said it was an Assad atrocity,” the senior adviser said. “It’s typical of human nature. You jump to the conclusion you want. Intelligence analysts do not argue with a president. They’re not going to tell the president, ‘if you interpret the data this way, I quit.’”

President Donald J. Trump with some of his closest advisors at Mar-a-Lago on April 6, 2017 at a top secret briefing on the results of the missile strike on Shayat Air Base
President Donald J. Trump with some of his closest advisors at Mar-a-Lago on April 6, 2017 at a top secret briefing on the results of the missile strike on Shayat Air Base

Quelle: picture alliance/ASSOCIATED PRESS/AP Content

The national security advisers understood their dilemma: Trump wanted to respond to the affront to humanity committed by Syria and he did not want to be dissuaded. They were dealing with a man they considered to be not unkind and not stupid, but his limitations when it came to national security decisions were severe. “Everyone close to him knows his proclivity for acting precipitously when he does not know the facts,” the adviser said. “He doesn’t read anything and has no real historical knowledge. He wants verbal briefings and photographs. He’s a risk-taker. He can accept the consequences of a bad decision in the business world; he will just lose money. But in our world, lives will be lost and there will be long-term damage to our national security if he guesses wrong. He was told we did not have evidence of Syrian involvement and yet Trump says: ‘Do it.”’

On April 6, Trump convened a meeting of national security officials at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. The meeting was not to decide what to do, but how best to do it – or, as some wanted, how to do the least and keep Trump happy. “The boss knew before the meeting that they didn’t have the intelligence, but that was not the issue,” the adviser said. “The meeting was about, ‘Here’s what I’m going to do,’ and then he gets the options.”

The available intelligence was not relevant. The most experienced man at the table was Secretary of Defense James Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general who had the president’s respect and understood, perhaps, how quickly that could evaporate. Mike Pompeo, the CIA director whose agency had consistently reported that it had no evidence of a Syrian chemical bomb, was not present. Secretary of State Tillerson was admired on the inside for his willingness to work long hours and his avid reading of diplomatic cables and reports, but he knew little about waging war and the management of a bombing raid. Those present were in a bind, the adviser said. “The president was emotionally energized by the disaster and he wanted options.” He got four of them, in order of extremity. Option one was to do nothing. All involved, the adviser said, understood that was a non-starter. Option two was a slap on the wrist: to bomb an airfield in Syria, but only after alerting the Russians and, through them, the Syrians, to avoid too many casualties. A few of the planners called this the “gorilla option”: America would glower and beat its chest to provoke fear and demonstrate resolve, but cause little significant damage. The third option was to adopt the strike package that had been presented to Obama in 2013, and which he ultimately chose not to pursue. The plan called for the massive bombing of the main Syrian airfields and command and control centers using B1 and B52 aircraft launched from their bases in the U.S. Option four was “decapitation”: to remove Assad by bombing his palace in Damascus, as well as his command and control network and all of the underground bunkers he could possibly retreat to in a crisis.

“Trump ruled out option one off the bat,” the senior adviser said, and the assassination of Assad was never considered. “But he said, in essence: ‘You’re the military and I want military action.’” The president was also initially opposed to the idea of giving the Russians advance warning before the strike, but reluctantly accepted it. “We gave him the Goldilocks option – not too hot, not too cold, but just right.” The discussion had its bizarre moments. Tillerson wondered at the Mar-a-Lago meeting why the president could not simply call in the B52 bombers and pulverize the air base. He was told that B52s were very vulnerable to surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) in the area and using such planes would require suppression fire that could kill some Russian defenders.  “What is that?” Tillerson asked. Well, sir, he was told, that means we would have to destroy the upgraded SAM sites along the B52 flight path, and those are manned by Russians, and we possibly would be confronted with a much more difficult situation. “The lesson here was: Thank God for the military men at the meeting,” the adviser said. “They did the best they could when confronted with a decision that had already been made.”

Fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles were fired from two U.S. Navy destroyers on duty in the Mediterranean, the Ross and the Porter, at Shayrat Air Base near the government-controlled city of Homs. The strike was as successful as hoped, in terms of doing minimal damage. The missiles have a light payload – roughly 220 pounds of HBX, the military’s modern version of TNT. The airfield’s gasoline storage tanks, a primary target, were pulverized, the senior adviser said, triggering a huge fire and clouds of smoke that interfered with the guidance system of following missiles. As many as 24 missiles missed their targets and only a few of the Tomahawks actually penetrated into hangars, destroying nine Syrian aircraft, many fewer than claimed by the Trump administration. I was told that none of the nine was operational: such damaged aircraft are what the Air Force calls hangar queens. “They were sacrificial lambs,” the senior adviser said. Most of the important personnel and operational fighter planes had been flown to nearby bases hours before the raid began. The two runways and parking places for aircraft, which had also been targeted, were repaired and back in operation within eight hours or so. All in all, it was little more than an expensive fireworks display.

“It was a totally Trump show from beginning to end,” the senior adviser said. “A few of the president’s senior national security advisers viewed the mission as a minimized bad presidential decision, and one that they had an obligation to carry out. But I don’t think our national security people are going to allow themselves to be hustled into a bad decision again. If Trump had gone for option three, there might have been some immediate resignations.”

After the meeting, with the Tomahawks on their way, Trump spoke to the nation from Mar-a-Lago, and accused Assad of using nerve gas to choke out “the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many … No child of God should ever suffer such horror.” The next few days were his most successful as president. America rallied around its commander in chief, as it always does in times of war. Trump, who had campaigned as someone who advocated making peace with Assad, was bombing Syria 11 weeks after taking office, and was hailed for doing so by Republicans, Democrats and the media alike. One prominent TV anchorman, Brian Williams of MSNBC, used the word “beautiful” to describe the images of the Tomahawks being launched at sea. Speaking on CNN, Fareed Zakaria said: “I think Donald Trump became president of the United States.” A review of the top 100 American newspapers showed that 39 of them published editorials supporting the bombing in its aftermath, including the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.

The Tomahawk missiles only did little damage to the Syrian air base
The Tomahawk missiles only did little damage to the Syrian air base

Quelle: AP Photo/HM BH

Five days later, the Trump administration gathered the national media for a background briefing on the Syrian operation that was conducted by a senior White House official who was not to be identified. The gist of the briefing was that Russia’s heated and persistent denial of any sarin use in the Khan Sheikhoun bombing was a lie because President Trump had said sarin had been used. That assertion, which was not challenged or disputed by any of the reporters present, became the basis for a series of further criticisms:

– The continued lying by the Trump administration about Syria’s use of sarin led to widespread belief in the American media and public  that Russia had  chosen to be involved in a corrupt disinformation and cover-up campaign on the part of Syria.

– Russia’s military forces had been co-located with Syria’s at the Shayrat airfield (as they are throughout Syria), raising the possibility that Russia had advance notice of Syria’s determination to use sarin at Khan Sheikhoun and did nothing to stop it.

– Syria’s use of sarin and Russia’s defense of that use strongly suggested that Syria withheld stocks of the nerve agent from the UN disarmament team that spent much of 2014 inspecting and removing all declared chemical warfare agents from 12 Syrian chemical weapons depots, pursuant to the agreement worked out by the Obama administration and Russia after Syria’s alleged, but still unproven, use of sarin the year before against a rebel redoubt in a suburb of Damascus.

The briefer, to his credit, was careful to use the words “think,” “suggest” and “believe” at least 10 times during the 30-minute event. But he also said that his briefing was based on data that had been declassified by “our colleagues in the intelligence community.” What the briefer did not say, and may not have known, was that much of the classified information in the community made the point that Syria had not used sarin in the April 4 bombing attack.

The mainstream press responded the way the White House had hoped it would: Stories attacking Russia’s alleged cover-up of Syria’s sarin use dominated the news and many media outlets ignored the briefer’s myriad caveats. There was a sense of renewed Cold War. The New York Times, for example – America’s leading newspaper – put the following headline on its account: “White House Accuses Russia of Cover-Up in Syria Chemical Attack.” The Times’ account did note a Russian denial, but what was described by the briefer as “declassified information” suddenly became a “declassified intelligence report.” Yet there was no formal intelligence report stating that Syria had used sarin, merely a “summary based on declassified information about the attacks,” as the briefer referred to it.

The crisis slid into the background by the end of April, as Russia, Syria and the United States remained focused on annihilating ISIS and the militias of al-Qaida. Some of those who had worked through the crisis, however, were left with lingering concerns. “The Salafists and jihadists got everything they wanted out of their hyped-up Syrian nerve gas ploy,” the senior adviser to the U.S. intelligence community told me, referring to the flare up of tensions between Syria, Russia and America. “The issue is, what if there’s another false flag sarin attack credited to hated Syria? Trump has upped the ante and painted himself into a corner with his decision to bomb. And do not think these guys are not planning the next faked attack. Trump will have no choice but to bomb again, and harder. He’s incapable of saying he made a mistake.”

The White House did not answer specific questions about the bombing of Khan Sheikhoun and the airport of Shayrat. These questions were send via e-mail to the White House on June 15 and never answered.   

%d bloggers like this: