Syrian Chemical Attacks | Part 2

Read Part 1 in Syrian Chemical Attacks series : Click Here

Accepting the argument at face value

If the ‘Sarin’ gas attack in Khan Sheikhoun is not to be considered a ‘false-flag’ operation (as a number of international diplomats have cautioned that this is a ‘false-flag’ attack to draw America into the Syrian war), then the United States must share at least ‘a little’ intelligence-based evidence/inputs to clarify that this was the ‘handiwork’ of Assad regime.

While gazing upon this issue, one should start with the ‘speed’ at which the attack was coming upon Syria. There were consultations with the American allies, and within a couple of days of the alleged attack, a surprise missile attack was launched without investigation. This could not have been possible without ‘assuming’ that a series of calculations were already being pondered upon by the United States to turn the tide of events in Syria into an anti-Assad plot. This also comes at a time when there was a serious criticism in the form of killing of civilians in one of the US operations in Syria and the building up of domestic ‘magma of dissent’ against President Trump in the US. This missile attack is one way of asserting his presidency in the traditional American sense where military muscle flexing becomes political imperative for an ‘active’ US President at the peril of the whole world.

Moral and legal dimensions of the US strikes against Syria

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that “the strikes were an act of aggression, on an absolutely made-up pretext”. He says that it reminds him of the situation in 2003 (not 2013), when the United States and Britain along with some of their allies attacked Iraq, saying that it had ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (Find more about the Chilcot Report, 2016). Even the 2013 chemical attack in Syria was not found to be conducted by the Syrian regime. Carla del Ponte, a member of the UN independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria testified had said that it was most likely done by rebels and not by the Syrian army. Therefore, many questions are being raised about this recent chemical attack, being a false-flag operation. If this is a false-flag operation indeed, then the world should take note of US getting involved without a legitimate basis.

Dr Waiel Awwad (correspondent with Syrian Arab News Agency) proclaims that the attack by the United States is clearly a ‘false-flag’ operation in two ways – Firstly, it is aimed to give a lesson to the US President Donald Trump by the ‘American establishment’, who thought that he can behave as an independent President. Secondly, this retaliation has not happened due to the chemical weapons attack, because firing 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles need a prior planning, and it could not have happened in a matter of a couple of days.

Neither the US Congress nor the UNSC authorised the cruise missile attacks on Syria by the United States. Clearly, the US President had no legal sanction to launch 59 deadly Tomahawk missiles against Syria. In terms of international legality, President Trump should have obtained the sanction of UN Security Council which would have come only after a fair and credible investigation into the matter as to ‘who’ was responsible for these attacks. Therefore, this action by the United States is in utter disregard of the international laws and conventions.

Read Part 3 in Syrian Chemical Attacks series : Click Here


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *