US Launches Impotent Attack on Non-existent "Chemical Facilities"

The US, UK and France launched strikes against targets at three sites in Syria in the early hours of Saturday morning, following a week of threats of retaliation for an alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians in the Damascus enclave of Douma. 

"I ordered the United States armed forces to launch precision strikes on targets associated with the chemical weapon capabilities of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad," Trump said late Friday at the White House.

Of course, the phrase, "associated with the chemical weapon capabilities" of Syria is intentionally ambiguous.


Considering that any attack on actual, currently active chemical weapon facilities in Syria would risk the spread of toxic chemicals over civilian areas - attacking such sites would contravene the entire supposed purpose of the US-led attack - protecting Syrian civilians from "chemical weapons."

Considering that any attack on actual, currently active chemical weapon facilities in Syria would risk the spread of toxic chemicals over civilian areas - attacking such sites would contravene the entire supposed purpose of the US-led attack - protecting Syrian civilians from "chemical weapons." 

The fear of even industrial chemical facilities being targeted by terrorists to spread clouds of deadly toxins over civilian populations has been a familiar theme throughout America's supposed "War on Terror."

The Washington Post in a December 2001 article titled, "Chemical Plants Are Feared as Targets," would describe the possible impact of an explosion at a chemical plant in Tennessee, claiming:

If those chemicals had been released, as many as 60,000 people who live within reach of the ensuing vapor cloud could have faced death or serious injury, according to the plant's worst-case estimate.

Obviously, US-led strikes on chemical facilities in Syria - had they existed - would have led to similarly catastrophic threats to the civilian population of Syria, calling into question both Washington's credibility, and the alleged purpose behind this recent act of military aggression.

Popular Mechanics, a publication that eagerly promotes Pentagon endeavors around the globe, published an article on the eve of the US-led missile strikes titled, "These Are Syria's Chemical Weapons. Here's How To Destroy Them," admitting:

Due to the very nature of chemical weapons, an explosive attack would spread lethal agents over a wide area, meaning more civilian casualties. 

Racing to Beat OPCW Investigation

The US-led attack came just before the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) investigation into the Douma incident could begin. Just before the attack, Russia openly and directly accused the United Kingdom specifically of staging the Douma incident.

This has added further suspicion surrounding US-UK claims regarding Douma. Both the US and the UK notoriously lied to the world ahead of the disastrous 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. It would later turn out that claims of Iraq having "weapons of mass destruction," including chemical weapons, were intentional, fabricated lies.

Washington's Possible Options

Attempts to frame the Syrian government for using chemical weapons has become increasingly desperate and transparent. Future attempts are likely to result in even greater global diplomatic and public backlash, suspicion, and the further undermining of Western credibility.

It was clear that the supposed poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, UK was engineered as an attempt to undermine Russia's credibility within the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) ahead of a vote on action against Syria regarding the yet-to-be staged chemical weapons attack in Douma, northeast of Damascus.

Although the likelihood of Russia being removed from the UNSC was remote, the West calculated that the political and diplomatic fallout they engineered would be enough to pressure Russia in Syria in the wake of the second staged chemical attack in Douma.

With this elaborate, but transparently baseless string of accusations being aimed at Syria and Russia now falling apart - falling short of simply withdrawing from Syria - the US and its allies have a limited number of options remaining for provoking a war it hopes can remove the Syrian government from power and reassert US hegemony over the Middle East.

US-based corporate-funded policy think-tank, the Brookings Institution in its 2009 paper,  "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" (PDF), in relation to provoking war with Iran, would note (emphasis added): 

...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

As many of Brookings' recommendations for Iran have now been repeatedly used on Syria, this option may manifest itself in several ways.



Before and after this most recent and impotent strike on Syria, Israel has claimed of an impending Iranian attack on its territory. Such an attack would - again - serve only as a pretext for the US and its allies to intervene in Syria amid a war Syria and its Russian and Iranian allies have already won.

Israel may stage an attack on its own forces - or an attack on US, British, or French forces in the region may be staged. Unlike an alleged or staged chemical attack on civilians, staging a military attack on Western forces and their regional allies would allow an immediate and much larger military response.

What America's Impotence Means for Syria and its Allies 

A desperate and declining empire is a dangerous empire. The US missile strikes were careful to avoid any targets near Russian positions. Russia simply expanding those positions and creating an increasingly overt presence between the US and the Syrian government would further diminish the options and impact regarding future US military aggression.

Russia's ability to communicate clearly to US interests the finality of its commitment in Syria and the consequences of continued US military aggression in the region has already resulted in US hesitation.

Despite the scale of the recent US attack, it was clearly an attack made out of desperate frustration - an attempt to "fall forward" - tripping over its clumsy pretext while trying to advance its agenda. In the process, it has compromised its agenda further, and further dulled the propaganda tools it has overused in relation to its floundering proxy war in Syria.

Managing the eviction of the US from the Middle East will be a slow, arduous, and dangerous process that will require maximum patience and persistence. The Syrian government and its allies' weathering of this recent attack once again proves that time is on their side and their collective discipline in the face of America's increasingly reckless foreign policy will continue to confound and complicate US objectives.

Damascus, Moscow, and Tehran must continue this process, preparing for future provocations including staged attacks on Western forces in the region, while patiently and systematically evicting the US and its proxies from both Syrian territory, and from the region.


For the rest of the general public appalled by US military aggression and seeking ways to resist it - the continued support of, contribution to, and participation in the alternative media as well as the boycott and permanent replacement of the corporate special interests driving US foreign policy are viable options.