Behind The Smoke And Mirrors
Our media has never reported the truth about events in Syria. From the beginning the reality has been this: the US, supported by the UK, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel have funded and trained groups of proxy fighters working under different political and religious masks (including ISIL) with the goal of overthrowing the government of President Assad. The Syrian government is supported by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.
In the beginning the war was fought by agents of the West, but two years ago the US decided to intervene directly by using aircraft and naval forces to bomb targets in Syria. The plan was for a joint US/French attack early in the morning on Saturday, August 31, 2013. However it was halted only hours before it was to start. The fact that there was to be such an attack, and the reason why it was cancelled were never reported by the mainstream media in the West. What could have happened to stop such an attack?
The War That Didn’t Happen
Early in the morning of Saturday, August 31, an American official called the office of President Hollande telling him to expect a call from Obama later in the day.
“Assuming that the evening phone call would announce the commencement of U.S. air strikes (against Syria), Hollande ordered his officers to quickly finalize their own attack plans. Rafale fighters were loaded with Scalp cruise missiles, their pilots told to launch the 250-mile-range munitions while over the Mediterranean.”(1)
In other words, at this point in time the French pilots and the US forces were only waiting for the final command from President Obama to begin their attack. However, later that same day, at 6:15 pm, Obama called the French President to tell him that the strike scheduled for 3:00 am, September 1, would not take place as planned. He would need to consult Congress.
An article in Global Research outlines the extent of the military deployment around the Syrian coast.(2) A month or so later Israel Shamir described events off the Syrian coast as follows:
“The most dramatic event of September 2013 was the high-noon stand-off near the Levantine shore, with five US destroyers pointing their Tomahawks towards Damascus and facing them – the Russian flotilla of eleven ships led by the carrier-killer Missile Cruiser Moskva and supported by Chinese warships. Apparently, two missiles were launched towards the Syrian coast, and both failed to reach their destination.”(3)
The following map shows some of the details of this very large naval buildup.
So why didn’t the US and France attack Syria? It seems obvious that the Russians and Chinese simply explained that an attack on Syria by US and French forces would be met by a Russian/Chinese attack on US and French warships. Obama wisely decided not to start WW III in September 2013. We can all be pleased with this outcome.
The Plans of US, UK and Turkey
Since then the US and its allies have continued with more of the same kind of proxy warfare, including a new organization called ISIL. Clearly, however, they have not been completely happy with their plans and have decided to again go for a different form of direct involvement in the conflict. In a recent article "The Shuttle Diplomacy To Save Syria", by Andrew Korybko, explains that the US and Turkey have started something called a "Division 30" ploy,
"whereby a small group of elite proxy units were deployed to the country from Turkey under the protective cover of American airstrikes. On the same day that the Syrian military representatives arrived in Moscow, the news came out (likely known at least shortly beforehand by Russia via their world-famous intelligence-gathering network) that Obama had authorized the Pentagon to bomb any entity fighting against this group, including the Syrian Arab Army if such a clash occurs."(4)
A similar report was made by Stephen Lendman:
“On August 2, Britain’s Sunday Express newspaper headlined “SAS dress as ISIS fighters in undercover war on jihadis,” saying: “More than 120 members belonging to the elite regiment are currently in the war-torn country” covertly “dressed in black and flying ISIS flags,” engaged in what’s called Operation Shader – attacking Syrian targets on the pretext of combating ISIS. Maybe covert US Special Forces and CIA elements are involved the same way.”(5)
It might seem that the use of such elite troops looks like a win-win for the US. If there is no opposition from the Syrian Army, Assad is finished. On the other hand, if the Syrian troops attack the NATO forces, then they face a full scale NATO attack.
These reports suggest that the US/UK have used some of their own elite forces to directly intervene in Syria. With the policy that any armed groups who oppose these elite forces will be attacked by air, the US and its allies have a clear plan for direct military intervention in Syria using NATO planes and missiles. This would be their second attempt to achieve regime change by overt attacks on the government.
Some Interesting Diplomatic Moves By Russia
The article by Andrew Korybko shows that again Russia is working diplomatically to counter the US actions against Syria. Part of their strategy is to undermine the US position by breaking countries away from the US coalition. Top of the list is a series of discussions with Saudi Arabia. There has been a rapid increase in contactsbetween the two. For example, President Putin and King Salman intend to visit each other by year’s end, and both sides sign a nuclear energy cooperation agreement. There are also reports of a secret meeting that Russia arranged between the Syrian Chief of Home Security and the Saudi Defense Minister. According to Korybko
"Saudi Arabia has finally realized that its Wahhabist spawn has become uncontrollable, and that it must therefore extricate itself from the proxy quagmire that it’s gotten itself into in Syria before the blowback becomes unbearable...(because) they’d rather divert the resources, money, and time from the proven-to-have-failed War on Syria to their latest military adventure along their southern border. Add to it Riyadh’s paranoid fears that Yemen has become a base for Iranian proxies, and it makes sense why the Kingdom would accept a defeat in Syria in order to salvage whatever strategic ground they can from Yemen (and as soon as possible, at that)."(6)
But the Russians might be doing more than helping Syria with diplomacy.
A Suggestion The Russian Military Will Again Support Syria
We must realize the serious consequences which arise from the US plan to attack Syrian Army units or anyone else if they oppose the "Division 30" troops. The danger arises from the fact that Obama has “authorized the Pentagon to bomb any entity fighting against this group, including the Syrian Arab Army if such a clash occurs.” Writing about a recent meeting between a delegation of three high-ranking Syrian army officers, who arrived in Moscow on the 3rd August this year, and the Russian military, Korybko states:
“Of course, this provocation could lead to a split-second escalation of the War on Syria and the formal American bombing of all Syrian military and government installations in as rapid of a regime change fashion as they moved in Libya, so it’s definitely taken into serious consideration by Moscow, and strategic attempts at deterring this dire scenario were most assuredly thrown about during the meeting.”(7)
So what might have been discussed at this meeting between the officers from Syria and Russia? “The agenda of the visit includes exchanges of experience in the fight against terrorism, the sources said.”(8) Korybko explains that the Russians could deal with this new strategy as follows: "Russia can always resort to the fail-safe measure of embedding its active Syrian-based military advisors into the Syrian Arab Army’s frontline positions." The idea of embedding Russian advisors into the Syrian troops calls the US bluff. The strategy works like this:
“If Russia is absolutely serious about removing the potential for the US to use a Syrian Arab Army attack on “Division 30” as the escalation trigger for ushering in their pre-planned full-scale regime change operation, then it could take the brave and resolute step of positioning its Syrian-based military advisors on the anti-terrorist frontline alongside the Syrian Arab Army. This decision could realistically be communicated to the US via formal/informal intelligence and diplomatic channels so that Washington could be aware of the unspeakable consequences of striking back at the Syrians as they respond to “Division 30’s” provocations. While a seemingly risky suggestion to some, it is a proven fact that the US military has never directly targeted a Russian serviceman, choosing instead to rely on its proxies for such a grisly task (be it the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan or terrorists in Chechnya). The reason for this is clear – a direct attack by the US on a Russian military unit is a flagrant cause for war, and even under the currently tense conditions, there is no way that the US would make such an unthinkable move.”(9)
In other words, the Russians could have a way to deal with the latest US plans to overthrow the Assad government. In effect the US is saying to the Syrians: "If you attack our troops (Division 30), it means war with the US." The Russians are saying - again - to the US: "If you attack our troops in Syria, it means war with Russia."
If Korybko’s suggestion about Russian/Syrian plans is correct, then we are looking at the second time that Russia has been prepared to draw a line in the sand. We can only hope that wisdom again prevails in Washington, and the US plans for all out war in Syria will be abandoned.