Will
a false flag chemical attack in Syria’s Idlib province be the trigger that
causes World War 3 to erupt in the Middle East?
In Part I of this series, I discussed how previous
chemical attacks that were blamed on the Assad regime actually turned out to be
false flag attacks conducted by Syrian rebels that were absolutely desperate to
draw the United States into the Syrian civil war on their side. And considering
the fact that the Syrian rebels have been consistently losing territory in
recent months, they are now more desperate than ever. So even though it
didn’t work before, they probably figured that a false flag chemical attack was
worth one more try, and so far the Trump administration appears to be buying it
hook, line and sinker. Trump has called the attack a “terrible affront to humanity”, and he is placing all
of the blame on the shoulders of the Assad regime. But now that Trump has
committed the U.S. to take military action in Syria, what is that actually
going to look like?
According
to the Daily Mail, at this point Trump is not giving any
hints as to when or where he will strike Syria…
He
did not want to say in front of the cameras how he plans to respond to the
crisis.
‘I
don’t like to say where I’m going and what I’m doing,’ Trump reminded. ‘I
watched past administrations say, “We will attack at such-and- such a day, at
such-and-such an hour.’
But it
isn’t difficult to imagine what Trump may decide to do. Past presidents
have always favored using airstrikes to make a point, and that is what many of
the “analysts” on television are recommending.
Unfortunately,
there would be great risk in targeting Syrian forces, because contingents from
Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and elsewhere are mixed in among the Syrian military.
So
could you imagine what it would do to our relations with Russia if airstrikes
against the Syrian military resulted in Russian deaths?…
President
Trump has several options in Syria, none without great risk. One is military
action against Syria’s air force – grounding the helicopters and fixed wing
aircraft that are believed to have dropped the deadly agent – and the runways
from which they operate. Yes, such strikes risk Russian casualties. But Moscow
has consistently blocked U.N. action on Syria but proven unable to contain Mr.
Assad’s bad behavior. And President Vladimir Putin would be forewarned.
Grounding Syria’s air force, moreover, would help distance Mr. Trump from Mr.
Putin, a politically useful benefit at this time.
And
even if Trump did conduct airstrikes, there would be a limit as to what they
could accomplish. President Assad would still be in power in Syria, and
the Syrian government would still be winning the civil war.
Trump
could potentially send in special forces with the intention of assassinating
Assad, but that would not necessarily topple the entire regime.
The
truth is that the only way to change the outcome of the war and to guarantee
regime change would be to send in U.S. ground forces on a large scale. And
just introducing them into the country would not nearly be enough. In
order to end the war, Trump would have to commit to taking and holding
Damascus.
In Isaiah
17, we are told that someday Damascus will be “taken away from being
a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.” Much of the city is already a
heap of rubble, but if the U.S. were to start conducting a concentrated bombing
campaign against the city it is easy to imagine how the entire city could soon
come to resemble a “ruinous heap”.
Of
course the toppling of the Assad regime has been the goal all along. Back
in 2011, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hatched a plan along with
Saudi Arabia and Turkey to use the “Arab Spring” as an excuse to try to remove
Assad from power. Since 74 percent of the population of Syria is Sunni
Muslim, Saudi Arabia and Turkey were very excited about the prospect of dealing
Iran a major blow by transforming Syria into a full-fledged Sunni nation.
So Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other Arab countries spent billions of dollars
supporting and arming the “rebels”, and at first everything was going
great. But then Russia, Iran and Hezbollah all intervened, and now the
tide of the war has completely turned.
The
only way that the original plan can succeed now is for the United States to
enter the war, but with Trump as president nobody thought that was going to
happen.
But
now this latest chemical attack has changed everything, and Trump appears
poised to take military action in Syria.
I
don’t know if most Americans understand how dangerous such a move could
be. The Russians are not going to just sit there while U.S. bombs are
dropping and their personnel are being killed. And of course the same
thing could be said about Iran and Hezbollah.
Do we
really want to risk a potential military confrontation with Russia, Iran and
Hezbollah just to make a point in Syria?
To me,
that would be exceedingly foolish.
And
even more disastrous would be a decision to fully commit the U.S. military to
toppling the Assad regime. That would require going all the way to
Damascus, and it is very, very doubtful that the Russians, the Iranians and
Hezbollah would just willingly stand aside and allow that to happen.
For
quite a while I have been warning that the situation in Syria could potentially
spark World War 3 if everyone was not very, very careful.
If
U.S. warplanes try to strike Syrian military positions, the Russians could
easily decide to start firing back.
And
considering the anti-Russian hysteria that we are already witnessing in
Washington D.C., how will our leaders respond when CNN starts showing U.S.
aircraft being blown out of the sky by Russian missiles?
As I
discussed in
Part I, there is very little for the U.S. to gain by going to war in
Syria. Unless it can be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Assad
regime is actually using chemical weapons, the Trump administration should not
even be thinking about military action, because getting the U.S. military
involved in the Syrian civil war would be absolutely disastrous.
So let
us pray for peace, and let us hope that cooler heads will prevail.
