After Russia has driven ISIS out of Syria and constructive peace talks going on in Geneva, Trump and Macron decided to order their military to prepare for an invasion into the liberated Arab republic.
The US military already occupy and control 25% of Syria, including 80% of the oil fields in the eastern part of the Middle Eastern country.
In order to protect those concurred assets, Washington in the process of building a new coalition of allies to participate in a multi-nation “strike force” attack on the Syrian government.
Instead of a one-off strike, as with last April’s Tomahawk missile bombardment of Syria, the US seems to be envisioning starting a whole new war over it. This new US-led war in Syria doubtless suits much of the administration just fine.
After all, this time last week US officials were trying to talk President Trump out of ending US military involvement in Syria.
Now, they seem to have a pretext for an open-ended conflict. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has been invited to investigate the allegations.
But with no concrete evidence the Saturday attack even took place, such a finding by the watchdog could easily derail the war. That, of course, means US officials are going to want to get it started before the OPCW has a chance to do anything.
They won’t have to worry about a direct UN Security Council investigation, however, as the USA and their allies rejected a Russian resolution calling for such an inquiry.
This was seen as retaliation for Russia rejecting a resolution that would just blame Syria for it without a proper inquiry. Already, Russia has warned of consequences if the USA attacks Syria over the allegation.
President Trump has not only indicated Syria will “pay the price”, but that Russia is going to have to pay as well. If that happens, the war quickly expands from regional to global.
French President Emmanuel Macron has spoken out early and often about intervention in Syria, and has pointed to his nation, along with Britain, being committed to a “strong and joint response with the USA.
Macron, however, suggested he does “not want an escalation, but rather that the strikes should be against Syrian chemical facilities. That’s always been considered unwise, even assuming Syria had any extent chemical facilities, as it risks leaking chemicals across the region.
But Syria disarmed their chemical program before the war really began, and dismantled all of those sites. This means there aren’t really operating facilities to be bombed in the first place!
The USA, France, and Britain will doubtless lead this new coalition, and Australia is expected to join, with Saudi Arabia expected to be drawn into the conflict.
Israel, who is always attacking Syria at any rate, will likely not join such a coalition formally. They have, however, provided all indications that they will escalate their already frequent attacks. In fact, Israel launched their first salvo Sunday night.
Another war will further destabilize Syria. Saudi involvement assures that the war will quickly include Iranian and other Shi’ite forces in Syria.
So far as we can make out there is no record in history of any Anglo-Saxon nation entering upon any great war without allies.
The French have done it, the Dutch have done it, the Germans have done it, the Japs have done it, and even such inferior nations as the Danes, the Spaniards, the Boers and the Greeks have done it, but never the English or Americans.
The facts of history are wholly against such fancy. The Anglo-Saxon always tries to take a gang with him when he goes into battle, and even when he has it behind him he is very uneasy, and prone to fall into panic at the first threat of genuine danger.
Russia-Insider.com / AA Magnum Analyst Blog News 2018.
Putting oil on the fire to make Russia look bad?
Lets see what happens later this month?