Opinion

 

Musa al-Gharbi, Counterpunch

As the Obama Administration has made abundantly clear, the impending Western strikes in Syria will not be aimed at deposing Assad. The goal is not to resolve, but to perpetuate the conflict. It is unacceptable to Western policymakers that Assad emerge victorious in the conflict, as he stands poised to do in the near-to-medium term. So because the "right" people are not able to win, the goal is to prevent anyone from prevailing.

It doesn't matter whether or not Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons. The US and its allies are likely to carry out an attack on Syria in the very near future; the reasons for this have nothing to do with the recent incident in Ghouta.

 

In response to the chemical attack in April of this year, two months later the United States declared that Syrian government had crossed its "red line" and began to provide arms to the rebels. They provided enough assistance to complicate the government's campaigns in critical areas, but not nearly enough support to allow the rebels to march on Damascus.

 

According to The Washington Post, this policy was decided weeks before the reports of chemical weapons use had surfaced; in fact, CBS News reported that these efforts were already underway before the chemical attacks occurred-they were merely stepped-up in June. That is, the reports of chemical weapons use in Syria were used as a pretext to justify a deeply unpopular decision the Administration had already committed to.

 

There were a number of serious problems with the Obama Administration's case against Assad. Having reviewed the evidence of the US and its allies, the UN declared it to be unconvincing and ordered their own investigation into the incident. Subsequently, their chief investigator would claim that the evidence strongly suggested that it was the rebels who carried out the attack.

 

This should not have been surprising-al-Qaeda has a history of resorting to these tactics, and the means, motive, and demonstrated intent to do so. The attacks were small-scale, using a chemical agent that the organization is known to possess. Moreover, the attack was carried out on an area which was actually under government control at the time, rather than a rebel-held area.

 

The evidence was so strong against the White House narrative that the only people to endorse their account were those previously committed to intervention (France, the UK, Israel, the monarchs). And even though many of the Administration's claims regarding this incident have been proven problematic, at best-in an Orwellian fashion, the White House continues to put forward their narrative without any regard for the facts, and without tempering their claims at all in light of subsequent evidence.

 

The Administration's response to the latest incident has been equally disturbing. After demanding a UN investigation, following Assad's surprise decision to facilitate the inquiry (claiming he could prove the attack was carried out by the rebels)-the US and its allies expressed a total disinterest in whatever the investigation may find and indicated that they were not going to wait around for the results.

 

They never intended to: it was their hope that Assad would play into their narrative by obstructing the investigation-this would allow the US to assert "he must have something to hide," and more easily presume guilt in the absence of evidence. Astonishingly, they have decided to stick to this course despite Assad's compliance.

 

The allied powers are already positioning their naval assets in anticipation of surgical strikes (despite the fact that the architect of this plan has since come out against it); the United States is preparing 20,000 soldiers for deployment into the Syrian theater although the Administration does not have Congressional approval to engage (rendering the White House's actions legally questionable).

 

The UK has drafted a UNSC resolution blaming Assad for the attack and sanctioning violence as a response, declaring their intention to strike even without a UN mandate (i.e. in violation of international law), regardless of the ongoing UN investigation, and in defiance of warnings by the UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi (fortunately, the British Labour Party has interfered with this plan, at least temporarily).

 

What's the rush? As they say, timing is everything.

 

The Obama Administration's previous decision to arm the rebels came just after the fall of the pivotal city of al-Qusayr, as the Syrian Army was preparing for a major campaign to purge Aleppo of rebel forces. At the time, Saudi Arabia and France argued vehemently that some kind of immediate intervention was needed to interrupt these efforts, which were otherwise likely to be successful-and devastating for the rebellion. This new chemical weapons incident just happened to occur at a moment when the government is on the verge of a general de facto victory over the insurgency while the world's attention was focused primarily on the unfolding crisis in Egypt.

 

It is disquieting that these chemical weapons incidents happen to occur at times when the rebels are in their most desperate need of foreign intervention, which also happen to be the times when it would make the least sense for the government to resort to these tactics.

 

Apparently, this trend does not worry the Obama Administration, who claims there can be "no doubt" that Assad carried out the attack. And even though by its own account of the events, the Syrian Ministry of Information was outraged by strike, which the state did not authorize, the Administration has been labeling the incident as a provocation which demands "punishment."

 

All of this suggests rather strongly that policy is informing the Administration's evaluation of intelligence, rather than having the intelligence guide its policies. We saw the same trends in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, with the White House calling the intelligence on Hussein's WMD's a "slam dunk."

 

Then, as now, the truth or falsity of these claims is irrelevant.

 

Even if no chemical weapons had been deployed in the Syrian theater by anyone, given the dynamics of the conflict, the Administration would be using some other means of justifying intervention. Much like R2P, the "War on Terror," or spreading "democracy/ human rights," WMD claims are used almost exclusively to justify interventions against "inconvenient" actors.

 

Western powers are more than happy to cooperate with agents carrying out the very atrocities they are condemning when geopolitically expedient (consider for a moment that Saudi Arabia is one of the primary allies "bringing democracy" to Syria); when there is little to gain from an intervention, they are eager to turn a blind eye to astonishing human suffering. The ideologies are used to justify rather than determine policy.

 

The arguments derived from these tropes are typically heavily-reliant on sketchy and politicized intelligence, exaggerated claims, empty rhetoric, and at times, outright lies. Syria is a prime example of these trends: the popular discourse of the conflict is the virtual antithesis of what seems to be happening on the ground.

 

But even in those cases where the accusations are more-or-less true, one cannot lose sight of the fact these intercessors are not acting out of altruism, but are exploiting others' tragedy and horror in the service of their own geopolitical ends. Often more lives are lost under R2P than stood to be lost without intervention, greater oppression follows Western "liberation," greater atrocities unfold as a result of Western "punishment" for "crimes against humanity," more extremists are created as a result of the "War on Terror." But it is irrelevant whether or not the espoused "moral" end is achieved, as long as the geopolitical aim is successful.

 

As the Obama Administration has made abundantly clear, the impending Western strikes in Syria will not be aimed at deposing Assad. The goal is not to resolve, but to perpetuate the conflict. It is unacceptable to Western policymakers that Assad emerge victorious in the conflict, as he stands poised to do in the near-to-medium term. So because the "right" people are not able to win, the goal is to prevent anyone from prevailing.

 

Of course, this strategy is incalculably devastating to the people of Lebanon, Syria and the greater region-but that is of little concern. Just as geopolitical interests trump "intelligence," they trump morality as well.

 

Musa al-Gharbi is a research fellow with the Southwest Initiative for the Study of Middle East Conflicts (SISMEC); he has a MA in philosophy from the University of Arizona. You can follow him on Twitter @Musa_alGharbi.

New Articles

US Is Helping ‘Bloodthirsty Cult’ – the MEK – to Overthrow Iran’s Government

In pursuit of regime change in Iran, the Trump administration and prominent Republicans and Democrats alike are supporting the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), which former top US official Larry Wilkerson says...

Was it an Iranian terror plot or a false flag operation?

Belgian police say an Iranian diplomat was involved in a plot to bomb a rally of the dissident Iranian group MEK, but Iran says MEK itself is to blame.

Stephen Harper knocked for speaking at 'Free Iran' rally hosted by 'cult' ex-terror group

Harper's own government considered Mojahedin-e Khalq or MEK a terrorist organization as recently as 2012

Giuliani, Gingrich Visit MeK Conference to Push for Iran Regime Change

Trump aides see once-banned terror group as replacing Iranian government

The Despicable Hawkish Embrace of the MEK

The Trump administration’s MEK fans participated in the group’s annual rally in Paris over the weekend:

Most viewed

Basque militant group ETA: 'We really are sorry'

The Basque militant group ETA on Friday offered an unprecedented apology for the pain caused during its more than four decades of armed campaign for independence from Spain and France...

M.E.K.: The Group John Bolton Wants to Rule Iran

As talks with North Korea approach, the new national security adviser, John Bolton, has long pushed for regime change in another country with nuclear ambitions: Iran. One of his chosen...

Rudy Went to Albania to Hang Out with A Iran Regime Change Cult

Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) is a notorious cult-like group of Iranian exiles which appears to have close to literally zero support inside Iran but has for years cultivated significant ties to...

Footprints of MKO terrorists, monarchists seen in recent unrests in SW Iran

The protests in the city of Kazeroun in Southwestern Iran ended and the situation came under control after Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO, also known as the MEK, PMOI and NCRI)...

April 1992 marks the MKO’s determination to conduct terror acts abroad

Experts and political representatives from Albania were in the European Parliament last week, asking Europe for help in preventing the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from toxifying their country’s internal and foreign...