Syria: No longer a proxy war?

The Russia-America proxy war is on the verge of becoming a full-blown world war, as the superpowers behind it have now revealed themselves, unleashing advanced weapons and bombs on this resource-rich and strategically located Middle Eastern nation.

Images of the alleged “chemical weapons attack” in Idlib quickly flooded the internet, but it was difficult to know exactly what was happening on the ground. - AP

A small spark is threatening to ignite a wildfire in Syria. That spark is the "chemical weapons attack" on April 4th in Khan Sheikhoun (south of Idlib province), which resulted in "60-100 deaths and 200 people affected" (these figures cannot be verified by independent sources).

The scenario is all too familiar. A chemical weapons attack. President Bashar al-Assad is accused of massacring civilians.

The United Nations (UN) and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) have launched an investigation that has not yet concluded, but a draft resolution has been submitted to the Security Council by the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, condemning the Assad regime.

While the investigation was still ongoing, on April 6th, US President Donald Trump declared that Assad had "crossed many lines," while Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated that after the "chemical weapons attack," "Assad's role was over."

Three days later, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley officially revealed her hand, confirming that Washington's new foreign policy toward Syria was a return to the old stance: overthrowing the Assad regime.

Old script?

Many observers following the developments in the Khan Sheikhoun incident on April 4th immediately drew parallels to the "Ghouta chemical attack" on August 21st, 2013.

In that incident, the opposition-controlled suburb of Damascus Ghouta was attacked with missiles carrying the toxin sarin.

The number of casualties has been reported to range from 281 to nearly 1,800, depending on the source. The UN launched an investigation, and experts on the scene confirmed that sarin nerve gas had been used, but did not conclude who used it.

The opposition claimed the Assad regime was responsible, while Damascus insisted the opposition was at fault. (Later, senior UN expert Carla De Ponte, after an on-site investigation, acknowledged evidence suggesting the opposition used sarin gas, although she did not rule out the government army, but her assessment was not fully substantiated.)

At that time, the Trump administration, under Barack Obama, was preparing for military intervention when Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to mediate a request for the Syrian government to hand over its entire chemical weapons stockpile in exchange for the United States considering demands for a change in the Assad regime. Direct US military intervention in Syria was temporarily halted.

Now, it seems the "Ghouta scenario" is repeating itself. This time, the US is too impatient with the new administration, with Trump's domestic approval ratings plummeting dramatically after only a short time in power, and Washington is no longer waiting for the results of an independent investigation.

The attack also recalled the 2003 Iraq War, when the CIA claimed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, providing a pretext for President George W. Bush to intervene militarily and overthrow Hussein.

Iraq has since become a purgatory, and the story of weapons of mass destruction has been proven false and faded into oblivion.

In the Khan Sheikhoun case, it all started with information from the internet. On April 4th, video footage, allegedly taken in Idlib, emerged, showing the aftermath of a "chemical weapons attack."

Civilians, including many women and especially children, were foaming at the mouth and gasping for breath on the floor. The images were claimed to be from Khan Sheikhoun, but details remain very unclear to this day.

Almost all information and images come from just two sources: the Syrian Human Rights Observatory, run by Syrian exiles in London, and the White Helmets group (for more information on this organization, please see TTCT issue 2-2017 dated January 8, 2017).

Accordingly, the chemical weapons attacks took place from 6:30 a.m. on April 4th, with a total of 40 airstrikes. The video footage is dramatic, clear, and extremely detailed, inevitably raising many questions, especially given the chaotic and dangerous circumstances of a "chemical weapons attack."

The EADaily (Russia) news report points out suspicious details: on Facebook, the first information about the attack was posted by the White Helmets at 7:14 PM on April 3rd, while the attack was reported to have broken out in the early morning of April 4th!

EADaily also noted that it was impossible to verify this information because only the two organizations mentioned had access to Khan Sheikhoun; official international aid organizations and foreign press were not present there.

Khan Sheikhoun is under the control of the Al Qaeda organization Trachir al Sham and the moderate opposition group Al Nousra, which is backed by Washington.

Another article, by journalist and lecturer at the University of Western Sydney (Australia) Paul Antonopoulos in the Information Clearing House (ICH), raises several other questions, both technical and strategic.

Firstly, images circulating online show members of the White Helmets directly handling victims without gloves or protective gear, which is strictly forbidden when dealing with sarin poisoning victims.

Secondly, in a hospital with hundreds of sarin-poisoned patients, who had the time to create such high-definition video footage and photographs, and then upload them online almost immediately, or even sooner?

Ultimately, with the Assad regime and its allies now holding the upper hand on the ground, having retaken Aleppo and pushed back the rebels, a decision to launch a chemical attack on civilians at this point would be tantamount to suicide for Damascus.

A chaotic news environment is fertile ground for conspiracy theories and rumors. Even an independent investigation wouldn't be able to resolve all suspicions, let alone the current chaotic situation with mutual accusations.

Meanwhile, the Syrian people are still suffering. Thanks to social media and the questionable gullibility of many major news outlets, images and reports of the "chemical weapons attack" spread extremely quickly, followed by statements from a number of Western countries, including the US, the UK, France, Turkey, Qatar, and others. But a military man's word is his bond; declarations must be accompanied by action.

From assumption to assertion

Western media, bound by professional ethics, still include words like "seems" and "maybe" in their reports, but the fact that a number of major news outlets are unanimously pointing fingers at the Syrian government inevitably raises suspicions.

Meanwhile, in the Russian media, suspicions that the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) was created by the US and then lost control, or that chemical attacks were orchestrated by foreign powers, are being raised, and these suspicions are not unfounded.

On the ground, Russia, with its powerful leader Putin, intervened with airstrikes "at the invitation" of Assad.

Meanwhile, the United States, a nation built in part on the principle of "benefit of the doubt," even for the smallest actions, hastily punished the Assad regime—a totalitarian regime—with the grave accusation of a "chemical weapons attack" on civilians while many questions remain unanswered. Consequently, while the display of power by Mig, Su, and Tomahawk missiles was impressive, the main tragedy fell upon Syrian civilians.

But perhaps talking about moral principles is a luxury at this moment, when the conflict is escalating dangerously. The proxy war is in danger of becoming a full-blown war between the superpowers.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines a proxy war as “a war between smaller groups or countries where each side represents the interests of larger countries and may receive support from those larger countries.”

No one says it out loud, but in reality, the war in Syria between the opposition and the Assad government is a showdown between the United States and its allies Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Türkiye, etc., on one side, and Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, etc., on the other. The 59 Tomahawk missiles dropped on Syria by the US, on the grounds that Assad had "crossed the lines," ironically, may very well be the "crossing of the lines" in a proxy war.

Neither side has explicitly stated it, but since the civil war broke out six years ago, both sides have respected an unwritten rule on the battlefield: avoid direct confrontation between Russia and the United States.

This unwritten law was reaffirmed in 2013 by President Obama's decision not to deploy ground troops; by the stalled peace talks; and by the now-collapsed agreement to notify each other of Russian and American military activity on the ground.

The problem is that under Obama, the policy of reduction and non-intervention abroad was fairly consistent from beginning to end, but under Trump, nobody knows how Washington will act. After being elected, he appeared moderate towards Russia, even being seen as having vested interests with the Kremlin.

Trump, with his clearly populist views, also said he would reduce America's international involvement and focus resources on Americans at home. But now everything has changed 180 degrees.

It was no coincidence that, just the week before ordering the missile strike on Syria, he met with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel, who proposed forming a military alliance against Iran, a key patron of the Assad regime.

According to Tuoitre.vn