SYRIA INTERVENTION Reboot: Trump’s ‘Red Line’ Speech, the Chemical Attack & Back to the Script…

Aaaaaannd… here we are again.

Hope you enjoyed the brief break from the Neo-Con/regime-change program: but we’re back to the regularly scheduled program. Chemical attack in Syria against civilians. Assad must go. A line has been crossed. Let loose the dogs of war. Etc. 

Suddenly, after all the false hopes of a changing foreign policy that would accompany the Trump administration’s arrival, President Trump himself now says he has changed his mind (literally) about Bashar Assad.

I’m not particularly surprised by all of this sleight-of-hand and I always have the view that pre-existing, longstanding foreign policy agendas are designed not to be undermined by incoming officials or pesky changes in administration.

Also, given the extent of the Trump/Bannon connection to the international Zionist movement and the right-wing Netanyahu government (see here for the bigger picture), it entirely makes sense that this administration would eventually come back around to the the Neo-Con/Zionist policy of regime-change in Syria and Balkanisation of the Middle East (which is why I raised the question months ago about the Neo-Con figures that still appeared to be hovering around the incoming Trump administration).

It is worth noting that this turnaround comes just days after the White House had officially stated it would no longer have any interest in acting against Assad or the government of Syria: which suggests that some pressure or enticement behind the scenes has prompted this complete and total reversal.

Donald Trump isn’t stupid and he is image-obsessed: he therefore wouldn’t want to make such a total reversal of his position unless someone could either provide him with a very good reason or unless something has coerced him into compliance with the overriding agenda.

If nothing else, maybe this can finally demonstrate the folly of the widespread misconception of an ‘anti establishment’ administration draining the swamp.

However, as much as I never for a moment trusted the Breitbart/Goldman-Sachs campaign, I admit that even I was duped at one point into thinking that averting a Hillary Clinton presidency was the key to saving Syria’s right to exist as a sovereign, secular state. I was probably wrong – and all bases appear to be covered (as they usually are).

In fact, the writing was on the wall for me back in February when observing the Trump administration’s UN Ambassador Nikki Hayley continuing to make Samantha Power style speeches in the UNSC. She was in fact – back in February – calling on the UN Security Council to sanction Assad over chemical weapons.

It has struck me as both odd and untenable for weeks now that the President himself was claiming to hold one position while his UN Ambassador – and others in his administration – were completely contradicting him and continuing to push the Neo-Con regime-change agenda.

Now, just over a month later, a new chemical attack is carried out, and Nikki Haley is back on the scene. ‘We are compelled to take our own action’, she said, concluding an ’emotional’ speech in the Security Council on Wednesday in which she presented images of gassed children and condemned both Assad and Russia.

Aside from the fact that this one-sided account of the latest alleged chemical attack comes from a highly questionable source, the fact is that we’ve been here several times before with this – more or less – exact same story, reaction and scenario. This is major deja vu, and I half expected Nikki Haley to rip off her face and reveal Samantha Power under the mask, followed by Trump peeling back his own mask to reveal Hillary.

And given that the previous instances were already exposed as pre-scripted narratives based on false-flag events (rebel groups staging chemical attacks and them blaming the government, Turkey and the US supplying sarin to rebels, sarin from Libya being smuggled to Syrian rebels after the fall of Gaddafi, etc), there’s really no reason for anyone with a working memory to give too much credence to this new story of the Syrian government forces attacking civilians with chemical weapons.

It is simply rebooting – in almost every detail – a previously failed strategy for inciting a military intervention and regime change.

Add to that, the fact that the Assad regime doesn’t have a motive.

Why would President Assad’s government – at a time when it is in the strongest position it’s been in for years (both militarily and propaganda wise) – now decide to launch a chemical attack? That kind of war-crime attack is something you’d do when you’re desperate and in a position of weakness.

Off-Guardian covers the subject of the new chemical attack strategy thusly: ‘The Syrian government – with assistance from Iran and the Russian Air Force, have been making steady progress for months. Aleppo has fallen. Palmyra was retaken. The rebels are losing. What good does dropping chemical weapons on children do Assad, at this point? It is both strategically pointless, and a crushing blow to his international image. It would serve no purpose, unless he’s a comic-book style villain intent on being cruel for cruelty’s sake – and they don’t exist outside of cinema or the American press.’

Besides this, having already been investigated, sanctioned and condemned for alleged chemical attacks – to the point of his government being on the brink of overthrow by the US and its allies in 2013 – why on earth would President Assad now carry out a new chemical attack and put himself back in the same situation again? For a Syrian President who appeared to have greeted the election of Donald Trump with guarded optimism as an indicator of a change in US policy towards Syria, it makes absolutely no sense.

So where are we now?

Ironically, a lot of people may have chosen Trump over Hillary on the basis that Trump wouldn’t sing from the same hymn-sheet in terms of foreign intervention or war or Syria: it may now prove to have been a wasted gesture.

Just as ironically, Trump’s speech today was more worrying and far more dramatic and emotive than Obama’s famous ‘red line’ speech – and remember, of course, that Obama didn’t enforce that red line. But President Trump might.

The only hope really is that the inexperienced Trump – who has a habit of saying things and then changing his mind entirely a week later – is just saying what he thinks is the politically correct thing, but will eventually back away from it. I’m not that optimistic, however.

–

–

A CNN programme today suggested that Trump had now ‘boxed himself in’ – and that this speech may force him to go to war.

CNN, at any rate, was already leading the way even before Trump’s speech. The tell-tale, staged PR ops to justify war have suddenly re-appeared at an alarming rate. CNN yesterday led the way with a clearly scripted, choreographed  “7-year-old Syrian girl’s heartbreaking plea” for intervention against President Assad. In a measured exercise blatantly designed to melt hearts and encourage fresh demonisation of the evil Assad-led government, the child – interviewed via Skype – appeared to be literally reading from a script and even messing up some of the sentences.

But none of this should be surprising. The covert international agencies and Deep State agendas in play pre-date and supersede any temporary president, official or Cabinet – and a way can always be found to restore any longstanding agenda. President Trump – after all his demonisation of Barack Obama – now finds himself in the exact same situation Obama (who, remember, came into office on an anti-war, anti-intervention platform) was in in 2013.

Also, as I argued just before Trump’s inauguration, one additional reason why the Syria project can’t be abandoned is because it is directly linked to the Iran project.

Besides that, the broader forces involved in the geo-political machinations simply do not give up: and would never, after all these years – and all the cost and all the vast propaganda exercises and all the false-flags and arming of rebel militias – simply allow for a different outcome to the intended one.

Too much has been invested, with too much embarrassment and scandal, for the geo-political schemers to simply accept failure and walk away.

______________