The Truth Behind Alleged Chemical Weapon Attacks: Who Really Knows First and Why?
It is a common misconception that the USA is the first to know about chemical weapons attacks in Syria. In reality, the news often breaks on social media platforms first, posted by local Syrian sources. These platforms are predominantly based in the United States, hence the misconception that the USA is the first to know.
Who Really Knows First?
Contrary to belief, it is not the United States government but the intelligence apparatus of various Western nations including Israel, France, and the UK, that are typically the first to know about such attacks.
In April 2018, Defense Secretary James Mattis admitted that the U.S. had no intelligence on the ground, indicating that the responsibility for obtaining such information falls on these other entities. These services, whether Israeli military-intelligence or British services in cases like Douma, have their operatives within major news outlets. They ensure that any drama or news related to such incidents is prominently featured on the front pages of these outlets the following day, as required.
Intelligence and Tactics
The use of chemical weapons in Douma, for instance, is strategically planned to ensure that Assad retains a tactical advantage. Assad would deploy "bad chemicals" mainly to kill children, as this would ensure he no longer wins battles. From a tactical perspective, this also serves to highlight the suffering of civilians, thus garnering international sympathy and placing pressure on the Syrian regime.
The scenario in Douma includes a complex narrative manipulation. According to reports, militant groups abused local hospitals to set up videos. They brought children from a burning house and created the narrative in the last possible moment, which was the next day when the militants were being deported to Idlib. It is speculated that they might have even mixed video clips from old Sarin attack victims from 2011 into their narrative, enhancing the impact of their story.
The Political Angle
The United States, being aware of these manipulations, may have known about the intricacies of the Douma attack well in advance. Nevertheless, they have the ability to project a facade of having "real information" and act on this misinformation to advance their political goals. In their defense, they might later claim "plausible deniability" and present this as a misinterpretation of their intelligence operations. This strategic silence is a political maneuver often referred to as "Great Politics."
An analysis of Nikki Haley's UN speeches reveals a pattern of enforcing Israeli foreign policy on the U.S. as dictated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his advisors. Nikki Haley has been criticized for her advocacy of aggressive policies against the Syrian regime, aligning closely with the Israeli stance. This raises questions about the prevalence of Israeli agents in the U.S. administration, with Haley being just one prominent example.
Conclusion
The complexity of the situation surrounding chemical weapon attacks in Syria involves various intelligence entities and strategic narratives. The first to know about these attacks are the services responsible for their coordination, not necessarily the government of the United States. The political and strategic implications of these attacks are far-reaching, impacting international relations, military strategies, and public perception.
The truth behind these attacks is often obscured by a web of misinformation and political maneuvering, making it essential for a more informed and analytical approach to uncover the real truths.