After the recent bombing attack in Syria, which was claimed to be a chemical weapons attack instantly blamed on Bashar Al Assad’s military before any pretense of a formal international investigation, Donald Trump marked a weird 180 change of attitude.
During a Wednesday press conference, President Trump called the aforementioned attack as being a terrible affront to humanity and, what’s more worrying and strange in the same time, he hinted that a change in US policy in Syria regarding Assad’s regime may be around the corner, saying that the Syrian President has crossed a lot of lines.
“I do change. I am flexible. I am proud of that flexibility. I will tell you that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. Big impact. It was a horrible, horrible thing. I’ve been watching it and seeing it, and it does not get any worse than that. I have that flexibility. And it is very, very possible, and I will tell you it is already happened, that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.”
said President Trump during a joint press conference with Jordan’s King Abdullah, thus shifting to a neocon posture just hours after Steve Bannon’s departure from the security council
Bashar Al Assad has denied any involvement of the Syrian army in the chemical weapons attack. Donald Trump started his mandate as POTUS signaling his policy of focusing on destroying ISIS and making a departure from Obama’s former policy of regime change in Syria.
Also, President Trump promised a detente in US dealings with Russia. Just two months into presidency, it seems like US officials (read neocons) are back to Barack Obama regime’s policy of hostility towards the Syrian regime, with yesterday’s alleged chemical weapons attack being used as an excuse for the change in narrative.
French, US and British diplomats are all pushing for decisive UN action against Syria in the aftermath of the attack, while Russian officials are insisting that the UN resolution would be based on a fake news story and their veto in the Security Council is a certainty.
Nikki Halley, the US Ambassador at the UN insisted in condemning Assad’s regime (with zero proof), calling it illegitimate (as opposed to ISIS?) and arguing that the US may be forced to act unilaterally, i.e. without a UN Security Council resolution.
All this rhetoric sounds strangely familiar, reminding us of former statements by US officials from the Obama era, when the administration was laying plans for attacking Syria and ousting Assad in the process.
The so called gas attack blamed on Assad raises a lot of questions. First,the Syrian military is making huge progress lately in retaking the country from ISIS terrorists, hence an illegal chemical weapons attack when they’re very close to victory would be pretty stupid and illogical, and Assad is far from being stupid.
Second, Syria surrounded its chemical weapons cache in 2013. Finally, the western narrative refuses to consider other possibilities for the alleged gas attack, including Kremlin’s suggestion that an airstrike caused a leak in a terrorist chemical weapons cache.