Skip to content Skip to footer

Sections

Trending

Latest

More

© 2025 Truthout
News Analysis
|

Why Is Syria Under Attack?

The story about chemical weapons turns out to be different than first thought, and with other arguments appearing to play a leading role in the battle for Syria.

By
Translated by Ben Kearney
Who is behing the chemical weapons attack in Syria?
The White House is working overtime to generate as much support as possible for an overt attack on Syria. Everyone is doing his part, and Secretary of State John Kerry is aiming high: in front of the cameras, by means of his now famous speech, and behind the scenes, by comparing Assad to Hitler and warning the world not to make the same mistake that it did in 1938. Russia is eyeing the situation with astonishment. ‘To us, it looks as though [George W.] Bush, [Dick] Cheney and [Donald] Rumsfeld never left the White House,’ says Alexei Pushkov, head of the foreign affairs committee of the Russian parliament. ‘I am at a complete loss to understand what the US thinks it is doing.’
On the surface it’s straightforward: the U.S. wants to liberate Syria from a brutal dictator who is attacking his own people with poison gas. But beneath the surface there is something very different going on. For it is there that the story about chemical weapons turns out to be different than first thought, and with other arguments appearing to play a leading role in the battle for Syria. The main prize at stake in this battle: Iran. Earlier, once the parties involved proved unable to claim this prize, it became obvious to them that the road to Tehran runs through Damascus.
The battle for Syria is thus a battle for Iran, and is it most fundamentally a battle for influence and energy. The goal of those seeking to attack Syria is to shift the current balance of power within both Syria and Iran and in the surrounding region. By shifting the balance of power, they gain access to the flows of energy. In order to achieve this goal, the Western component of the forces which are arrayed against Syria needs the support of its citizenry. Hence the current debate over the use of chemical weapons. Even though this debate is focused on the form rather than the content, it is still useful to examine the issue in detail.
The West is holding President Assad responsible for the gas attack. According to Russia, the rebels are behind the attack. How realistic is this second scenario? The fact is that this wouldn’t be the first time that such a thing is conceivable. Back in December, a defector stated that it was quite possible that the rebels could gain access to Assad’s chemical weapons. It is precisely this scenario that Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy described as being ‘almost inevitable’. In May, UN researcher Carla Del Ponte said that there were indications that sarin had been used. “This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities.” And there are more signs pointing in this direction as well. In July, Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, presented evidence to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council of a chemical weapons attack that was carried out in Aleppo in March. This evidence indicated that the attack was the work of the rebels. Portions of the report from which he cites have since been made public. Later, following the now infamous attack on 21 August on the Ghouta region from the rebel-besieged town of Douma, he presented evidence assembled from satellite data, as reported by sources (1,2). This information has thus far remained sealed behind closed doors at the UN. The Associated Press writes that the U.S. no longer knows for sure who has control of what weapons. There are so many reports on how and when rebels could have put their hands on chemical weapons that there is no room to list them all here. Perhaps it is this flurry of reports that, despite the stern statements made by John Kerry in his speech, ‘U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad’s orders.’
Influence of interested parties
And then there are the potential weapons shipments from interested parties located outside Syria. Take for example Qatar, which is responsible for funding a major portion of the international fight against Syria. This country has already invested three billion dollars in the effort. But there is also another country with huge interests at stake: Saudi Arabia. There is an article circulating from Dale Gavlak, a reporter who has covered the Middle East for decades for the Associated Press and many other news agencies. In the article he explains that the chemical attack which occurred on the 21st of August was carried out by the rebels by mistake. The chief of the Saudi intelligence agency, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, is alleged to be behind the chemical weapons shipment, but ‘they didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,’ complained one female fighter. ‘We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.’ It was Bandar who first tipped off the U.S. to the use of chemical weapons, which according to him was perpetrated by the Syrian regime. And it was Israel, another country with interests at stake, which supplied the U.S., and thus Kerry, with intelligence that the Secretary of State used in his forceful speech. At the same time, it is already well known that Israel fabricated evidence in the past that was used by the U.S. against Iran. Is this Israeli intelligence the ‘evidence’ that was shared with a secret session of the Dutch parliament this past Wednesday in The Hague?

On the interests of the parties involved in the Syrian conflict and the role of the media

In the event of major military conflicts that risk considerable humanitarian and economic consequences, it is useful to examine the interests of all parties involved as well as the role that the media plays in reporting the events.

The most visible of all the parties that have a stake in the Syrian conflict are the rebels. This group is an amalgam of approximately 1200 smaller and larger factions, ranging from jihadist fighters to Chechen rebels to, most prominently, Al Qaida. It remains unclear as to where the loyalty of these foreigners lies. Are they primarily concerned with the welfare of the Syrian people, or are they more focused on drawing a pay check or improving their future standing? Given the interests that are at stake for the rebels, it is just as legitimate to take a critical look at them as it is to examine the regime of President Assad.

Was the chemical weapons attack carried out by Assad, or by the rebels?

All parties involved in the Syrian conflict are aware that the use of chemical weapons constitutes the crossing of a red line for U.S. President Obama, with all that this entails. In an possible reference to Obama’s stance, this line was indeed crossed on 21 August 2013, a year and a day after he made his statement on this issue. It is as if the Syrian regime is committing suicide. What’s more, this attack took place right in the vicinity of where a team of UN inspectors had been staying. This team had arrived a few days earlier there with the permission of the regime in order to investigate a previous attack. A third factor to consider in this confluence of events is the seemingly credible argument made by the Syrian regime that the Syrian army “was ‘winning the battle against the rebels’ and there was no need for chemical weapons.”

So while he had nothing to gain, Assad is alleged to have carried out the attack, which in the process played right into the hands of the rebels. Also worth noting is the fact that the UN inspectors, who were in a position to uncover evidence linking the poison gas attack to Assad’s troops, were seriously hampered in their efforts when they took fire from snipers. Their mission was also endangered by the request that was made by the Obama administration to the UN to halt the investigation – a request that was subsequently rejected by the Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon.

A poison gas attack on civilians that is accompanied by shocking images could work to the favor of the anti-Assad coalition. This is something that was established back in 2011 during a conversation held between the intelligence company Stratfor and strategists of the U.S. Air Force: “They [USAF] don’t believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Gaddafi move against Benghazi.”

John Kerry and the media

A ‘massacre’ could work to the advantage of those who desire a different Syria, as long as President Assad is the one implicated in such a massacre. And this effort is now in full force, often expressed in a roundabout sort of way: “If you believe him [Kerry] and if you listen closely to him, what he says sounds quite convincing.” These are references which are continually repeated and which invoke images of smoke clouds rising from chemical weapons fired by the Syrian army. The question remains as to what John Kerry is basing his stern statements on, statements which are given such broad coverage in the media. One of the evocative examples that Kerry cites (5:40) is a photo showing the horrible consequences of the attacks carried out by Assad’s forces. The only problem with the photo is that it was taken in Iraq back in 2003. The person who took the photo, Marco Di Lauro, wrote to tell me: “I am concerned to learn my work has been misrepresented in this way without the proper due diligence.” Kerry’s statements are reminiscent of those made by Colin Powell in his appearance at the UN, an appearance which he has since come to view as a blot on his record.

What is the record of the U.S. when it comes to the use of chemical weapons?

During the Vietnam War, American forces used Agent Orange, which was manufactured by Monsanto. There is also the use during the war against Iraq of white phosphorus, a variant of napalm, which also saw use in Vietnam. The U.S. attack on the Iraqi city of Fallujah was preceded by a pep talk from President Bush: “Kick ass! […] Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!” Previously, the U.S. had sold Saddam Hussein anthrax, botulism, brucella melitensis and clostridium perfringens. The Americans eventually used the existence of these weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for invading Iraq. In addition, the White House knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons against Iran, the country with which he had started a war at the urging of the U.S. Like so many dictators, Saddam was a creation of the U.S., and he made use of chemical weapons with the knowledge of the U.S. A comparable list of facts can be recited in the case of Britain. All of this is not strengthening the credibility of the argument that says that Syria should be liberated from a cruel dictator on humanitarian grounds. Yet this is still what fills the headlines. Filmmaker Oliver Stone: “As we inch closer to another intervention, our media beats the drum for war in search of ratings.” All available means are being brought to bear, up to and including the Alyssa Milano Sex Tape.

Perception, representation and facts

It would seem that, for the warring parties, perception and representation form a higher priority than facts or reality. This is a recurring theme. Take for example the aforementioned case in which Kerry compared Assad to Hitler. These sorts of chilling comparisons are often made during the escalation of conflicts. In my book on Iran, I cite numerous examples in which the U.S., and in particular Israel, have compared Iranian leaders to Adolf Hitler. This type of representation is even more explicit in cartoons: during the wars against Iraq, Saddam was regularly depicted wearing a skull and crossbones, while at the same time George Bush and now John Kerry are walking about at all times with a golden pin depicting a skull and crossbones underneath their clothing as a token of their sacred vow to the secret society known as Skull & Bones. This example shows that it is not just the facts, but also the images which are distorted. The same is true of our perception of Iran as an aggressor nation, a country that has not started a war since 1862. This stands in contrast to the beacon of democracy America, which since WWII has managed to initiate seventy different conflicts (21:40) and is now on the brink of openly engaging Syria in battle.

Syria and Iran are like pieces on a geopolitical chessboard
Anyone who chooses to distinguish between the form and the content will see that the battle for Syria is above all not what it seems to be on the surface. The form is disguising the content. Syria and Iran are like pieces on a geopolitical chessboard.
The form in this case, which is portrayed as the actual content in media coverage and construed as such in bars and living rooms, is the brutal dictator and the hordes of refugees. But when you zoom in on these victims, you find that they are the consequence of a conflict that has been supported by the West from the very beginning. Indeed, according to ex-Foreign Minister of France Roland Dumas: preparations for the fight against Assad have been underway by the British since 2009. He puts the conversations he held with the UK in context by citing a different conversation that he had, this one with an Israeli Prime Minister, who said to him: “We will try to get along with the neighboring states. And those who don’t get along, we will take down.” It also appears from other sources that the Syrian conflict did not simply materialise from thin air.
Syria has been under attack for some time
The open bombardment of Syria, that is now being discussed, is part of a battle that began many years ago. Neoconservative forces in the U.S. have had their sights set on Syria as far back as 2003. One of those neoconservatives, Paul Wolfowitz, summed it up this way: “There’s got to be a change in Syria.” In 2007, journalist Seymour Hersh noted: “The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. […] The Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria.” In August 2013, The Independentwrote: “The CIA is believed to have been working with Prince Bandar directly since last year in training rebels at base in Jordan close to the Syrian border.” Former CIA agent Phil Giraldi in January 2012: “NATO and CIA secretly arming Syrian rebels with Libyan weapons.” On 7 September 2013, U.S. correspondent Guus Valk of the Dutch NRC Handelsbladwrote that President Obama’s coalition consists of “Bush-era neoconservatives, pro-Israeli groups and the Syrian opposition in exile.”
These preparations, along with the specific composition of Obama’s coalition, conjure up memories of what General Wesley Clark explained about an American plan to overturn the governments of seven different countries, among them Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran. The interests which are behind this plan are much bigger than the humanitarian cause that is currently playing out in the media.
Warring parties, conflicting interests
For the forces which currently occupy the forefront of this crisis, such as the U.S. and Europe, ‘Syria’ entails the preservation and expansion of their dominance in one of the most important regions in the world: the Middle East, rich as it is in natural resources. In this sense, Syria and Iran are chess pieces on a grand geopolitical chessboard. Were Syria and Iran to be brought within the sphere of influence of the U.S., Europe, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, it would represent a major step forward for these parties. The two dissident countries Syria and Iran have long been a thorn in the side of the leaders of these regions. But an end to their sovereignty would at the same time mean a major step backwards for the West’s main competitor, China, which would then be cut off from the Middle East’s vast energy reserves. And it would also be a setback for the country that is viewing this whole situation from its backyard: Russia. Recently, Saudi Arabia made a diplomatic overture to Russia.
Chief among the interests of Saudi Arabia is the fall of the Shiite regime in Iran. Saudi interests are so great that, even in this phase of the conflict, it offered Russia a major deal in exchange for abandoning Syria. This involved an offer of cooperation between OPEC and Russia that Price Bandar made to Putin in the latter’s dacha, underscored by a clear threat: “The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the [Olympic] games are controlled by us,” Bandar is alleged to have told Putin. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year.” Something which would make this deal even more attractive to Russia is that “Saudi Arabia could help boost oil prices by restricting its own supply. This would be a shot in the arm for Russia, which is near recession and relies on an oil price near $100 to fund the budget,”writes Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of The Independent, based on his conversation with Chris Skrebowski of Petroleum Review. Bandar’s meeting with Putin also focused on Russia’s interests as they relate to the supply of gas to Europe. No harm would come to those interests, swore Bandar. In fact, cooperation was possible. Up until then, Russia has always been an energy competitor of the West and an ally of Syria. Gas is playing a key role in the Syrian conflict.

‘Syria’ is about power, money, influence and energy

When you peek below the surface, it becomes clear that Syria is under attack due to the interests of the parties involved. ‘Syria’ is about power, money, influence and energy.

For all of the actors involved in the Syrian conflict, there are two primary interests at stake: influence and energy. The parties that are currently engaged in the battle want to shift the current balance of power. To this end they are employing all available means, from information to weapons to fighters. As shown in this DeepJournal series on Syria, the interests of these parties are widely divergent, despite the fact that they are all pursuing the same goal.

Europe is seeking to become less dependent on Russia for its energy supply, the U.S. wants to cut off China’s access to Middle East energy sources, a Syria without Assad is one step closer to the liberation of Syrian energy reserves (and most importantly those of Iran) and a liberated Iran also ensures that Israel – and thereby the West – will be able to maintain its dominant position in the Middle East. At the same time, military conflicts with Syria and Iran feed a long-standing desire to divide and conquer by fomenting internecine warfare among all sorts of factions and reducing what were once large countries/concentrations of power to a patchwork quilt of conflicting interests.

– The pipeline

One component of the conflict deals with energy and its transport – preferably through Syria via a pipeline carrying gas from “the largest gas field in the world, which is located in the Persian Gulf and is split between two adversaries: Iran and Qatar. Both countries are seeking a land route over which to transport the natural gas, and both envision a route stretching over Syrian territory which would be used to transport the gas onward via the Mediterranean Sea to Europe,”writes Ludo De Brabander for Uitpers. In deference to Russia, Syria rejected a contract with Qatar and signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran and Iraq. A “direct slap in the face to Qatar,” according to OilPrice.

Qatar wants to quash the plans of its competitor in favor of its own pipeline, which may or may not need to run through Syria. As such, Qatar’s interests are squarely in line with those of the West plus Israel, which are seeking to isolate Iran. They are also in line with the interests of Turkey, which is not a party to the deal between Iran, Iraq and Syria. “Europe wants to become less dependent on Russian natural gas. Qatari natural gas would therefore be more than welcome,” writes De Brabander, who goes on to explain that Qatar invests a great deal of money in Europe and can thereby count on some sympathy. The problem in the meantime is Saudi Arabia, which has no interest in a pipeline running from Qatar. Another possibility is that the lack of cooperation ends up driving up the price for future negotiations.

– The energy

And then there is the energy itself. Currently, Qatar must share these gas reserves with Iran. Both countries are tapping from the same barrel: the world’s largest gas field is divided into North Dome (Qatar) and South Pars (Iran). If Syria falls, Iran will lose a key buffer, and the main prize will then be within reach for all those seeking to overthrow the current Syrian regime: an Iran that will no longer be able to defend its own interests. But this would also mean that South Pars would become available. The clock is ticking, because Iran is working to develop nuclear energy, and when the time comes that it is capable of producing a nuclear weapon – even without revealing it – the chances of ‘liberating’ the country will be lost. This is an unacceptable notion for anyone currently devoted to the interim goal: Syria.

It’s not just Iran; Syria is also about energy. In 2010, Houston-based Noble Energy discovered huge gas reserves along the coasts of Israel, Lebanon and Syria. Israel has already begun producing and expects to become an energy exporter. Some of this gas is located along the coast of Syria, and according to geologists, it’s a gold mine. Syria also possesses proven oil reserves of 2.5 billion barrels: “That’s more than all of the nation’s neighbors except Iraq.” It also has an estimated 50 billion tons in oil shale deposits. The oil, and especially the gas, are interesting to the new rulers in Syria: “this is the thing to watch as the end game for the Syrian conflict unfolds,” writes OilPrice.

– The religion

Another factor that is playing out in the background is the religious motive. Saudi Arabia is ruled by a Sunni monarchy and Qatar is a pro-Sunni emirate. Both support the battle being waged against Syria, the population of which is three-quarters Sunni. President Assad belongs to the minority Alawite sect and he has the support of a Shiite Iran. Yet British MP George Galloway is correct when he says (4:45) that the conflict is not about ‘prophets’, but ‘profits’. And speaking of money, there is also a financial angle to the conflict. The countries which now find themselves under attack have a banking system that exists outside the bounds of the banking system in which the rest of the world operates. This puts these countries largely out of the range of Western financial weapons and control.

“We are going to learn some terrible and extremely serious lessons here”

A war against Syria is intended to radically alter the relationships in the Middle East to the detriment of Syria, Iran, China and Russia. Because the interests which are at stake are so large, and because everyone, including organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, are armed to the teeth, this conflict has the potential to take on global proportions. Former Secretary General of NATO Jaap de Hoop Scheffer: “We are going to learn some terrible and extremely serious lessons here.” What Obama is considering is relatively small-scale, but “taking that first step would almost surely lead to other steps that in due course would put American troops on the ground in Syria as a similar process did in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan,” states Middle East expert William R. Polk correctly. There is a great deal of opposition to military intervention, even in Western military circles, but at this point the forces in favor of an attack are quite strong. And just as with previous wars, opposition efforts are being sidelined by means of emotional arguments. Jon Stewart of the Daily Show discovers a pattern.

Syria and the manufacturing of consent

The debate is now centered on a potentially false accusation concerning the use of chemical weapons. Between 281 and 355 people lost their lives in this attack. Thus far, a total of approximately 100,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict. The fact that we are currently focusing on whether or not a red line has been crossed – instead of whether 300 deaths from a chemical attack are worse than 100,000 deaths from conventional weapons, or what the role of the West in the conflict is, or what the underlying objective of the escalation of the conflict is – is te result of what is called framing. The framing is a component of what linguist and critic Noam Chomsky has called themanufacturing of consent. As indicated in previous parts of this DeepJournal series, as well as by research carried out by Anthony Dimaggio, the mainstream media plays a guiding role in this effort. For instance, if you pay close attention, you will notice that when John Kerry and Senator John McCain cite an expert in order to underscore their own argument that the support given to Al Qaida is negligible, it turns out that this source works for both the Syrian lobby and the neoconservative Institute for the Study of Wars. This is a fact that has little effect on the framing and the manufacturing of consent. This is a process that targets the emotions of the public, while the facts tell a completely different story: one that is full of victims and potentially serious consequences for the global economy.

Identifying and publicizing manipulations which are in turn further magnified by the mainstream media is a step in the right direction – a direction which represents more than just the interests of a small group. The next step is to think about ways to change this. The above-mentioned retired General Wesley Clark reflects on possible solutions: “Forces of big oil are the most powerful economic forces in the world. If you look at the entire wealth of mankind, the value of oil reserves in the ground is like 170 trillion dollars. It’s the most valuable commodity as currently priced in the world. You’re going against people who control those reserves. So this can only be done through a mass movement that overturns the established structure of energy markets. It can’t be done in a smooth transition.”

Now Let’s Stop Lethal Aid to Syria

We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.

As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.

Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.

As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.

At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.

Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.

You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.