Washington is readying another false flag operation with "chemical weapons". In fact, it announced it two days ago, basically giving its terrorist clients in Syria a green light to stage a "Assad's regime attack" on innocent people. Obviously, no evidence, as usual, will be presented. As RT reports:
Of course it is "intelligence matter", of course it is, supporting Al Qaeda is also "intelligence" (or rather lack thereof) matter. Whatever floats the boat of Washington's warmongers any particular day is "intelligence" matter. Evidence of Russian meddling with US elections? Nope--intelligence matter. Evidence of Assad using chemical weapons? No way--also "intelligence" matter, no matter that is seems more like a fecal one, but no worry--this will stick too.
The actual insanity in D.C. today is off the chart, it is, in fact, pass 11 and by a lot. D.C. is in a full runaway train mode now and where it is going to crush is anybody's guess, but it will crush. I seldom refer to The National Interest as a source of any serious analysis but at least Nicholas Gvosdev, far from being original in his thought, at least asks some good questions anyone with a half brain should ask:
What does the president want to see happen in Syria? And what price is he willing to pay to achieve it? And what set of circumstances, even if not optimal, is tolerable? Six months into the new administration, we don’t have a clear or consistent answer.Meanwhile, Iran, Syria and Russia are moving ahead with the third stage of their operation. If the success of that offensive directly and negatively impacts U.S. interests, we seem to have neither the diplomatic leverage to halt it, but haven’t made clear the extent to which we will commit to deter it. Out of that continued uncertainty runs the risk of an accident, the consequences of which no one seems prepared for.
I have news for Gvosdev:
1. US is doing Israel's (and Saudi) bidding in Syria;
2. Gvosdev's questions while making sense for a normal national government are not applicable for current day US whose power structure is either compromised, sabotaged or paralyzed--all from the inside--and can not be viewed as a rational or cohesive player;
3. It was always about appearances. US, short of WW III (in which everyone loses), lost in Syria and US doesn't like to lose, especially against the background of those inferior Russkies who turned the whole war in Syria around.
4. Bar some US European vassals, no serious power in the world views US anymore as a treaty worthy party.
And, in the end, the concept with which Gvosdev, evidently, is not well acquainted, that is of international law--the US is aggressor in Syria. Moreover, apart from that, US supported there the most heinous jihad forces, which make Gvosdev's appeals to a basic strategic questionnaire a pretentious attempt at finding a real statesmanship where there was and is none for quite a while. But the most important question still remains unanswered: and what is this proverbial US "national interest" which could be "impacted" by R+6 offensive? Want to know the answer? Don't hold your breath--it is all "intelligence matter".