Thread: U.S. Strike on Syria Could Come Within 48 Hours

U.S. Strike on Syria Could Come Within 48 Hours

The U.S. could hit Syria with three days of missile strikes, perhaps beginning Thursday, in an attack meant more to send a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad than to topple him or cripple his military, senior U.S. officials said on Tuesday.

The State Department fed the growing drumbeat around the world for a military response to Syria's suspected use of chemical weapons against rebels Aug. 21 near Damascus, saying that while the U.S. intelligence community would release a formal assessment within the week, it was already "crystal clear" that Assad's government was responsible.

Vice President Joe Biden went even further, bluntly telling an American Legion audience in Houston: "Chemical weapons have been used."

Vice President Joe Biden addresses the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the president's response in a speech to the American Legion.

"No one doubts that innocent men, women and children have been the victims of chemical weapons attacks in Syria, and there's no doubt who's responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria: the Syrian regime," Biden said.

White House press secretary Jay Carney repeated Tuesday that the White House isn't considering the deliberate overthrow of Assad.

What are your thoughts?

http://www.allproudamericans.com/us-...-24-hours.html

Attack on Syria likely to trigger terrorists acts against U.S., Israel

COMMENTS (535)
By Guy Taylor
-
The Washington Times
Monday, August 26, 2013

With the White House closer to launching a surgical military strike on Syria, questions swirl over the extent to which such an attack could trigger a wave of terrorism directed at the U.S. and Israel.Some analysts say that Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese militia fighting in support of embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad, likely would be inspired to ramp up operations in Iran’s “shadow war” with the U.S. and its allies.

---

PHOTOS: Say hello, Assad: See the Navy warships off the coast of Syria

---

Tensions between the West and Iran over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program have fueled the protracted and secretive war — a tit-for-tat exchange marked most often by operations and attacks carried out from the Middle East to Eastern Europe and Asia by Hezbollah and Israel’s lead intelligence agency, the Mossad.“These are groups that have long memories,” Matthew Levitt, who heads the Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said Monday.“I think that the type of asymmetric activities that we’ve been seeing already in the context of the shadow war over Iran’s nuclear program would continue with [an American military strike in Syria] serving as yet another factor motivating Hezbollah.”Iran’s government, which most in the U.S. intelligence community think exerts heavy influence over the activities of Hezbollah, sought Monday to downplay the likelihood of a U.S. strike. But some officials in Tehran said that if a strike occurs, Israel would be targeted in response.The Associated Press quoted Hossein Sheikholeslam, a member of Iran’s Islamic Consultative Assembly, as saying that “the Zionist regime” — a reference to Israel — “will be the first victim of a military attack on Syria.”The remark seemed to dovetail with what has for months been a claim by some lawmakers in Washington — Republican and Democrat — that Iran’s proxy presence in the Syrian war presents all the more reason for the Obama administration to get the U.S. military more deeply involved.

---

SEE ALSO: U.S. destroyers, subs on standby for strike order on Syria

---

“Addressing the crisis in Syria at this stage will be extremely difficult, but every day that Assad remains in power helps Iran and Hezbollah and threatens stability across the region,” Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr., Pennsylvania Democrat, said Monday. “Iran and terrorist organizations, like Hezbollah, are plotting against the United States and its allies every day.”Some Middle East analysts, meanwhile, said a U.S. strike likely would inspire the cadre of military and intelligence officials running Syria to commission their own terrorist activities with the goal of disrupting the existing U.S. military presence in the region and deepening instability surrounding Israel.Joshua Landis, who heads the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, suggested that the Assad government in Syria already has backed terrorist activities in Lebanon.“Assad is not powerless,” Mr. Landis said. “We just saw car bombs go off in Tripoli that killed many Sunni Muslims. So he can do things like that to destabilize things and inflame sectarian tensions in Lebanon.”“The reaction of the Assad regime will depend on how hard the strike is,” said Mr. Landis, who added that the Assad government might respond by hiring Palestinian groups to target U.S. military officials believed to be in Jordan.Citing rumors that American special forces officers are presently “camped out” at hotels in Jordan’s capital of Amman, Mr. Landis said the Assad government might aim to commission terrorists to try and “blow up a hotel” in the city.Away from the region, there were signs Monday that Mr. Assad continues to enjoy rhetorical support but likely would struggle to draw another international power into the conflict in the event of an American military strike.Russia remains a key ally to Mr. Assad and one of the main weapon suppliers to Syrian military forces.But Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov signaled Monday that Moscow has no plans to be drawn into a deeper military conflict over Syria’s civil war.Reuters quoted Mr. Lavrov as warning Western powers against intervening in the war on grounds that doing so would violate international law.“The use of force without the approval of the United Nations Security Council is a very grave violation of international law,” Mr. Lavrov said at a news conference. He said the use of chemical weapons in Syria was likely the work of rebels who wanted to derail plans by Washington and Moscow to hold peace talks on Syria’s future.“If anybody thinks that bombing and destroying the Syrian military infrastructure, and leaving the battlefield for the opponents of the regime to win, would end everything — that is an illusion,” Mr. Lavrov said.

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...=all#pagebreak

7 Countries In 5 Years

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/27/2013 17:30 -0400



Presented with little comment aside to note that it seems appropriate to watch the following 133 seconds to get some context of just what is occurring once again...

(h/t Jim Quinn of The Burning Platform blog)

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...ntries-5-years

Syria Evacuates Troops From Damascus Military Base, Al Arabiya Reports

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/27/2013 19:33 -0400

Just a headline from Bloomberg, citing Alarabiya, for now:

• SYRIA EVACUATES TROOPS FROM DAMASCUS MILITARY BASE: ARABIYA
• Syrian army is clearing the 4th Battalion base in Damascus, Arabiya reports, citing activists in the city.

More as we see it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...rabiya-reports

Barclays Warns About The Oil Price "Spillover Effects" From Syria

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/27/2013 18:43 -0400

• Barclays
• Crude
• Crude Oil
• Iran
• Iraq
• Kuwait
• Middle East
• OPEC
• Reuters
• Saudi Arabia
• Volatility

The increasing likelihood of some form of limited US led military action in Syria is compounding concerns about the stability of the world’s key oil producing region and Barclays warns that it will likely exert upward pressure on prices until the nature of the possible military intervention becomes apparent. But the bigger risk for the oil market is the potential for the Syrian conflict to spread to neighboring producing countries and imperil regional output, as the Syrian conflict is fueling broader sectarian tensions across the entire Middle East and has become something of a proxy war. The problem for global oil prices is that all of this Middle East volatility is taking place against the backdrop of a recent rise in unplanned outages in the oil market outside Syria. In sum, Barclays is concerned that with geopolitical tension and physical outages on the rise, crude oil markets are at an inflection point.

Via Barclays,

Syria: No supplies at immediate risk, but spillover effects bear watching

The possible military action, which media reports (e.g., Reuters) indicate could take the form of cruise missile strikes targeting select Syrian military installations, is unlikely to put any additional crude supplies directly at risk. Although not a large producer, Syrian oil production has declined to a trickle of 50 kb/d compared with 350 kb/d in March 2011. Syrian oil minister Suleiman al-Abbas was recently quoted as saying that production was only 39 kb/d during H1 13. It remains unclear if this reflects only production from assets in government-controlled areas. Iran is now supplying Syria with a $3.6mn line of credit for oil and oil product purchases, supporting the thesis that Syria’s domestic upstream and downstream infrastructure is in dire straits.

But the bigger risk for the oil market is the potential for the Syrian conflict to spread to neighboring producing countries and imperil regional output. Iraq, currently OPEC’s second largest producer, has already seen its security situation significantly deteriorate because of Syria. Violence is running at the highest level in five years because of a renewed round of bombings and shootings. Last month, the head of the UN mission in Baghdad warned that the Syrian civilian war had spilled over into Iraq and that the “battlefields are merging into one conflict.” Syria has deepened Iraq’s sectarian fault lines, with Prime Minister Maliki’s mainly Shiite government widely seen as siding with the Assad regime and Iraq’s Sunni opposition leaders with the Syrian rebels. Syria has also emerged as a key base for Al Qaeda extremists to launch attacks in Iraq. Iraq’s oil has emerged as a casualty of the renewed unrest, with Sunni insurgents repeatedly bombing the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline.

Moreover, the Syrian conflict is fueling broader sectarian tensions across the entire Middle East and has become something of a proxy war, in our view, between Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, who are backing the rebels, and Iran, which remains a stalwart ally of the Assad regime. Likewise, the war has the potential to further exacerbate tensions in large producing countries with significant Shi’a populations such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that have a history of troubled relations with the government. For Saudi Arabia in particular, the Syrian conflict places additional strains on the state budget and comes at a time when production levels have reportedly reached close to 10 mb/d in July.

All of this Middle East volatility is taking place against the backdrop of a recent rise in unplanned outages in the oil market outside Syria. EIA recently released estimates of unplanned outages reaching two-year record highs of almost 3 mb/d, a level unseen since at least 2011. Sanctions on Iran and the recent labor and payment problems in Libya have lifted OPEC disruptions to almost 2 mb/d, adding to 0.8 mb/d in unplanned outages in non-OPEC countries. While Libyan output is trickling through, and improvements could be expected in Iraq with the startup of new fields (and maintenance on the export terminal pushed back from September); the return of supplies is likely to be staggered with a high possibility of a relapse in Libya, Nigeria, Iraq and South Sudan. With outages at these levels, it cannot be ruled out that discussions about a possible coordinated stock release among IEA countries may be under way.



Iran’s continued support for Assad could also prevent any significant reset in its bilateral relations with the United States and the return of about 1.5 mb/d of Iranian barrels to the market. Over the weekend, the Iranian Foreign Ministry accused the Syrian rebels of being behind last week’s chemical weapons attack and strongly warned against any Western military action. Hopes had been rising of improved ties following the election of the moderate cleric Hassan Rouhani as president in June. Rouhani had made the revival of the Iranian economy his top priority and pledged to improve Iran’s relations with the international community.



In sum, with geopolitical tension and physical outages on the rise, crude oil markets are at an inflection point. Balances indicate that OECD crude oil inventories in June are close to the five-year average, now moving below last year’s levels. Looking ahead, the outages could come at a time when non-OECD demand increases even further over Q3 levels, further pressuring these inventories in our view. If demand proves even higher than forecast and supplies remain offline longer than the market anticipates, this will support even higher price levels.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...-effects-syria

Syriana: Russia's Latest Official Statements

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/27/2013 18:12 -0400

• headlines
• Middle East

A week ago, it was a war of words, articles, video clips and long-form propaganda. Now, with everyone's trigger-happy attention reduced to mere seconds, it has devolved to a war of headlines. And while all day today the US exposed whoever wanted to listen to its list of carefully scripted provocations, now it is Russia's turn via Interfax:

• MILITARY OPERATION AGAINST SYRIA WOULD ONLY WORSEN CONFLICT - DUMA CHAIRMAN
• MOSCOW ALARMED BY SOME COUNTRIES' DELIBERATE ACTIONS TO UNDERMINE PRECONDITIONS FOR POLITICAL-DIPLOMATIC SETTLEMENT OF CONFLICT IN SYRIA - FOREIGN MINISTRY
• LAVROV DISAGREES WITH U.S. ON BLAMING SYRIAN GOVERNMENT FOR CHEMICAL ATTACK IN TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH KERRY - RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY
• RUSSIA BELIEVES EXPERTS' WORK IN SYRIA SHOULD BE SUPPORTED, FACILITATED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE - FOREIGN MINISTRY

Looks like Putin still hasn't gotten the memo to bend over. Then again, with oil soaring, and with Russia the world's largest producer, old Vlad is certainly reaping the benefits of geopolitical middle east instability.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...ial-statements

How The Times Have Changed: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam Use Chemical Weapons

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/27/2013 13:20 -0400

• Iran
• Iraq
• Italy
• Transparency

Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States’ knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.

- From Foreign Policy’s excellent article: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

Remember all of the propaganda ahead of the USA’s “democracy unleashing” invasion of Iraq in 2003. It went something like this: “We have evidence that Saddam Hussein has stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and even worse he has a history of using them, even against his own people!”

Well unsurprisingly, Mr. Hussein had a little help from his friends. The United States of America. Let’s bear this in mind as our Noble Peace Prize winning President attempts to involve us in another unconstitutional war based on the fact that chemical weapons have been used.

Let’s be adults here and recognize that every single thing we have been told about Syria has been a lie. Let’s also admit that the “rebels” that we are allies with have al-Qaeda elements to them, and that Saddam Hussein was a close ally in the 1980?s before we decided he was the most evil dictator on the planet 20 years later for engaging in chemical attacks we were actually a party to.

Please spread this far and wide, since I believe we can avoid this useless war if enough people get the joke. From Foreign Policy:

The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America’s military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.

Next you’re going to tell me Santa Claus isn’t real.

The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose.

U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein’s government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.

“The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew,” he told Foreign Policy.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength and Not Commenting is Transparency.

In contrast to today’s wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein’s widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.

But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States’ knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.

Top CIA officials, including the Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey, a close friend of President Ronald Reagan, were told about the location of Iraqi chemical weapons assembly plants; that Iraq was desperately trying to make enough mustard agent to keep up with frontline demand from its forces; that Iraq was about to buy equipment from Italy to help speed up production of chemical-packed artillery rounds and bombs; and that Iraq could also use nerve agents on Iranian troops and possibly civilians.

The declassified CIA documents show that Casey and other top officials were repeatedly informed about Iraq’s chemical attacks and its plans for launching more. “If the Iraqis produce or acquire large new supplies of mustard agent, they almost certainly would use it against Iranian troops and towns near the border,” the CIA said in a top secret document.

But it was the express policy of Reagan to ensure an Iraqi victory in the war, whatever the cost.

By 1988, U.S. intelligence was flowing freely to Hussein’s military. That March, Iraq launched a nerve gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in northern Iraq.

And the full documents from Foreign Policy:

Memo 1: Situation report on the Iran-Iraq war, noting that each side is preparing for chemical weapons attacks (July 29, 1982)
Iran-Iraq Situation Report by Foreign Policy

Report at the Link on Scribed:

Memo 2: Top secret memo documenting chemical weapons use by Iraq, and discussing Iran's likely reactions (Nov. 4, 1983) Iran's Likely Reaction to Iraqi Use of Chemical Weapons

Iran's Likely Reaction to Iraqi Use of Chemical Weapons by Foreign Policy

Report at the Link on Scribed:

Memo 3: Memo to the director of Central Intelligence predicting that Iraq will use nerve agents against Iran (Feb. 24, 1984) Memo Predicts Use of Nerve Agents

Memo Predicts Use of Nerve Agents by Foreign Policy

Report at the Link on Scribed:

Memo 4: CIA predicts "widespread use of mustard agents" and use of nerve agents by late summer (March 13, 1984) CIA Predicts Widespread Use of Mustard Agents and Use of Nerve Agent by Late Summer

CIA Predicts Widespread Use of Mustard Agents and Use of Nerve Agent by Late Summer by Foreign Policy

Report at the Link on Scribed:

Memo 5: CIA considers the consequences for chemical weapons proliferation now that Iraq has used mustard and nerve agent (Sept. 6, 1984) Note on Chemical Weapons Proliferation and Posisble Consequences

Note on Chemical Weapons Proliferation and Posisble Consequences by Foreign Policy

Report at the Link on Scribed:

Final Memo: Intelligence assessment of Iraq's chemical weapons program (January 1985) Intelligence Assessment of Iraqi Chemical Weapons Program

Intelligence Assessment of Iraqi Chemical Weapons Program by Foreign Policy

Report at the Link on Scribed:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-27/how-times-have-changed-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-use-chemical-weapons

Did Hollande Just Solve France's Record Unemployment Problem?

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/27/2013 12:51 -0400

• France
• Krugman
• Unemployment

Noting that "everything suggests the Syrian regime used chemical weapons," France's President Hollande this morning stated

• *HOLLANDE SAYS SYRIAN CHEMICAL ATTACK REQUIRES RESPONSE and FRANCE IS READY TO PUNISH USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS

Perhaps this is subtle way to solve his nation's economic problems (just ask Krugman). French jobseekers just hit another all-time high; and following the utter failure of the Mali incursion to raise Hollande's popularity, perhaps he will reinstate the draft (for the millions of unemployed), invade, and then promptly surrender (leaving oil-rich Syria with the problem?)





http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...oyment-problem

The U.S. Has Repeatedly Falsely Accused Others of Chemical and Biological Weapons Use

Submitted by George Washington on 08/27/2013 17:16 -0400

In 1981, the U.S. accused the Soviets of supplying chemical weapons to Communist states in Vietnam and Laos for use in counterinsurgency warfare. It turned out that the “yellow rain” which the U.S. became hysterical about was actually honeybee feces.
The U.S. bombed a chemical weapons factory in Sudan in 1998. It turned out that it only made pharmaceutical drugs.

The U.S. accused Iraq of possessing chemical weapons … even though everyone knew that it didn’t.

Government officials confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country, even though it was obvious that there was no connection to Iraq.

And the U.S. accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons a couple of months ago … but the evidence points awayfrom such a claim.

Given the history, shouldn’t we be cautious about chemical weapons claims … especially when experts are skeptical?

The U.S., Britain and Israel have Used Chemical Weapons within the Last 10 Years

We condemn all use of chemical weapons.

But the U.S. used chemical weapons against civilians in Iraq in 2004. Evidence here, here, here, here, here, here.

Israeli also used white phosphorous in 2009 during “Operation Cast Lead” (and perhaps subsequently). Israel ratified Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (“Protocol III”) – which outlaws the use of incendiary devices in war – in 2007. So this was a war crime.

Moreover, the 1925 Geneva Protocol (which is different from Protocol III) prohibits “the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases”.

The use of White phosphorus (“WP”) may also be a war crime under other international treaties and domestic U.S. laws. For example, the Battle Book, published by the U.S. Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, contains the following sentence: “It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.”

The U.S. National Safety Council states that “White phosphorus is a poison . . . If its combustion occurs in a confined space, white phosphorus will remove the oxygen from the air and render the air unfit to support life . . . It is considered a dangerous disaster hazard because it emits highly toxic fumes. The EPA has listed white phosphorus as a Hazardous Air Pollutant.

Indeed, it is interesting to note that the U.S. previously called white phosphorous a chemical weapon when Saddam used it against the Kurds. Interestingly, it has just come out that the U.S. encouraged Saddam’s use of chemical weapons.

Moreover, the U.S. and Britain have been dropping depleted uranium in virtually every country they fight, which causes severe health problems. See this, this, this and this.

University of California at Irvine professor of Middle Eastern history Mark LeVine writes:

Not only did the US aid the use of chemical weapons by the former Iraqi government, it also used chemical weapons on a large scale during its 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq, in the form of depleted-uranium (DU) ammunition.

As Dahr Jamail’s reporting for Al Jazeera has shown, the use of DU by the US and UK has very likely been the cause not only of many cases of Gulf War Syndrome suffered by Iraq war veterans, but also of thousands of instances of birth defects, cancer and other diseases – causing a “large-scale public health disaster” and the “highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied” – suffered by Iraqis in areas subjected to frequent and intense attacks by US and allied occupation forces.

And Israel has been accused of using depleted uranium in Syria.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. But it is hypocritical for the U.S., Britain and Israel to say that we should bomb Syria because the government allegedly used chemical weapons.

Bonus: War Against Syria Would Be The Least Popular War In American History


http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...al-weapons-use