Many are wondering about the surprising change in US-policy that has occurred in Syria. This is supposedly due to an alleged gas attack by Syrian national forces against a rebel-held town.

This is a childishly simple theory, especially as there is at least a lot of doubt about who is responsible for the attack, and a gas attack can add little to the horrors already under way in Syria.

Some people actually think this is
the reason for bombing Syria...
A more feasible explanation is that the US is changing its position to adjust to the changing military situation on the ground. 

The main change here in recent weeks has been the considerable weakening of ISIS, which has been pushed back on several fronts. 

While still fighting, their forces in Mosul, the large Iraqi city they once controlled, are now surrounded and being slowly eradicated. Meanwhile in Syria they have been doing badly against the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who are US-backed and largely Kurdish. 

Just prior to Trump's decision to bomb Syria and call for "regime change" the SDF inflicted a serious defeat on ISIS in the Battle of Tabqa, surrounding ISIS's main position defending their capital at Raqqah.

No, this is.
Prior to this the US was restrained in its hostility to Assad because any action taken against Assad was sure to create a political vacuum that ISIS was best positioned to fill. 

Now with the SDF having proven itself in battle and grown into a large and effective fighting force with US funding, training, and weapons, America has a dog it can now back in the fight. 

The Neocons now running Trump's foreign policy have made the calculation that the weaker Assad gets the stronger their US-friendly puppet group will become.

This is the real reason that Trump suddenly got teary-eyed about some random dead kiddies who died under mysterious circumstances. 

Attacking Assad in this way opens up at least the possibility of America coming out on top in Syria, whereas before Russia was clearly best placed to dominate a post-civil-war Syria. 

The best way for Assad to retaliate against this US interference would be to concentrate his military power against the SDF. Until now there has been an uneasy truce between the Syrian national government and the SDF. But this has clearly created the conditions that has allowed America to attack him.

Attacking the SDF would effectively align Syrian forces with ISIS. But only by degrading the military capability of the SDF can he be sure of deterring America from further serious interference in Syria. Turkey, which is deeply opposed to any manifestation of Kurdish power could be a useful ally in this.


Share on Google Plus

4 Replies so far - Add your comment

  1. That is NOT the reason. If that had been the case, Trump never would have made the pivot away from Obama's policy. He pivoted back to "evil Assad must be stopped" during a meeting with Abdullah II of Jordan.

    Think about what must have been said to convince Trump to abandon a good sized portion of his support, go against his own advice from 2013, look like an idiot for believing an obvious false flag gas attack, and move towards another mideast boondoggle.

    Must have been a hell of a threat. Something along the lines of "do it or we dump the petrodollar".