NewsTop News

US-led coalition attack on Syria: what we learned

UNITED STATES (OBSERVATORY via PRESS TV) –┬áThe attack on Syria and five results from it.

What are the five conclusions that can be drawn from the Western missile attack on Syria?

The missile strike launched by the United States, France and the United Kingdom on Saturday, April 14, at dawn, against Syria, under the pretext of a chemical attack on which no investigation took place is one of the most important military interventions of a Western coalition in a third country. However, this intervention is not a mere military operation but a sign of strategic changes that have recently occurred on the regional or even global scale.

Here are the five conclusions that can be drawn from this attack after the return to calm in Syria:

1. The western bloc more divided than 15 years ago

Remember the US attack on Iraq in 2003? At that time, Iraq was accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction. The Security Council did not give a green light to a military offensive against Iraq, but the US State Department managed to reunite 49 countries to attack Iraq, thanks to the relative authority exercised by the bloc. on international organizations. It is true that some of these 49 countries have played only a minor role in the Iraqi invasion, but it remains to be seen how a coalition of 49 countries has been reduced to only three countries.

2. The three countries that attacked Syria were the destinations of MBS

The Western bloc was so reluctant to direct military intervention in a country in the Middle East that only petrodollars Saudi Arabia could push him to act. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had discussed Iranian and Syrian records during his travels in the United Kingdom, the United States, and then in Iran, and US President Donald Trump had officially subjected any intervention in Syria to a big deal. financial assistance from Saudi Arabia. However, the military and economic mega-contracts, so far sealed with the Saudis, were so important that France, the United Kingdom and the United States agreed to launch fireworks to please Mohammed bin Salman.

This tripartite military action against Syria foreshadows another coordinated action on the nuclear deal, as the Iranian issue, too, was on the agenda of Mohammed bin Salman’s talks with British, American and French leaders.

3. The inefficiency of heavy weapons in asymmetric conflicts in the Middle East

The military offensive against Syria has proved, once again, that despite the super-Powers’ rhetoric about their sophisticated weapons, they are more likely to deter rivals than to attack states with geopolitical dimensions. Middle East country. Faced with a country like Syria, the superpowers can not achieve their goals with their advanced weapons. The strong military capabilities of the superpowers, however, may allow them to resort to two tactics against the states of the Middle East:

Tactics of scorched earth: A massive bombing campaign makes the ground conducive to the presence of US ground forces. This tactic has already been used in Iraq. The result: the formation of an independent and anti-American state.

Tactics of total annihilation: the sophisticated armaments of the great powers are only used by Donald Trump in his speech to the UN General Assembly about North Korea: total annihilation! This tactic, too, is very expensive but ineffective, especially against the countries of the Middle East.

4. Russia, a world power, as the West admits

The places hit by Western missiles had already been evacuated. There is only one reason for this: the Westerners had once again informed Russia of their targets in order to avoid any damage to their interests in Syria. This coordination is justified only by the fact that the West recognizes Russia as a world superpower.

5. A confrontation between the superpowers is much more likely than the outbreak of premeditated conflicts

Do you remember the crisis in Ukraine? Supported by the West, the anti-Yanukovych gave birth to a revolution in Kiev’s Maidan Square. Viktor Yanukovych was forced to resign and leave the country. In response to this development, Russia took a position on the Crimean peninsula where it legalized its presence through a referendum. The G7 powers took a series of well planned and aggressive measures against Russia and triggered a military conflict between the eastern regions of Ukraine and Kiev. However, this chaotic situation never foreshadowed the outbreak of a world war and the German and French leaders even sat down at the negotiating table with Vladimir Putin, in Minsk, to decide on a road map for Ukraine.

But this time, a tweet from Donald Trump so poisoned the atmosphere before the attack on Syria that rumors began circulating about an American attack against Russia’s interests in Syria and a possible scathing riposte of Moscow which could be realized in the form of a strike against ships from Western countries in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. Indeed, Donald Trump’s decision to attack Syria would have risked turning into a serious and costly confrontation between the world’s superpowers.

Comparing the vast measures of the West against Russia on the issue of Ukraine with this limited but not very clear operation against Syria, we can conclude that it is the latter that is most likely to lead to a war. World.


The scenario of a military operation under the pretext of a chemical attack is worn to the cord and it appears from the current situation that the Western States wish to postpone the end of the conflicts in Syria to find an exit door as discreet as it may be possible to establish new military bases in northern Syria.

The first possibility would turn Syria into Iraq in 2011 and the second would mean that the West intends to strengthen its control in parts of Syria. This would be similar to what the Americans are doing in Eastern Europe by increasing the number of their military forces in this region. In this case, it would appear that the United States is using a method based on militarism, to get hold of different parts of the world and impose their control on states. Could the anti-American sensibility of the peoples of the region prevent the repetition of the scenario of Eastern Europe in the Middle East?