Another False Gas Attack Risks Wider Repercussions


13 April 2018

It is difficult to overstate the dangers posed by the latest escalation of tensions in Syria over the alleged gas attack in the Syrian town of Douma. The tensions are not eased by the inflammatory rhetoric emanating from the White House, with the usual echoes of support from American allies such as France and Australia.

The reports of a gas attack came from the Al Qaeda linked White Helmets, a dubious group funded by the United States and the United Kingdom. They have the invariable ability to come up with yet another alleged atrocity at precisely the time when the situation is looking bad for the various terrorist groups seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.

The White Helmets first appeared in 2013. They were founded and trained by a former British Army officer James Le Mesurier. They masquerade as a civil defence organisation. In fact, their main role is to create a series of largely fake videos to serve as propaganda. The object is to create the conditions that would encourage greater military action against the Syrian government and its allies by the United States. Hence their periodic prominence when the United States gives any signal, however weak and unreliable, that it might abandon its role in Syria.

Before this latest incident, the White Helmets created a media furore over an alleged Sarin gas attack in the Syrian town of Kahn Sheikhoun. This led to President Trump ordering a barrage of missiles to be fired at the Syrian air base of Al Shayrat. Notwithstanding the number of missiles fired, damage was minimal and casualties were light.

A highly regarded chemical weapons expert, Theodore Postol of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, produced a series of reports that conclusively debunked the White Helmet’s version of events. The mainstream media ignored his reports.

We see a similar pattern emerging with the alleged Douma attacks. Again the source is the White Helmets. A preliminary investigation by Russian analysts indicated that there was no evidence that there had ever been an attack.

The OPCW have been invited to send an investigative team to conduct further analysis. At the time of writing their arrival was imminent, but no results could possibly be known.

The Russian findings, and the absence of evidence that an attack even took place, has been ignored. The western media are almost unanimous in treating the alleged attack as a given fact, and echoing the chorus that the Assad government must be “punished.” The Iranians and Russians, as allies of Syria, are similarly held responsible.

It is not difficult to see the parallels with the alleged poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, England. There is a similar rush to judgement; a similar absence of anything resembling proof of what was done, by whom and with what; and absurd rhetoric against the Russian government.

A further parallel between Skripal and Douma is the absence of any plausible motive for why the Russian and Syrian governments respectively would engage in such reckless behaviour, which would inevitably be linked back to them.

In the Skripal case, President Putin was heading to an easy and convincing re- election, and about to host the World Cup football finals.

In Syria, the terrorists have effectively being routed with only pockets of resistance remaining. They cling to their diminishing territory only with the active assistance of the US led so-called coalition. That territory happens to be Syria’s main oil fields and the strategic highway that links Syria with Iran via Iraq.

The other aspect of the latest threats by the Americans and their allies is that their proposed actions are directly contrary to international law. It bears repeating because the message is either willfully misunderstood or ignored by the politicians of those countries who have chosen to ally themselves with the Americans.

The UN Charter enjoins all nations not to threaten others and to resolve all disputes by peaceful means. It prohibits military action against another state other than when (a) authorised by the Security Council; or (b) in self defence under article 51 of the Charter, itself a severely limited option.

Manifestly, neither situation applies here. There is no concept known to international law of “punishing” a sovereign government, regardless of how it’s behaves. Even if it was possible to “punish” a nation for its alleged transgressions, then ordinary principles of law would require that their guilt must first be proved.  Here, the exact opposite is being applied: sentence first, evidence later.

The other significant difference with the present crisis compared to the previous ones is that the Russians have repeatedly and explicitly made it clear that any such attack upon Syria would be met with retaliation, not only against the missiles, but also their source. That necessarily includes aircraft and their sea or land bases, submarines or any land based missile source.

Trump’s Twitter responses have further demonstrated his tenuous grasp of reality. The dangers associated with an ill-considered and illegal military action by the United States and its allies is further underlined by the explicit support being given to Russia by China. Addressing the Baoa Forum in Hainan, Southern China, President Xi said:

The cold war and zero sum mentality looks out of place in today’s world.Arrogance and only focusing on one’s own interests will get nowhere.”

This was followed by an article in the Global Times; an English language outlet that reliably reflects Chinese government thinking, warning Trump to “act prudently to avoid serious consequences in Syria.”  It went on to say “if forcible actions were taken (in Syria) there would be no justice at all, and they would only reflect Washington’s political hegemony and military arrogance.”

Both the Skripal and Douma matters are linked. They both represent desperate attempts by the Anglo Americans and their allies to hold back and thwart the tectonic shifts occurring in the Eurasian geopolitical scene. The outstanding question at the moment is whether or not the Americans and their allies, including Australia, will accept China’s advice to “think twice before deciding to attack Syria.”

On their past performance, arrogance, hubris and ignorance will override such caution as recommended. In that event, the potential consequences will be catastrophic.

*Barrister at law and geopolitical analyst. He may contacted at

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s