By Dominique de Kevelioc de Bailleul
With longstanding U.S. strategic plans to control oil production in Syria and Iran taking shape with the attempted overthrow of the Bashar al-Assad government in progress, a pretext for U.S. involvement to takeover from American surrogates Saudi Arabia and Qatar funding of Syrian rebels moved a step closer with an article published by the Wall Street Journal, titled, U.S. Concerned as Syria Moves Chemical Stockpile.
While more international agreements to ditch the U.S. as a medium of exchange in global trade continue to pile up between the BRIC nations, the U.S. dollar’s last bastion of hope lies in the granddaddy of all trade, oil, and the 40-year petrodollar system. To that end, Washington must build consensus for its aggression toward the nations that stand in the way of a continued petrodollar system. In the case of the latest article by the WSJ on the subject of Syria, the business paper of record appears to act as a willing or unsuspecting outlet for CIA counterintelligence.
As the title of the article implies, unnamed “U.S. officials” grow concerned about the recent movement of biochemical weapons stockpiles (WMDs), according the WSJ. With quotes from other unnamed sources riddled throughout the article, the suggestion of the possibility that a planted storyline by Washington of planned “ethnic cleansing” and assumptions of what Assad may or may not do with these so-called WMDs can easily be made given the unusual nature of basing a story on numerous sources unwilling to go on the record for further journalistic inquires.
The article begins, “Syria has begun moving parts of its vast arsenal of chemical weapons out of storage facilities, U.S. officials said, in a development that has alarmed many in Washington.
“The country’s undeclared stockpiles of sarin nerve agent, mustard gas and cyanide have long worried U.S. officials and their allies in the region, who have watched anxiously amid the conflict in Syria for any change in the status or location of the weapons.”
Since Syria is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, the U.S. State Department remains suspicious of Syria’s non-transparency regarding its inventories, though the same suspicion of potential ethnic cleansing of Palestinians could be directed at Israel, a signatory to the CWC but never ratified by its democratically-elected representatives—a fact left out of the WSJ article.
“The regime has a plan for ethnic cleansing, and we must come to terms with this,” an unnamed U.S. official told the WSJ. “There is no diplomatic solution.”
During the buildup to an attack on Iraq, the U.S. official in the forefront of accusations that Iraq possessed WMDs was the president himself, George W. Bush. But today, unnamed sources make the same accusations against a country loyal to Iran—Syria, the last country in the Middle East left to neutralize before taking on Iran for the prize of its second-largest oil production capacity in the Middle East.
But the Journal does quote a former U.S. Army intelligence officer now working as an analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, Joseph Holliday, who helps the Journal build a case of another dictator gone crazy enough to potentially gas his own people—a war crime under the Geneva Protocol of 1925.
“We can’t discount him using this, we just can’t,” said Holliday. “If we believe the Assad regime and their closest allies view this as an existential struggle, we have to assume they could use chemical weapons against their population at some point in the conflict.”
As a former Army intelligence officer, Holliday, it’s understandable that he may still be under the powerful influences of his high-level comrades in arms at the Pentagon. Crafting a real or imaginary threat storyline can be used as a meaningful pretext for war with any nation uncooperative with the U.S., if covert operations to secure energy supplies in the Middle East fail.
“Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is ‘busier than ever’, an administration official says,” according to a Newsweek article of Sept. 2004. “Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries . . .
”Even hard-liners acknowledge that given the U.S. military commitment in Iraq, a U.S. attack on either country would be an unlikely last resort; covert action of some kind is the favored route for Washington hard-liners who want regime change in Damascus and Tehran.”
The WSJ article that cites unnamed official sources feels like a CIA trial balloon to gauge public sentiment for U.S. direct involvement in Syria, or it’s a sloppy piece of journalism deployed as a tactic to apply international pressure upon Russia and China to back off support of Syria. Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton displayed a Cold War sense of urgency to the Syria question at the ‘Friends of Syria’ conference.
“I don’t think Russia and China believe they are paying any price at all – nothing at all – for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime,” Clinton told an audience of delegations from more than 100 nations. “The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price . . .”
Previous propaganda disseminated through CIA-complicit media outlets, such as reports of the killing of incubator babies at Iraqi hospitals during the 1991 Gulf War, and the gassing of Kurds by Saddam Hussein during the Iran/Iraq War, have either since been discredited by investigative journalists or have gone unconfirmed (as to who was responsible) in the case of the gassing incident of 5,000 Kurds in Halabja in 1988 during the Iran/Iraq War.
The WSJ did, however, find a source with a name and position that denied the claims of the multiple unnamed ‘official’ U.S. sources of the story. The named source added, if the U.S. or its surrogates would stop smuggling weapons to the Syrian rebels, the peace process could begin—an alleged goal of the U.S. State Department.
“This is absolutely ridiculous and untrue,” Syria’s foreign ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, told the WSJ. “If the U.S. is so well-informed, why can’t they help [U.N. envoy] Kofi Annan in stopping the flow of illegal weapons to Syria in order to end the violence and move towards the political solution?”
In conclusion, the WSJ article provides little substance for a proper article typically expected of them. The signs of another nefarious intent on the part of either the U.S. State Department, the WSJ, or both, to dupe the public into another war cannot be ruled out. But, considering the dire nature of the U.S. dollar’s rapid decline as a reliable reserve currency, other articles and television programming demonizing Syria can be expected.