The long anticipated UN inspectors report confirmed the use
of chemical weapons on August 21, 2013 in the Ghouta area of Damascus. The
investigators report provided “clear and convincing evidence that
surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent Sarin were used”. Warmongers were quick to pounce on the use
of rockets as evidence that the Assad government was responsible. The Russian Foreign Minister
Sergie Lavrov was quick to point to the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument -- correlation
does not equal causation. So whodunit?
Foremost,
given that the report emphasis the use of rockets, the Saudis should be asking
themselves why it is that the accusatory
finger has been pointed to them. There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia is
involved in the Syria conflict. Their
involvement is not restricted to providing arms to the rebels but as
USA
Today reported in January, they have been sending death-row inmates to
fight in Syria. That said, the UN
report clearly repudiates
dubious
reports which surfaced on the internet citing a rebel’s father who had
claimed that the Saudis supplied the chemical weapons without instructions, or
without telling the rebels what they were which is why “they” (chemical
weapons) went off in the
tunnel.
While it is not a secret that the Saudis aim to spread their
influence in the region by assisting neocons remove Assad from power, what should be of note to the
Saudis and of interest to media watchers is the fact that in spite of the Saudi
‘s full cooperation with America and Israel in funding and supporting wars
against fellow Arabs and Moslems, and even providing them with terrorists, the
neoconservatives such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
are
now claiming that Saudi Arabia is responsible for pushing for war . This should give Saudis reason to pause and
reflect. But to the report….
According
to the UN report two types of rockets had been used, including an M14 artillery
rocket bearing Cyrillic markings and a 330-millimeter rocket of unidentified
origin – though perhaps not so unidentified.
Shortly after the August incident,
Foreign Policy published and made mention of these mysterious rockets which according
to former UN inspectors bore a strong resemblance to a 1970’s American
weapon—the
SLUFAE
. Although SLUFAE had been shelved,
the concept was built upon by several countries—namely Israel. According to the former UN inspector, "a
very similar munition was found 3-5 years ago, during one of the Israeli excursions,"
into Southern Lebanon”. Further, there
is the strong possibility that the rockets with Cyrillic markings (attributed
to the Soviets) can be traced back to the “Bear Spares” program.
According
to the 1995
Teicher Affidavit, the United States had a “Bear
Spares” program with the objective to provide ammunition for Soviet or
Soviet-style weaponry and deliver them third countries without direct
involvement. Israel which had a
large stockpile of Soviet weaponry and ammunition captured during its wars was
active in this program and, according to Teicher, transferred the spare parts
and weapons to third countries or insurgents (such as to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq
war, to the Afghans, and the Contras).
Of note is the fact that Israel possess Sarin gas and it is not
party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
It is worthwhile repeating here that it was Israeli “intelligence” which
alerted the United States of the use of Sarin on August 21, and of its delivery
method long before the UN report was published. It was the Israeli ‘intelligence’ which
prompted John Kerry to point the finger at Assad with confidence.
Often left unmentioned is the fact that it was John Kerry’s public suggestion to rid Syria of its chemical
weapons which became the basis for the Russian initiative to avert war. Undoubtedly, Israel stands to gain from this
initiative given its territorial ambitions (see
HERE
for example) given that it is thought that Syria's
entire defense against Israel may rest on chemical weapons and warheads
[i]. Not surprisingly, the
Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu regards the initiative as a
precedent for dealing
with Iran’s
civilian nuclear program.
While Israel has the most to gain by the chemical attack
incident, it is not unique in its access
to Soviet weaponry - and to Sarin gas. Egypt also served as a supplier for the Bear
Spares program where it manufactured weapons and spare parts from Soviet
designs and provided these weapons and ammunition to the Iraqis (during the
Iran-Iraq war) and other countries. The
United States approved, assisted and encouraged Egypt's manufacturing capabilities. It is
not without relevance to mention here that the Syrian opposition group had
headquarters in Egypt for some time. The
leader of Egyptian military coup, General al-Sisi was hailed as a “
national
hero for all Jews’ by the Israeli ambassador in Cairo. The military continues to be in charge with
the full support of and funding from the United States (and Saudis).
Contrary
to the Western media pundits who attempt to pain this as a straightforward case
against Assad, without evidence or without thought, one can point the finger to
other more likely culprits who stand to gain a great deal from this heinous
crime. The only way to narrow down the
field is to consider ‘cui bono’. Clearly, Assad is the biggest loser.
[i] Terrill, W. Andrew, “The Chemical
Warfare Legacy of the Yemen War.” Comparative Strategy, 10 (1991),
109-119.
