When all the nonsense about the Syrians “combining the precursors of their binary chemical weapons” began I dismissed it all as the usual imperial demonization of the latest “new Hitler”, but now this entire topic is taking on a more ignominious character because the Israelis and the Americans are now openly threatening some kind of “consequences” if “Assad uses his chemical weapons against his people”. Some are also mentioning the risk of the insurgents getting their hands on government chemical weapons stores.
Since Syria refused to sign the CWC (because Israel had WMDs) it is really impossible to know what kind of weapons Syria might have, but I think that it is not unreasonable to assume that the Syrian chemical weapons program would be more or less on par with what Iraq had under Saddam Hussein: Sarin, Tabun, VX, and mustard gas combined with many possible delivery systems. If true, this is all very bad news, not because Assad is about to gas his own population, but because of the fantastic false flag potential such a wide variety of weapons creates.
First, let me immediately dismiss the likelihood of the use of chemical weapons by government forces on the insurgency. With the possible exception of chemical hand grenades, I don’t see how the government forces could use their chemical weapons against an urban insurgency. Besides, chemical weapons are inherently difficult to use, and it is impossible to conceal the fact that they were engaged. Since Assad is quite aware of the current propaganda and since he shows no signs of being insane, I would consider the possibility of the regime using chemical weapons as pretty much non-existent.
But the crazed Jihadis? Oh yes, these guys are totally capable of using such weapons, not only against the Syrian government forces, but also against the general population or even their own forces and then lay the blame on Assad.
Furthermore, the US and NATO could easily arrange for another Markale or Racak false flag “massacre” and fire a few chemical rounds somewhere close to an al-Jazeera TV crew, say close to a group of refugees feeling to the Turkish border.
The US, NATO and Israel have a long and “distinguished” history of false flag operations – from Gladio, to the USS Liberty, to Operation Northwoods, to the USS Maine, to Markale to Racak to, of course, 9/11 and many others – and they have never had to pay a meaningful political price for engaging in such practices.
In the meantime, the Jihadis have resumed an all time favorite custom of theirs: beheading on video under the exalted screams of “Allahu Akbar”.
They got away with such practices in Bosnia, but it did cost some a little bit of political embarrassment in Chechnia, in particular when they murdered some Anglos, of course, and now it is likely to again cause them only minor PR problems. All in all, the West has become used to being the patron for bloodthirsty psychopaths and while such videos might create some unease, it is not going to really influence anybody. Expect more of the same, only worse.
The Saker
you could be right, but Panetta has already backed down on the chemical weapons scare.
it was probably used to get NATO’s approval of Patriots for Turkey.
and to get leverage with Russia in the most recent meetings.
but it seems like russia held firm.
i think that obama is still of two minds on syria — wanting to get rid of the government, but worried of the chaos that will ensue. he doesn’t want to put american troops in syria or to be responsible for a regional war.
he is playing with fire — allowing a good deal of creative destruction, but still doesn’t know how to win.
if the opposition can make gains and show some kind of capacity to contain the chaos, obama will push forward on regime change.
if the opposition stays divided, and if the salafists get out of control, obama could be pushed toward a political settlement. his designation of al nusra as a terrorist organization could work toward this end.
anyhow, at this moment, i don’t think the US empire has a clear agenda for syria. the neocons and the liberal imperialists want regime change right now; obama and a few realists are more cautious and worried.
i could be wrong. but i don’t think the white house knows what to do.
@anonymous:i think that obama is still of two minds on syria (…) i don’t think the white house knows what to do.
You are probably correct, especially if we consider, as I am inclined to do, that US policies are the result of a “sum of individual political vectors” which often look like there either is no policy at all, or several, often contradictory, policies competing with each other. For one thing, CIA, DoD and Foggy Bottom often do not agree with each other, while the NSC and the White House tries to balance contradictory political goals.
And Syria is just an “appetizer”: imagine if the US finally ends up pushing Pakistan into a fullscale chaos situation! It does not even matter that Paki nukes are under a very tight control system and that the Jihadi crazies will not get their hands on it. Just the *possibility* of having the crazies taking over some real nukes will have nasty ripple effects.
For me this just goes to show that nuclear, chemical or bacteriological weapons are really a liability for the vast majority of countries out there. Very, very few countries actually have the capabilities to turn such weapons into an effective asset.
Cheers!
“Very, very few countries actually have the capabilities to turn such weapons into an effective asset.”
In fact, only one: Russia. And to a smaller degree, China. For the rest of the countries, including the US, nuclear weapons are useless.
@Carlo:In fact, only one: Russia. And to a smaller degree, China. For the rest of the countries, including the US, nuclear weapons are useless.
Do you think you would have the time to explain why, in your opinion, nukes are useless for France, India, Pakistan and the USA? I would be interested in hearing your rationale for that. But if you are busy, just ignore this request, its no biggie, just that this is a topic I really like :-)
Cheers,
The Saker
The US has an overwhelming superiority in conventional arms. When Obama proposed, back in 2010, a world free of nuclear weapons, I think he was honest: the US needs this kind of weapons only as a deterrent against Russia. If Russia didn’t have nuclear weapons, US conventional power is way bigger and more advanced than any other country, enough to keep global military superiority.
The UK and France have tiny nuclear arsenals, I think it is much more of a matter of national pride than real strategic necessity. Even if they need nuclear weapons as deterrent (which made sense in the Cold War, but not now), they have the US for this anyway.
India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons out of mutual mistrust only. Perhaps for India it may make a bit more sense as a deterrent against China, but anyway a war between these two countries is extremely unlikely (even though their relation isn’t good), both countries have much more pressing matters to worry.
Then comes Russia. Not very powerful as a conventional power, still equipped largely with Soviet equipment and lagging behind the US in terms of precision weapons, stealth planes, UCAVs, naval power, (though surely improving fast). If Russia didn’t have nuclear weapons, it would be way more difficult to dissuade an attack. That is why Russia has the most modern nuclear arsenal in the world in terms of deliverance, which is way cheaper than developing and acquiring huge amounts of conventional weapons. While the US relies on old missiles developed in the 60’s and 70’s, Russia is always developing new ICBMs, SLBMs, SRBMs (which they need after the US began creating more ambitious ABM systems), which are also by far the most advanced in the world and even don’t have analogues.
I didn’t have time to polish this text, but I hope you can understand my ideas.
@Carlo: your arguments are excellent and I can only agree. The fact is that having nukes is pretty much only a PR, a psychological/political, “advantage” but in reality these weapons are very hard to integrate into a logical war-fighting doctrine. And, as always, we can count on our Israeli “friends” to come up with the most insane nuclear doctrine of all: the “Samson option” so well expressed in this maniacal and narcissistic poem by Itamar Yaoz-Kest:
Danger,
I want to be a danger,
I want to be a danger to the world,
so that after my destruction, not a single blade of grass will remain on the face of the Earth,
Read the rest of that insanity here: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/154608#.UMnNrfmsV-5
One more question, *if* you are not too busy, do you think that having nukes would help the Iranians deter either Israel or the USA or serve any other useful purpose?
Cheers,
The Saker
adding to my post (#1) above:
a) i should have said that there are competing forces within all branches of the US national security state, not just between them. even in the white house, there are competing agendas, with some forces engaged in sabotage against others.
b) however, this competition boils down to tactics. the US *strategy* is regime change for syria. hence the calls for the government to fall. however, the difference between the neocons, the israel-firsters, the humanitarian imperialists, and the realists is one of tactics — in other words, how should Assad be overthrown or removed?
c) for many reasons, obama hasn’t been decisive on this issue. he doesn’t want US troops on the ground and doesn’t want an out-of-control war in the region.
d) but, with the recognition of the opposition, the silly scud scare, and the positioning of patriots in turkey, the conclusions of russian diplomats look correct — i.e., the US is going to back the armed insurgency till victory, damn the consequences (like ten thousand dead alawites, christians and secular nationalists).
e) all of this is too tempting for the empire. it *will* take the risk because the perceived benefits are enormous.
f) by taking this risk, the US/NATO/GCC/Israel axis will hope to destroy Syria as a resistance pole; to take out Assad before another war on Lebanon or Gaza; to isolate Iran as a prelude to war; to consolidate apartheid Israel; and to fortify western access to energy resources, supplied by vassal states in the Gulf.
with this in mind, i take back my apprehension. the US *is* going to see this ‘revolution’ through to the end, without regard for the consequences.
the reality is going to be ugly — thousands of dead in syria; the rebound of war in Iraq; the resumption of civil war in lebanon; and the further genocide in palestine.
Well, if nuclear weapons don’t make sense even for France, UK, India, Pakistan and (to a certain extent) to China, much less it makes for Iran. In order to have a meaningful dissuasive arsenal, Iran would need to have hundreds or preferably thousands of warheads, together with highly-sophisticated, mobile and survivable missiles, which this country simply doesn’t have the technology and the industrial capacity to produce and won’t in a foreseeable future. The Iranians know this, in fact everyone know this, that is why both in the US and Israel there is so much propaganda claiming that the “mullahs are crazy, they want to destroy the world so that the hidden Iman will appear” and things like that. But the Iranians, the Ayatollah and the mullahs inclusive, are not stupid (if they were, the Islamic Republic wouldn’t have survived for so long with so many threats), and I really don’t think they are wasting their limited resources and taking huge risks in order to develop something that is not only useless but harmless to them.