Syria is target one, then
Iran. The road to Tehran runs through Damascus. Western-backed insurgents
can't match Assad's security forces.
In 2011, Libyan killer gangs had air force support. Without NATO, they'd
have been routed.
Expect stepped up intervention in Syria. All signs suggest it. The April
10 deadline came and went. Assad began pulling back. Insurgent violence
continues. He's obligated to confront it. Responsible leaders can do
no less. Their people depend on it. If governments won't protect them,
Nonetheless, Assad's vilified for doing his job. Calls for greater intervention
grow. Turkey wants a new Security Council resolution. Ankara says Annan's
peace plan failed.
Its designed intention was failure, not success. It's sham cover for
Washington's longstanding regime change plans. Kofi Annan's imperial
tool credentials got him appointed Arab League Syrian envoy.
He keeps pointing fingers the wrong way. His demands on Assad are relentless.
He insists he pull back and leave his people defenseless. His comments
about insurgent violence are muted, disingenuous, and intended to solve
In a letter to the Security Council, he accused Assad of failure to
comply with peace plan terms. He said he hasn't withdrawn troops or
ceased violence. He claimed Syrian forces keep "conduct(ing) rolling
military operations in population centers, characterized by troop movements
into towns supported by artillery fire."
"While some troops and heavy weapons have been withdrawn from some localities,
this appears to be often limited to a repositioning of heavy weapons
that keeps cities within firing range.”
He added that demanding insurgents provide written ceasefire guarantees
jeopardizes conflict resolution. He accused Assad of introducing "ex
post facto requirements that are not part of the six-point plan that
they agreed to implement."
Doing so ignores the obvious. Peace can't happen unless both sides agree
and jointly implement terms, not one, then maybe the other later or
not at all.
He also turned a blind eye to ongoing heavy weapons and other equipment
supplied insurgents, as well as funding, and US/UK, and perhaps other
outside Special Forces on the ground providing training and direction
Under these conditions, conflict resolution's impossible. That's the
whole idea. It's part of Annan's mission. Most important is who's in
charge for what purpose. Fingers point straight to Washington.
Obama administration dirty hands control things. Events on the ground
are manipulated. Calls for greater intervention grow louder. At issue
is establishing another client state, isolating Iran, then repeating
the same strategy there. All options are open, including war. Eruption
in Syria could happen any time.
Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's comments suggest it.
He warned his military may use force to set up an (illegal) buffer zone
in Syria. Doing so assures escalated conflict.
That's the whole idea. Assad won't tolerate it, nor should he. No responsible
leader would. If Syrian and Turkish forces clash, all bets are off.
Article 5 of NATO's Charter states:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them
in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them
all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs,
each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence
recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will
assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually
and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary,
including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security
of the North Atlantic area."
In other words, NATO's 28 member states are obligated to act by any
and all means if one of them is attacked. All for one and one for all.
Collective defense is policy. Lawless aggression follows. Countries
like Yugoslavia were targeted.
In 1999, with no Security Council authorization, it was lawlessly attacked
and ravaged. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya followed. Perhaps Syria's next,
then Iran and other independent states. Washington keeps a list. Among
other nations, it includes China and Russia. Both countries know the
Erdogan also wants direct UN Syrian intervention. NATO may be readying
to act. War winds blow stronger. Perhaps they're heading for gale force
strength. Replicating Libya looks likely.
Nonetheless, Syria's SANA state media reported an official Defense Ministry
source saying armed forces agreed "to end missions Thursday morning
after they carried out successful missions in combating criminal acts
by armed terrorist groups and enforced the authority of the state on
all its territories."
They'll remain "on alert to confront any attack by armed terrorist groups
against civilians, law-enforcement members, the armed forces and private
and public facilities."
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said "it's up to the
armed opposition" to cease hostilities beginning 6AM April 12.
Scoundrel Media Hawkishness
Media scoundrels are complicit. When Washington goes to war or plans
one, they're out in front cheerleading, no matter how unjust the cause.
At issue is dominance, not right or wrong.
On April 9, a New York Times editorial headlined, "President Assad's
Latest Bluff," saying:
"The international community’s latest attempt to stop (Assad's) reign
of terror in Syria is failing. Instead of abiding by a commitment to
a cease-fire negotiated with the United Nations, he has kept his killing
machine rolling, raising the death toll to an estimated 9,000 Syrians
in the year since the start of the uprising."
Insurgents killed most Syrians. No one knows the death toll. UN and
other official reports are baseless. Citing them is scandalous. Blaming
Assad for self-defense is outrageous. Times editors, writers, and commentators
do it regularly.
The Security Council should "take tough and unified action against (Assad)
and his forces." Russia and China "must stop protecting this brutal
"Any chance of ousting (Assad) - and restoring stability to Syria -
will require (both countries) ending their cynical and perilous game."
So far, Russia and China alone prevented war. Whether they'll be as
successful ahead looks shaky. They have major interests to protect.
As a result, they've stood firm despite relentless scoundrel media criticism
and less than diplomatic Washington disapproval.
Calling for Assad's ouster violates international law. Syria's sovereignty
is inviolable. Its people alone may decide who leads them. For sure
not The New York Times or other governments.
On April 10, a Times Asli Bali/Aziz Rana op-ed headlined, "To Stop the
Killing, Deal with Assad," saying:
In Syria, "(a)n authoritarian regime is engaged in brutal repression
and large-scale human rights violations."
The same unverified death toll was cited. So were other inaccurate comments.
"....large sections of the country oppose" Assad. (A)ll segments of
the civilian population would welcome intervention."
In fact, independent polls show most Syrians support him. The longer
Western-generated violence rages, the more it grows. Perhaps both contributors
consider it an inconvenient truth. In addition, Syrians deplore intervention
and rely on Assad for protection. So do nonviolent internal opposition
Both contributors do favor peaceful resolution, not taking sides in
an internal conflict. However, they avoid saying who's responsible,
and that international law affirms the right of self-defense.
Moreover, calling Annan's peace plan "a good starting point" misses
the issue altogether as explained above. It's not about peace. It's
cover for greater intervention, perhaps war.
Syrians indeed are "caught in the cross-fire." Who's responsible wasn't
Both contributors are law professors. Imagine what students get in their
On April 9, a Washington Post editorial headlined, "The UN's failed
plan for Syrian peace," saying:
"....(T) entirely predictable outcome of (Annan's peace plan) ought
now to be recognized: (Annan) and his backers have merely provided cover
for (Assad) to go on slaughtering his own people."
He imposed "new conditions for a cease-fire and has continued (his)
assaults on residential areas with artillery and tanks."
In fact, he's wrongly blamed for insurgent caused deaths.
"It was clear from the outset (he'd) never implement the U.N. terms,
including a cease-fire and tolerance of peaceful assembly, because to
do so would cause the collapse of his regime."
"The question now facing the administration and the Security Council
is also familiar: how to respond to (his) double-cross."
"The inescapable reality is that Mr. Assad will go on killing unless
and until he is faced with a more formidable military opposition. That
is why the shortest way to the end of the Syrian crisis is the one (Obama)
is resisting: military support for the opposition and, if necessary,
intervention by NATO."
Material discussed above exposes commentary this wrongheaded and scandalous.
Truth is nowhere in sight. Lies segue to new ones. The dirty game involved
is clear. Blame the victim. Support imperial lawlessness.
Like The Times and other scoundrel media, Post editors, writers, and
op-ed contributors specialize in managed news misinformation. They support
wealth and power, wrong over right, and war as an option of choice.
Never mind international as well as constitutional and US statute laws.
Never mind what Syrians want or the large majority of Americans opposing
intervention and wanting Washington's Afghan involvement ended. Instead
of explaining what's really going on and stakes too important to ignore,
doing so's avoided.
Media scoundrels won't quit until NATO ravages Syria like Libya and
other targeted countries. Their support makes war more likely. With
it comes mass deaths, destruction, exploitation, resource theft, and
How much more blood on their hands will they tolerate? Apparently no
amount's enough to satisfy them. Their appetite's insatiable. They keep
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at email@example.com.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge
discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News
Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time
and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy