Showing posts with label “Arab NATO”. Show all posts
Showing posts with label “Arab NATO”. Show all posts

Monday, July 08, 2019

A Major Conventional War Against Iran Is an Impossibility. Crisis within the US Command Structure

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

In this article, we examine America’s war strategies, including its ability to launch an all out theater war against the Islamic Republic on Iran.
A follow-up article will focus on the History of US War Plans against Iran as well as the complexities underlying the Structure of Military Alliances. 
**
Under present conditions, an Iraq style all out Blitzkrieg involving the simultaneous deployment of ground, air and naval  forces is an impossibility. 
For several reasons. US hegemony in the Middle East has been weakened largely as a result of the evolving structure of military alliances.
The US does not have the ability to carry out such a project.
There are two main factors which determine America’s military agenda in relation to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
1. Iran’s Military
There is the issue of Iran’s military capabilities (ground forces, navy, air force, missile defense), namely its ability to effectively resist and respond to an all out conventional war involving the deployment of US and Allied forces. Within the realm of conventional warfare,  Iran has sizeable military capabilities. Iran is to acquire Russia’s S400 state of the art air defense system.
Iran is ranked as “a major military power” in the Middle East, with an estimated 534,000 active personnel in the army, navy, air force and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). It has advanced ballistic missile capabilities as well as a national defense industry. In the case of a US air attack, Iran would target US military facilities in the Persian Gulf.
2. Evolving Structure of Military Alliances
The second consideration has to do with the evolving structure of military alliances (2003-2019) which is largely to the detriment of the United States.
Several of America’s staunchest allies are sleeping with the enemy.
Countries which have borders with Iran including Turkey and Pakistan have military cooperation agreements with Iran. While this in itself excludes the possibility of a ground war, it also affects the planning of US and allied naval and air operations.
Until recently both Turkey (NATO heavyweight) and Pakistan were among America’s faithful allies, hosting US military bases.
From a broader military standpoint, Turkey is actively cooperating with both Iran and Russia. Moreover, Ankara has acquired (July 12, 2019) ahead of schedule Russia’s state of the art S-400 air defense system while de facto opting out from the integrated US-NATO-Israel air defense system.
Needless to say the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is in crisis. Turkey’s exit from NATO is almost de facto. America can no longer rely on its staunchest allies. Moreover, US and Turkish supported militia are fighting one another in Syria.
Moreover, several NATO member states have taken a firm stance against Washington’s Iran policy:  “European allies are grappling with mounting disagreements over foreign policy and growing irritated with Washington’s arrogant leadership style.”
“The most important manifestation of growing European discontent with U.S. leadership is the move by France and other powers to create an independent, “Europeans only” defense capability” (See National Interest, May 24, 2019)
Iraq has also indicated that it will not cooperate with the US in the case of a ground war against Iran.
Under present conditions, none of Iran’s neigbouring states including Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and Armenia would allow US-Allied ground forces to transit through their territory. Neither would they cooperate with the US in the conduct of an air war.
In recent developments, Azerbaijan which in the wake of the Cold War became a US ally as well as a member of NATO’s partnership for peace has changed sides. The earlier US-Azeri military cooperation agreements are virtually defunct including the post-Soviet GUAM military alliance (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova).
Bilateral military and intelligence agreements between Iran and Azerbaijan were signed in December 2018. In turn, Iran collaborates extensively with Turkmenistan. With regard to Afghanistan, the internal situation with the Taliban controlling a large part of Afghan territory, would not favor a large scale deployment of US and allied ground forces on the Iran-Afghan border.
Visibly, the policy of strategic encirclement against Iran formulated in the wake of the Iraq war (2003) is no longer functional. Iran has friendly relations with neighbouring countries, which previously were within the US sphere of influence.
The US is increasingly isolated in the Middle East and does not have the support of its NATO allies
Under these conditions, a major conventional theater war by the US involving the deployment of ground forces would be suicide.
This does not mean, however, that war will not take place. In some regards, with the advances in military technologies, an Iraq-style war is obsolete.
We are nonetheless at a dangerous crossroads. Other diabolical forms of military intervention directed against Iran are currently on the drawing board of the Pentagon. These include:
  • various forms of “limited warfare”, ie. targeted missile attacks,
  • US and Allied support of terrorist paramilitary groups
  • so-called “bloody nose operations” (including the use of tactical nuclear weapons),
  • acts of political destabilization and color revolutions
  • false flag attacks and military threats,
  • sabotage, confiscation of financial assets, extensive economic sanctions,
  • electromagnetic and climatic warfare, environmental modification techniques (ENMOD)
  • cyberwarfare
  • chemical and biological warfare.
US Central Command Forward Headquarters Located in Enemy Territory
Another consideration has to do with the crisis within the US Command structure.
USCENTCOM is the theater-level Combatant Command for all operations in the broader Middle East region extending from Afghanistan to North Africa. It is the most important Combat Command of the Unified Command structure. It has led and coordinated several major Middle East war theaters including Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003). It is also involved in Syria.
In the case of a war with Iran, operations in the Middle East would be coordinated by US Central Command with headquarters in Tampa, Florida in permanent liaison with its forward command headquarters in Qatar.
In late June 2019, after Iran shot down a U.S. drone President Trump “called off the swiftly planned military strikes on Iran” while intimating in his tweet that “any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force.”
US Central Command (CENTCOM), confirmed the deployment of the US Air Force F-22 stealth fighters to the al-Udeid airbase in Qatar, intended to “defend American forces and interests” in the region against Iran. (See Michael Welch, Persian Peril, Global Research, June 30, 2019). Sounds scary?
“The base is technically Qatari property playing host to the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command.” With 11,000 US military personnel, it is described as “one of the U.S. military’s most enduring and most strategically positioned operations on the planet”   (Washington Times). Al-Udeid also hosts the US Air Force’s 379th Air Expeditionary Wing, considered to be “America’s most vital overseas air command”.
What both the media and military analysts fail to acknowledge is that US CENTCOM’s forward Middle East headquarters at the al-Udeid military base close to Doha de facto “lies in enemy territory”
Since the May 2017 split of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Qatar has become a staunch ally of both Iran and Turkey (which is also an ally of Iran). While they have no “official” military cooperation agreement with Iran, they share in joint ownership with Iran the largest Worldwide maritime gas fields (see map below).
The split of the GCC has led to a shift in military alliances: In May 2017 Saudi Arabia blocked Qatar’s only land border. In turn Saudi Arabia as well as the UAE have blocked air transportation as well as commercial maritime shipments to Doha.
What is unfolding since May 2017 is a shift in Qatar’s trade routes with the establishment of bilateral agreements with Iran, Turkey as well as Pakistan. In this regard, Russia, Iran, and Qatar provide over half of the world’s known gas reserves.
The Al-Udeid base near Doha is America’s largest military base in the Middle East. In turn, Turkey has now established its own military facility in Qatar. Turkey is no longer an ally of the US. Turkish proxy forces in Syria are fighting US supported militia.
Turkey is now aligned with Russia and Iran. Ankara has now confirmed that it will be acquiring Russia’s S-400 missile air defense system which requires military cooperation with Moscow.
Qatar is swarming with Iranian businessmen, security personnel and experts in the oil and gas industry (with possible links to Iran intelligence?), not to mention the presence of Russian and Chinese personnel.
Question. How on earth can you launch a war on Iran from the territory of a close ally of Iran?
From a strategic point of view it does not make sense. And this is but the tip of the iceberg.
Notwithstanding the rhetoric underlying the official US-Qatar military relationship, The Atlantic Council, a think tank with close ties to both the Pentagon and NATO, confirms that Qatar is now a firm ally of both Iran and Turkey:
Put simply, for Qatar to maintain its independence, Doha will have essentially no choice but to maintain its strong partnership with Turkey, which has been an important ally from the perspective of military support and food security, as well as Iran. The odds are good that Iranian-Qatari ties will continue to strengthen even if Tehran and Doha agree to disagree on certain issues … On June 15 [2019], President Hassan Rouhani emphasizedthat improving relations with Qatar is a high priority for Iranian policymakers. … Rouhani told the Qatari emir that “stability and security of regional countries are intertwined” and Qatar’s head of state, in turn, stressed that Doha seeks a stronger partnership with the Islamic Republic. (Atlantic Council, June 2019, emphasis added)
What this latest statement by the Atlantic Council suggests is while Qatar hosts USCENTCOM’s forward headquarters, Iran and Qatar are (unofficially) collaborating in the area of “security” (i e. intelligence and military cooperation).
Sloppy military planning, sloppy US foreign policy? sloppy intelligence?
Trump’s statement confirms that they are planning to launch the war against Iran from their forward US Centcom headquarters at the Al Udeid military base, located in enemy territory. Is it rhetoric or sheer stupidity?
The Split of the GCC
The split of the GCC has resulted in the creation of a so-called Iran-Turkey-Qatar axis which has contributed to weakening US hegemony in the Middle East. While Turkey has entered into a military cooperation with Russia, Pakistan is allied with China. And Pakistan has become a major partner of Qatar.
Following the rift between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is in disarray with Qatar siding with Iran and Turkey against Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Qatar is of utmost strategic significance because it shares with Iran the world’s largest maritime gas fields in the Persian Gulf. (see map above). Moreover, since the GCC split-up Kuwait is no longer aligned Saudi Arabia. It nonetheless maintains a close relationship with Washington. Kuwait hosts seven active US military facilities, the most important of which is Camp Doha.
Needless to say, the May 2017 split of the GCC has undermined Trump’s resolve to create an “Arab NATO” (overseen by Saudi Arabia) directed against Iran. This project is virtually defunct, following Egypt’s withdrawal in April 2019.
The Gulf of Oman 
With the 2017 split up of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Oman appears to be aligned with Iran. Under these circumstances, the transit of US war ships to the headquarters of the US Fifth fleet in Bahrain not to mention the conduct of naval operations in the Persian Gulf are potentially in jeopardy.
The Fifth Fleet is under the command of US Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT). (NAVCENT’s area of responsibility consists of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Oman, the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea).
With the split up of the GCC, Oman is now aligned with Iran. Under these circumstances, the transit of US war ships to the headquarters of the US Fifth fleet in Bahrain not to mention the conduct of naval operations in the Persian Gulf would potentially be in jeopardy.
The strait of Hormuz which constitutes the entry point to the Persian Gulf from the Gulf of Oman is controlled by Iran and the Sultanate of Oman (see map, Oman territory at the tip of the Strait).
The width of the strait at one point is of the order of 39 km. All major vessels must transit through Iran and/or Oman territorial waters, under so-called customary transit passage provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
More generally, the structure of alliances is in jeopardy. The US cannot reasonably wage a full-fledged conventional theatre war on Iran without the support of its longstanding allies which are now “sleeping with the enemy”.
Trump’s Fractured “Arab NATO”. History of the Split up of the GCC. 
Amidst the collapse of  America’s sphere of influence in the Middle East, Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) consisted at the outset of his presidency in an improvised attempt to rebuild the structure of military alliances. What the Trump administration had in mind was the formation of a Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA), or  “Arab NATO”. This US-sponsored blueprint was slated to include Egypt and Jordan together with the six member states of the GCC.
The draft of the MESA Alliance had been prepared in Washington prior to Trump’s historic May 2017 visit to Saudi Arabia, meeting up with King Salman, leaders of the GCC as well as “more than 50 high-ranking officials from the Arab and Islamic worlds in an unprecedented US-Islamic summit.”
The Riyadh Declaration, issued at the conclusion of the summit on May 21, 2017, announced the intention to establish MESA in Riyadh.” (Arab News, February 19, 2019). The stated mandate of the “Arab NATO”  was to “to combat Iranian hegemony” in the Middle East.
Two days later on May 23, 2017 following this historic meeting, Saudi Arabia ordered the blockade of Qatar, called for an embargo and suspension of diplomatic relations with Doha, on the grounds that The Emir of Qatar was allegedly collaborating with Tehran.
What was the hidden agenda? No doubt it had already been decided upon in Riyadh on May 21, 2017  with the tacit approval of US officials.
The  plan was to exclude Qatar from the proposed MESA Alliance and the GCC, while maintaining the GCC intact.
What happened was a Saudi embargo on Qatar (with the unofficial approval of Washington) which resulted in the   fracture of the GCC with Oman and Kuwait siding with Qatar. In other words,  the GCC was split down the middle. Saudi Arabia was weakened and the “Arab NATO” blueprint was defunct from the very outset.

May 21, 2017: US-Islamic Summit in Riyadh
May 23, 2017: The blockade and embargo of Qatar following alleged statements by the Emir of Qatar. Was this event staged?
June 5, 2019: Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt sever diplomatic relations, cut off land, air and sea transportation with Qatar  accusing it of  supporting Iran.
June 7, 2017, Turkey’s parliament pass legislation allowing Turkish troops to be deployed to a Turkish military base in Qatar
January 2018, Qatar initiates talks with Russia with a view to acquiring Russia’s  S-400 air defense system.

Flash forward to mid-April 2019: Trump is back in Riyadh: This time the Saudi Monarchy was entrusted by Washington to formally launching the failed Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA) (first formulated in 2017) despite the fact that three of the invited GCC member states, namely Kuwait, Oman and Qatar were committed to the normalization of relations with Iran. In turn, the Egyptian government of President Sisi decided to boycott the Riyadh summit and withdraw from the “Arab NATO” proposal. Cairo also clarified its position vis a vis Tehran.  Egypt firmly objected to Trump’s plan because it “would increase tensions with Iran”.
Trump’s objective was to create an “Arab Block”. What he got in return was a truncated MESA “Arab Block” made up of a fractured GCC with Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Jordan.
Egypt withdraws.
Kuwait and Oman officially took a neutral stance.
Qatar sided with the enemy, thereby further jeopardizing America’s sphere of influence in the Persian Gulf.
An utter geopolitical failure. What kind of alliance is that.
And US Central Command’s Forward headquarters is still located in Qatar despite the fact that two years earlier on May 23, 2017, the Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, was accused by Saudi Arabia and the UAE of collaborating with Iran.
It is unclear who gave the order to impose the embargo on Qatar. Saudi Arabia would not have taken that decision without consulting Washington. Visibly, Washington’s intent was to create an Arab NATO Alliance (An Arab Block) directed against Iran “to do the dirty work for us”.
Trump and the Emir of Qatar, UN General Assembly, October 2017, White House photo
The rest is history, the Pentagon decided to maintain US Central Command’s forward headquarters in Qatar, which happens to be Iran’s closest ally and partner.
A foreign policy blunder? Establishing your “official” headquarters in enemy territory, while “unofficially” redeploying part of the war planes, military personnel and command functions to other locations (e.g. in Saudi Arabia)?
No press reports, no questions in the US Congress. Nobody seemed to have noticed that Trump’s war on Iran, if it were to be carried out, would be conducted from the territory of Iran’s closest ally.
An impossibility?

Monday, April 15, 2019

Premature death for anti-Iran coalition

Tehran, April 14, IRNA - US efforts to form a coalition of Middle Eastern countries called 'Arab NATO' to confront the Islamic Republic of Iran failed from the very beginning due to the gulf created between the Persian Gulf states and Egypt's opposition to the decision.

Reuters quoted four informed sources as saying that Egypt lagged behind the US strategic plan to form an alliance called the Arab NATO to curb Iran's activities in the region. 

Egypt has the largest army in the Arab world, and observers believe that the country’s withdrawing from the plan is a tough defeat for the coalition, especially Saudi Arabia. Egyptian magazine Al-Majd in this regard wrote that the withdrawal of Egypt suggests that the coalition faces serious challenges as a result of differences of opinion between the member-states regarding the identification of their common enemy. This has led to premature death for the so-called Arab NATO. 

** Egypt's departure; Crushing below to anti-Iran coalition 

The Lebanese Al-Markazia News Agency in a report entitled 'The New Arab NATO's Failure; Is It a Crushing Blow?' wrote that the Arab NATO, on the eve of its preparatory meeting in Riyadh on Sunday (April 14th), suffered another loss. The news leaked that Egypt which has withdrawn from Arab NATO plan, has put coalition leaders in a turbulent situation. Egypt's withdrawal from the Arab NATO plan while member-states of this coalition are worried about Trump's failure in the upcoming presidential elections, has made the situation more complicated. These countries are worried that the successor of Trump would put aside the Arab NATO formation in general and will ignore it in the middle of the road. This will have backfires for the members of the coalition and put them in a weaker position vis-à-vis Iran. 

Egypt's withdrawal from the coalition is due to the developments in Sudan because Egypt, unlike other Arab countries, supported the coup in Sudan, , according to Al-Markazia. Cairo's priority is not to confront Tehran. Egypt focuses on the political developments in North Africa, especially Libya and Sudan, which can threaten the national security of Egypt. Egypt, in a situation where its backyard is witnessing dangerous military and political developments, will not endeavor in other parts of the world. 

Egyptian magazine Al-Majd said in a report that Egypt's withdrawal from the Arab NATO has revealed the situation inside the coalition and showed fragility of the coalition under the current conditions. It can be said that there is no meaning for Arab NATO without Egypt, because other Arab NATO member-states lack the necessary mechanisms, especially at the military level for coalition, and the absence of Egypt will eliminate the idea of forming an Arab NATO. At the beginning, there was a lot of enthusiasm about the formation of the Arab NATO. But as time elapsed, NATO collapsed before its formation, and there was no enthusiasm in this matter with the absence of Egypt at the meetings on the formation of Arab NATO. The responsibility and the main burden of this coalition was to be left to Egypt, and now with the withdrawal of Egypt from it, the coalition no longer has any meaning. 

The Ray al- Youm newspaper wrote in an article written by Abdel Bari Atwan, 'Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi recently slapped into the United States’ face firmly. His first slap was when he took the decision to withdraw from the Middle East Security-Economic Alliance called the Sunni Arab NATO. His second slap was his decision to buy the Su-35 fighter from Russia as the replacement of the US F-16s and F-35s. 

According to the Palestinian analyst, if the withdrawal of Egypt from Arab NATO will be truly implemented it will be a courageous decision that will save Cairo from the slavery of America and the Persian Gulf states and restore its independence and dignity. Perhaps this decision will be an introduction to changing Cairo's policies in cooperation with the occupying Israeli regime in Sinai, which many people in the Arab world to do. If this decision of the Egyptian government is accompanied by an open-minded political approach and respect for human rights and avoiding oppressive policies towards various Egyptian political organizations, it will be welcomed by many people in the region. 

** Obstacles to formation of Arab NATO 

According to the Arabic part of 'Sputnik' news agency, the mission to form a coalition in this area is not easy due to because Russia is odds with the US and some Persian Gulf states over regional issues. In this regard, the retired Lt. Col. Mahmud al-Radisat of the Jordanian army told Sputnik that the idea of forming an Arab NATO is generally unrealistic because there is no clear goal in the Arab world and among the Arab countries that they can agree on through a military alliance. On the contrary, the Arab world faces internal tensions and contradictions in interests, and each country is looking for its own interests and gains, especially on regional issues like the developments in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and the Palestinian question. Qatari government also disagrees with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt, and Qatar's foreign minister, Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman, said the diplomatic crisis between the Persian Gulf states has not been resolved and the US plan for coalition in the Middle East is doomed to fail. 


The Jordanian analyst added, 'The United States is working for making coalition, and we believe that the main problems need to be solved for this coalition. One cannot be besotted with a coalition whose countries are always at odds with each other. Only Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain support the US government's passion and enthusiasm for formulating Arab NATO, but Qatar, Kuwait and Oman have good relations with Iran. Egypt and Jordan are not worried about Iran's influence and have focused their foreign policy priorities on the Arab-Israeli tension. 

In this regard, a military expert Khalil al-Halo, told the Lebanese Markazia news agency that the US strategy would not be realized. The difference between the Arab countries is an obstacle to the political alliance to be formed between these countries against Iran. The military coalition needs a similar strategy for the region and this strategy is not provided by Washington's regional allies. 

Qatar's Aljazeera wrote that the coalition seems impossible, due to some disagreements, the first of which is determining the source of the threat. The Saudis, the UAE, and Bahrain say that Iran is the main threat, while others don’t think so.

According to Aljazeera, Giorgio Cafiero, a Persian Gulf analyst, said that the Saudis and their allies' blockade against Qatar has complicated the region.

Florence Gaub, a security and strategy analyst, believes that there are two major challenges to create the Arab NATO. First, trust between the members is fading away. Second, the nature of the challenges of the Arab states, which don’t originate in direct military threats; their real challenges are domestic groups out of the central governments' control.

Monday, September 17, 2018

Is a ‘Suez’ Event Being Prepared for Syria?

Is a ‘Suez’ Event Being Prepared for Syria?

So, the metamorphosis is done. President Trump has finally, fully, shed his 2016 Campaign ‘skin’ of loosely imagining a grand foreign policy bargain that could be the foundation for “WORLD PEACE, nothing less!” as Trump tweeted when imposing sanctions on Iran.  We wrote, on 3 August, quoting Prof Russell-Mead, that Trump’s ‘8 May metamorphosis’ (the US exit from JCPOA), constituted a step-change of direction: one that reflected “[Trump’s] instincts, telling him that most Americans are anything but eager, for a “post-American” world. Trump’s supporters don’t want long wars, “but neither are they amenable to a stoic acceptance of national decline”.
It all began, very precisely, with Trump’s ‘8 May metamorphosis’ - which is to say, to the moment when the US president definitively took the Israeli ‘line’: exiting from the Iranian nuclear accord, deciding to sanction and to lay siege to Iran’s economy, and when he endorsed the (old, never materialized) idea of a Sunni ‘Arab NATO’, led by Riyadh, that would confront Shi’a Iran. 
In practical terms, Trump’s Art of the Deal geo-strategy, as we now see, became thus transformed into the search for radical US leverage (through weaponising a strong dollar and tariffs) -- looking always to the means to force the capitulation of the counter-party.  This cannot be rightly termed negotiation: It is rather, more as if the script has been lifted from The Godfather.
But, when Trump unreservedly took the Israeli (or, more properly the Netanyahu) ‘line’, he assumed to himself all ‘the baggage’ that comes with it, too. The 1996 Clean Break document, prepared by a study group led by Richard Perle for Binjamin Netanyahu, meshed the Israeli and US neocon camps into one.  And they are still umbilically linked.  ‘Team Trump’ now is filled with neocons who are unreserved Iran-haters.  And Sheldon Adelson (a major Trump donor, a patron of Netanyahu, and the instigator for the US embassy move to Jerusalem), consequently has been able to implant his ally, John Bolton (a neocon), as Trump’s chief foreign policy advisor.
The Art of the Deal has effectively been neocon-ised into a tool for enlarging American power – and there is nothing of earlier ‘mutual advantage’ to be heard of, or to be seen, these days.
And now, this week, the metamorphosis has been cemented. After the Helsinki summit between Trump and President Putin, there seemed to have opened a small window of opportunity – for co-operation between the two states - to return stability to Syria.  Many hoped that from this small terrain of tentative Syria co-ordination, some lessening of tensions between the US and Russia, might have found fertile soil. 
Trump said some positive things; the area around Dera’a, in south Syria, was smoothly cleared of insurgents, and was retaken by the Syrian army.  Israel did not demur in having the Syrian army as their near neighbours.  But then co-operation rather obviously stalled.  It is not clear why, but perhaps this was the first sign of power fracturing apart in Washington. The Helsinki ‘understandings’ somehow were melting away (though military-to-military co-ordination continued). 
Putin dispatched the head of the Russian Security Council to a meeting with Bolton in Geneva on 23 August, to explore whether there was still any possibility for joint co-operation; and, if so, was such activity politically ‘viable’. But before even that bilateral meeting with a Russian envoy could be held, Bolton - speaking from Jerusalem (from what was billed as a ‘roll-back Iran’ brainstorming with PM Netanyahu) - warned that the United States would respond "very strongly" if forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were to use chemical weapons in the offensive to retake Idlib province (expected to commence early September), claiming that the US had intelligence of the intent to use such weapons in Idlib.
The Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, however, said on August 25 "Militants of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), [trained by a named British company], are preparing to stage a chemical attack in northern Syria that will be used as a pretext for a new missile strike by the U.S., the UK and France - on facilities of the Damascus government". Russian officials said they had full intelligence on this false flag operation.
What is clear is that since early August the US has been moving a task force (including the USS The Sullivans and USS Ross) into position that would be able to strike Syria, as well as positioning air assets into the US airbase in Qatar.   French President Emmanuel Macron too has declared that France was also ready to launch new strikes against Syria, in case of a chemical weapons attack there.
The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet says that the US military is laying the groundwork to close the airspace over northern Syria. US military freighters are reported to have transported radar systems to the city of Kobanî, controlled by the Kurdish militia, and to the US military base in Al-Shaddadah in southern al-Hasakah. Hurriyet claims that the US plans to use these complexes to establish a no-fly zone over the territory between Manbij in Aleppo and Deir ez-Zor. (This claim however, is unconfirmed)
Evidently, Russia takes this US threat seriously (it has deployed 20 naval vessels into the E. Mediterranean, off Syria).  And Iran evidently takes the threat seriously, too. The Iranian Defence Minister on Sunday made a rapid unscheduled visit to Damascus in order to agree a tri-partite (Russia, Syria Iran) response to any US attack on Syria.
Then, in the wake of Bolton’s chemical weapons claims, and the pre-positioning of US guided-missile vessels close to Syria, Petrushev and Bolton met.  The meeting was a disaster.  Bolton insisted that Petrushev admit to Russian interference in the US elections.  Petrushev refused.  Trump said we have ‘secret’ evidence.  Petrushev retorted if that were so, what was the purpose of demanding admission.  Bolton said effectively: We sanction you anyway. 
Well… not surprisingly, the two were unable to agree on Iranian withdrawal from Syria (which Petrushev put on the table).  Bolton not only said flatly ‘no’, but afterwards went public with the Russian initiative to talk possible Iran withdrawal – thus killing it, and killing the initiative as a gambit to leverage further diplomacy.  Even the customary, bland, uninformative, final communiqué that is usual in such circumstances, could not be agreed.
The message seems clear: any Helsinki understandings on Syria are dead.  And the US is prepared it seems (they have actually moved assets into position) to strike Syria.  Why?  What is going on?
One obvious element is, that until now, Trump's hand in all this is not visible. Now, power appears to have fractured in Washington with regard to Middle East policy.  The neocons are in the lead. This is very significant, since the slender pillar on which Trump's rapport with President Putin had been built, was the prospect of US-Russian co-operation over Syria.  And that hat seems, now, to be a dead letter. 
Lawrence Wilkerson, now a professor, but formerly the Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell during the infamous Saddam Hussein’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’ episode says it ‘cold’:
“It has to do… with the return of the Neoconservatives (Neocons)… what is happening today, as Trump is preoccupied increasingly with the considerable, ever-growing challenges to him personally and to his presidency institutionally, is the re-entry into critical positions in the government of these people, the people who gave America the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Even those many of them who declared “Never Trump”—as arch-Neocon Eliot Cohen summed it up—are salivating at the prospect of carrying out their foreign and security policy - while Trump essentially boils in his own corrupt juices.
“A vanguard, of course, is already in our government to beckon, comfort, and re-establish others of their type.  John Bolton as national security advisor to the president leads this pack though he’s not, strictly speaking, a card-carrying Neocon …
“Presently, their first and most identifiable target is the unfinished business—which they largely commenced—with Syria and Iran, Israel’s two most serious potential threats. If the Neocons got their way—and they are remarkably astute at getting their way—it would mean a reignited war in Syria and a new war with Iran, as well as increased support for the greatest state sponsor of terrorism on earth, Saudi Arabia”.
Bolton, Pompeo and the neocons have made it abundantly clear that they  at least have not abandoned 'regime change' in Syria, as their objective - and they remain set on delivering somehow a strategic setback to Iran (Bolton has said that sanctions alone, on their own, and without Iran suffering some extra strategic blow, would be insufficient to alter Iranian ‘malign behaviour’).
Whether or not Mattis and Votel are fully on board with Bolton’s “very strong” military reprisal on Syria threat (for alleged chemical weapons use) is not clear.  (Mattis succeeded in mitigating the last missile strike by Trump on Syria, and to co-ordinating with Moscow a ‘nil response’ to Trump’s Tomahawk salvo). Will it be the same this time if the US again makes an unsubstantiated (and later unproven) claim of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government?
Will Israel join in any attack – using the pre-text of its self-awarded ‘right’ to attack Iranian forces anywhere in Syria?  Given the new strategic ‘fact’ of the Iranian Defence minister’s ‘surprise’ Sunday visit to Damascus to sign a common resolve on countering any such attack on Syria. Will Netayahu ‘bet’ on the Russians not responding to hostile Israeli aircraft entering Syrian airspace?
Who will blink first?  Netanyahu? Or will Trump surface from his domestic tribulations sufficiently, to take notice and to say ‘no’?
Whatever happens, Presidents Putin and Xi can ‘read the runes’ of this affair – which is to say that President Trump’s highest officials remain committed, openly, or through ‘false flags’, to defend the American ‘global order’. These officials share a disdain for the Obama administration’s retrenchment and retreat. They want to arrest, and even truncate the rise of America’s rivals, whilst restoring to their former position, those former pillars to U.S. world power: i.e. America’s military, financial, technological and energy, dominance.
Russia is trying to defuse the critical situation by sharing their intelligence with Washington that Tahrir al-Sham (formerly known as al-Nusra), was plotting a chemical attack that would then be misrepresented as another ‘atrocity’ committed by the ‘Syrian regime’. Eight canisters of chlorine have been delivered to a village near Jisr al-Shughur city, and a specially trained group of militants, prepped by a British security company, have also arrived in the area, to imitate a rescue operation to save the civilian ‘victims’.  Militants plan to use child hostages in the staged incident, Russian officials say.
But will Washington listen?  From the moment that the Syrian or the Iranian ‘regime’ is subjected to a judgement of moral delinquency (irrespective of evidence) – in the context of America’s claim to its own Manifest (moral) Destiny – these ‘regimes’ become transformed from being a temporary, relative adversaries, into an absolute enemy.  For, when one is upholding humanity’s ‘destiny’ and seeking “WORLD PEACE, nothing less!”, how can one wage war - unless it is in the name of a self-evident good. What is afoot is not attacking an adversary, but punishing and killing the guilty.
Faced with the radical moral devaluation of the ‘Other’ across western media; and - on the other hand - with the virtue signaling of western good consciousness, can Russia’s rational presentations hope to carry weight?  The only fact that might just weigh in the balance is the threat that Russia will use its missile arsenal assembling in the East Mediterranean.  But what then?

ALASTAIR CROOKE

Alastair CROOKE
Former British diplomat, founder and director of the Beirut-based Conflicts Forum.