Wie zit er achter de aanslag met chemische wapens in Syrië?

 

On the surface it’s straightforward: the U.S. wants to liberate Syria from a brutal dictator who is attacking his own people with poison gas. But beneath the surface there is something very different going on. For it is there that the story about chemical weapons turns out to be different than first thought, and with other arguments appearing to play a leading role in the battle for Syria. The main prize at stake in this battle: Iran. Earlier, once the parties involved proved unable to claim this prize, it became obvious to them that the road to Tehran runs through Damascus.

 

The battle for Syria is thus a battle for Iran, and is it most fundamentally a battle for influence and energy. The goal of those seeking to attack Syria is to shift the current balance of power within both Syria and Iran and in the surrounding region. By shifting the balance of power, they gain access to the flows of energy. In order to achieve this goal, the Western component of the forces which are arrayed against Syria needs the support of its citizenry. Hence the current debate over the use of chemical weapons. Even though this debate is focused on the form rather than the content, it is still useful to examine the issue in detail.

 

The West is holding President Assad responsible for the gas attack. According to Russia, the rebels are behind the attack. How realistic is this second scenario? The fact is that this wouldn’t be the first time that such a thing is conceivable. Back in December, a defectorstatedthat it was quite possible that the rebels could gain access to Assad’s chemical weapons. It is precisely this scenario that Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy described as being 'almost inevitable'. In May, UN researcher Carla Del Pontesaidthat there were indications that sarin had been used. “This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities.” And there are more signs pointing in this direction as well. In July, Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN,presentedevidence to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council of a chemical weapons attack that was carried out in Aleppo in March. This evidence indicated that the attack was the work of the rebels. Portions of the report from which he cites have since been madepublic. Later, following the now infamousattackon 21 August on the Ghouta region from the rebel-besieged town of Douma, he presented evidence assembled from satellite data, as reported by sources (1,2). This information has thus far remained sealed behind closed doors at the UN. The Associated Presswritesthat the U.S. no longer knows for sure who has control of what weapons. There are so manyreportson how and when rebels could have put their hands on chemical weapons that there is no room to list them all here. Perhaps it is this flurry of reports that, despite the stern statements made by John Kerry in his speech, 'U.S. intelligence officials arenot so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders.'

 

And then there are the potential weapons shipments from interested parties located outside Syria. Take for example Qatar, which is responsible for funding a major portion ofthe international fight against Syria. This country has already invested three billiondollars in the effort. But there is also another country with huge interests at stake: Saudi Arabia. There is anarticlecirculating from Dale Gavlak, a reporter who has covered the Middle East for decades for the Associated Press and many other news agencies. In the article he explains that the chemical attack which occurred on the 21st of August was carried out by the rebels by mistake. The chief of the Saudi intelligence agency, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, is alleged to be behind the chemical weapons shipment, but 'they didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,' complained one female fighter. 'We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.' It was Bandar who first tipped offthe U.S. to the use of chemical weapons, which according to him was perpetrated by the Syrian regime. And it was Israel, another country with interests at stake, whichsuppliedthe U.S., and thus Kerry, with intelligence that the Secretary of State used in his forceful speech. At the same time, it is alreadywell knownthat Israel fabricated evidence in the past that was used by the U.S. against Iran. Is this Israeli intelligence the ‘evidence’ that wassharedwith a secret session of the Dutch parliament this past Wednesday in The Hague?