ISRAEL’S MOSSAD BEHIND SARIN GAS ATTACKS IN SYRIA?

My neighbor up here in the heart of the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont is a guy I’ll just call “Tony”. He looks and speaks just like Steve Van Zant of the Netflix series “Lillehammer”. Tony, who seems so out of place in the quiet, spruce and fir-robed hills in the “Greens” has lived here for decades. The local IGA even “special order” the herb arugula just for Tony. The locals have always secretly suspected him of being in the Federal Witness Protection Program, though no one knows for sure. But just looking at him it is apparent that he has lived a hard, tough life for most of his sixty plus years.  He is a friendly and garrulous guy (one more reason, besides the arugula, he stands out as a stranger in this land of stolid and silent Vermonters) and will without hesitation give you his opinion on any number of subjects.  One of his most used phrases in response to the questions of “who did it? or who is responsible?”, is: “It's simple, ya jest follow the money."


Sometime last week, I read a piece in the Israeli journal Haretz, (in English) regarding “new” evidence of Syrian use of poison gas. Soon after, NPR (April 25) reported that our fresh-faced Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, who on his return from a trip to Israel, where he offered the Israelis more cheap armaments, immediately informed Congress that there is “new evidence” that Syria has used chemical weapons against its own citizens. That same day, I bumped into Tony at the Depot and asked him what he thought of these troubling developments.  He responded in his typical way, beginning with a silent stare, then, raising his eyebrows and extending his lower lip, he made a head nod and a shrug which just about buried his thick, bull neck.


 “First,” he said, using his big, soft hands like a conductor, “Obam was a jerk to put out that “red line”. Dat’s what I think. He got hisself pushed into a corner. He makes his own problems, that guy.”


“Yeah, I knew that,” I said, “but who’s really responsible? Assad?  The insurgent rebels? The Israelis? Maybe some right wing elements in the CIA?”


Hey “wallione”, what did I say? You don't remember good?  Jes follow the money!”


Later that night,  I read in The Daily Kos (April 25, 2013) a story that suggested that events were heating up, and sadly, beginning to reprise events prior to the Iraq war.  The administration informed select members of the Senate and Congress with a letter, an excerpt of which appeared in the Kos blog and which I duplicate below.


“Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin. This assessment is based in part on physiological samples. Our standard of evidence must build on these intelligence assessments as we seek to establish credible and corroborated facts. For example, the chain of custody is not clear, so we cannot confirm how the exposure occurred and under what conditions. We do believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime. Thus far, we believe that the Assad regime maintains custody of these weapons, and has demonstrated a willingness to escalate its horrific use of violence against the Syrian people.

Because of our concern about the deteriorating situation in Syria, the President has made it clear that the use of chemical weapons—or transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups—is a red line for the United States of America. [...]”


The key words here are “varying degrees of confidence”, “on a small scale”...the “chain of custody is not clear”, the Sarin gas exposure is “VERY LIKELY to have originated with the Assad Regime”, and last, the statement, "how exposure occurred and under what conditions” is not certain.  This there seems to be a lot of unknowns and inexplicable circumstances associated with this revelation which should make one very wary of drawing firm conclusions too quickly.


The next day, I listened to the “Economist” April 26, 2013 podcast, on Syria and its use of poison gas. It provided some further pertinent information. Apparently, the determination of the presence of Sarin was based on human tissue and soil samples smuggled out of the country. But more importantly, the incidents occurred over a short time and in THREE different places. Robert Fisk of the Independent (UK) reported on Sunday April 28, 2013 that the three “exposures” occurred in Homs, Aleppo, and the outskirts of Damascus. Fisk questions the veracity of the reports. But assuming they are valid, what do they tell us?


Using Tony’s dictum, “follow the money” (or in this case, follow the trail of motivations or perceived strategic advantages), one must wonder why the Assad Regime would use “small” quantities of Sarin gas, in which only a few people were sickened and which resulted in few if any deaths. And why in three different places?  What tactical,or strategic purpose could that serve a regime attempting to put down an insurrection? What for? Just to antagonize the international community and bring hovering drones and cruise missiles down on Assad’s palace?   An accident or a stray shell striking a storage depot might be the cause of small gas releases except that the evidences were found in three DIFFERENT locations. The facts that we have at hand, if correct, seem to suggest purposeful small releases, perhaps to make sure the evidence became available to a wider audience.  The insurgents present an obvious possibility as a source. But there is a need for special expertise and equipment to deploy this gas, these circumstances especially the small controlled releases are unlikely to be within their abilities. If they had the materials and expertise would it not be more likely that they would use it massively against the regime?


With present evidence it seems we must eliminate the possibility of accidental releases. And second there seems no rational motivation for the Assad Regime to use its weapons in the way described. That leaves the possibility of a third party attempting to manipulate the outcome of this tragic conflict.


All the major actors in the Middle East are well aware of Obama’s red line warning to the Syrian regime. I agree with Tony, Obama painted himself (with his own statements) into the box he and his administration find themselves. Why tie your own hands with unnecessary lines drawn in the sand and make the possibility of carefully considered decisions more difficult and politically fraught? Also the drawn sand line sets up the situation where a third party may intervene to precipitate an American response. It was a mistake, but being plagued with the reputation as a weak leader, perhaps Mr. Obama had to blab the way he did prior to  to insure his reelection.


But using Tony’s dictum, “follow the money” one must ask who could benefit from such evidence reaching the west and the US press. The data was reportedly unearthed and in the hands of the Israelis, British and French.  We can probably eliminate the French and British.  Why would they wish to antagonize Obama or press him into a war they do not want either? Our own CIA? That seems a bit of a stretch, more perhaps for a movie script than real life.


But let’s look at the Israeli balance sheet. What would their motivations be? They would gladly like to hold our coat while we pummel Assad into the Stone Age. The small release of Sarin gas in elected locations might be just the means of tripping Obama into a wider engagement in Syria. That would be a positive development in itself for the Netanyahu government. But suppose the US engagement in Syria was to bring Iran (who Israel considers its real enemy) into the fray. Iran and Syria are allies. Would that set up a situation in which Iran might be goaded into actions which could be considered a causus belli by the the US and Israel, who might then use that as an excuse to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities?  This may seem a long shot. But given our present information it is a distinct possibility. Perhaps this hypothesis is more likely than what the President and the US press are presently spouting.  The release of Sarin gas in Syria in three different locations in small quantities has all the handprints of a Mossad operation....”jest follow the money”.


Get the picture?


rjk