False Flag: Trump Warns ‘Animal Assad’ Over Chemical Weapons Attack That Killed 70

Standard

Caving to neocon interests, US President Donald Trump has said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will have a “big price to pay” for allegedly launching a deadly chemical weapons attack on civilians — and blamed Iran and Russian President Vladimir Putin for backing “animal Assad”.

This follows Trump’s earlier decision to strike a Syrian airbase in April 2017 in retaliation for Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons against his own people.

Recent tweets from Trump appear to advocate a direct overthrow of Assad.

In one of the tweets, Trump slammed Obama, who vowed in 2012 that such actions (a chemical weapons attack) would cross a “red line,” but later failed to enforce the promise a year later when hundreds of Syrians were killed by sarin gas.

Instead, Obama brokered a multi-nation deal in which Syrian President Bashar Assad pledged to remove his chemical-weapons stockpile.


The continuation of war.

This latest, likely false flag chemical weapons attack in Syria follows the defeat of ISIS, and provides the much-needed justification for the Zionist-neocon lobby to keep the US forces in Syria indefinitely — and judging by the heated rhetoric, maybe even move to overthrow Assad.

Despite all this, at a rally in Cleveland last week, Trump said that the US will get out of Syria “very soon.” It is now clear that the 4,000 US troops currently occupying Syria will in fact stay in Syria.

But just as Trump again comes out urging for military withdrawal, a false flag crops up and the US is thrown back into contention. The strings are being pulled.

Trump buying into this latest publicity stunt is a worrying sign of escalation and further interventionism — it was only a matter of time before something came up and the banker’s war was given a new lease of life.

30443265_481782188890667_6331916112679982069_n


There’s no motive for Syria to use chemical weapons and draw more attention to itself.

There is no reason for Assad to attack his own people with chemical weapons, the motive is not there, he wants deescalation and for NATO to leave Syria, why would he create reasons for further occupation? — also, the means of carrying out the attack aren’t there if we take Assad’s word for the dismantlement of Syria’s chemical weapons. If there are no means, there is no opportunity to carry out the attack to begin with.

Last year, a Syrian military statement published by state media on 4 April denied the use of “any chemical or toxic substance”, saying that the military “has never used them, anytime, anywhere, and will not do so in the future”.

President Bashar al-Assad subsequently said the 2017 chemical weapons incident was a “fabrication” used to justify a US cruise missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat airbase on 7 April.

Now, in 2018, history is repeating itself.

This shock-factor child poster image from the Zionist-owned Associated Press is up across all the mainstream media outlets.


US intelligence has links to training ‘moderate’ rebels in using chemical weapons.

Globalresearch reports:

CNN accuses Bashar Al Assad of killing his own people while also acknowledging that the “rebels” are not only in possession of chemical weapons, but that these “moderate terrorists” affiliated with Al Nusra are trained in the use of chemical weapons by specialists on contract to the Pentagon.

Moscow has provided evidence that the U.S is training Al Qaeda affiliated “militants groups” in the use of chemical. A March 17, Russia’s Ministry of Defense  states the following:

“We have reliable information at our disposal that US instructors have trained a number of militant groups in the vicinity of the town of At-Tanf, to stage provocations involving chemical warfare agents in southern Syria. The provocations will be used as a pretext by the United States and its allies to launch strikes on military and government infrastructure in Syria.”

The CNN report by Barbara Starr below dated September 2013 ultimately confirms Russia’s allegations.

Moreover, in an earlier report dated December 9 2012, CNN confirms that:

“The training [in chemical weapons], which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.

The nationality of the trainers was not disclosed, though the officials cautioned against assuming all are American. (CNN, December 09, 2012, emphasis added)

The above report by CNN’s award winning journalist Elise Labott (relegated to the status a CNN blog), refutes CNN’s numerous accusations directed against Bashar Al Assad.

Who is doing the training of terrorists in the use of chemical weapons? From the horse’s mouth: CNN

And these are the same terrorists (trained by the Pentagon) who are the alleged target of Washington’s counter-terrorism bombing campaign initiated by Obama in August 2014:

“The Pentagon scheme established in 2012 consisted in equipping and training Al Qaeda rebels in the use of chemical weapons, with the support of military contractors hired by the Pentagon, and then holding the Syrian government responsible  for using the WMD against the Syrian people.

What is unfolding is a diabolical scenario –which is an integral part of military planning– namely a situation where opposition terrorists advised by Western defense contractors are actually in possession of chemical weapons.

This is not a rebel training exercise in non-proliferation. While president Obama states that “you will be held accountable” if “you” (meaning the Syrian government) use chemical weapons, what is contemplated as part of this covert operation is the possession of chemical weapons by the US-NATO sponsored terrorists, namely “by our” Al Qaeda affiliated operatives, including the Al Nusra Front which constitutes the most effective Western financed and trained fighting group, largely integrated by foreign mercenaries. In a bitter twist, Jabhat al-Nusra, a US sponsored “intelligence asset”, was recently put on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

The West claims that it is coming to the rescue of the Syrian people, whose lives are allegedly threatened by Bashar Al Assad. The truth of the matter is that the Western military alliance is not only supporting the terrorists, including the Al Nusra Front, it is also making chemical weapons available to its proxy “opposition” rebel forces.

The next phase of this diabolical scenario is that the chemical weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda operatives will be used against civilians, which could potentially lead an entire nation into a humanitarian disaster.

The broader issue is: who is a threat to the Syrian people? The Syrian government of Bashar al Assad or the US-NATO-Israel military alliance which is recruiting “opposition” terrorist forces, which are now being trained in the use of chemical weapons.” (Michel Chossudovsky, May 8, 2013, minor edit)

New U.S. National Security Adviser Threatens to Change Iranian Regime by 2019

Standard

Naming Bolton suggests Trump is ready to pull out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal by May 12, the deadline for Trump to waive sanctions. The deal trades sanctions relief for a rollback of Iran’s nuclear program. Bolton is a staunch opponent of the deal, as is Mike Pompeo, the CIA chief Trump nominated last week to replace Rex Tillerson as secretary of state.

The now likely doomed 2015 nuclear deal lifted sanctions on Iran but placed strict limits on its nuclear programme.

Bolton has multiple times said striking Iran to stop it from going nuclear may be inevitable; “I don’t make any disguise of the idea that ultimately it may take an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear program to stop it,” he told the conservative Washington Free Beacon last August.

Tillerson and McMaster both didn’t like the deal but counseled not pulling out of it now that it is in place, because Iran is complying with its narrow strictures, and pulling out would remove whatever leverage the United States has with U.S. allies to pressure Iran outside the deal’s confines. That leaves James Mattis, the defense secretary, as the only Cabinet level official who opposes leaving the deal.

Bolton’s Zionist ties.

Bolton has close relations with the pro-Israel community stemming from his success in 1991 in getting the United Nations to rescind its Zionism is racism resolution. Bolton was at the time the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs under President George H. W. Bush.

Bush’s son, George W. Bush, nominated Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations in 2005 and named him acting ambassador. Bolton never cleared the Senate nominating process, in part because of his hawkishness on Middle Eastern issues, but also because subordinates at the State Department emerged to describe him as an abusive boss. Bolton had under the younger Bush been the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs.

Pro-Israel groups, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, at the time broke with protocol and endorsed a nominee, but to no avail.

McMaster got along well with his Israeli counterparts but angered some on the right wing of the pro-Israel community because of reports that he blocked Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Trump ultimately recognized Jerusalem last December.

Bolton’s anti-Iran stance.

Bolton promised members of the Iranian opposition that the Iranian regime will be overthrown by 2019 during a meeting in the French capital of Paris eight months ago, the Intercept reported on March 25.

“Before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!” Bolton told members of the Iranian opposition group, People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), according to the Intercept.

During the meeting, Bolton said that a regime change in Iran is needed because the current regime is not going to change its behavior and vowed to forbid the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini from celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution, that’s on February 11, 2019.

The MEK , which has an armed wing, was a part of the 1979 Iranian revolution with Khomeini and even carried out some attacks against US interests in the country back then. However, after failing to gain the power, the group has become the main opponent of the Iranian regime.

According to Iranian sources, more than 16,000 people have been killed in violent attacks conducted by the MEK inside Iran since 1979. The attacks have included a series of assassinations and bombings, which have targeted Iranian officials and civilians.

Despite all of these crimes, the MEK has been spending millions of dollars during the last few years to present itself as a moderate group that’s ready to replace the current regime of Iran if the West decides to support a regime change war there, according to the Intercept.

Bolton’s endorsement of the MEK and his promise to overthrow the Iranian regime were not a surprise to most observers. Killing the nuclear deal with Iran is the least to expect from the new warmonger national security adviser, according to several observers, who also believe that a US war on Iran is steadily becoming more likely.

“The declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the Mullah’s regime in Tehran. The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and therefore the only solution is to change the regime itself.”

John Bolton, US National Security Advisor.

Trump Officially Declares Trade War on China Days Before Launch of Petroyuan

Standard

D-Day for the US Dollar: China’s Petroyuan oil futures contracts to be issued from 26th March 2018.

Between 1944 and 1971, the international monetary system, known colloquially as the Bretton Woods System, revolved around the gold backed US Dollar. Whether in Africa or Asia, a US Dollar was literally as good as gold, because it was pegged to and therefore could be converted to gold anywhere in the world. Then in 1971, US President Richard Nixon made the decision to un-peg the US Dollar from a gold standard, thus transforming the world’s major currency into a floating fiat currency.

In order to maintain the Dollar’s position as the world’s leading currency, the US reached an agreement with the leaders of OPEC, Saudi Arabia in particular, to sell oil exclusively in US Dollars, irrespective of who the buyer was.

This system remained largely unchallenged until the the arrival of a non-Dollar based economy, China, as the new leading economic power of the world, whose GDP will soon eclipse that of the US. Already, China purchases more oil than any other country in the world, in spite of its increased domestic energy production and furthermore, China now has the world’s highest purchasing power of any nation on earth. Even before oil became the highly valued commodity it became in the 20th century, the nation with the largest economy and more importantly, the largest and most wide reaching purchasing power, has traditionally set the bar for their own currency becoming the de-facto global currency of exchange and the most pervasive reserve currency for global treasuries.

Western-aligned states will shift to Eastern alignment.

For China and China’s partners this means that they will be able to set the terms of major international trade deals. For OPEC, it means intensifying discussions with China and China’s long term partners, as opposed to the US and its long term partners. This means that even traditional US allies like Saudi Arabia will begin looking to open new doors with China in preparation for an oil export market that will see banknotes featuring images of Mao Zedong supplant those with images of George Washington.

This will have a knock on-effect in geopolitics, making the richest countries in the Arab world, particularly those in the Gulf Cooperation Council, less attached to US foreign policy making. If China becomes their biggest trading partner and if the trade is conducted in the Petroyuan, it will be China whose geostrategic goals will be able to hold sway in the court of Gulfi Arab monarchies rather than the whims of Washington. Already, Saudi Arabia has begun courting China, likely in order to attract investment for its new megaproject, the creation of a massive new city on the Gulf of Aqaba.

U.S. sanctions will lose their effectiveness.

The Petroyuan will also help to render US Treasury sanctions far less effective, as countries whose global trade is linked in with Chinese monetary and trade policies, will be out of the loop of the US Dollar based system. This represents new opportunities for countries as diverse as Syria, Venezuela, Iran and if the right conditions are met from Beijing’s perspective, also the DPRK.

While Washington denies that its Federal Reserve system is now the biggest basis for its continued, however waning international influence, the fact that US political leaders are openly horrified by the arrival of China and its Petroyuan, is a prima facie admission that while China has industry, innovation, military might and is on the cusp of edging the Dollar out as the world’s leading reserve and trading currency, soon the US will have little but military might to show for its superpower status and given how expensive this military might is for the US, the changes in world monetary markets, could also impact America’s ability to invest in its own military-industrial complex.

The myth of an “undervalued” Yuan.

Of course, the US accuses China of purposefully undervaluing the Yuan so as to make Chinese exports more affordable and thus attractive. What the US hasn’t considered is that when the Yuan becomes the de-facto global reserve currency, it’s floating rate will likely be higher than that of the US Dollar. In this sense, the lesson for the US is “be careful what you wish for” and the lesson for China is that if the US seeks to shut Chinese goods out of the US market with tariffs, sanctions or even embargoes – then China has nothing to lose by floating the Yuan and letting the Dollar’s value sink vis-a-vis the Yuan.

China is in a win-win position vis-a-vis the US Dollar, while for the US, Washington and Wall Street will have to examine how major European currencies coped in the post-Bretton Woods and pre-Euro period. Ultimately, the only way the US will be able to cope in such an environment is to invest more into domestic production in order to regenerate confidence in a Dollar whose value will have to be based on what America does, rather than what America was. While technically the US still is a monetary leader, when the Yuan inevitably eclipses the Dollar, the US will have to get used to the word was in respect of global hegemonic monetary dominance. Much to the relief of millions, the US will no longer be able to peddle the lie that US hegemony is due to a somehow superior political and social system. The reality that US hegemony is based on the accepted value of the Dollar will be starring the US, its allies and its adversaries in the face like an emperor without clothes.


As China takes a decisive economic step away from the dollar; the international bankers move in.

Now, in the run up to the launch of the Chinese Petroyuan on March 26th 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump is declaring economic war on China on the behalf of international banking interests.

Protectionism has its time and place and this is usually in a newly industrializing nation that has not yet reached its peak output.

When countries like Britain, the US, Germany, Japan and China began their unique and highly notable industrial revolutions, they did so under the cover of protectionist policies. In this sense, as a nation develops an industrial base, in order to reach the zenith of development, it is important not to rest on someone else’s laurels in the form of easy imports. Protection turns the industrializing nation into an industrial island, thus testing the limits of self-sufficiency in terms of industrial development and the development of an internal market.

This is exactly what is happening, a second planned industrial revolution — a shift away from Tertiary and Quaternary imbalanced economies back to the industrial roots that will make the West once more a major economic contender.

Once such a revolution reaches a comfortable level of self-sufficiency, a protectionist economy has reached maturity and is ready to test the waters of free trade.

In the short to mid-term, the Globalists are promoting an artificial divide of trade protectionism, pursuing a split between Western and Eastern exchange in a bid to isolate China and its partners, Trump’s latest sanctions are one facet of this, for example; artificially inflating the price of Chinese goods to stimulate confidence in domestic economies. Protectionist blocs and trade agreements such as the EU are at the forefront of these protectionist efforts to sever ties with non-Globalist economies.

In the longer term, Globalist agents seek to boost the third world population of Europe to create a low-paid, manufacturing powerhouse to challenge China, as well as shift manufacturing and industry back to Western soil to reduce dependencies on non-Western imports and diversify Western import-reliant economies.

To successfully do this, they must eliminate or reduce the majority Western white middle class that demands higher wages and tends to avoid work in laborious, low-pay jobs.

This is something they are actively pursuing by promoting the migrant crisis, promoting anti-nationalism, promoting white-guilt, and the racism hysteria, all intended to ‘water-down’ the West and give emphasis to a more lucrative, lower IQ, third world population.

Many economists call the sanctions ‘damaging’ for both economies, but that’s the point, that the West is filing for a near total divorce from the economies of the non-Globalist variety, this is just the beginning.

New Tariffs.

Trump has signed a Section 301 Action of the 1974 Trade Act, authorizing the implementation of new wide reaching tariffs covering the import of a wide variety of Chinese goods into the United States, with an emphasis on barring Chinese technology and technology investment from the US market. Trump also threatened to take further action against alleged intellectual property rights violations in China. During his speech he also threatened the European Union, Japan and South Korea, but most of his ire was aimed at China. Where weeks ago it was suggested that the US would pass $30 billion worth of tariffs on Chinese goods, today Trump doubled the figure to $60 billion. By invoking the Trade Act of 1974, Trump has bypassed the Congress to take unilateral action in a trade war that most of the Congress and the US Chamber of Commerce does not support.

Donald Trump reaffirmed that while the new measures will be implemented immediately, he will be willing to negotiate with all parties, including China regarding establishing what he calls a better trade balance. He even suggested that the countries whose goods he is slapping new tariffs on would welcome the move because they were “taking advantage” of the US for years. In reality, China, South Korea, the EU, Canada and others have already strongly criticised Trump’s reactionary approach to trade.

It beggars belief that Trump purposefully held off on attempting to negotiate new trade deals until after ordering tariffs which have a punitive effect on both America’s trading partners and the American tax payer. This kind of bullying of powerful nations will if anything, make countries less likely to negotiate a favourable deal in the future. Rather than use tariffs as a last resort after a respectful negotiating process, Trump has decided to use tariffs as a means of blackmailing other nations. The US will now learn the hard way, that there are many markets for goods other than the US market. If anything, this will enforce China’s decision to sell-off even more US Treasury bonds in preparation for a larger divestment of assets from the US, which itself is a requisite to the Yuan detaching its value from the Dollar and floating freely on global currency markets. A floating Yuan was always a matter of ‘when’ rather than ‘if’. Trump’s zero-sum attitude has now made the question of ‘when’, a matter of ‘sooner rather than later’. The result will be less investment in the US economy which means fewer jobs, combined with a weakening dollar which means less purchasing power for both US companies and US consumers. Trump’s move has made this reality all the more inevitable.

When signing the executive order, he claimed “This is only one…it is the first of many”. The markets are likely to respond negatively to this development, but in the medium term, Trump’s move could usher in a pivot away from the US on the part of wider international trading, including in the all important areas of currency and energy commodities markets.

On the 26th of March, China will formally introduce the Petroyuan. The issuing of oil futures contracts in China’s national currency looks to threaten the long term efficacy of the Petrodollar – something the US has used to artificially inflate the value of its currency ever since Richard Nixon detached the Dollar from a gold standard in 1971.

With the US failing to produce desirable quality goods as efficiently as other major industrial powers, Washington has resorted to a combination of tariffs and sanctions as its only remaining weapons to try and inflect economic harm on other nations. Just as sanctions have not caused any significant damage to the Russian economy, so too will China which now has the most powerful internal market in the world, not suffer from Trump’s tariffs, certainly not as much as American businesses and consumers. China’s rapid expansion into new global markets combined with its own continually growing internal market, will rapidly compensate for losses in terms of exports to the US.

U.S. Building Military Garrison To Control Largest Syrian Oilfield

Standard

According to recent reporting, the US is building another military base in Syria, this time near the Syrian oil fields in the north east of the country.

Why does the US want to control Syrian oil production? Is it looking to steal Syrian resources? After all, ISIS is all but defeated and the reason given for US involvement no longer makes sense. Is the US looking for a direct conflict with Russia? Is Washington staging for a war on Iran? US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has repeatedly warned that the US is ready for a large-scale attack on the Assad government.


New U.S. garrison being established near the Syrian Omar oil fields.

The US is reportedly establishing an at-Tanf-like military garrison in the Omar oil fields area in the province of Deir Ezzor. Considering the US attempt to maintain a military presence in Syria for as long as possible, Washington may see the Syrian oil and gas resources as useful tool to gain an additional financial revenue from its occupation of the eastern part of the country.

A video has also appeared allegedly showing two US-led coalition Blackhawk helicopters landing in the area.

On March 19, the Syrian state-run news agency SANA accused the US-led coalition of evacuating four ISIS members from the area between the villages of al-Jissi and Kalu in southeastern countryside of Qamishli.

SANA also recalled that on February 26 the US allegedly evacuated a number of ISIS members to the Sabah al-Kheir center, 20 km south of Hasaka, which the US forces are using as center for training militant groups.

According to one version, the US is going to use the evacuated ISIS members to create “security threates” in Central Asia. In late 2017 and early 2018 reports appeared that the US had already redeployed some ISIS members from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan. The ISIS threat will serve as justification for a continued US military presence in the country.

Following the military success of the Turkish Army and the Free Syrian Army in Afrin, Turkish President Recep Tayip Erdogan vowed to clear the entire Syrian north, from Manbij to Qamishli, of Kurdish militias, mostly the People’s Protection Units (YPG).

He also hinted that the Turkish Army may conduct a large-scale military operation against the PKK in northern Iraq.

The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) is a Kurdish militant separatist organization operating in southern Turkey, northern Syria and northern Iraq. The PKK has for a long time been involved in militancy against the Turkish government and de-facto seeks to establish an independent Kurdish state, which would include territories from Turkey, Syria and Iraq.

Ankara describes the YPG as a branch of the PKK. The YPG is at the core of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces. US support for the YPG is one of the reasons behind the current Turkish-US tensions in the diplomatic sphere.

In Eastern Ghouta, Syrian and Russian forces continued evacuating civilians from the militant-held areas. According to Chief of the Russian General Staff’s Main Operations Department Colonel-General Sergei Rudskoi, 44,639 people have been evacuated in recent days.

The Russian military has also warned that militants in Eastern Ghouta have not abandoned their attempts to stage false flag chemical attacks which they plan to blame on the Syrian government.


RonPaul Institute

Southfront.com

The Russian Military Warns: a Major War in Syria Is Imminent

Standard

On March 17, the Russian General Staff warned about an imminent attack on Syria. The statement did not elaborate. Of course, some information is classified but an independent and impartial analysis of publicly available information leads one to the same conclusion. Let’s look at the facts.

There are warships deployed by US Navy in the Red Sea, the Mediterranean, and the Persian Gulf. They are ready to launch roughly 400 long-range Tomahawks against a target in the Middle East on any given day. Sea-launched cruise missiles were used to strike Syria in April. Anything that is at all related to the military operations on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean is hush-hush information, but it’s an open secret that the strategic bombers based there can launch at least a hundred cruise missiles and then use other high-precision munitions in a follow-up attack. On average, one bomber carries 20 AGM-86 ALCMs. Five bombers are believed to be normally stationed on this island that is off-limits to inquisitive outsiders. This means that at least 500 cruise missiles can be fired on short notice.

On March 17, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared that Great Britain, France, and some additional countries besides the US had special forces operating in Syria that were engaging the Syrian Army directly. But it’s not just commandos.

It was reported on March 16 that the UK would be stationing a significant number of troops at the US-controlled Al-Tanf military base, adjacent to the Iraqi border. This facility is prominently eatured in NATO’s war planning in Syria. It blocks the corridor linking Iran to Lebanon via Syria and Iraq. The size of the deployment — about 2,300 troops accompanied by tanks and helicopters — is too significant just to be intended to fight Islamic State militants who are already on the run.

Before that, the US had already sent 600 troops with armored vehicles to the base. And American reinforcements have also been sent to the Omar oil field.

On March 12, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley threatened military action against Syria. Experience has shown that the US will strike first and think about explanations later. It’ll no doubt “invent” some pretext to justify its actions.

Tensions have risen since last week. For instance, the mainstream media raised a ruckus over a mysterious “large underground” North Korean military base in Syria! This story about Pyongyang helping Syria to rebuild its chemical stockpiles and other urban legends are going viral.

The escalation coincided with the March 16 meeting between the Russian, Iranian, and Turkish foreign ministers in Astana to discuss further plans to bring peace to Syria, including expanding the concept of the de-escalation zones. That meeting laid the ground for a summit in Istanbul on April 4. There are about two weeks still to go. This top-level event could produce landmark decisions that might foil the West’s plans in Syria. Not much time is left. From the American perspective, this calls for urgent action to stymie that process.

Washington’s plan includes the goal of partitioning Syria in such a way that a large chunk of it would remain under the control of the US-led coalition. The Americans are already assembling municipal councils on the lands east of the Euphrates River. This area must be retained at any cost in order to ensure that Washington has a say in the future settlement of this war-torn country, otherwise all the hard work put in so far will go down the drain, undercutting America’s global standing and diminishing its clout in the Middle East. Losing Syria would be tantamount to suffering a major defeat in its confrontation with Iran, which it considers its arch-enemy. The plans include a rollback of Russian forces. Syria is the right place to do that. If the Russian military is openly warning the world of an imminent strike, that is a serious threat. And it does not look like a one-strike operation. This time we’re in for something much more serious — a large-scale operation to “contain” Russia, beat back Iran, win the support of the rich oil-exporting Arab nations and make them pay huge sums for American weapons, and show the world the US is omnipresent and adamant in its desire to dictate its will.