Bombing Syria would be a Disaster


Tucker Carlson is not somebody who I would usually be happy to endorse. But in this video that has been doing the rounds on social media, he is absolutely spot on. There seems to be a growing consensus amongst the powers that be in America that something must be done about President Assad. Is has been clear for some time that the Assad regime will win this war that has raged since 2011. But claims that he has used chemical weapons against his own people in Duma has rattled the US State Department.

Did Assad use these weapons against Syrian civilians? Yes he probably did, but ultimately this is going to be almost impossible to prove. Over the past few days, there have been heated exchanges in the UN between the USA and Russia- who flatly deny that Assad has used chemical weapons throughout the conflict.

And then this happened…

Now… The childish language and inappropriate content aside here, banging the war drum on President would be an absolute disaster for the USA and the whole world for three important reasons.

1. The first and most important reason is that if there is an encounter between the USA and Russia in Syria, it could quite easily escalate into something much more serious. Given the fact that President Trump and President Putin have amassed considerable political capital being ‘macho men’ it would be hard for one of them to back down. If something approaching a general war between these two powers happens it is almost certain that we would be in a world war three scenarios. The west and Russia & allies would be a conflict where both sides have nuclear weapons. What the exact composition of each side would be is unclear. China would have a lot to gain in such a conflict by staying neutral and providing materials to both sides. It is impossible to imagine Russia and allies beating the USA alone (nevermind supporters) but such a war would cause total devastation.


2. Secondly, there is the problem of credibility. I mentioned previously that President Assad probably did use chemical weapons in Duma, they key word in that sentence being probably. Intervention in an unstable Middle Eastern country based on the assumption that they have illegal weapons should fill us with dread. But the powers in the US State Department seem to have remarkably short memories. Attacking the Syrian regime based on these assumptions would ruin any semblance of credibility that the USA still has in the world. But let’s assume for a moment that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons. The domestic backlash would still be terrible. When Tony Blair took British forces in Iraq he was a popular prime minister trying to oust a universally reviled dictator and there were still large riots in the streets. Compare this to Donald Trump in Syria; we have one of the least popular presidents in recent history who would be intervening in a country where the vast majority of the public accept that there are no ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ in this conflict. Politically speaking, President Trump has everything to lose by getting further involved in Syria.


3. The last reason why the USA getting further involved in Syria would be a disaster is the potential outcome of Assad being weakened. The forces of the Syrian government are in a pretty battered shape at the moment. It would not take a lot for the USA to tip the balance of power against the Syrian Arab Army. But what would replace the regime in Syria? At the beginning of the conflict in 2011, there were promises of support for the so-called ‘rebels’ in Syria. Lots of our leaders ended up having egg on their face after it emerged that most of these ‘pro-western rebel groups’ were really just radical jihadist militias. If Trump decides to tip the scales against Assad, he will have to think long and hard about what Syria will look like afterwards, and it probably won’t look pretty.


For these reasons I hope that President Trump and his advisors think hard about escalating their involvement in Syria.


  1. There is almost no chance that Assad deliberately used chemical weapons. He has nothing to gain from that, since he had won the war in Duma already. But he had a lot to loose. So he would have needed to be stupid and use them just for the fun of it. It is also not clear whether he even has these weapons, as he has destroyed them after the first alleged attack. But we do know that the rebels have these weapons. The US and Britain also immediately vetoed a resolution by Sweden to investigate the issue. So they are not really interested whether it really happened or not.

    And they want a regime change in Syria, because they want regime change in Iran. Iran is the real target here, not Syria. That they are supporting Islamists in the process is not so important to them. Islamists are no real threat to our governments. In fact, terrorist attacks give them more power.



    1. I agree with you that it would not make sense for Assad to use chemical weapons. But why did Russia veto an independent UN inspection team going into Duma and investigating?

      The west has been working hard over the past decade to unseat Assad and set up a wahabi sunni state in the northern middle east. They are getting desperate that Assad might actually win in Syria and undermine all of their hard work.

      For me the most worrying development is Turkey. They are invading Syrian land with impunity, as their tactic of providing tacit support to the jihadis has been terrible for them.



      1. Russia vetoes the resolution, for the same reason the US voted the Russian resolution, because it feared it would not be independent. And then there would have been an official UN team saying that Assad did it, as they did last time, despite the lack of evidence. It is naive to believe that the UN is independent.


  2. Nico has got this right.

    Assad is winning the war and to risk pulling the US into it by gassing some civilians instead of bombing them would make him the stupidest man on earth.

    Which he isn’t.

    This just shows that fake news is not confined to social media and does rather make one wonder whether Sergei Scripal ate some dodgy fish. It would make more sense than the official version.



  3. “The excitement and dread surrounding potential nuclear warfare distracts from the much more legitimate threat of a staged financial war between East and West (as well as regional wars by proxy in Syria and North Korea which could bog the US down in a mire). It is important to remember that all wars are invariably banker wars — that is to say, almost all wars benefit international financiers by creating an environment ripe for centralization of wealth and political power.”

    Read full article here — I think it’s spot on.



  4. The post and the thread assume that Mr Assad is some sore of independent agent (and President Trump also sometimes writes as if Mr Assad was an independent agent) – he is not.

    Mr Assad is not in command in Syria – he is a puppet of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Putin’s Russia. Destroying the chemical weapons factories was a message to THEM – they have used chemical weapons in Syria many times, basically as a trial of strength. “You said we could not do this – we have done it, and you will do NOTHING” that is the message Russia and Iran sent after the pathetic Mr Obama made his “red line” speech – they crossed the “red line” in order to show how weak America had become.

    However, if the poster and the comment writers want to insist that Mr Assad is personally in command in Syria – fair enough then, then he is GUILTY, Remember he promised to get rid of the chemical weapons factories – he promised to get rid of them years ago. How come they were still there on Saturday?

    “Yes but Paul, Mr Assad does not have the power to get rid of the chemical weapons factories, he is not really in charge – Iran and Russia are”.

    If that is your line people then do not write as if Mr Assad was in charge – for if he is in charge, he is guilty.

    As for ISIS – it is the UNITED STATES that has destroyed ISIS , both in Iraq and (mostly) in Syria.

    Russian “volunteers” actually attacked a base that was being used to KILL ISIS – why would the Russians (whom the Americans killed) do that?

    And, Jordan-Nico-and-Ken, do you really think that Mr Assad gave the Russian “volunteers” the order to attack the American base? That does not seem very likely to me – Russians are not in the habit of obeying orders from a London doctor who was put in “power” because his brother died and his father (Assad senior) wanted to keep the family in the nice palace.

    “But why would Russia and Iran use poison gas – when they were winning anyway?”.

    For the same reason that Mr Putin has people killed with exotic materials in BRITAIN – for example the man he had killed with Polonium (a very substance) and the man he tried to have killed with a nerve agent (ditto).

    Why not just have his opponents have “accidents” (easy to arrange) – why use materials which make it obvious that Mr Putin is having people killed in BRITAIN? Because Mr Putin is SENDING A MESSAGE. And now Britain has SENT A MESSAGE back – by helping blow up his chemical weapons factories in Syria,



    1. If the purpose was to send a message to the world that Russia and Iran don’t care what Washington thinks, then why deny the attack? If the message is strength, hiding does not convey that message very well. The fact is, there is zero evidence that there even was a chemical attack, let alone that Assad did it. And our politicians don’t care about the evidence. They are insane enough to want to try regime change in Iran.

      As for ISIS, you are right, the war in Syria is a proxy war against Iran, which is supporting Assad. ISIS, like all the other Islamist terror groups are Sunnis, who are massively supported by our second dearest ally in the region Saudi Arabia. They have been behind the fight against Assad from almost day one. The reason why they are so strong is, because that moron George W thought is was a great idea to regime change Iraq. So, far from defeating ISIS, these Islamist are a direct product of western foreign policy, which is always fighting the seculars. And it was Assad, with the help of Iran an Russia who defeated them, no question about it. The west should stay out of this war completely. But at the very least, they should not support the wrong side, which is what they are doing at the moment.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s