Chemical Attack in Syria - Cui Bono?

With all the different interests clashing over Syria, which news can you really trust?

Instead of trusting any sources, you probably better ask: who benefits? Here's how I see it (bein just another source, so double-check for yourself):

MIT proved the last allegations wrong that Assad had his own people attacked by chemical weapons. The position of his forces and weather conditions would have made such an attack impossible. Nevertheless, the (western) world repeated its accusations.

Given that, Assad's statements that he did not do it this time at least deserves a closer look.

Would he benefit? Not at all! He knew that he would risk the wrath of other countries by doing this. Before, he had been in a relatively comfortable position, with the (western) world accepting him as the lesser evil compare to IS.

For the same reasons, Russia had not interest in the attack either.

However, following the same argument, the Syrian rebels and IS itself had much to gain, so there is some motive.

Trump also stood to benefit: he had a "good" reason to attack, which has so far helped all US presidents to raise their low popularity, because US citizens support their forces in case of combat in a quite  knee-jerk reaction.

Also, by attacking Syria, Trump moves one step further on the agenda of the DoD, which has Syria listed as one of seven countries they want to overthrow.

Last but not least, attacking Russia indirectly through Syria was the best way for Trump to work against the allegations of too much "co-operation" of his administration  with Russia. After the attack, even if this is proven ( an I think it already has), he can easily combat the facts be the new ones he just created.

So with Trump having three good reasons here, I am pretty sure I know where the original chemical attack originated from or at least was orchestrated by. But of course, that's just me thinking aloud.

No comments:

adaxas Web Directory