The Crime of the Tripartite Aggression Against Syria

syria attack2

The American, British, French tripartite aggression against Syria last Friday, April 13th, is a grave international war crime violating article 51 of the United Nation charter, that forbids any state to attack any other sovereign state except in the case of self-defense, or with the consent of a majority of UN members according to chapter seven. Added to this crime is the American crime of threatening to attack another UNSC member nation; considered a crime according the UNSC charter.

Following Nikki Haley’s crime in the UNSC of threatening to attack Syria even without the Council’s permission, the US dragged the UK and France to commit the crime of attacking Syria under the justification of an alleged chemical attack in Douma. The terrorist sponsored “White Helmet” produced a clearly staged video of chemical attack against children, an act that had been repeated in the past and had proven to be fake. To vindicate itself Syria had invited in and guaranteed a safe passage to inspectors of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to investigate the allegation. Trump’s administration, knowing very well that the alleged chemical attack is fake, and without waiting for the results of the OPCW’s inspectors, behaved as investigators, judges, and executors, decided to attack Syria one day before the arrival of the OPCW’s inspectors.

In an apparent attempt to blackmail Saudi Arabia, Trump announced last week that he will withdraw the American troops from Syria. He also indicated that if Saudi Arabia wants the US to attack Syria they have to pay for the attack. Trump had just announced insultingly that the American forces are just mercenaries for hire. Apparently, Saudi Arabian MBS (Mohammad Bin Salman) had paid not only the US, but also the UK and France during his latest visits to these countries for the attack to happen. The UK and France were enlisted as partners in this crime in an attempt to give the attack some appearance of unanimity.

An American military armada was shipped to the Middle Eastern region, and with the American presence in its bases in some Gulf Arab States and in the Red Sea, an attack on Syrian targets was perpetrated during the early hours of Friday 13th. It was estimated that more than 110 Tomahawk missiles were fired in an attempt to overload Syrian defense systems. Yet Syrian forces were able to shoot down about 71 missiles demonstrating an exceptional defensive military capability. The rest of the missiles hit vacated facilities that had been previously bombed by Israeli forces. Israel had provided the coordinates of these facilities to the American forces. The attack, despite what tripartite had stated and Trump’s empty “mission accomplished” statement, was an utter military failure that had accomplished nothing, and at the same time had demonstrated the effectiveness of the Syrian defensive capabilities.

This criminal attack came under the justification of protecting the Syrian civilians from suffering any further chemical attack. The question that poses itself here is: how does the bombing of the chemical stockpiles and the resulting dispersion of these chemicals in the air would protect civilians? Did the American military take into consideration that such dispersion would expose Syrian civilians to chemical danger?

One would have doubts whether the American military had carefully thought through this attack, especially when there were reports of opposing opinions in the Pentagon. What are the real goals of the attack? Definitely it was not the alleged destruction of the chemical weapons since there was no precautions about the dispersion of chemicals after the bombing. The disposal of chemical weapons requires tedious safety preparations following intensive political negotiations.

It is very well documented that with the cooperation of other countries these three; US, UK and France, had been the major supporters of the terrorist groups attacking Syria. It has been observed that every time the Syrian forces gain an upper hand over the terrorist, an allegation of a chemical attack surfaces. These Western countries would perpetrate an attack, similar to last year’s attack on the Shayrat air base, to sabotage Syria’s victory and to boost the morals of the terrorists. If this attack comes to accomplish this purpose, then it came too late since the terrorists were defeated, had surrendered, and entered into an evacuation agreement with Syrian government.

One may think that this aggression had come because the US found itself out of any political negotiation concerning the future of Syria and wanted to force its presence. Such an attempt had failed since the attack had succeeded only in alienating the US further. This aggression had served only to demonstrate that the American “nice, new and smart missiles” are inferior to the relatively older Syrian defense systems. Russia was so confident of the effectiveness of the Syrian defensive missile system that the Russian forces sat watching idly without any interference as they had warned earlier. Besides, Russia is now supplying Syria with its latest very powerful defensive missile systems including S-300 and S-400 and more advanced military equipment.

If the intent of such an attack was to intimidate the Syrians into submission fearing American reprisals, as the US is accustomed in doing to some UNSC member states, then this goal had also failed, and succeeded only in boosting the morale of the Syrian population and strengthening their trust and support to Al-Assad government. Immediately after the end of the attack the Syrians went into the streets celebrating their victory.

Previous American and Israeli attacks aimed at strengthening terrorist positions and boosting the morale of what is called Syrian opposition. This attack resulted the exact opposite. The Syrian opposition leaders had already expressed their disappointment of such a frail attack that resulted virtually into nothing tangible.

Severe disappointment has also hit the hearts of Israeli leaders, the AIPAC; American Israeli lobby, and some Persian Gulf Arab states especially Saudi Arabia, who were pushing for the bombing of Syrian vital targets including Syrian air bases, ministry of defense, military bases, and even the presidential palace. Although these might have been the initial targets for the American armada, yet the Pentagon’s fear of a possible devastating wider military confrontation with Russia and Iran that would turn the whole region into hell, had led them to limit the attack to mere bombing of evacuated and deserted facilities.

Recognizing their military failure US, UK and France went back to the UNSC demanding the Council to issue resolutions to condemn the chemical use in Syria, to form an independent investigation to determine responsibility of chemical attacks, to demand a permanent seize fire and to allow unrestricted shipments of humanitarian aid to all parts within Syria, that would, undoubtedly, include hidden arms delivery to terrorists. In addition to their military war crime they also are demanding to be involved into what they called further political negotiations to be followed to achieve peaceful solution to the Syrian war.

This tripartite criminal aggression, and the failure of the UNSC to condemn it, clearly expose the criminality of the Western countries, and their utter disregard to any international law and to human lives. The complicity for this crime by the UNSC member countries make them partners to the crime, regardless whether are afraid of American reprisal or seeking economic rewards from Trump’s administration. This international body has become useless and obsolete the way it is now. It is unable to protect weaker countries and has not served to enhance world peace and justice but became a tool to legalize the crimes of strong and rich rogue nations such as the US, the UK and France and their Israeli terrorist tool.  If this tripartite is allowed to attack one-member country without suffering any consequences, then it would be emboldened to attack any other member country any time it deemed to serve its “ambitions”

The long history of these three countries clearly demonstrate their contempt to all international laws and their disregard to international organizations. During the last two decades they had created and armed terrorist groups to lead their own proxy wars around the world, then under the claim of fighting terrorists they instead invade and destroy other countries. They had used fabrications and lies to attack and destroy weaker and smaller countries they coveted their natural resources and their geostrategic locations. US, UK, and France are the real triangle of evil creating and sponsoring terror groups to perpetuate wars.

Dr. Elias Akleh is an Arab American from a Palestinian descent. His family was evicted from Haifa, Palestine, after the 1948 Nakba when the Zionists stole his family’s property. Then the family was evicted again from the West Bank during the 1967 Naksah, after the Zionist, again, occupied the rest of Palestine.


Support Countercurrents

Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B.
Become a Patron at Patreon

Join Our Newsletter


Join our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Get CounterCurrents updates on our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Related Posts

Join Our Newsletter

Annual Subscription

Join Countercurrents Annual Fund Raising Campaign and help us

Latest News