Many are wondering about the surprising change in US-policy that has occurred in Syria. This is supposedly due to an alleged gas attack by Syrian national forces against a rebel-held town.

This is a childishly simple theory, especially as there is at least a lot of doubt about who is responsible for the attack, and a gas attack can add little to the horrors already under way in Syria.

A more feasible explanation is that the US is changing its position to adjust to the changing military situation on the ground.

The main change here in recent weeks has been the considerable weakening of ISIS, which has been pushed back on several fronts.

Some people actually think this is 
the reason for bombing Syria...
While still fighting, their forces in Mosul, the large Iraqi city they once controlled, are now surrounded and being slowly eradicated. Meanwhile in Syria they have been doing badly against the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who are US-backed and largely Kurdish.

Just prior to Trump's decision to bomb Syria and call for "regime change" the SDF inflicted a serious defeat on ISIS in the Battle of Tabqa, surrounding ISIS's main position defending their capital at Raqqah.

Prior to this the US was restrained in its hostility to Assad because any action taken against Assad was sure to create a political vacuum that ISIS was best positioned to fill.

Now with the SDF having proven itself in battle and grown into a large and effective fighting force with US funding, training, and weapons, America has a dog it can now back in the fight.

No, this is.
The Neocons now running Trump's foreign policy have made the calculation that the weaker Assad gets the stronger their US-friendly puppet group will become.

This is the real reason that Trump suddenly got teary-eyed about some random dead kiddies who died under mysterious circumstances.

Attacking Assad in this way opens up at least the possibility of America coming out on top in Syria, whereas before Russia was clearly best placed to dominate a post-civil-war Syria.

The best way for Assad to retaliate against this US interference would be to concentrate his military power against the SDF. Until now there has been an uneasy truce between the Syrian national government and the SDF. But this has clearly created the conditions that has allowed America to attack him.

Attacking the SDF would effectively align Syrian forces with ISIS. But only by degrading the military capability of the SDF can he be sure of deterring America from further serious interference in Syria. Turkey, which is deeply opposed to any manifestation of Kurdish power could be a useful ally in this.


  1. I'll say it again. The West has never overthrown a dictator in the Muslim world where the result wasn't worse than what they had with the dictator. But, then. that's the point, right? Declare a war, borrow money to fight it, destroy a lot of stuff, borrow more money to rebuild it. Allow "dislocated refugees" to come to Western countries, borrow money into existence to support them. Have said refugees destroy the areas they live in, borrow more money into existence to build them better housing, better food, better healthcare, better education, more freedom. Yeah!!! Aren't we special? Yeah, short yellow bus stupid.

  2. I have been saying for some time that Kurdistan is a Zionist project to further divide the Middle-East, anything that gets positive media in the "West" is pretty much on the same Globalist agenda.