US warns that Assad may be preparing a chemical attack in Syria

(June 27)The US White House said on Monday that US intelligence had observed potential preparations for a similar attack similar to those observed prior to an attack on the opposition-held town of Khan Sheikhhoun last April blamed on Assad.

More than 70 people were killed in the including many children. The US launched Tomahawk missiles against the Syrian base from which the attacks were said to come. Sean Spicer White House spokesperson said: "The United States has identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children. The activities are similar to preparations the regime made before its April 4, 2017 chemical weapons attack." Spicer went on: "As we have previously stated, the United States is in Syria to eliminate the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. If, however, Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price."

Assad denied he used chemical weapons in the earlier attacks. Mainstream commentaries do not bring up the fact that there has just recently been even more questioning of the mainly accepted accounts in the west that there was a chemical attack and that it was by Assad forces. A recent article by Seymour Hersh in a German paper adds to previous criticism. Hersh claims that the US had been informed about the raid which was on a jihadist meeting site and he claims:" Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's determination to ignore the evidence. "None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump.“ " Hersh, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, seems unable to publish any more in prestigious US outlets. For a long time Hersh wrote for the New Yorker magazine.

Natasha Ghoneim, an Al Jazeera journalist claimed that the announcement took some military leaders by surprise: "Analysts have said that it is not common for [the White House] to make a public warning like this instead of through diplomatic channels " Some Syrian activists are wondering why the US is issuing a warning rather than taking action. The US could attack those areas where preparations are taking place. However, the earlier attack by the US was on the base where the chemical attack was supposed to have originated. Did they not destroy any of the infrastructure that made preparations for chemical attacks possible?

Senior Russian lawmaker Konstantin Kosachev said that the US could be preparing a preemptive strike on Syria using the excuse that Assad was planning another chemical attack. The chair of the Russian parliament upper house said: "In any case, it is Washington that looks very unsavory in this story: they either know about the upcoming attack and are not trying to prevent it, but knowingly put the uncomfortable Syrian leader in the wrong for that… Or the United States is preparing its own preemptive strike on Syrian troops and appeals to the topic that is already ‘famous’ on a global level and will definitely justify any preventive action."

Apparently both President Trump and his national security adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster were involved in the decision to issue a public warning. The warning was apparently to show Assad that the Tomahawk missile attack on a Syrian air base was not a one-off event. But why would Assad think otherwise? Why would he prepare for another chemical attack when he is doing well militarily with the help of the Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah?

The US appears to be gradually becoming more involved in Syria and risking clashes not only with Assad but with the Russians. Trump is the president who campaigned against useless costly US wars in Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere. He is now increasing US involvement in all those wars while the opposition is mostly silent. The announcement is quite suspicious and its rationale ridiculous. If the reports of Assad planning another chemical attack are true one can only conclude that not only is Assad supremely evil, but he is supremely stupid as well.

Many contradictory accounts given by different parties of Syrian alleged sarin attack

(April 13) A US government report in a declassified intelligence assessment that it is confident that the Syrian regime conducted a chemical weapons attack using the nerve agent sarin.

The US report claims that the chemical agent was delivered by a Syrian Su-22 fixed wing aircraft that flew over the village of Khan Sheikhun at the time of the attack. The attack killed at least 87 civilians on the fourth of April including 31 children. The entire report can be found here.

The report presents evidence for Assad's responsibility that reads in part: "Additionally, our information indicates personnel historically associated with Syria's chemical weapons programme were at Shayrat airfield in late March making preparations for an upcoming attack in northern Syria, and they were present at the airfield on the day of the attack." The report says its conclusions relay on satellite imagery, laboratory analysis of physiological samples from victims and a "significant body of open source reporting" that the report claims could not have been fabricated. The report says that not all available intelligence was released to protect sources but it affirms that the sarin gas was released from a pipe dropped from the air.

An unidentified senior intelligence officer said that the US intercepted communications between Syrian military and chemical weapons experts discussing plans for the poison gas attack in Idblib province. Of course the officer stressed that the US did not have prior knowledge of the tests. Yet if the talks were just discussing plans why were the talks discovered only after the attack took place? Given that the US knew that chemical weapons people were at the base, how is it they did not search for such communications right away and then they could have warned Assad what he could face if he carried out the attack? The US could have saved many lives.

There is some doubt about the story. The Russian Foreign Ministry has claimed that the chemical agents were dispersed as the result of an attack on a warehouse where the rebels stored chemicals. Recently Russian President Putin clamed that opposition forces had tried to frame the Syrian government by placing chemical weapons in civilian areas and then blame Assad's forces. Putin said: “We have information from various sources that similar provocations — and I have no other word for that — are being prepared in other regions of Syria, including southern suburbs of Damascus, where they intend to plant certain substance again and accuse official Syrian authorities of using it.” This may be said in order to forestall any rebel attempt to provide a justification for more bombing.

Syrian president Bashar Assad was also dismissive of the charge that he carried out the chemical attack: "Definitely, 100 percent for us, it's fabrication. Our impression is that the West, mainly the United States, is hand-in-glove with the terrorists. They fabricated the whole story in order to have a pretext for the attack. " It seems highly unlikely that the attack was 100 percent fabrication. There is no doubt that over 80 were killed by whatever happened. There is simply disagreement as to how it happened.

Among the accounts contradicting the US official account is that of retired US intelligence officer Colonel Patrick Lang:The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. [prior to the Chemical Weapons attack] There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation. The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib and that the Russians believed it was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.

The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.

Until we get an objective independent study of the event we are unlikely to find out what happened and it is quite probable that we will not find out even then as much of the evidence will have been destroyed, altered, or new evidence planted. Syria and Russia are asking for such an investigation but Russia vetoed the last draft resolution submitted by France, the UK, and the US on Wednesday. It is not surprising that it did so but that is another story. The US and allies can use the veto to claim that Russia and Syria do not want an objective investigation. The appended video shows an angry shocked CNN interviewer when a member of Congress expresses doubt about the official story.

UPDATE: Found this new article with an analysis by Dr. Theodore Postol, professor of science, technology, and national security policy at MIT. His main expertise is in ballistic missiles. He has a substantial background in air dispersal, including how toxic plumes move in the air. Postol has taught courses on weapons of mass destruction – including chemical and biological threats – at MIT.

US allies quickly fall in line echoing US line blaming Assad for alleged Syrian chemical attack

U.S. allies fall in line giving support for Trump's missile attack on a Syrian air base to punish Assad even though there was no independent investigation as to who was to blame, nor any UN motion of support, nor U.S. Congress approval either.

Trump acted solely on his own. He did not bother with the UN. He did not try to involve NATO, as often happens when the UN does not do what the U.S. wants. He did not create a coalition of allies to spread the responsibility. He did not consult his own Congress even though he claimed that president Obama had to do so when he was contemplating a strike. He also advised Obama not to bomb Syria. However, Trump now agrees with Hillary Clinton that bombing a Syrian air base is a good idea. All those supporting the U.S. simply assume Assad is guilty even though this has not been concluded through any objective investigation. I have argued in a recent Digital Journal article that Trump's action was against international law. There is evidence that does not fit with the U.S. evidence against Assad such as that of retired U.S. former intelligence officer Colonel Patrick Lang but it is studiously ignored by the mainstream press. The assumption of Assad's guilt in leaders' statements is just reported "objectively". They can also report objectively that Russia and Iran claim the strikes are against international law. No need to ascertain whether it is true or false since most people will reject the statements as simply propaganda that is not true. Amazingly, Trump, the mentally ill, moron, and inveterate liar suddenly has newspapers who had consistently condemned him singing his praises with the top five papers running 18 favorable opinion pieces on Trump's strikes and none against.

I already wrote an article about the response of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. After an earlier statement in which he suggested there needed to be an investigation and a number of questions needed to be answered after the strikes and a phone call from Trump he immediately came out in support of the attacks. It is almost as if he were acting under instruction. Trudeau said:Canada fully supports the United States’ limited and focused action to degrade the Assad regime’s ability to launch chemical weapons attacks against innocent civilians, including many children. President Assad’s use of chemical weapons and the crimes the Syrian regime has committed against its own people cannot be ignored. These gruesome attacks cannot be permitted to continue with impunity."Note not the slightest suggestion that there might be any doubt about who is guilty. No talk of an investigation nor of lack of a UN motion nor the status of the attacks under international law.

Of course, Israel's Netanyahu who is able to carry out attacks on Syria almost below the radar of the press does not mention international law either. The Israeli PM said:“President Trump sent a strong and clear message today that the use and spread of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. Israel fully supports President Trump’s decision and hopes that this message of resolve in the face of the Assad regime’s horrific actions will resonate not only in Damascus, but in Tehran, Pyongyang and elsewhere.”

Israel has both chemical and nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia joined in with Israel saying that it fully supported the missile strike and that Trump made a courageous decision in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons against citizens.

Some countries, such as China and Sweden did not approve or disapprove but Sweden at least raised questions about Trump's actions. Foreign Minister of Sweden Margot Wallstrom said that the attack "raises questions about how the attack could be compatible with international law". However, for those who favor the strikes that question is a non-starter as is the question of Assad's guilt. China's response by Hua Chunyung of the Chinese Foreign Ministry said: “We hope all sides will stay calm and exercise restraint to prevent the escalation of tension.” A courageous response.

Iran, not surprisingly is opposed to the strikes and does bring up the question of Assad's guilt. A Foreign Ministry spokesperson Bahram Qasemi said "We strongly condemn any unilateral military action and the missile attack on the Al Shayrat air base in Syria by the U.S. Navy and believe that such actions, which use the excuse of a suspicious chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib, whose timing and perpetrators are shrouded in a cloud of doubt, only strengthens terrorists who were already weak and adds to the complexity in Syria and the region."

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, put the Russian position succinctly as "an aggression against a sovereign state in violation of the norms of international law, and under a trumped-up pretext at that." So far the Russians have responded only by shutting down any cooperation with U.S. military forces, a move that makes accidents more probable

Indonesia, with the world's largest Muslim population, condemned the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but Foreign Ministry spokesperson said: "At the same time, Indonesia is concerned with unilateral actions by any parties, including the use of Tomahawk missiles, in responding to the chemical weapon attack tragedy in Syria. Military actions, undertaken without prior authorization of the U.N. Security Council, are not in line with international legal principles in the peaceful settlement of disputes, as stipulated in the U.N. Charter." Why is it Indonesia can see this while Canada and other supporters of the US are blind to what are obvious facts and choose to ignore them?

The Bolivian ambassador to the UN, Sacha Llorenti pointed out that the US had previously attacked and invaded Iraq on the basis of Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction. He summed up the situation quite well: "Now the U.S. believe that they are investigators, they are attorneys, judges and they are the executioners." This is not that surprising but what is quite surprising, shameful, and dangerous for world peace is that US allies uncritically accept this situation. This can only encourage the U.S., especially under Donald Trump, to continue with its same policy without worrying about the response of its allies. The next move might be against North Korea.

Coverage of Syrian alleged gas attack and changing the question

In many reports now there is the implicit use of what is called the complex question fallacy in logic or more informally the loaded question.

Wikipedia says of the fallacy that the question involved "contains a controversial or unjustified assumption". As a rhetorical device the complex question can be used to avoid discussion of the truth or falsity of one question while introducing another question whose relevance depends upon the answer to the first question being true.

In this case, the first question is whether Assad committed the apparent chemical attack in northern Syria that caused many casualties. As a recent article in the Digital Journal pointed out many countries such as the U.S. immediately came out and pinned the blame on Assad even though it would seem he had little to gain and much to lose by such an attack. Indeed some such as Ron Paul in spite of the U.S., Turkey, and other countries being confident that Assad is responsible says:“It makes no sense, even if you were totally separate from this and take no sides of this and you were just an analyst, it doesn’t make sense for Assad under these conditions to all of the sudden use poison gasses, I think it’s zero chance that he would have done this deliberately.”

That statement is rather extreme but it surely is premature to assess blame before we know exactly what happened the details of what gas it was and its source etc. Turkey's president Erdogan had already decided that Assad was guilty when a Turkish autopsy revealed that it was probably a chemical attack. According to Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag: "Autopsies were carried out on three of the bodies after they were brought from Idlib. The results of the autopsy confirms that chemical weapons were used." Bozdag said that the scientific investigation also confirmed that Assad used chemical weapons. Bozdag's boss will be pleased at Bozdag's findings. There are no details. We do not even know if it was sarin or of what grade. The area is controlled by groups linked to Al-Qaeda. Many seem suddenly very impressed by the reports of such people.

I really have no idea what happened except obviously something that it is so serious that it is a war crime, but there has been no investigation yet and while Assad might have had the means of carrying out such an attack it would seem an act of supreme stupidity with little military advantage while eliciting a response that could very well lead the U.S. and others to punish him severely and in the case of the U.S. again commit itself to his removal. We really do not know precisely what happened let alone who is responsible. The Russians claim that it was the result of bombing a rebel chemical warehouse. However, it is not explained how exactly that could release sarin gas nor does it explain an apparent attack on a hospital. We do not even know for sure yet if it was sarin gas. The Turkish autopsy did not claim this. However, the Russian explanation fits in with the info in the CNN video which CNN just takes as definite prove of Assad's guilt. My point is that the question who is responsible for whatever happened has not yet been determined. Yet much of the media coverage now is about another question: "How can Assad be punished for what he has done?" Changing to this question simply assumes we already know that Assad is responsible so there is no longer any need to discuss that.

The Guardian features an article in which it discusses the Pentagon with options for a military strike on Assad. Trump will meet with U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattison and national security adviser HR McMaster late Thursday at Mar-a-Lago where Trump is holding a summit with Xi Jinping. The military options are an answer to the question: "How can we punish Assad for what he has done?" It assumes that Assad is responsible. In fact this changes the topic of the discourse away from finding out exactly what has happened and who is responsible. A crucially relevant issue now becomes irrelevant because it is already clear what is the case. Of course it isn't at all clear. However, many are already convinced and don't expect media to question this since Assad is a bad guy.

Trump's reaction assumes Assad is guilty: "I think what Assad did is terrible. I think what happened in Syria is a disgrace to humanity and he’s there, and I guess he’s running things, so something should happen." The question is not of his guilt but of how he should be punished. U.S. Secretary State, Rex Tillerson follows the same line: “Assad's role in the future is uncertain, clearly, and with the acts that he has taken it would seem that there would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people.” As one would expect the question of Assad's guilt is also settled one hundred percent as far as Israel is concerned. In more and more media coverage the complex question will not even be noticed since most powerful countries in the west believe that Assad is guilty and the press will not question that assumption just report on what the options are for punishment. The images of the attack are so jarring even Hillary Clinton has come out and suggested that Assad's airfields should be taken out. However, there is already an advanced Russian-provided defense system that could cause problems to put it mildly.

UPDATE: The U.S. has already fired missiles at Homs airbase. Russians at the base were warned ahead of time. Unless there was a deal made with Russia beforehand, there could be trouble. So much for the UN and an investigation. Will Trump ratings soar? Hillary Clinton's?

Before independent investigation US and other countries blame Assad for chemical attack in Syria

While it is still not clear what happened in an apparent chemical attack on the town of Khan Shaykun in the suburbs of Idlib Syria, the United States and other countries are already blaming the event on the Assad regime.

White House spokesperson Sean Spicer said that Trump was extremely alarmed by the attack and had an extensive briefing. Trump suggested it was in the best interests of Syria that Assad not lead the country. He said that the Trump administration was confident in its assessment that Assad was to blame. This confidence occurs before any investigation. It is a clear signal to investigators what they need to establish. Of course there will be objections by the Russians and perhaps even the Chinese but these can be waived off. The Syrian army rejected the claims and blamed the rebels. The stories are being rolled out as one would expect.

At first, Trump had been silent but then he came out and blamed what happened as being a consequence of Obama's Syria policy: “These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the last administration’s weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a ‘red line’ against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing.” The reason that Obama did nothing is that the Russians and Americans got Assad to agree to shipping his chemical weapons out of the country to be destroyed.

Trump actually tweeted on September 7th 2013: "President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important day)." After being silent and refusing to answer a reporter's question about the attack, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, released a statement: “While we continue to monitor the terrible situation, it is clear that this is how Bashar al-Assad operates: with brutal, unabashed barbarism. We call upon Russia and Iran, yet again, to exercise their influence over the Syrian regime and to guarantee that this sort of horrific attack never happens again.” Note that there is not the slightest suggestion that there was any question that Assad is responsible. While there is no mention of future U.S. action, Trump's statement makes it clear that Obama's refusal to act military on the earlier attack that was also blamed on Assad was wrong and a sign of weakness. To be consistent he must act against Assad. Fortunately, consistency is one of many virtues Trump lacks.

The attack comes just after statements from Tillerson and Haley that seemed to signal a change in U.S. policy away from demanding regime change and that Assad step down. Some are even suggesting that the reason that Assad attacked was because of the U.S. change in policy he thought he could get away with it. Basma Kodmani, a member of the Syrian opposition said the attack was a direct consequence of the U.S. decision to relax pressure on Assad: “The first reaction from Syrians is that this is a direct consequence of American statements about Assad not being a priority and giving him time and allowing him to stay in power." Derek Stoffel in a CBC article also suggests that the change in U.S. policy not to demand Assad's removal is part of his confidence that there will be no strong reaction.

To me it makes no sense for Assad to mount such an attack and then apparently attack a hospital in which those attacked were being treated makes no sense. The same results could be achieved without using such weapons. He has already made considerable gains against the rebels. Why should he take the chance of actions that are sure to result in demands for more western intervention and further negative publicity? Why would he even make it worse by the hospital attack that has little military value. Both the gas attack and targeting of the hospital are war crimes. This is not a case of the Houthis being attacked by the Saudis. It is the good guys being attacked by the bad guys.

The attack could be a false flag operation designed to ensure that the west intervenes on the side of the rebels. The eminent Pulitzer Prize winning Seymour Hersh wrote an article ages ago :"On 8 December 2013, the London Review of Books published "Whose Sarin?", in which Hersh argued that President Obama had "omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts" in his assertion during his televised speech of 10 September that the Syrian government had been responsible for the use of sarin gas in the Ghouta chemical attack of 21 August 2013 against a rebel-held district of Damascus. In particular, Hersh wrote of anonymous intelligence sources telling him that the Syrian army was not the only agency with access to sarin, referring to the Al-Nusra Front Jihadist group, and that, during the period before the Ghouta attack, secretly implanted sensors at the country's known bases had not detected suspicious movements suggesting a forthcoming chemical attack "Of course this immediately led to Hersh's demotion to a conspiracy theorist. Another article by Eric Zuesse suggests that the sarin gas was transferred to Syrian rebels from Libya and Hillary Clinton knew about it. Later, Hersh denied he said explicitly that Hillary knew about the transfer but at least he strongly suggested that she did or should have known.

I do not know who is responsible for these atrocious attacks but the idea that Assad was behind them seems to me just as improbable as any conspiracy theory blaming rebels or their supporters. Surely a key question should be whom most benefits from the attacks. Potentially the benefit will be very much to the advantage of the rebels if the west decides to punish Assad by some military action. If there is no punishment the west will be criticized as weak in letting war crimes be committed with impunity. This reasoning of course is not applicable to situations such as Saudi-led attacks on the Houthis in Yemen.

It is not just the U.S. but several other countries have put out statements that blame Assad. This is all before it is even clear exactly what happened let alone who did it. There are calls for an investigation but then if the big powers that count have already created their narratives what will the investigation prove? No doubt as in the earlier attack, the Assad-guilt narrative will prevail and counter-evidence dismissed as a conspiracy theory that of course will be promoted by the bad guys Iran, Russia, and Assad and dupes such as Seymour Hersh.

UPDATE: Sputnik suggests that the gas was from a warehouse storing chemicals that was bombed:Syrian aircraft have conducted an airstrike near the town of Khan Shaykhun in Syria’s Idlib province on the warehouse of terrorists’ ammunition and the mass of military equipment, where chemical weapons' ammunition had also been stored and delivered to Iraq, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said Wednesday.This acknowledges that there was an attack by Syrian aircraft. It does not show the rebels were responsible as earlier claimed. It is more of a tragic accident. It remains to be seen if there is evidence for this explanation.

Over 50 US State Dept. diplomats want US to strike Assad forces in Syria

More than 50 U.S. State Department diplomats signed an internal memo that is critical of the Obama administration policy in Syria.

In the memo, the diplomats urge Obama to carry out military strikes against the forces of President Bashar al-Assad to stop what the diplomats claim are persistent violations of the cease-fire in the civil war that has lasted five years already.

A draft of the memo was obtained by the New York Times from a State Department official.

The draft claims that U.S. policy has been "overwhelmed" by unrelenting violence in Syria and calls for "a more judicious use of stand-off and air weapons which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process."

Such a move would no doubt result in an increased confrontation with Russia and would represent a radical shift in U.S. policy which is at present emphasizing the battle against the Islamic State rather than the overthrow of the Assad regime. However, diplomatic attempts to end the conflict led by Secretary of State, John Kerry are on the verge of collapse.

The dissent was filed  in the State Department "dissent channel". The channel was set up during the Vietnam War so that employees could register disagreements with policies without any fear of reprisal. Filings are relatively common but this dissent has an unusually high number of signatures. The signatures on the filing are almost all of mid-level working officials. There are no well-known higher officials on the list but it is known that many share the concerns expressed in the dissent.

Kerry himself has suggested there be a stronger U.S. response in Syria to force Assad into a diplomatic solution. Obama has resisted such pressure and been backed up by military commanders who fear the result should Assad lose power. John Kirby, the State Department spokesperson declined to comment on the memo, but said Kerry respected the process.

Robert Ford former US ambassador to Syria said: “Many people working on Syria for the State Department have long urged a tougher policy with the Assad government as a means of facilitating arrival at a negotiated political deal to set up a new Syrian government.” Ford resigned from the Foreign Service over the administration's policy on the conflict. The officials who signed the memo denied that they  were advocating a "slippery slope that would end in a military confrontation with Russia". They insist there must be credible threat of military action to keep Assad in line. The threat should be followed by negotiation.

Obama's policy in Syria has been designed to avoid further military entanglement in the civil war. It has been described as risk-averse.

However, the U.S. is aiding Kurdish-led forces against the Islamic State. Attempts to aid moderate rebels previously have not been successful.

The U.S. administration  shows no sign it was willing to consider military strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces as the memo suggests.

Syrian Army Forces

Civilans killed as rockets and mortars hit predominantly Kurdish area of Aleppo

Attacks by rockets and mortars hit a predominantly Kurdish area in the city of Aleppo, Syria. The area is under the control of the Syrian government of Bashir Assad.

Reports on the number of casualties vary. ABC claims 13 civilians were killed and 40 wounded according the government and also one opposition group. However the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights based in the UK said that nine civilians were killed, including four children, with dozens more wounded. The Observatory also claimed more than 70 rockets and mortar shells rained down on the Sheikh Maqsoud area.

The Observatory said the firing was by insurgents including the Al-Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front. The Front did not take part in negotiations for the recent ceasefire brokered by Russia and the U.S. Spokesperson Redir Xelil from the People's Protection Unit (YPG) also claimed the attacks killed nine civilians, including four children, two women and three men. An early report by Syrian state media claimed 14 were killed.

Fighting with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front continues but there has been a sharp drop in violence since the ceasefire came into effect, in spite of a number of reports of violations by both sides. The U.S. and Russia hope both sides will return to peace negotiations brokered by the UN next week. The Russian Foreign Ministry said that in a telephone conversation, both Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, had "an overall positive assessment of the progress toward securing the cease-fire in Syria, which is being generally observed and already has led to a sharp decrease in the level of violence." Although less aid has been delivered to besieged areas than expected, nevertheless, there has been "significant improvement" in humanitarian access. Some observers thought the Syria military might capture all of Aleppo before the ceasefire but that did not happen. The city has been contested by both sides for years and much of the city has been badly damaged.

In other Syria news, the U.S. appears to be expanding it operations in northeast Syria in areas controlled by the Kurdish YPG and is working on two separate air bases. While the U.S. Central Command issued a statement denying that the U.S. had any direct control over any airfields in Syria it did not deny that the projects were ongoing.

Syrian truce mostly holds allowing delivery of aid to some besieged towns

The recent cessation of hostilities brokered by Russia and the U.S., agreed to by many in the opposition to Assad and the Assad government, is mainly holding, even though both sides complain of violations.

Riad Hijab, the general coordinator for the opposition, has written a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in which he details alleged breaches of the truth, saying in part:

"Right from the onset of the truce, a large number of violations have been committed by the regime and its allies in several parts of Syria. The regime has continued to target populated areas using helicopter raids to using explosive barrels, resulting in a large number of fatalities and causing significant injuries, most of whom were innocent women and children."Hijab claimed that breaches of the agreement have happened in 26 different areas.

UN Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, claimed that "every time there has been an incident so far it has been contained." He said the news could be much worse and if the truce continues to hold:"That would be a major booster in confidence-building and trust. Let's not forget, 5 years of horror. 300,000 people killed. 1 million wounded. There is total distrust from the sides. And the first gesture of believing in each other, or at least believing that there is a nonmilitary solution, is the reduction of violence."The truce is aimed at creating the conditions for peace talks among the warring groups. The talks are slated to begin on March 7. However, jihadist groups such as the Islamic State and the Al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front are not part of the negotiations. In the case of the Nusra Front many of the rebels are concerned attacks still continue on them as they have been key fighters against the Assad regime. Both the U.S. and Russia oppose the two jihadist groups. This certainly helped the two agree on excluding the Nusra Front over the objections of many rebels..

Fighting continued in areas of Aleppo province where Assad and his allies are wresting control from the Islamic State. However Hijab complains Russia was also launching airstrikes against groups that had signed on to the truce. The Assad regime complained in turn that rebel groups were breaking the ceasefire.

President Bashar al-Assad claimed the Syrian army has refrained from responding to truce violations in order to give the agreement a chance even though he said that the rebels had been breaching the truce from the first day. However, he warned that there are limits and whether the truce held depended upon the other side.

Turkey has been unhappy with the truce since the Kurdish groups in Syria are regarded by Erdogan, the president, as terrorists. Recently, mortar attacks were made on a group of 33 journalist touring an area near the Turkish border wrested from the rebels. Reuters reports that the Syrian State news agency claims that the mortar attacks were launched from Turkey. The Turkish president, Erdogan, has been a strong critic of the deal.

The Syrian opposition is hoping that the truce will enable humanitarian aid to reach besieged areas. A UN tweet from the UN shows aid vehicles entering the town of Moadimiyet. Spokesperson, for the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, Muhannad al-Assadi, told the Associated Press that 51 trucks carrying supplies such as blankets, soap, and diapers were delivering them into the town. The UN is hoping to deliver supplies to more than 150,000 people within the next few weeks. In other good news, the UN World Food Program claimed that it had a record-breaking pledge of $675 million for aid at a conference earlier this month. The appended video is of an aid delivery about a month ago.

US Secretary of State optimistic about Syria ceasefire

 John Kerry, US secretary of state, has given a positive assessment of efforts to negotiate a ceasefire between rebels aiming to overthrow Assad and his forces. Kerry claimed a ceasefire could be just weeks away.

+ Add Image

Kerry claimed an agreement Saturday in Vienna for a ceasefire and talks between the Assad government and opposition groups would aid the international campaign against the Islamic State, a campaign made more urgent by the Paris attacks. The agreement in Vienna sets the date for a ceasefire much further in the future: The US, Russia, Britain, France, Iran and Saudi Arabia signed a statement supporting a 1 January deadline for the start of talks between the Syrian government and opposition, with the aim of agreeing a ceasefire by 14 May.There was no agreement on the status of Assad himself.

Nevertheless Kerry said of the Vienna agreement:“That’s a gigantic step. If we can get that done, that opens up the aperture for a whole bunch of things. We’re weeks away conceivably from the possibility of a big transition for Syria, and I don’t think enough people necessarily notice that. But that’s the reality.”Nineteen countries signed on to the agreement including rivals such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Elections would be held a year after the ceasefire agreement. No Syrians were at the Vienna meeting.

Jordan was given the task of drawing up a list of the Assad opposition groups who would be eligible to participate in negotiations. Not surprisingly, the Islamic State is barred from negotiations. However, Jabhat al-Nusra, a significant force among the anti-Assad rebels, will also be excluded due to its links to Al-Qaeda. There are a number of groups supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, as well as other Gulf States who work closely with Jabhat al-Nusra and may not be willing to abandon the group by giving up the battle against the Syrian regime.

Since the Vienna agreement leaves the status of Bashar al-Assad in limbo, many opposition groups may be unwilling to participate in talks. The western-backed Syrian National Opposition said it would not participate in talks unless there were guarantees that Assad would go. Opposition groups also worried that the vetting process could exclude other important but radical Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham.

Forty different rebel groups, in a joint statement, blame Assad for the Paris attacks and hold him responsible for the creation of the Islamic State. In contrast, Assad, in a meeting with French MPs in Damascus on Saturday, blamed the attacks on French policy saying: “The question that is being asked throughout France today is, was France’s policy over the past five years the right one?The answer is no.”France has made it clear it continues to support the opposition view that Assad must go for there to be a political settlement.

Kurds applaud Russian airstrikes in Syria want weapons from them

Russia in its latest strikes in Syria has targeted several Islamic State positions after earlier being accused of hitting other targets including rebels supported by the United States.

+ Add Image

The United States itself targets other groups than the Islamic State. It considers the Al Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front a terrorist group to be targeted, angering rebel groups who regard it as a key player against Assad in many areas. However, Russia tends to accept the Assad view that all rebels are terrorists and legitimate targets.

The United States has itself created a sharp contrast between its own priorities and those of the rebels and its allies such as Turkey and many Gulf States. The rebels together with these supporters have as their first priority defeating Assad and regime change. The U.S. and its Kurdish allies have a different agenda. The U.S. wants first and foremost to defeat the Islamic State. In order to do this it has supported the Kurds. The Kurds, however, want to extend the territory they hold, consolidate their power and eventually carve out an autonomous or even independent area in northern Syria. They are not interested in fighting Assad unless he attacks them and tries to take back territory they hold. The Kurds publicly welcomed the latest Russian air strikes and asked for weapons. Salih Muslim, co-president of the Democratic Union Party, whose militia the YPG have closely co-ordinated their operations with the United States, said the YPG would fight alongside whoever fights the Islamic State. The fact that the Russians are supporting Assad does not concern the Kurds as it does the U.S. The Kurdish interests are first and foremost consolidating their power and extending their territory rather than fighting Assad. This strategy has been in place since early in the civil war as this article points out: The Syrian Kurds tried to play a neutral role to control as much as territory as possible and benefited from the ongoing civil war in the rest of the country. The Democratic Union Party (PYD) affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) managed to become the dominant actor on the ground due to the influx of experienced PKK fighters that trained Syrian Kurds, grassroots supporters, and organizational networks. Moreover, while Assad and his opponents fought each other for power in the rest of Syria, the PYD managed to cement its control over three Kurdish enclaves in the country’s north.

Syrian security forces withdrew from parts of northern Syria back in the summer of 2012 allowing the Kurds to become the main power and military force in some regions.

Obama made it clear that he is not intending to increase US intervention in Syria even though Russian air strikes show increasing Russian support to prop up Assad:“We’re not going to make Syria into a proxy war between the United States and Russia. That would be bad strategy on our part.This is not some, you know, superpower chess board contest, and anybody who frames it in that way isn’t paying very close attention to what’s been happening on the chess board,”

Insofar as the US supported moderate rebels and encouraged its allies to support other rebels while Russia supports Assad it is a proxy war. What has changed is that the US now has a priority of defeating the Islamic State. The US now has some interests that converge with those of Russia which supports Assad and the Kurds whose priority is certainly not attacking Assad.

The Syrian situation is to a considerable degree a super-power chess board. The Kurds have been paying close attention to what is happening. The Kurds YPG and the US coordinated air strikes with ground action to break the siege of the city of Kobani. With the help of the US air cover the Kurds are estimated to have seized 6,800 square miles of territory in northern Syria in recent months.

Turkey has noticed what is happening on the chessboard as well. Under US pressure it finally joined the battle against the Islamic State but also at the same time attacked the Kurdish PKK in northern Iraq, violating a peace treaty and starting a campaign that threatens to create a civil war in parts of Turkey where the Kurds are a majority. Turkish president Erdogan is hoping to lead his party to a majority in upcoming elections. He is doing so by attacking the Kurds and fanning nationalist sentiment. While nationalist sentiment is rising so is the level of violence in Turkey and there is no guarantee that his strategy will even work. Obama may be right in that the conflict in Syria is not just a super-power chess game. It is a much more complicated conflict with many different external and internal players with vastly different agendas.

US and Russian Defence ministers in talks on Syria

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoygu held talks on Syria. The Pentagon said the two discussed areas where U.S. and Russian "perspective overlap and areas of divergence."

+ Add Image

Russia together with Iran have long been allies of the Assad government in Syria and have provided considerable material help. The Lebanese group Hezbollah has also aided the regime by supplying many fighters. The extent of Russian forces on the ground is not clear, although they no doubt have special forces and trainers to teach the Syrians how to use equipment. The Russians have long had a naval base in the port of Tartarus in Syria.

Both the U.S. and Russians are anxious to prevent any possible conflict between U.S. and Russian forces. The U.S. and its allies have carried out an extensive bombing campaign against the Islamic State in Syria without ever seeking permission from the Syrian government to do so. Assad has tolerated these incursions. No doubt he could do little to prevent them and they help to defeat the Islamic State one of his many rebel enemies. At the same time, support for the Kurds by the U.S. helps a group which for tactical reasons has remained more or less neutral in attitude to the Assad government.

The Kurds appear more concerned with solidifying their hold on territory they occupy rather than fighting Assad. Very early on in the civil war the Assad regime decided to leave the Kurds alone, providing they did not seize territory from Assad or attack regime forces. This Kurd policy is just one more conflict the Turks have with the Kurds and the U.S., who supports them. The Kurds are gaining territory as the IS loses ground, creating a larger Kurdish area that will demand more autonomy or even independence in any political settlement. The Turks have agreed to join the fight against the IS and allowed the U.S. to use an airbase in Turkey but most of Turkish bombing missions are against Kurdish PKK positions in Iraq.

While the U.S. supports the Kurds against the IS in spite of their toleration of Assad, it draws the line at any coordination of its actions with Assad or to have the Russians also help out in the campaign. State Department spokesperson Mark Toner said that in the talks, the U.S. was trying to find out the intentions of Russia in Syria as there are reports of a military build-up including the arrival of tactical fighter planes. Toner said:“We’ve been very clear we don’t accept Russia’s premise that somehow Assad can be a credible partner in fighting ISIL. We reject that.” No doubt the U.S. worries about alienating Syrian rebels, even more by not only helping Assad but clearly cooperating with him. As far as the fight against the Islamic State is concerned, the help of the Assad regime and Russia would no doubt aid in defeating the group. In spite of differences the U.S., Syria and Russia have cooperated in the past. The disposal of Assad's chemical weapons was a successful operation by all three.

Carter emphasized that the military talks should go on with parallel diplomatic talks. The tasks of defeating the Islamic State and reaching a political solution should happen at the same time. One huge problem is that there is a disconnect with the transitional political groups set up by the west, many secular, and the mainly jihadist groups on the ground. The latter are not likely to pursue any political solution before the defeat of Assad, and any political solution reached without their agreement will be unenforceable.

Russia appears to be reinforcing its support for the Assad regime as it seemingly loses some ground against the rebels. The refugee crisis appears to be putting pressure on the west to stop the war and find a political solution if possible. Russia wants its ally to be in a relatively strong position when negotiations take place. This would explain the buildup described in the Wall Street Journal:Defense officials said over the past two weeks Russia has stepped up development of an airfield near the port city of Latakia by sending in housing for up to 2,000 people, attack and transport helicopters, artillery, tanks and armored personnel carriers. The jets, believed to be Sukhoi Su-27s, which are designed for air-to-air combat, could be used to challenge U.S. planes flying over Syria or to help Syrian forces defending the Assad regime.The buildup could also be used as a means of deterring the U.S. from any move to attack the Assad regime directl,y as rebels have long been urging. Given the Russian experience in Afghanistan and US experience in Iraq, the Russians may not want "boots on the ground" in Syria but will follow US policy of having special forces, trainers, and advisers. However, the Russians did say if Syria requested troops it would consider sending them. The Russians claim their military build-up is purely defensive.

Russia Syria negotiations fail to reach agreement

The Russian mediator thought that he had an agreement on principles for a political settlement to the Syria conflict but some opposition representatives refused support because there was no movement to build mutual trust such as prisoner releases.

+ Add Image

The Russian negotiator, Vitaly Naumkin, said that the parties had reached an agreement upon principles, including condemnation of foreign support for terrorist groups, ensuring the preservation of state institutions, and lifting of economic sanctions. Naumkin, who is head of the Institute for Eastern Studies in Moscow, thought that difficulties could have been ironed out if the discussions had lasted longer:"If we spent another week here, we would probably reach agreement on other issues,They sat at the table together, they didn't go into a fistfight, they listened to each other. It's good..We didn't have any excessive expectations, we didn't expect the meeting to settle the Syrian crisis,".Moscow had hosted an earlier round of talks in January of this year. There are no immediate plans in the works for another round of meetings. Russia has been a loyal supporter of the Syrian President Bashar Assad's government. The civil war is in its fifth year. More than 220,000 have been killed and there are more than 4 million refugees.

Analysts claim that the meeting is intended to boost Russia's image as a peace maker in the region. The talks did not include any representatives of the Syrian National Coalition, the western-backed group based in Istanbul. The Islamic Front group of rebels, the more radical Nusra Front, and the Islamic State have consistently spurned any peace talks. The Syrian National Coalition accused Russia of using the talks to bolster Assad. Most opposition groups take the position that Assad must step down before there can be any peace agreement.

In spite of the failure of the talks in the end, Bashar Jaafari, the Syrian envoy to the US who had been representing Syria in the negotiations managed to spin the results as a success: "The government and the opposition managed to reach common ground on a number of important issues." Samir Aita, one of the representatives of the opposition said that the government had stonewalled demands for release of prisoners and that the document did not create hope but destroyed it. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov had met with negotiators on Thursday and urged them to reach a compromise to help stop the spread of the Islamic State and other terrorist groups in Syria saying: "You need to save the country and its people, or there will be no one left to build a renewed, united and sovereign Syria." Lavrov claimed that the US-led air campaign was not achieving its goals while US plans to train rebels would only exacerbate the conflict.