Trump’s Syria “Withdrawal” Was Textbook US Deception

By Tony Cartalucci

Image: Trump isn’t going to “withdraw” from Syria when the special interests he represents still fully plan on waging war – proxy or otherwise – on Syria’s ally Iran. The recent appointment of John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to key positions within his administration signal expanded war, not withdrawal.

The US media is now priming the global public for US intervention in Syria following alleged “chemical attacks” carried out in the remaining pocket of US-backed militants in Douma, just northeast of Damascus.

This follows comments made by US President Donald Trump just 3 days ago in which he claimed he had instructed the US military to prepare for a withdrawal from Syria.

US forces had illegally invaded and have since occupied Syrian territory for years, with The Washington Post in its April 4, 2018 article titled, “Trump instructs military to begin planning for withdrawal from Syria,” placing the current number of US troops at approximately 2,000.

The Washington Post also claimed that:

President Trump has instructed military leaders to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria as soon as possible and told them he wants Arab allies to take over and pay for stabilizing and reconstructing areas liberated from the Islamic State, according to senior U.S. officials.

However, just days after President Trump expressed a supposed desire to leave Syria, allegations of Syrian government chemical attacks on Douma have provided not only the prefect pretext to delay any withdrawal, but to in fact justify a US-led military intervention directly against the Syrian government.

While some have attempted to portray this as “Trump vs. the Deep State,” it is in fact a textbook example of US deception described in US policy papers – a deception President Trump played a central role in creating.

Feigning Withdrawal Before Greater Conflict is Documented US Policy 

In the 2009 Brookings Institution policy paper titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” (PDF), everything from supporting terrorists in a proxy war to staged provocations and full-scale war were planned in excruciating detail.

Included among the US policy think-tank’s schemes was the description of a deception similar to the one now playing out in Syria.

The paper would state (emphasis added):

…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

For Syria, the “offer” was a US withdrawal and Damascus and its neighbors “given” the responsibility to humanely end the conflict and stabilize the region. The “rejection” inviting the US to intervene is the staged chemical attacks in Douma the US is now citing.

Regarding staged provocations, the Brookings paper mentions them as well, claiming (emphasis added): would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

Nothing could be more “outrageous” or “deadly” than using chemical weapons on civilians.

That such allegations of a chemical attack already served as a successful pretext for US military aggression in the form of cruise missile strikes across Syria under President Trump before, is precisely why the Syrian government wouldn’t have carried out such chemical attacks then, and most certainly would not carry them out now – especially if the US was allegedly seeking to exit Syrian territory.

Chemical Weapons Good For Only One Thing: A Pretext for US Aggression 

The Syrian military with the support of Russia and Iran, have soundly defeated US-backed militants across Syria with conventional weapons. The only significant territory Syria has yet to retake is that being occupied by the US and NATO-member Turkey.

As it has been mentioned before, the extensive use of chemical weapons during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War – by the US military’s own assessment – proved such weapons to be highly ineffective and inferior to conventional weapons.

Added to the fact that the US has sought to use the deployment of chemical weapons as a pretext for direct military intervention in Syria toward long-sought after regime change in Damascus makes the likelihood that Damascus is using chemical weapons all the more impossible.

There is also the fact that Syria has already turned its chemical weapon stockpiles over under a Russian-brokered deal which was overseen by the United Nations itself.

Reading through the 2009 Brookings document, the US has gone through all possible options prepared for Iran – but against Syria – several times over, but to no avail. Even the prospect of Balkanizing Syria appears tenuous. An attempt to revisit accusations of “WMDs” yet again, signals desperation across Western policy circles.

For those who have invested hope into President Trump – his role in a documented scheme to deceive the global public and make US military aggression appear as a last resort after apparently withdrawing from confrontation – is sufficient evidence that it is not “Trump vs. the Deep State,” but that “Trump is the Deep State.”

It should be remembered that recent appointments to President Trump’s administration included prominent pro-war advocates including John Bolton and Mike Pompeo – both eager for a US-led military intervention in Iran which makes President Trump’s recent calls for a withdrawal from Syria all the more questionable.

Terrorists are Gassing People to Advance Washington’s Agenda 

It is also worth noting that US-backed militants in Douma are essentially gassing people to advance the West’s political agenda. This comes as the UK’s case against Russia regarding the alleged assassination attempt on Sergei Skripal and his daughter unravels.

Considering Washington and London’s history regarding false accusations surrounding chemical weapons – as well as policy papers plotting to stage provocations, the US and UK emerge as the prime suspects in serial crimes against humanity involving so-called “weapons of mass destruction.”

It is becoming abundantly clear that in addition to the West fueling the very terrorism it claims to be fighting globally, it is also the West that poses the primary threat to the globe regarding the use of chemical weapons.

Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at Land Destroyer Report, Alternative Thai News Network and LocalOrg.

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

11 Comments on "Trump’s Syria “Withdrawal” Was Textbook US Deception"

  1. clarioncaller | April 8, 2018 at 5:40 pm | Reply

    Camp Conoco must be defended at any cost, so blaming Assad with using chemical or nuclear weapons [along with Russian and Iranian duplicity] creates the media response desired to justify continued occupation.

  2. Tony is exactly on target with this article, both showing the plan (originally for Iran but being used first against Syria), the absurdity of Assad using CW against the people he fighting to liberate, and the motive for the terrorists to execute a false flag attack like this.

    The Western media is repeating the lies of the “humanitarian rescue” organization, the White Helmet, who are the propaganda front for the terrorists, without any critical vision and clearly, Tony, is on target when he debunks the claim of people like Paul Craig Roberts that Trump has been captured or victimized by the Deep State and points out that Trump’s own choices, from his earliest days on the campaign trail when he appointed radical neocons like James Woolsey who served as CIA director and John Bolton, who is on record calling for bombing both Iran and North Korea. expose him as both an extreme neocon and totally aligned with the Deep State.

    I wrote about this during the campaign, making just these points, and I was mocked and then banned from “tough progressive” and told to “cool it on Trump.”

    Why anyone believed Trump in the first place is beyond me but his record in office shows him to be a rabid neocon who, as he said, loves the CIA. Before being banned by Rob Kalb, the fake progressive who runs “bottoms-up” opednews like a police state, I wrote several articles explaining how the feuds between Trump and the Deep State were fake fights to mask their underlying alignment.

    Thank you Tony for shining the light on the puppet masters and showing that Trump is not the puppet but one of the puppet masters creating the deceptions that are the prelude to each new criminal war.

  3. it wouldnt surprise me if Syria bombed ISIS stock piles of Chemical weapons, the deep state and their minions in the media would certainly blame Syria..If this is the last ISIS hold out, why would Syria jeopardize their victory with a chemical attack knowing the world leaders would condemn them

  4. Sababu Sanyika | April 9, 2018 at 12:33 am | Reply

    PEACE IN..
    With all that’s known about Talmudist control and rule over US sovereignty, domestic and foreign, it’s time for freedom and liberation from such disgraceful bandage to Tel Aviv, Apartheid Occupied Palestine. Are true American patriots prepared and ready to take our nation back from Talmudic rule over our diminishing republic?

    The USA needs a 21st century “Declaration of Independence” from little evil Talmudist king – Babylonian Talmud mindset of zionazis Jewry.

    • NobodysaysBOO | April 9, 2018 at 9:08 am | Reply

      perhaps the honorable Mr.Putin will take Mr. BENNIE-the-RAT OUT???

      • An equal or worse would immediately move into the slot. The charges against him and his wife suggest that more aggressive competitors within the rat-pack of “New Khazaria” wish to remove him.

        • NobodysaysBOO | April 10, 2018 at 8:30 am | Reply

          he is their poster boy and they LOVE him more than they love LIFE.
          the Israelis have NO replacement troops one tiny Russian attack and the state of Israel will be DUST in the WIND.
          The USA can’t/WON’T stop Russia or support the Israelis in a war with Russia.

        • NobodysaysBOO | April 10, 2018 at 9:58 am | Reply

          EDIE AMIEN would be BETTER!

  5. I believe it was the CIA that did the gas to make Trump react on twitter and if you look at how Lindsey Gram quicklyresponded that Trump had to back up his twitter or lose credibility. The neocons have set Trump up

  6. The CIA/MOSSAD repetition of an alleged release of poisonous gas simply indicates that the propaganda to support the terrorism of the rogue territory called “Israel” continues. Rabbi of world renown, Henry Siegman clarified the continued terrorism by the leadership of “Israel” in his published comment of 2014:

    “Israel”, more accurately called “New Khazaria”, would do well to have a dictator as noble as Dr. Assad, instead of a cut-throat terrorist who continues the terrorism initiated in 1947 by David Ben-Gurion. With Judaism´s army, Ben-Gurion drove 750,000 Palestinians from their homes, towns, territory, murdering thousands. The U.N. subsequently awarded the stolen territory to Ben-Gurion and terrorist leadership, who named the “Land-Grant of 1948”, “Israel”, fraudulently. The terrorist territory of “Israel” is neither Israel of the Old Testament nor Israel of the New Testament. A more appropriate name is, “New Khazaria”, since the leadership are progeny of the Khazarian Kingdom of one thousand years ago.
    The recent repetition of a “gassing event” in Syria reminds me of a letter from a soldier in Iraq to his parents, several years ago. After the occupant of the POTUS slot announced a withdrawal of fighting forces from Iraq, one solder clarified the action in a letter to his parents. He explained that US Army elements had received a change of names to indicate “observers”. However, he stated that their mission did NOT change. Converting ISIS mercenaries into “White Hats” or whatever obviously did not change the mission of the CIA/MOSSAD in Syria. They continue the terrorism if the rogue territory of “Israel”, continuing – rather than draining – the swamp.

  7. NobodysaysBOO | April 10, 2018 at 9:03 am | Reply

    DON’T WORRY about the trump his POLITICAL career is FINISHED the no WALL ended IT!!!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.