By:
Yossef Bodansky
The paucity of revealed facts
highlights the reality that little is really known about the actual attack.
There is still no agreed upon number of fatalities, with unverified claims
ranging from the US assertion of 1,429 fatalities to the French assertion that
only 281 were killed. In other words, the French Intelligence number is about
20 percent that of the US assertion. Most Syrian opposition sources now put the
number of fatalities at between 335 and 355, as does the non-governmental
organization, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). This is
about 25 percent of the US number. Either way, this is too huge a gap not to be
explained and substantiated.
It is still not
clear what type of agent killed the victims.
To-date, the US
position in documents submitted to Congress is that the victims died as a
result of “nerve agent exposure”. Orally, however, Secretary Kerry claimed the
US has proof it was sarin. The French intelligence report also attributes the
deaths to “chemical agents” without further identification. The most explicit
finding to-date comes from the UK’s Defence Science Technology Laboratory. Soil
and cloth samples “tested positive for the nerve gas sarin”. The sarin in the
cloth was in liquid form that soaked into the cloth. As discussed below, this
finding reinforces the conclusion that “kitchen sarin” was used.
Hence, so much will depend on the UN’s findings when their tests are completed.
The claim that the
agent used was a “military sarin” is problematic because military sarin
accumulates (like a gaseous crystal) around the victims’ hair and loose threads
in clothes. Since these molecules are detached and released anew by any
movement, they would have thus killed or injured the first responders who
touched the victims’ bodies without protective clothes, gloves and masks.
However, opposition videos show the first responders moving corpses around
without any ill effects. This strongly indicates that the agent in question was
the slow acting “kitchen sarin”. Indeed, other descriptions of injuries treated
by MSF – suffocation, foaming, vomiting and diarrhea – agree with the effects
of diluted, late-action drops of liquified sarin. The overall descriptions of
the injuries and fatalities treated by MSF closely resemble the injuries
treated by the Tokyo emergency authorities back on March 20, 1995. The Tokyo
subway attack was committed with liquified “kitchen sarin”. The know how for
this type of sarin came from North Korean Intelligence, and is known to have
been transferred, along with samples, to Osama bin Laden in 1998. That the
jihadist movement has these technologies was confirmed in jihadist labs
captured in both Turkey and Iraq, as well as from the wealth of data recovered
from al-Qaida in Afghanistan in 2001/2.
As well, it is not
yet clear what weapons were used to disperse the chemical agent. The specifics
of the weapon will provide the crucial evidence whether this was a military
type agent of the kind available in the Syrian arsenal, or improvised,
kitchen-style agent of the type known to be within the technical capabilities
of the jihadist opposition.
Meanwhile, the
mangled projectiles shown by the opposition, and which were tested by the UN
inspectors, are not standard weapons of the Syrian Armed Forces. These
projectiles have very distinct ribbed-ring fins, which are similar to
projectiles used by the opposition in Aleppo, Damascus, and other fronts with
both high explosives and undefined materials. The Middle East Media Research
Institute (MEMRI) retrieved a video claiming to be of the attack, but is most
likely of a daylight testing of the launcher. The truck-mounted launcher
included a chemical sleeve that was supposed to absorb leaks from the
improvised warheads and not harm the launch crew; hardly the precaution taken
with a military weapon.
Moreover, the
warheads used in Damascus were cylindrical tanks which cracked and permitted a
Tokyo-style mixture of liquids, rather than the pressurized mix and
vaporization at the molecular level by the force of core explosion in a
standard Soviet-style chemical warhead. Had Syrian militarily-trained experts
built these warheads, they would have used the upper pipe for the core-charge
the explosion of which would have created a significantly more lethal vaporized
cloud of the toxic agent. The mere fact that the pipeline remained empty
suggests the work of amateurs found in the ranks of the improvised weapon
makers of the jihadist opposition.
As well, the opposition
also pointed to cracked plastic pieces which resembled shreds from large blue
plastic tanks/bottles (like a water cooler’s huge bottles) fired by chemical
launchers the opposition had bragged about in the past. These weapons are in
agreement with the multitude of images of victims publicized by the opposition,
which did not show any injury due to shrapnel, which would have come from
Soviet-style chemical munitions of the type known to be in the Syrian military
arsenal.
Most important, of
course, is the question “Who could have done it?” given the available data.
Significantly, evidence collected by numerous Arab sources on the ground in the
greater Damascus area and recently smuggled out of Syria narrows the scope of
potential perpetrators and the reason for the attack. This evidence points to
specific commanders of Liwaa al-Islam and Jabhat al-Nusra known to be
cooperating in the eastern Damascus theater.
On the night of
August 20/21. 2013, and the early morning of August 21, 2013 – a day before the
chemical attack – the jihadists’ Liberating the Capital Front, led by Jabhat
al-Nusra, suffered a major defeat during Operation Shield of the Capital.
Operation Shield of the Capital is the largest military operation of the Syrian
Army in the Damascus region since the beginning of the conflict. The jihadists
also amassed a huge force of over 25,000 fighters for their Front from 13 armed
kitaeb [battalion-groupings].
The main units
belonged to Jabhat al-Nusra and Liwaa al-Islam. The other kitaeb were Harun al-Rashid,
Syouf al-Haqq, al-Mohajereen, al-Ansar, Abu Zhar al-Ghaffari, Issa Bin Mariam,
Sultan Mohammad al-Fatih, Daraa al-Sham, the Jobar Martyrs, and Glory of the
Caliphate. They included both Syrian and foreign volunteers. (The mere
gathering of so many kitaeb for the battle of eastern Damascus refutes the
assertion in the US and French intelligence reports that the opposition was
incapable of conducting coordinated large-scale operations and therefore the
chemical attack must have been launched by Assad’s forces.)
Around dawn on
August 21, 2013, the Liberating the Capital Front suffered a strategic defeat
in the Jobar entrance area.
The Jobar entrance
was the opposition’s last staging areas with access to the heart of Damascus
from where they could launch car-bombs and raids. The Jobar entrance is also
the sole route for reinforcements and supplies coming from the
Saudi-Jordanian-US intelligence base near Jordan’s major airbase and military
facilities in al-Mafraq (from where the eastern route to Damascus starts) and
distributed via the Ghouta area to the outlaying eastern suburbs of Damascus.
The eastern route is so important that the efforts are supervised personally by
Saudi Princes Bandar and Salman bin Sultan, and overseen by Col. Ahmad
al-Naimeh, the commander of the opposition’s Military Council of the Southern
Region and Horan.
The jihadists’
defeat on August 21 effectively sealed any hope of a future surge from Jordan
by CIA-sponsored jihadist forces because the jihadists who, starting August
17/18, 2013, were attempting to use the western route to Damascus from the base
in Ramtha, Jordan, had by now been encircled and defeated not far from the
Golan border with Israel.
As the jihadist
forces were collapsing, the Front commanders deployed an élite force to block
at all cost the Syrian military’s access to the Jobar entrance area. The
majority of the jihadists in this force were from Liwaa al-Islam and the rest
from Jabhat al-Nusra. The commander of the force was a Saudi jihadist going by
the nom de guerre Abu-Ayesha. (Abu-Ayesha was identified by a Ghouta resident
called Abu Abdul-Moneim as the jihadist commander who had stored in a tunnel in
Ghouta weapons some of which had “tube-like structure” and others looked like
“huge gas bottles”. Abdul-Moneim’s son and 12 other fighters were killed inside
the tunnel by a chemical leak from one of these weapons.)
According to
military and strategic analyst Brig. Ali Maqsoud, the Liwaa al-Islam forces
arrayed in Jobar included “the so-called ‘Chemical Weapons Front’ led by Zahran
Alloush [the supreme leader of Liwaa al-Islam]. That group possesses primitive
chemical weapons smuggled from al-Qaida in Iraq to Jobar, in the vicinity of
Damascus.”
When the jihadist
Front collapsed, the jihadist leaders decided that only a chemical strike could
both stop the advance of the Syrian army and provoke a US military strike that
would deliver a strategic victory for the jihadists. The chemical agents were
then loaded on what Russian intelligence defined as “rockets [which] were
manufactured domestically to carry chemicals. They were launched from an area
controlled by Liwaa al-Islam.”
Maqsoud is
convinced the chemical weapons strike was launched at the behest of Washington
and on Washington’s orders. “In the end, we can say that this [post-strike US]
escalatory rhetoric aims to achieve two things. The first is strengthening [the
US] position as leader of the opposition and imposing conditions in preparation
for the negotiating table. The second is changing the [power balance on the]
ground and stopping the Syrian army’s advance,” Maqsoud told al-Safir of
Lebanon.
The identification
of Liwaa al-Islam under Zahran Alloush as the jihadist force most likely to
have conducted the chemical attack raises major questions regarding the Saudi
involvement and particularly that of Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar bin
Sultan. Zahran Alloush is the son of a Saudi-based religious scholar named
Sheikh Abdullah Muhammad Alloush. During the 1980s, he worked for then Saudi
Intelligence Chief Prince Turki al-Faisal in both Afghanistan and Yemen.
Zahran Alloush was
involved with the neo-salafi/Wahhabi underground in Syria since the 1990s, was
jailed by Syrian Mukhabarat, and released in mid-2011 as part of Bashar
al-Assad’s amnesty aimed to placate Riyadh. Zahran Alloush immediately received
funds and weapons from Saudi intelligence which enabled him to establish and
run Liwaa al-Islam as a major jihadist force.
On July 18, 2012,
Liwaa al-Islam conducted the major bombing of the headquarters of Syria’s
national security council in Rawda Square, Damascus, assassinating, among
others, Assaf Shawkat, Bashar’s brother-in-law and nominally the deputy
Minister of Defense, Dawoud Rajiha, the Defense Minister, and Hassan Turkmani,
former Defense Minister who was military adviser to then-Vice-President Farouk
al-Sharaa. In Spring 2013, Zahran Alloush helped the Saudis weaken the
Qatari-sponsored jihadist forces in the Damascus area. In June 2013, he
suddenly withdrew his forces in the middle of a major battle with the Syrian
army, leaving the Qatari-sponsored First Brigade and Liwaa Jaish al-Muslimeen
to be defeated and mauled.
Significantly, in
late August 2013, the opposition insisted on having Zahran Alloush and Liwaa
al-Islam secure and escort the international experts team when they collected
evidence in the opposition-controlled parts of eastern Damascus. Zahran Alloush
entrusted the task of actually controlling and monitoring the UN team to his
close allied katiba, the Liwaa al-Baraa from Zamalka. Thus, the international
experts’ team operated while in effective custody of those jihadists most
likely responsible for the chemical attack.
According to
several jihadist commanders, “Zahran Alloush receives his orders directly from
the Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan” and Liwaa al-Islam is
Saudi Arabia’s private army in Syria.
The Bandar aspect
is important to understanding strategic-political aspects of the chemical
strike.
No independent evidence ties Bandar to the actual chemical attack.
Presently, there
is no independent evidence connecting Bandar, or any other Saudi official, to
the supply and use of chemical weapons in Damascus. There exist, though, the
long-time connections between the various jihadist commanders and both Saudi
intelligence and Bandar himself. However, Bandar’s threats in the meeting with
Russian Pres. Vladimir Putin cast a shadow on the question of Riyadh’s
foreknowledge, and, given the uniquely close relations between Bandar and CIA
Chief John Brennan, Washington’s foreknowledge as well.
On August 2, 2013,
Prince Bandar had an unprecedented meeting with Pres. Putin at the Kremlin.
Their meeting
covered a host of issues ranging from future energy economy to the situation in
Egypt to what to do about Syria. Throughout, Bandar made a huge mistake –
believing that Putin was just like the successive US senior officials Bandar
has dealt with in the past – namely, that like the Americans, Putin would also
be easy to bribe with flattery, weapons acquisition, and oil-related cash. Putin was not.
Of significance to
the issue of the chemical strike in Damascus was the exchange between Bandar
and Putin regarding the future of Bashar al-Assad. Bandar wanted Putin to
support the toppling of the Assad Administration and its replacement with a
Saudi-sponsored opposition administration. Bandar promised that Russia’s
interests in Syria would be preserved by the proposed Saudi-sponsored
post-Assad government.
In this context
Bandar sought to both allay Putin’s concerns regarding jihadist terrorism and
to deliver a veiled threat. “As an example,” Bandar stated, “I can give you a
guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea
next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are
controlled by us, and they will not move [also] in the direction of the Syrian
territory without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use
them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence
in Syria’s political future.”
Putin responded
quietly. “We know that you have supported the Chechen terrorist groups for a
decade. And that support, which you have frankly talked about just now, is
completely incompatible with the common objectives of fighting global terrorism
that you mentioned.”
Toward the end of
the meeting, Bandar again discussed the Syrian issue at length. He stressed
that as far as Riyadh was concerned, there was no future for the Assad
Administration. “The Syrian regime is finished as far as we and the majority of
the Syrian people are concerned,” Bandar said, and they, the Syrian people,
“will not allow President Bashar al-Assad to remain at the helm.”
Putin responded
that Moscow’s “stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian
regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver
eaters.” Again, Bandar resorted to threats. He warned Putin that their dispute
over the future of Syria led him, Bandar, to conclude that “there is no escape
from the [US-led] military option, because it is the only currently available
choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate”. Bandar added
that Riyadh saw no future for the negotiating process.
Bandar expected
such a military intervention to soon commence.
Did he have any
foreknowledge of a provocation to come? Significantly, Bandar insisted
throughout his visit to Moscow that his initiative and message were coordinated
with the highest authorities in Obama’s Washington. “I have spoken with the
Americans before the visit, and they pledged to commit to any understandings
that we may reach, especially if we agree on the approach to the Syrian issue,”
Bandar assured Putin.
Did the Obama
White House know in advance about the Saudi claim to controlling jihadist
terrorism in both Russia and Syria? Did the Obama White House know about
Bandar’s anticipation of an US-led military intervention?
Several Arab
leaders, as well as senior intelligence and defense officials from the Arabian
Peninsula are now convinced that the chemical strike was aimed to provoke a
US-led military intervention which would in turn lead to the toppling of Bashar
al-Assad and the empowerment of an Islamist government in Damascus.
These senior
intelligence and defense officials have privately expressed anger that the US
has not [yet] struck at Syria, as was so widely anticipated in the Arab world.
These notables point out that in late Spring, the top leaders of the Syrian
opposition and its regional sponsors impressed on the highest authorities in
Washington and other Western capitals the gravity of the situation. The
opposition and sponsors warned that unless there was a major military
intervention during the Summer, the struggle for Syria would be lost come
Autumn. The leaders of the opposition and their sponsors now insist that they
were assured in these discussions that the US and key West European powers were
eager to provide such help and intervene in order to topple the Assad
Administration and empower the opposition in Damascus.
Given the
political climate in the US and the West, the Arab leaders say that they were
told, it was imperative for US and Western leaders to have a clear casus belli
of an absolute humanitarian character. Recently (but before the chemical
attack), the opposition and sponsors were asked for lists of targets to be hit
by US-led Western bombing should there be a Western intervention. The
opposition provided such target lists, convinced that their bombing was
imminent. The leaders of the opposition and their sponsors now feel cheated,
for there had just been an humanitarian catastrophe in Damascus with all the
characteristics of the sought-after casus belli, and yet, there were no US and
Western bombers in the skies over Damascus!
Significantly,
most of these Arab leaders and officials are not in the know. They don’t
pretend to have any specific knowledge of what happened in Damascus beyond the
coverage in the Arab media. They complain so bitterly on the basis of their
comprehension of how things should have been done given the overall strategic
circumstances. And for them, such a self-inflicted carnage is the most obvious
thing to do if that was what Washington and other Western capitals needed in
order to have a viable casus belli for an intervention.
Meanwhile, the US
case against the Assad Administration continued to crumble.
“No direct link to
Pres. Bashar al-Assad or his inner-circle has been publicly demonstrated, and
some US sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader
knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it
afterward,” observed Reuters’ Mark Hosenball.
A closer study of
the much-touted electronic intercepts proves that Assad and his inner-circle
were stunned by the news of the chemical attack. When the first reports of the
chemical attack surfaced, a very senior Syrian military officer called in panic
the artillery commander of the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division of the
Syrian Army which is under the direct command of Maher al-Assad.
The senior officer
wanted to know if the brigade had fired any chemical munitions in contravention
of the explicit orders of the top leadership not to do so. The artillery
commander flatly denied firing any rocket, missile, or artillery. He added that
he had already checked and confirmed that all his munitions were accounted for,
and invited the general staff to send officers to verify on their own that all
brigade’s munitions were in safe storage. The senior officers took the
commander to task and he was interrogated for three days as a thorough inventory
of the munitions was carried out. This artillery officer was returned to duty
as it was confirmed beyond doubt that no munitions were missing. (Since there
was no other chemical-capable unit in the area, the claim of rogue officers
should identify from where and how they had obtained chemical munitions.)
The reaction of
the Assad inner-circle was in agreement with earlier observations by German
Federal Intelligence Service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND).
The BND reported
that since the beginning of Spring 2013, Syrian brigade and division commanders
had repeatedly asked the Presidency for permission to use chemical weapons
against jihadist forces besieging them. The Presidency had always denied
permission in strong and uncompromising terms. The BND has no indication, let
alone proof, that this consistent policy changed on or before August 21. 2013.
This is also the
opinion of a very senior Iranian official in Beirut. When the news of the
chemical attack first broke, a very senior HizbAllah official called the
Iranian for advice. The BND intercepted the call. The HizbAllah official
wondered whether “Assad had lost his temper and committed a huge mistake by
giving the order for the poison gas use”. The Iranian senior official assured
his HizbAllah counterpart that there was no change to Assad’s “long-standing
steadfast policy of not using these [chemical] weapons”.
One of the main
reasons for Washington’s accusatory finger at the Syrian military was the
assertion that the chemical attack took place in the context of a Syrian
military effort to recapture this part of the Damascus area. Having met stiff
resistance and under immense pressure to decide the battle swiftly,
Washington’s explanation goes, the Syrian military used chemical weapons in
order to break the opposition.
However, the
Syrian Armed Forces have a long history of training by the Soviet Armed Forces
and access to Soviet-era weaponry, both chemical agents and means of dispersal.
Among these are huge quantities of the vastly more lethal VX and grenade-size
aerosols optimized for dense urban environment. Syrian commando was supplied
with, and trained on, these systems starting the late-1970s when preparing to
fight the jihadist insurrection in some of Syria’s main cities. Hence, had the
Syrian military wanted to clear the said areas with the use of chemical
weapons, they would have used VX in aerosols with greater efficiency and
lethality. And why not use the same VX-filled aerosols in other key urban
battle-fronts like Aleppo or Homs to expedite victory? Why use “kitchen sarin”
and wide-area-effect munitions that will only hinder military advance into
contaminated areas?
Hence, what is the
basis for the Obama Administration’s confidence that “Assad did it” to the
point of threatening military action which in all likelihood would evolve into
US involvement in Syria’s bloody civil war? The most honest answer was provided
on September 8, 2013, by White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on CNN’s
State of the Union program. McDonough asserted it was “common sense” that the
Syrian Government carried out the chemical attack, and provided no further
evidence to back his statement. Nobody pressed McDonough on this point.
The US has long
taken sides in the Syrian civil war and all the regional wars and strife
integrated into it.
The US placed
itself as the self-anointed manager and arbiter of the outcome of this fateful
dynamic. Nobody in the region believes the Obama White House’s assurances about
a limited strike with no intent of “regime change”. After all this was the
exact assurances given by the Obama Administration on the eve of the UNSC’s
vote on Libya solely in order to convince Russia and the People’s Republic of
China (PRC) to abstain and let the resolution pass (which they did). Now,
should the US strike Syria, alone or at the head of a makeshift coalition, the
US would have crossed the threshold of active participation and leadership.
Pressure would mount on the US to complete the job: to invade and get involved
directly in the fighting, to secure the strategic weapon arsenals (which will
take 75,000-100,000 troops by the Pentagon’s latest estimates), and to
overthrow Assad and empower what Bandar calls “moderate” Islamists.
Arab leaders and
their Islamist protégés are now convinced that only the US can, and should,
defeat the Assad Administration and empower the Islamists for them. Should the
US shirk or dither, there would be more and worse provocations, and more
innocent Syrians would die in the hands of their brethren and saviors until the
US delivered Damascus to the Islamists-jihadists and their sponsors.
After the
catastrophe that Libya is today, does Washington really want to try again in
Syria?
Wouldn’t
confronting reality and the Islamists-jihadists be a more expedient (and
honest) way of doing things?
Yossef Bodansky, Senior Editor, GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs
----------------------
Info Links:
Caught and arrested in Turkey -
Posts
a.jpg)
a.jpg)
