© The Free Thought Project
In the aftermath of Donald Trump's war crime against Syria, two crucial questions have emerged and there is not yet a definitive answer to either. Still, it is necessary to explore the possibilities.
1. There is more to come: Bush/Obama 2.0Trump's missile attack on Sharyat
may be the first of things to come. Rex Tillerson may have indeed subtly alluded to this when he told reporters prior to the attack that
"...steps are underway" to prepare for regime change in Syria. This would almost certainly mean full-on air and possibly also ground war in a style reminiscent either to America's 2003 war on Iraq or the 2011 NATO war on Libya.
The major difference between Syria now and Iraq and Libya then is that
a nuclear superpower, Russia has air-craft, missile defence systems and troops in Syria. Iraq and Libya by contrast were materially isolated from potential and actual allies.
Russia is responding in a predictable way. Russia is not going to attack forces of the United States in a deliberate retaliation, but nor is Russia going to abandon Syria. Instead they will
increase their presence in Syria in respect of both men and military hardware. As The Duran's
Alexander Mercouris explains, such moves
were all ready underway and this will of course only strengthen the resolve for Russia to stay the course.
This will perhaps make
America think twice before going full 'shock and awe' in Syria, but because of the tense geo-political atmosphere what was once a certainty is now a mere probability and now as strong a probability as many would like.
Even if Trump and the Pentagon wanted to press the pause button, mission creep could dictate otherwise and move events beyond the initial intentions of the deep state. This would of course be the worst case scenario. Even though Russia is averse to escalating geo-political conflicts,
all countries have their threshold of tolerance. The fact that Russia's threshold is set very high, would at a certain stage become inconsequential if America is hell bent on war between super-powers, which some in Washington appear to be.
Comment: France does not need advocates of such barbaric views.