On April 14, the US, UK, and France combined forces in an illegal and reckless attack on Syria. Syrian air defense was able to repel 71 of the 103 missiles launched at them but many still hit their targets, killing and wounding hundreds. The attack was in response to a chemical attack allegedly committed by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
As has been noted by many in the international community, the attack was entirely illegal, going directly against the UN charter. The charter specifically states that there are only two circumstances when a member state can attack another country: when a nation poses a direct threat to another nation's security or when the Security Council votes to authorize military invention. Spokeswoman of China's Foreign Ministry Hua Chunying said the attack was in blatant breach of international law and called for a fair and objective investigation into the alleged chemical attacks in Syria. In Latin America, several countries, including Cuba, Bolivia, and Venezuela, have condemned the attack, calling it a "flagrant violation of international law and the UN charter [I], while being an outrage against a sovereign state that worsens the conflict in Syria and the region."
Beyond its illegality, there is no proof that the attack was carried out by government forces. In 2013, the UN, US, and Russia oversaw the disbanding and disabling of Syria's chemical weapons program. Secretary of Defense James Mattis literally admitted that there is no proof that Assad even had chemical weapons, let alone used them. It is well known, however, that the groups Assad is fighting (such as ISIS and al-Qaeda) have and have used the same chemical weapons he's accused of using. On top of it all, the Syrian government had basically won the war. There was absolutely no reason for Assad to perpetrate a chemical attack on unarmed people, especially so close to the capital. It is, however, very convenient for the US and its allies that, as the war was coming to a close, Assad decided to commit a war crime for no reason but to give foreign powers justification for intervening and starting the war all over again.
But this isn't anything new. The narrative of a mad, murderous dictator with weapons they shouldn't have has been used many times and is just as fraudulent now as it was when the US lied about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. Surely it is no coincidence that the attack came the very night chemical inspectors arrived in Damascus. The victory of government forces in Ghouta and Douma show that the terrorists were on the run. As political analyst Dennis Etler told PressTV, the attack in Syria was an attempt to "declare victory in the face of defeat" and that it was "done out of desperation as the US position continues to deteriorate."
The real motives behind this attack are, of course, economic. US dollars make up over 2/3rds of the world's reserve currency. This is because nearly every oil exporting country in the world sells their oil in US dollars (the petrodollar). In 2006, Syria dropped the petrodollar. This was a significant blow to the US dollar and a major threat to US hegemony. Attempting to overthrow Assad follows the same pattern the US has followed for years.
In 2001, Iraq switched from selling oil in dollars and began selling in Euros. In 2003, less than two years later, the US invaded on the pretext that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Like with Syria, the media was in a frenzy and politicians on both sides of aisle demanded war. And, like with Syria, the whole thing was based on a lie. By 2006, Saddam Hussein was executed by the same people who installed him.
In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi had begun discussing the possibility of creating a gold-backed African currency as early as 1996. By 2009, Libya had amassed 144 tons of gold. To put that into perspective, the UK possesses roughly twice that in gold (310 tons to be exact) but has over ten times the population of Libya. As president of the African Union, Gaddafi had proposed a switch to this new currency, the Golden Dinar, and concrete steps were being taken to do so by many African states. In 2011, less than two years later, terrorists had overthrown the Libyan government with the help of the US and Gaddafi himself was brutally murdered.
To further prove this, we need only look at the nations which defend Syria. These are, primarily, Iran, Russia, and China. Iran followed Syria's lead and stopped using the petrodollar in 2008. Russia and China are both working to establish the petro-yuan and challenge the petrodollar. This would launch China's yuan to never before seen heights and Russian oil producers would only benefit from this. Naturally, Syria's greatest allies are those who seem to benefit from the fall of the petrodollar (and anti-imperialists across the world).
It is no secret that the so-called "moderate rebels" the US have supported and armed in Syria are, in fact, terrorists (save for, perhaps, the YPG). As Madelyn Hoffman, director of New Jersey Peace Action, stated before the UN after her investigation in Syria, the conflict is not a civil war but an invasion carried out by foreign mercenaries. The attack Saturday was a futile attempt to squash the Syrian government's victory by a US-led force of imperialists and criminals. With this final show of force, the US, UK, and France have shown themselves, yet again, to be nothing more than criminals and colonizers. Their reckless disregard for international law has laid bare their hypocrisy and their incompetence.
It's easy to forget that the UK's Winston Churchill was a huge proponent of chemical warfare and relished in the use of chemical weapons against the "uncivilized." And while we don't yet have proof that Assad used chemical weapons, it is public record that the US and France use tear gas against their own citizens despite it being banned in war. Maybe instead of senseless killings abroad, the new Axis of Evil could try saving their own people from poisoning, curbing their rapidly diminishing quality of life, and keeping their own people safe.