CIA Director Marc Pompeo said on July 11 at INSA Leadership Dinner that there is allegedly solid evidence that the Syrian authorities had been using chemical weapons in Khan Shaykhun.
As M. Pompeo clarified, President Donald Trump ordered to conduct an investigation on the chemical attack in the Syrian province of Idlib. In their work, the intelligence community allegedly managed to establish the links of Damascus with the incident, but Pompeo did not present any concrete facts.
The CIA director noticed that the results of their valuation underlined the decision to strike at the Shayrat Airbase were collected in less than a day by a team of experts in cooperation with some ‘outstanding’ partners from across the Intelligence Community.
It is worth noting that an air strike on the territory of another state is akin to declaring war. Does everyone understand the degree of responsibility for such a decision or are Pompeo’s ‘partners’ so outstanding? Probably, the second looks more credible.
It seems that in their reports the CIA relies on its new much discredited agents, White Helmets. The Intelligence Community probably thinks these sources can be trusted without even checking the data. After all, this organization gained the ‘profound gratitude’ throughout the world shooting and providing fake videos from Syria, and even received an Oscar for quality elaborate hoaxes.
In fact, one wants to believe that Trump’s decision to strike at the Shayrat Airbase was based on reliable facts and not only on the fact that Pompeo hardly bore to have Trump to look at him, which in itself is no doubt an achievement of the Director. However, leaving the sarcasm, what is the evidence of the CIA really based on? That’s the big question that today still haunts the whole world. Isn’t it time for the United States to present the testimony on the matter for everyone to see?
The only two things you should think about after the pompous speech of the CIA director are about the decision-making process of the American leadership and about the competence of certain officials. Now it becomes clear where the reports about the inconsistent policy of the United States and the country’s lack of a clear strategy in the Middle East come from.
And the most terrible thing for the patriots of the U.S. is that, their leadership is not going to change the attitude towards the state in the eyes of the international community. A negative evaluation of the U.S. foreign policy could have been turned into a positive one someday if Washington had been interested in settling the Middle East’ crises. At first, it is necessary to stop making those false allegations about the involvement of the Syrian Arab Army in any crimes using the controlled media.
But now the scheme of the White House’s work on the Middle East briefly looks like this one:
I. Accusing an unwelcome government of a crime without providing really valid evidence
II. An Airstrike or a ground based large scale operation to destroy the infrastructure, may be sanctions
III. Promoting the interests of business elites in conditions of controlled chaos
IV. Acknowledgements, if necessary, of past wrongs and miscalculations without punishment of the perpetrators
Almost every major operation of the U.S. Army begins with data of not clear origin accompanied by a real psychological attack of Internet users. How, then, can anyone respect the U.S. policy if the leadership ridicule the country at the highest level, if the officials are not able to present material evidence of allegations, and the foreign policy of the White House contradicts the established principles of international law?