THE media chorus we hear today following the American air strike against a Syrian air force base echoes similar war drums that pounded around the world in the run-up to the American-led attack and occupation of Iraq. The casus belli then was Saddam’s non-existent WMDs. Now, it’s the alleged Syrian use of the sarin gas against civilians in Khan Sheikhun, near Idlib.

Although the Syrians insist they destroyed or surrendered their stockpiles of chemical weapons following the Russian-brokered deal in 2014, the West is unanimous in accusing Bashar al-Assad of using poison gas against his own people last week. But while Assad might be a brutal dictator, he is still a rational player. He is finally winning the vicious civil war that has seen hundreds of thousands of Syrians killed and millions of refugees dispersed across the world. He knows that the one thing that could pull America into the war as a direct participant is the use of chemical weapons. So why on earth would he use poison gas, especially when there is no tactical or strategic advantage for him?

The Russian explanation seems to fit the facts: Syrian jets were attacking a rebel arms depot, and their rockets triggered explosions which allowed sarin to escape and cause the tragic death toll among men, women and children. But so convinced is the West of Assad’s guilt that the media and public greeted the American missile strike with applause as just punishment. If we are to believe hawks in the Trump administration, the US could well extend the scope of its attacks. Meanwhile, Putin has condemned the American action, and has vowed to equip Syria with its latest air defence system. Thus, the ground for a major conflict is being laid.

Gullible people who have swallowed the American narrative ought to read the report prepared by the UN’s Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in which it cites specific examples of the use of poison gas in Syria, apparently by rebel groups. In a report published in July 2014, The Guardian said:

“ISIS [the militant Islamic State group] has taken control of a vast former chemical weapons facility north-west of Baghdad where 2,500 degraded chemical rockets filled decades ago with deadly nerve agent sarin or their remnants were stored, along with other chemicals…”

William Craddick, a journalist with the online journal ZeroHedge, wrote last week:

“In November 2016, The New York Times acknowledged that IS had used chemical weapons at least 52 times in Syria and Iraq… On April 8 2016, the Voice of America reported that jihadist group Jaysh-al Islam used chemical weapons in attacks against Kurdish troops in Aleppo.”

So clearly, jihadist groups — the only ones fighting the government in Syria — have a track record of using chemical weapons. And they have a dual motive in deploying these banned substances: they kill and intimidate their enemies while implicating the Assad regime. In any case there was certainly not enough evidence for the United States to launch an assault on Syria.

While the attack on a sovereign country was in total violation of international law, it also goes against Trump’s pledge to destroy the IS. Currently, Syrian forces are doing most of the fighting and dying, and by degrading the country’s air force, Trump is helping the jihadists.

Few people in the West seem to understand what’s at stake here. Assad, for all his brutality and tyranny, is a secular leader who leads a country with a diverse ethnic and religious mix of people, including Druze, Turcoman tribes, Alawites, Christians, Kurds and Sunnis. If he is toppled, I would not like to be a member of any non-Sunni minority. Remember how hundreds of thousands of Christians were driven out of Iraq? And let’s not forget the thousands of Yazidis killed, made homeless, and their women taken as sex slaves by IS.

This is the fate that awaits Syrian minorities if the Assad government is toppled, and this is why they continue supporting — and fighting for — Bashar al-Assad. But targeting him is part of a pattern of removing secular leaders: Saddam Hussain, for all his many faults and brutal ways, presided over a state where women enjoyed equal rights and participated freely in public life. Now, they are mostly forced to stay at home. In Libya again, a dictatorial secular leader held a tribal society together. After the West orchestrated his departure and death, the country is a chaotic black hole where militias, terrorists and warlords fight for control over oil.

And who benefits from these falling dominoes? Apart from Western arms manufacturers and oil companies, the big winner is Saudi Arabia that has always hated the presence of secular governments, and has long attempted to replace them with theocracies that are more amenable to Saudi control. The kingdom fears the emergence of democratic movements in these countries that could ultimately question the legitimacy of the House of Saud. This is why it launched its own counter-revolution to push back the Arab Spring a few years ago. For the time being, it has succeeded, but for how long will it stem the aspirations of young, educated Arabs?

Among others who gain is Israel. Iraq, Syria and Libya were all sworn enemies of the Zionist state, and supported the Palestinian cause. Now, only Iran is left, and Netanyahu is doing his best to push Washington into armed conflict with Tehran. With Trump eager to do Israel’s bidding, there is a good chance Israel might succeed.

So as the West, led by America, bombs and kills hundreds of thousands across the Middle East, should people in Berlin, Paris, Brussels and London be shocked by the occasional terror attacks they face from furious Muslims?

irfan.husain@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, April 10th, 2017