There are those questioning why would Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad have attacked his own peoples with sarin gas on 4/4/17 when this move would appear to be counterproductive, as he was finally on firm footing where his role as Syria’s leader had finally been assured.
Based on this premise, there are some who are creating conspiracy theories as to who was really responsible for this tragedy. But the answer is that President Assad would use sarin gas no matter what the circumstances because he could. In this case, those who were harmed were dwelling in an area under rebel control, and so, he wouldn’t think twice about what he did. During a TV interview, he went so far as to claim that the children in the videos were not really hurt.
Here is the rest of the story…
On 4/11/17, Annia Ciezadlo of the Washington Post penned the following report, “Why would Assad use sarin in a war he’s winning? To terrify Syrians. There’s a long history of brutal attacks with no military purpose.”
“In the summer of 1925, rebels from the Syrian countryside mounted a guerilla uprising against French colonial rule. The French retaliated by looting, burning and carrying out massacres in villages they suspected of supporting the rebels. That October, French authorities executed about 100 villagers outside Damascus. They displayed 16 of the mutilated corpses in the capital’s main public square; La Syrie, the government newspaper, called the row of bodies “a splendid hunting score.”
“The French had no military reason to do this. Although they had underestimated the rebels at first, they were sure to defeat the vastly outgunned Syrian peasants in the end. The line of butchered bodies was there to send a message: This is the fate of rebels and those who support them.”
“This month, warplanes dropped a chemical agent —most likely sarin, according to doctors who treated the victims — on a town in the northwestern Syrian province of Idlib called Khan Sheikhoun. As gruesome pictures emerged of men, women and children convulsing and foaming at the mouth before dying, a simple question came to dominate the discussion online.”
“From the far right of Mike Cernovich and Ron Paul to the anti-imperialist left, the question was: Why would Assad attack his own people when he was already winning the war? The Syrian regime had regained control of rebel-held east Aleppo and was in the midst of evacuating people from the country’s few remaining rebel enclaves. So why would Assad provoke international outrage with needless carnage, when he had much to lose and saw little concrete military gain?”
“In the increasingly influential world of conspiracy websites such as Infowars, this simple question — and the lack of definitive answers — has managed to sow doubt. As it spread online, the idea that Assad had nothing to gain from a chemical attack fed into a vortex of claims that the Khan Sheikhoun attack was a false flag, an elaborate hoax designed to justify U.S. military inter-vention in Syria. President Trump’s missile strikes on April 6, and his administration’s abrupt about-face on the question of regime change, have only bolstered that theory.”
“What these American observers don’t grasp is that Assad doesn’t care about them: He plays less to the West than to his internal audience. The videos of children and first respondents dying from sarin poisoning horrified people, and this is exactly what they were intended to do: They were meant to strike fear into rebels and send the message that the war was over.”
“History tells us that Assad had plenty to gain from using chemical weapons, U.S. Tomahawk missiles notwithstanding. Since last year, the Syrian government has been mopping up rebel-held enclaves around Damascus and offering their residents “cease-fire” deals — essentially negotiated surrenders. Each agreement is different, but most allow some people to evacuate to Idlib, the most significant remaining redoubt of rebel-held territory. The area around Khan Sheikhoun had seen sporadic fighting in the days before the sarin attack; for anyone contemplating a desperate last stand in Idlib, the message was clear: Don’t even think about it.”
“The chemical attack came at a time when Assad’s military is overstretched. Chemical weapons are a cheap, effective force multiplier — a way to inflict terror despite limitations of manpower and supply. Their use instills fear in civilians and rebels alike. By discouraging them from joining the last pockets of resistance, this tactic saves Assad something more precious than money: time. ”
“So much for not having anything to gain. As for what Assad had to lose, that’s a more complicated question. He wouldn’t have been foolish enough to use chemical weapons after agreeing to give them up, according to one common line of thinking, because that would open him up to exactly the kind of military and diplomatic reprisals that the Trump administration is now threatening.”
“But there’s a major hole in that argument: Assad has already used chemical weapons to kill his own people, and he has paid a negligible price. Why would he risk it again? Because his experience shows him that he’ll probably face only minimal consequences. In fact, a look at history — particularly Syrian history — shows that he has everything to gain.”
“In 1982, when the Muslim Brotherhood seized control of the city of Hama, Hafez al-Assad (President Assad’s Dad) sealed it off and sent in his military. Over the next three weeks, the army killed between 10,000 and 30,000 people — to this day, no one knows exactly how many — most of them civilians. His son Bashar was 16.”
“Hafez al-Assad never paid any price for the massacre. On the contrary, he gained: The rebellion was put down, and he went on to become a valuable strategic ally of many countries, including the USA. He ruled until his death in 2000. His son inherited the presidency.”