The imminent Idlib false flag: for an al-Qaeda break out, or something else?

The now formulaic methodology for preparing the ground ahead of a false flag attack in Syria is actually not that old, and not that well-used, and yet it is perceived as being enormously hackneyed by an increasing number of people in the English-speaking world – and more pertinently, by the Syrians and Russians who have to deal with the consequences of the provocations.  So, we would be daft to believe that those in UK and US Government who would engage in it think that they have the wool pulled over everyone’s eyes. A general rule that applies is this: as long as some of the people are being fooled some of the time, then efforts will proceed along their well-worn Modus Operandi travel tracks. This explains the persistence.

In June 2017, the White House claimed it knew of Syrian preparations to conduct an attack using unconventional weapons:

“As we have previously stated, the United States is in Syria to eliminate the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria,” the statement said. “If, however, Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price.”

This was all on the heels of the April 2017 Khan Sheikhoun incident – information about which Trump may well have been in possession of so that he was aware that there was no evidence to incriminate Assad. Nevertheless, Trump ordered the bombing of the Shayrat airbase from whence it was claimed the attack had been launched. The results were not impressive.

Later, when the White House’s June warning came to nothing, and no chemical weapons attack was forthcoming, the Americans claimed that Assad had been dissuaded by their threat. In other words, perhaps, the desired US intervention was called off for the time being. If it looked like the pistol had been uncocked, many still expected another false flag attack in Syria. There was a glimmer of a possibility in Ghouta, in early 2018, but the option was not taken up (and here at FBEL the chronological proximity of Putin’s “super weapons” presentation was noted).

When it did come, the long promised provocation appeared to be a hastily executed affair, which might well have had something to do with the capture of British intelligence operatives, and the blitzkrieging Syrian Arab Army (SAA) which was bearing down fast upon Douma. In the end, the operation flopped because of the SAA bringing the site of the provocation under its administration before the culprits could properly exploit their theatre.

Of course, the brief history of big psychological operations involving staged chemical weapon attacks to provide a pretext for US intervention cannot omit Barack Obama’s “red line” of 2012; he said:

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.

Arguably it was the Ghouta provocation (dealt with comprehensively by alternative media operation, 21st Century Wire), coming a year after Obama’s speech, and the wise counsel of Russia, which prompted the Syrian government to forego and abandon its chemical weapons so that it expressly could not be blamed for atrocities, and facsimiles of atrocities that would lead the USA to attack in the name of Responsibility to Protect.

As abovementioned, the device of warning Syria ahead of a false flag, and then using the staged incident as a pretext isn’t as automatic and frequent as we might think it is. And yet the concept is fixed in people’s minds as sure as an old certainty. Perhaps what is actually certain is the US Government’s tendency to connive, scheme, and deceive its way to war (which it can win – and this is key).

Last week, John Bolton, a man who could not be more associated with neo-con/liberal warmongering – and a man appointed by the “swamp draining” Trump (irony lost on drooling Cult of Trump adherents) – threatened the government in Damascus with violence in retaliation for any attack using chemical weapons in Idlib when the Syrian Arab Army eventually commence an operation to eliminate Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS, aka the Free Syrian Army, aka al-Nusra, aka al-Qaeda) located there.

Bolton was speaking at a press conference on July 22nd, during a visit to Jerusalem. Taking into account the location of his utterances, one of Bolton’s objectives must have been to appeal to the notion of the invincible united front against the belligerence of Syria and Russia which has been constructed in western corporate-media propaganda. Of course, real events on the ground show that Bolton’s would be a fake narrative, but the guzzlers of Establishment television news do not know this, and it is imperative, at what is quite a parlous point in the development of the Masonic World Order out of London and Washington, that they do not have their misconceptions about who is and is not supreme on the globe shattered by a humiliation. This is a consideration that most alternative media analysts do not factor in.

If one looks at what Bolton said, it basically constituted an offer. Don’t attack Idlib, and there won’t be a false flag attack, and neither, then, an American retaliation.

We now see plans for the Syrian regime to resume offensive military activities in Idlib province.

We are obviously concerned about the possibility that Assad may use chemical weapons again.

Just so there’s no confusion here, if the Syrian regime uses chemical weapons we will respond very strongly and they really ought to think about this a long time.

A proper response to this depends on what you think “very strongly” entails. If it actually means fetching the Whore of Babylon a slap like the one administered when the US sought to punish the Syrian Government for the farce that was the so-called Douma chlorine attack, then the Idlib offensive will go ahead as planned.

FBEL isn’t the only place where there has been an occurrance of the notion that the US is bargaining. In fact, the writer of an article at Al-Monitor, the Washington DC based “online newspaper” (with RAND Corporation board members, to give an idea about its purpose), seems to have a firm conviction that John Bolton would be bluffing.

The Donald Trump administration is scrambling to get concessions out of Russia on Syria before the Bashar al-Assad regime completes its reconquest of the country, greatly constraining any remaining US leverage…

A source close to the administration told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity that the Trump team has already accepted that Assad’s forces are going after Idlib, and that the United States has little capacity — or desire — to stop them.

Indeed, there is now a rumour on the internet that goes into the details of certain concessions that the Americans were asking of the Russians during a secret meeting – which, for wont of any proper sourcing from the people spreading the rumour, we are perhaps supposed to assume was the one between John Bolton and the Russian Secretary of the Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev on the 23rd August. Previously, it had been said of this meeting that Bolton had warned his Russian counterpart of greater American force, although the Kremlin would not confirm that Bolton used such language, according to the Russian news site, Sputnik.

In fact, the author feels that it is very likely that any stories we might see about what was said in meetings between the Russians and Americans, and what deals were made – especially where the latter is asking for guarantees for a share-out of Syrian oil and such like, are disinformation†. This doesn’t mean to say that the Americans aren’t looking for a deal. Don’t forget, surrender on certain terms is a form of a deal (see footnote).

What one actually needs to do is to look at the more concrete pieces of evidence. The Russians obviously think that trouble is ahead, and have produced quite a detailed report on what has been observed and heard of in Idlib to indicate that a false flag would happen. On the 25th August, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov told of information supplied by the Russian Center for Syrian Reconciliation, passed to it by local informants, that foreign English-speaking specialists arrived in the Habit settlement in Idlib. Six miles south of this place is the supposed target, Kafr Zita, against which would be sent chlorine-filled missiles. It has to be said, the attack hasn’t happened in the period that Konashenkov said it would – but then sometimes exposure will surely get such a mission cancelled or postponed, so not much can be read into this.

Indeed, further signs that Moscow suspects shenanigans is the new record that appears to have been set for the number of Russian navy vessels in Syrian water, with speculation that they may be there to foil the Americans as much as they are there to take part in an attack on Idlib. Furthermore, the Syrian representative at the UN, Bashar Jaafari, has even taken evidence there to demonstrate that an engineered incident has been planned to blame his government (see here and here).

It is easy, therefore, to take Bolton’s statement made in Jerusalem, and understand that there will be a provocation, and that US military intervention will occur thereafter. However, we’ve already seen that a “limited” US campaign in Syria runs a high chance of not achieving anything. We’ve already decided that anything more extensive that will cause Russian casualties will blow up in the faces of the Americans (see here and here). We’ve already seen that previous American efforts have always been about prising Russia away from its position of support for the Assad Government.

The best guess about what is happening is probably to be formed around other data provided by the Russians:

Several thousands of militants with heavy weaponry and armored vehicles gave (sic) gathered in Syria’s Idlib province to launch an offensive on government-controlled regions of Hama and Aleppo, the head of the Russian Center for Reconciliation of the Opposing Sides in Syria, Maj. Gen. Alexei Tsygankov, told reporters on Saturday.

Perhaps, then, the Americans want the Russians to think they want to bomb the Syrians in support of a break-out of Idlib by HTS. What we shouldn’t assume, however, is that the Americans are sure that it would be something that they could achieve. It could be bluffing all for the purpose of getting a better deal. Of course, the way Russia should respond is exactly how they have done: act to deny the bargaining chip so that the US has nothing to deal with – hence the warning of a false flag to come, and a strengthened naval contingent. However, this still does not mean that we won’t see a most terrible false flag in pursuit of the US’ old purposes: to guilt Russia away from its support of Assad. The chances of this not working will not stop the Crazies from doing it.

Because a huge psyop is on the cards, it is in our best interests to notice that present in Idlib, according to her August 18th report where she speaks to “Mohammed” who tells her “he is terrified of the Syrian regime because ‘they kill children and women’”, is Sky’s Alex Crawford. Those few reading this who also read this site’s predecessor Luikkerland might remember that Crawford was embedded with al-Qaeda in Libya (so she’s with the same people again in Syria – “they have a strict code of conduct and I’m told to dress accordingly”, she reports, referring to her headdress). She was also present on the night that NATO’s terrorist proxy army claimed to capture Green Square in Tripoli.

Now, what people don’t really understand about Libya was that it was to a great extent a purely psychological operation, with journalists of British and its client-state corporate-media (namely Al-Jazeera), being used as assets in military operations. Stories about this written at the time at Luikkerland are now being collated in the Archive section of this site (e.g. this – and click on the “Archive” link in the menu). Perhaps the masterpiece of psychological operations in Libya was the Green Square victory muster attended by Alex Crawford. Some say it was filmed on a sound stage in Qatar. In fact, when the same big psychological operations started happening in Syria at the start of the invasion there, the Syrian Government warned its people that what might appear to be “rebel” victories were definitely not what they seemed. Libya really fell through the panic caused by the likes of Alex Crawford, and the same was attempted on Syria. This is why Marie Colvin was fair game (and Luikkerland readers will understand that reference).

Coming to the point, of course, is that we shouldn’t believe anything that comes from British journalists who are all of a sudden embedded with al-Qaeda again on the ground in Syria. When the Russians spoke of English-speaking specialists arriving in Idlib to oversee a false flag, we perhaps reflexively think of those that the Russians have explicitly accused: i.e. intelligence assets of the British variety, going under the name of Olive, a supposed private military contractor, who have taught their al-Qaeda monkeys to “handle chemical warfare agents”. Russia has also categorically stated as surely as fact that there would be “active participation of the UK special services”. Well, it is true that the UK special services have been at the heart of the trouble in Syria since they were involved in the fighting around Damascus pretending to be rebels about to overthrow the Assad government. And so too have British journalists. Note that the nomenclature “English-speaking specialists” quite easily extends to include the propaganda corps, even if the Russians didn’t mean it that way, because in the matters of 21st century “War on Terror” warfare, heavily dependant as it is on psychological operations, British journalists are indeed specialists, and have a very vital role to play. Keep an eye on Sky News, and Alex Crawford.

† The source has been discovered. Sputnik (never to be automatically trusted in any case) tells of “Lebanese daily Al Akhbar” and how according to it, officials of “several US intelligence and security agencies” met with the head of Syria’s national security office, Major General Ali Mamlouk. It’s not clear when the meeting took place.

The story goes that the US offered

a withdrawal of its troops from Al Tanf and the East Euphrates on three conditions, including a complete Iranian withdrawal, a share in Syria’s oil spoils, and intelligence on terrorists.

It’s highly unbelievable. The official line from Syria is that the Iranian contingent is tiny. Indeed, Israel uses the Iranian presence as cover for its support of al-Qaeda (see here and here). Secondly, the US Government runs the terrorists. So these two conditions are in fact non-conditions. Why would the US offer two conditions that amounted to nothing to be gained in return for their entire withdrawal from Syria. As for the oil, the US effectively occupies Syria east of the Euphrates, with all its oil. This may well be an ever more tentative occupation as the Arabs increasingly hate being colonised by some Kurds, and other Kurds look to Damascus for protection from US betrayal – but it is still territory, with all its oil, that the US essentially commands. Al-Tanf is still key to US ambition in the south and east of Syria.

This is an important point that should have been covered in the main body of this work. The US won’t surrender all at once in Syria, it will do it piecemeal as when it is forced to. The first white flag went up on the Golan Heights, as covered at FBEL.