Image credit: https://www.suwalls.com/chess/
MY TAKE ON THE RECENT U.S. MISSILE STRIKE ON THE SYRIAN AIR BASE —-
MY BELIEF:
- The Sarin Nerve Gas attack on the Syrian city was an incredibly horrible ‘false flag’ operation carried out by ISIS to deliberately implicate Assad and cause his downfall.
- Trump (U.S.), Putin (Russia) and Assad (Syria) all want to ANNIHILATE ISIS.
- Trump doesn’t ‘like’ Putin’s ally, Assad, but is willing to maintain the status quo and will not attempt to make a regime change.
- Trump wisely doesn’t trust Putin but is willing to make a deal for their counties mutual benefit in destroying ISIS. (This is reminiscent of the U.S. and Russia successfully working together during WWII to defeat the Nazis)
- Likewise Putin doesn’t trust Trump but is willing to make a mutually beneficial deal.
- Saudi Arabia (Sunni Muslim ally of the U.S.) is a strong, clandestine supporter of ISIS (Sunni Muslim terrorist group).
- Saudi Arabia is an enemy of Syria (Shiite Muslim ally of Russia).
FACT:
- Putin was forewarned by Trump of the impending missile strike and it is assumed that this information was shared with Assad.
- Despite the fact that 59 U.S. missiles were reportedly fired at the Syrian air base, apparently only minimal to moderate damage to the base was incurred. The base runways were not destroyed and the base is still being used.
SPECULATION: Trump and Putin, working secretly through appropriate diplomatic channels. agreed on a mutually beneficial plan before the missile strike was set in motion. Only moderate, controlled missile damage would be inflicted by the U.S. on the Syrian air base. Assad would remain in power. Trump would put pressure on Saudi Arabia to cease supporting ISIS. Putin would continue using the Russian warm water port in Syria on the Mediterranean.
Trump and Putin would ‘conveniently’ remain outwardly antagonistic to one another for the benefit of the U.S. ‘Fake Stream Media’.
“The Art of the Deal” — Trump, Putin and Assad would work together as much as practical to ANNIHILATE ISIS for the benefit of everyone.
====================================================
SAME TOPIC — SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE
————————————————————————————————–
What if Trumps missile salvo wasn’t really about Syria?
American Thinker
by Brian C. Joondeph
4/14/2017
Excerpt:
More than a hundred years ago, President Theodore Roosevelt described his foreign policy as, Speak softly and carry a big stick. Which to him meant, “the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis”.
Fast forward to President Trump. Few will characterize Trump as speaking softly, whether verbally or on Twitter, but after sending 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria last week, there is little doubt about him carrying a big stick. Going further, did this move demonstrate forethought? Was it decisive action ahead of and hopefully preventing any likely crisis?
What if the Syrian bombing was not really about Syria, but meant for a different audience?
The missile salvo was surgical and precise, bombing a few buildings at a Syrian air force base. The Russians were warned ahead of time to get their soldiers off the base. Very likely they tipped off the Syrians. Casualties were minimal, if at all, as the missiles destroyed Syrian planes, hangars and a fuel depot.
Some argue that this is a prelude to war, another Middle Eastern foreign entanglement which candidate Trump criticized and promised not to repeat. Others argue that the attack wasnt enough. The runways werent destroyed, Assad is still in power. Trump instead took the Goldilocks approach, threading the needle between the too much and not enough camps, finding a happy medium.
What if this middle ground wasnt really meant for Syria or Assad, but perhaps for China, Russia, Iran and North Korea? And perhaps the U.S. Fake Stream Media?
Foreign policy, like financial markets, prefers predictability to chaos or impulsiveness. What better way to throw a wrench into relations with these axis of evil countries than for Trump to do a 180-degree pivot from his campaign promises to stay out of Syria?
Foreign powers could safely assume that Trump would focus on his primary campaign promise of making America great again, directing his attention to repealing Obamacare, cutting taxes and regulation, renegotiating trade deals, and building a border wall. He made clear his intention to avoid costly foreign entanglements, specifically the ill-conceived and executed wars of by his two presidential predecessors.
A limited missile strike is hardly a war. No boots on the ground. The cost of the missiles, at a million dollars apiece, is less than what the Obamas are getting for their upcoming book deal. But the big stick is getting attention. International attention.
………………………………………….. ……
View the complete article including links and comments at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/04/what_if_trumps_missile_salvo_wasnt_really_about_syria.html
