Originally published in the Greek newspaper “Paraskinio” issue 574, p. 54 on Apr. 14, 2017
It is well known that after the military intervention in Syria in the autumn of 2015, the Russians developed troops in many military units of the regime, according to data published by the Russian Ministry of Defense. In particular, Russian troops were stationed at all military airports in the country to check them. Shayrat Airport, from which the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun was launched, was included months ago in a plan by the Russian Ministry of Defense to develop and become a major military base in the center of Syria. As a result, any excursions made by this airport can not be carried out without the Russians knowing their details, which confirms they knew about the attack on Khan Sheikhoun.
On the other hand, Russia is the guarantor for the destruction and delivery of the chemical weapons available to Assad under Security Council Resolution 2118 in the summer of 2013 following the chemical attack on East Ghouta in Damascus where at least 1,500 civilians, mainly children and women. Therefore, possession of any chemical weapon from Assad does not exist without Moscow knowing it.
Regarding the role of Iran, Tehran also has a widespread influence on the military bases and airports of the Assad regime. This makes it a participant in the attack on Khan Sheiknoun.
There are many questions that have arisen about the feasibility of a chemical attack by the Assad regime, as well as about who really lies behind it, especially after the American response. Most observers who watch the Syrian and Middle East crises generally felt that what had happened was a Tehran project aimed at pulling Russia against US power in order to block a possible Russia-US agreement that would aimed at limiting the influence of Iran and its paramilitary groups in Syria. Other observers argue that the attack was in the green light of the Russians, just to put Iran in a difficult position and to have the possibility to come to an agreement with the Americans at the expense of the Iranian influence in Syria. Both are reasonable.
What goes beyond logic is the positioning of some analysts standing on the far right of Europe, which lean towards the views of the Russian side. Especially in France, they believe that what happened was the construction of the Syrian opposition by the Americans to justify US military action in Syria. Those who face things thus shun their intelligence and insight to serve their interests. The reality is that America, which has five military bases in the northern part of Syria, does not need an excuse to strengthen its presence there. If we look at the recent statements by US officials before the chemical attack, they confirm the change of attitude of the US administration that there is no real desire on its part to weaken Assad. So who benefits from this attack?
What happened was planned in advance by Iran and Russia and was implemented by the Assad regime. Air traffic on the day of the attack, leaked by the US Department of Defense, confirmed that the Assad-owned Sukhoi 22 aircraft took off from the Shayrat military airport in the east of the Homs province. The aircraft targeted the city of Khan Sheikhoun with four missiles. As for the reason behind the move, both Russia and Iran wanted to test the reaction of the new US government and plan accordingly their future moves to resolve the Syrian crisis.
On the other hand, Russia is the guarantor for the destruction and delivery of the chemical weapons available to Assad under Security Council Resolution 2118 in the summer of 2013 following the chemical attack on East Ghouta in Damascus where at least 1,500 civilians, mainly children and women. Therefore, possession of any chemical weapon from Assad does not exist without Moscow knowing it.
Regarding the role of Iran, Tehran also has a widespread influence on the military bases and airports of the Assad regime. This makes it a participant in the attack on Khan Sheiknoun.
There are many questions that have arisen about the feasibility of a chemical attack by the Assad regime, as well as about who really lies behind it, especially after the American response. Most observers who watch the Syrian and Middle East crises generally felt that what had happened was a Tehran project aimed at pulling Russia against US power in order to block a possible Russia-US agreement that would aimed at limiting the influence of Iran and its paramilitary groups in Syria. Other observers argue that the attack was in the green light of the Russians, just to put Iran in a difficult position and to have the possibility to come to an agreement with the Americans at the expense of the Iranian influence in Syria. Both are reasonable.
What goes beyond logic is the positioning of some analysts standing on the far right of Europe, which lean towards the views of the Russian side. Especially in France, they believe that what happened was the construction of the Syrian opposition by the Americans to justify US military action in Syria. Those who face things thus shun their intelligence and insight to serve their interests. The reality is that America, which has five military bases in the northern part of Syria, does not need an excuse to strengthen its presence there. If we look at the recent statements by US officials before the chemical attack, they confirm the change of attitude of the US administration that there is no real desire on its part to weaken Assad. So who benefits from this attack?
What happened was planned in advance by Iran and Russia and was implemented by the Assad regime. Air traffic on the day of the attack, leaked by the US Department of Defense, confirmed that the Assad-owned Sukhoi 22 aircraft took off from the Shayrat military airport in the east of the Homs province. The aircraft targeted the city of Khan Sheikhoun with four missiles. As for the reason behind the move, both Russia and Iran wanted to test the reaction of the new US government and plan accordingly their future moves to resolve the Syrian crisis.