Will the US Attack Syria?

One of the methods of event prediction and analysis in the field of foreign affairs is the historical investigation of a country’s political behavior and review of that political entity’s dealings with other countries. In this same vein and with the aim of evaluating and analyzing the United States’ foreign policy in the Middle East and especially this country’s recent threats, on the basis of a military campaign against Syria, we will review three historical events. In each of these events, the United States entered an outright war.

The Attack on the RMS Lusitania

The passenger ship Lusitania, which had set out from New York, sank after being attacked by a German U-boat off the coast of Ireland; 1,200 men, women and children — most of whom were American — drowned. German spies in New York knew that this boat had taken on thousands of tons of military materials and munitions as freight.

This was so, but the Germans had warned passengers, through U.S. newspapers, about traveling on the ship and had predicted the ship’s sinking. On the other hand, the British battleship that had been ordered to guide the Lusitania to a secure location was recalled suddenly and without explanation. These and many other realities never were disclosed and remained secret for 50 years; the only thing that was shown in the media to the public was a depiction of the Germans’ brutality. The Lusitania affair had a large role in hastening the United States’ behind-the-scenes entry into World War I.

However, what historical writings tell us is that a passenger ship was targeted by a German submarine, and for this very reason the United States entered World War I. Thus, which people benefited from the United States’ entry into the war and what the consequences of its entry were are topics beyond the scope of this article. However, a point that is always ignored is that the Americans and the British were well-aware of the Germans’ threats and the risks of the route of the ship in question. The ship was practically sent into the jaws of death and into a German ambush so it could be targeted because, according to the Monroe Doctrine, the United States did not have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of European countries. But the killing of 128 Americans was an appropriate justification to satisfy public opinion and a license for U.S. entry into the war.

Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor

Close to 20 years after the sinking of the Lusitania, on Dec. 7, 1941, Japanese forces attacked the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, and the United States officially entered World War II. The result of this attack for the U.S. Navy was a complete disaster. Three hundred sixty Japanese airplanes succeeded in sinking five large U.S. warships and three smaller ships. In addition to that, 188 U.S. airplanes on the ground were destroyed and 155 other planes were damaged. Even sadder than this for the American people was the killing of nearly 2,400 U.S. soldiers.

Up to now, several books have been published and several movies have been made about this event. But none of the remaining documents contain answers to questions such as why Japan, despite the many enemies it had, also declared war on the United States; how U.S. forces in Pearl Harbor were taken by surprise; why the Americans were not able to foresee the attack; and why all of the air defenses were asleep at the moment of the attack!

In terms of the original scenario, the matter is actually quite similar to the sinking of the Lusitania. A number of mistreated U.S. soldiers were massacred in their sleep and the United States entered World War II, the result of which was the use of the atomic bomb and the disasters of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On the topic of this occurrence it also suffices for us to say that the reports, quotes from high-ranking military officers and remaining documents all prove conclusively that Americans were aware of Japan’s attack. This is because at that historical juncture, due to political and economic pressure from the United States, Japan had no choice but to attack the United States.

Of course, in the years after the war, information based on the predictability of the attack was published in the U.S. media which was followed by much criticism, but this criticism had no more impact on the events that had occurred.

The Attack on the Twin Towers

On the topic of the attack against the twin towers — because of concerns that this piece become too long — I point out the fact that, despite all of the existing pressures, there is a widespread belief that the sabotage of these towers would in no way have been possible without the cooperation and coordination of the U.S. intelligence apparatus. The fact that no one in any way has the right to investigate the attack has especially aggravated this matter.

In this incident there are several factors similar to the two previous events: Many innocent Americans are killed and the United States enters a long-term war in Afghanistan.

The Attack Against Syria

Clearly, by investigating these three historical incidents that of course have some other similarities to each other, one can find some insight into the foreign policy and “game” of the United States in the Middle East.

In the current conditions and with the successive defeats of the Syrian rebels, we see that the events of the Middle East, especially those regarding the Syrians, are not America’s favorite topic. The Americans are in search of an excuse so that they can find a shortcut to a direct attack and military intervention in Syria, despite widespread opposition and public objection.

On the one hand, analysis of the three aforementioned topics brings us to a point: Any time Americans have decided to escape the framework of laws and legal and norm-related considerations and direct public opinion to some unrealistic sphere, they effect a certain feeling and, with the creation of a massive news event and wide coverage of this incident, define a justifiable path for achieving their objectives.

In reality, Americans have shown that they have a particular talent for circumventing public opinion and international institutions to achieve their goals. To this end, they are even prepared to sacrifice a large number of Americans in order to impose a sensitive, emotional atmosphere in public opinion.

In recent days we have seen that the media in the Western camp, aligned with U.S. policy in the region, have set off an intense uproar over the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. This came at a time when the Americans had mostly made statements that the use of chemical weapons by Bashar al-Assad’s government was a red line.

Meanwhile, a notable discrepancy between the current and past conditions has become evident, a discrepancy to which little attention has been paid and which is causing the Americans to be more careful in their decision-making. This discrepancy is related to the manner and method of media coverage and its control in the past and at present. More simply put, in the current circumstances Americans cannot completely control the news stream and the informational news media. In truth, the era when media empires like CNN and the BBC were the sole contenders has come to an end. This has happened in such a way that hundreds and thousands of news networks have been born into the world which do not allow the media giants to easily force feed their audience to eat anything they want. In the virtual world, ordinary people have turned into active players and, with the creation of blogs and personal websites, have been able to have an influence in the field of public opinion and many times invalidate a whole scenario through publishing one video file on YouTube.

Regarding these very events of recent days, immediately after the spread of the news about the use of chemical weapons by Bashar al-Assad’s government, satellite images of chemical weapons’ use by rebels were published on the Internet and frustrated the Americans’ plan to direct and guide public opinion. Of course, the preparedness of Russia’s ships and experts’ warnings about the possible outbreak of a world war were also influential factors in the prevention of a military campaign against Syria. But what is certain this time, as in the past, is that all plans do not work out and the flaws that have come up the path to control public opinion in the end led to Barack Obama’s announcement that he has not yet made a final decision to attack Syria.

Finally, I draw your attention to this: The current situation in the Middle East makes it necessary for media outlets connected to Islamic countries to remain careful more than before and be aware of fast and timely coverage of developments in the region. They need to make as much an effort as possible so that the region’s events are reported to the world in the words of the region’s media and not allow news and images to breach filters, which has no goal but to destroy the region’s security and sow dissension among Muslims.