According To U.S. Regime Secretary Of State Tillerson, Steps To Remove Assad Are Under Way With 60 Tomahawk Missiles Fired On Syria !!

The US military is attacking Syria tonight, after talking up the idea of unilateral military intervention throughout the day. Preliminary reports are that more than 60 Tomahawk missiles have been fired against various targets inside Syria.

ON THE GAS ATTACK : Seemingly every political figure in the Trump Administration is on board for this war, military and intelligence personnel are said to be increasingly concerned with the narrative line of the government, saying they have major doubts about the Assad gas attack narrative, and are concerned this will escalate into war on a false pretext.

Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi was interviewed on the matter saying many US intelligence officials believe the Russian narrative that the Syrian airstrike was a conventional bomb that hit an al-Qaeda chemical cache. He added that the US narrative made no sense because Assad would have no motive to launch such a strike.

Russian deputy Ambassador Vladimir Safronkov warned earlier in the day of “negative consequences” if the US followed through on its threats to attack, and now that they have, the big issue is the potential fallout if any Russian military casualties are caused in the US strikes.

President Trump’s campaign stance, moving away from the  US trying to impose regime change on Syria, appears to have been totally abandoned in recent days, and earlier today he informed some members of Congress that he was considering a military attack on Syria.

The shift in Trump Administration policy is publicly being justified by a bombing attack in northwest Syria Tuesday, allegedly a chemical weapons attack. President Trump insists Syria has “crossed many lines,” and is insisting that his position on Syria has changed, adding that “I now have responsibility when it comes to Syria.”

US, British, and French diplomats were pushing for UN action against Syria now, though a Russian veto at the Security Council is assured, with Russian officials saying the resolution is based on “fake information.”

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley insisted the UN has “consistently” failed to act against Syria, and warned that states would as a result be compelled to act unilaterally without UN authorization. Haley added that Syria’s “illegitimate government” was committing “untold atrocities.”

All of this sounds remarkably familiar to the statements by US officials when the Obama Administration was planning to attack Syria, and while it’s not clear President Trump is willing to risk war with Russia by launching such an operation, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s warning that Russia needs to reconsider its continued support for Syria, suggesting that at the very least the administration is fine with  continuing to raise tensions with Russia over the matter.

The gas attack incident, however, still has a lot of questions, with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons still just starting to probe the incident and is well short of assigning responsibility. US officials, along with British and French officials, immediately had a complete narrative fitting with their interest in moving against Syria, and are refusing to consider any possibility that runs counter to that, including Russia’s suggestion that a conventional air strike had caused a leak in a rebel chemical cache’

The Pentagon claimed they’d detected the bombs on radar and confirmed they were from a Syrian warplane. Of course, because chemical and conventional bombs don’t show up differently on a radar, this still does not discredit Russia’s version of events.

The shift in US policy, however, really began before the alleged gas attack even took place, as in the days ahead of it, officials were again demanding Assad’s ouster, and rebel officials were reporting that the previously halted CIA arms shipments had been resumed recently. This is just serving as a justification for being more public with it, and hyping a war of regime change.

Obviously, all of the same problems with the US moving against Syria militarily, which Trump pointed out in presidential debates, are still problems, and that may ultimately deter an American attack. Either way, the Trump Administration is looking to rebrand their official stance as a hostile one, and one which is likely to please other NATO members, who see it as a chance to forestall any normalization of US-Russia ties.

*********************************  STEPS TO REMOVE ASSAD, SYRIA’S PRESIDENT ****************************

Not long after officials began confirming that President Trump was “considering” military action against Syria to remove President Bashar Assad from power, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has confirmed that “steps are under way” in the administration for Assad’s ouster.

Exactly what those steps are isn’t totally clear, but Tillerson talked up the idea of an “international community effort” that would both defeat ISIS and remove Assad from power, in additional to “stabilizing” Syria as a whole. Comments from officials familiar with the situation suggest this is almost certain to be military action.

Tillerson went on to say that Assad could have no role in the future government of Syria, and that the US would take an “appropriate response” against him to ensure that this does not happen. Tillerson has insisted only a few days ago that the US was not seeking regime change.

But while seemingly every political figure in the Trump Administration is on board for this war, military and intelligence personnel are said to be increasingly concerned with the narrative line of the government, saying they have major doubts about the Assad gas attack narrative, and are concerned this will escalate into war on a false pretext.

Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi was interviewed on the matter saying many US intelligence officials believe the Russian narrative that the Syrian airstrike was a conventional bomb that hit an al-Qaeda chemical cache. He added that the US narrative made no sense because Assad would have no motive to launch such a strike.