Syria crisis: Obama considers unilateral response

But president must persuade Congress, public on goals, tactics, cost

U.S. President Barack Obama is preparing for the possibility of launching unilateral American military action against Syria within days, White House aides say.

Despite roadblocks in forming an international coalition, including the stunning decision by the British Parliament on Thursday to keep the U.K. on the sidelines in any international military action, Obama appeared undeterred and advisers said he would be willing to retaliate against Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad on his own.

In Manila, U.S. Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said Friday the Obama administration was consulting with allies to “further develop the facts” about the attack, and options for a response. Hagel said the administration also would continue to seek input from members of Congress on how the U.S. should respond to the deadly attack.

Hagel said Thursday’s consultation by high-level Obama administration officials with congressional leaders was “not to convince anyone of anything.” He said it was intended as an update and a chance to solicit lawmakers’ views on possible U.S. military or other action. “As we continue to consult with our allies, we’ll further develop the facts and intelligence on what happened,” he said.

No Negotiation: China and Russia Walk Out of UN Security Council Meeting: “This Isn’t An Exercise”

By Mac Slavo

As Jerome Corsi warned earlier today, “this is one of the most serious moments that we’ve ever faced in world history.”

Events are happening quickly and as it stands, the United States, Britain and other western allies are preparing a missile strike on Syria.

Russia has been the most critical opponent of the possibility of mid east military action, but now China has also stepped in.

Russia and China have stepped up their warnings against military intervention in Syria, with Moscow saying any such action would have “catastrophic consequences” for the region.

BBC via Zero Hedge

And moments ago the Interfax news agency announced that China and Russia have left the negotiating table in response to a proposal for Britain’s David Cameron on pending intervention in Syria.

UN-SECURITY/COUNCIL-RUSSIA-CHINA DUBAI. Aug 28 (Interfax)

CONFIRMED: US Claims Against Syria – There is no Evidence

By Tony Cartalucci

The Wall Street Journal has confirmed what many suspected, that the West’s so-called “evidence” of the latest alleged “chemical attacks” in Syria, pinned on the Syrian government are fabrications spun up from the West’s own dubious intelligence agencies.

The Wall Street Journal reveals that the US is citing claims from Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency fed to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a repeat of the fabrications that led up to the Iraq War, the Libyan War, and have been used now for 3 years to justify continued support of extremists operating within and along Syria’s borders.

Wall Street Journal’s article, “U.S., Allies Prepare to Act as Syria Intelligence Mounts,” states:

One crucial piece of the emerging case came from Israeli spy services, which provided the Central Intelligence Agency with intelligence from inside an elite special Syrian unit that oversees Mr. Assad’s chemical weapons, Arab diplomats said. The intelligence, which the CIA was able to verify, showed that certain types of chemical weapons were moved in advance to the same Damascus suburbs where the attack allegedly took place a week ago, Arab diplomats said.

Both Mossad and the CIA are clearly compromised in terms of objectivity and legitimacy. Neither exists nor is expected to provide impartial evidence, but rather to facilitate by all means necessary the self-serving agendas, interests, and objectives of their respective governments.

Iran warns west against military intervention in Syria

Tehran threat comes as John Kerry says US would respond to ‘undeniable’ use of chemical weapons by Assad regime

Iran has warned that foreign military intervention in Syria will result in a conflict that would engulf the region.

The threatening rhetoric from Tehran came in response to a statement by the secretary of state, John Kerry, on Monday that the US would respond to the “undeniable” use of chemical weapons in Syria.

In the strongest signal yet that the US intends to take military action against the Assad regime, Kerry said President Bashar al-Assad’s forces had committed a “moral obscenity” against his own people.

“Make no mistake,” Kerry said. “President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapon against the world’s most vulnerable people. Nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny”.

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, Abbas Araqchi, indicated it was equally resolved to defend Assad.

“We want to strongly warn against any military attack in Syria. There will definitely be perilous consequences for the region,” Araqchi told a news conference. “These complications and consequences will not be restricted to Syria. It will engulf the whole region.”

Obama’s New Syria Options; Officials are talking about Obama using military force

by Leslie H. Gelb

With the latest chemical weapons attack, U.S. officials are talking about Obama using military force, but with a diplomatic and humanitarian twist, writes Leslie H. Gelb.

After the most recent use of chemical weapons in Syria, President Obama is sheltering his next moves even from his closest advisers as the whole Obama administration inches painfully toward what they all see as the moment of truth in Syria.

Once again, he could walk away from the use of force because that option has little backing either in his administration or among Americans generally. But after an endless run of inter-agency meetings at the White House, the sense is that he is nearing three conclusions: first, the Syrian government has put his credibility on the line irrevocably and inescapably; second, he now must take direct military action to punish the government of President Bashar al-Assad, though not in a manner that commits him to further use of force; and third, he needs to combine whatever force he uses now with dramatic and diplomatic initiatives.