The CIA behind the attack in Syria

It was the Central Intelligence Agency who convinced USA’s President Donald Trump to bombard, with 59 Tomahawk missiles, the Syrian base of Al Shayrat. The intelligence, last April, guaranteed the tycoon that those responsible for the chemical attack of Khan Sheikhoun, in which more than 80 civilians died, was the Syrian army loyal to Bashar al-Assad. So it was not an individual action by the American President, as it has often been written, but rather an attack against Syria promoted, in the first instance, by the CIA. That is what the Director of the Agency, Mike Pompeo implied during a speech given on the last 11th of July at the annual meeting promoted by the INSA  (Intelligence and National Security Alliance) – which gathers all the USA intelligence and security agencies.

Mike Pompeo’s words

“That day Trump wanted to talk to me about some terrible pictures that had come from Syria. I am sure that many of you saw the images of innocent civilians agonizing, apparently victims of a chemical attack – said Pompeo to the audience – The President had a direct message for me: it was necessary to find out what had happened. So I immediately rounded up a group of experts from different agencies. We started collecting the evidence, working in close contact with the partners of the entire intelligence community. The day after the President called his cabinet. As we were sitting down, he asked me what we found. I confirmed that a chemical weapon was actually used in the attack and that it was used by the Syrian regime.”

It was not a Trump show

The words of the CIA director suggest that the USA’s President Donald Trump based his following decisions on the reconstruction provided by the same agency: “The President interrupted me for one moment and he asked: Pompeo, are you sure of what you are saying? I have to admit that question left me speechless. But I knew how much our evidence was solid and, looking into President’s eyes, I said that we strongly trusted our evaluation. Based on our judgement he decided to launch an attack against the airport from which the chemical attack was started.”

Obviously the responsibility for the attack against the Syrian base falls, in the end, on Trump, but this background contradicts the thesis about an individual initiative of the tycoon – known as a true showman. In the meanwhile, several analysis and observers strongly challenged the narration provided by the same USA intelligence. Was it was really Assad using chemical weapons on that occasion? According to analysts and experts things went a different way.

I was not Assad using chemical weapons

The Pulitzer prize Seymour Hersh, in an article published on June 25th on the German newspaper die Welt, accused the White House for attacking Syria with a pretext, without providing any evidence. Hersh, based on information coming from the USA’s “intelligence community”, reconstructed what happened then, coming to the conclusion that there was no evidence of a chemical attack and that the USA’s reaction was unjustified.

“It wasn’t a chemical attack. It is a lie. If it would have been, all the men appointed for the transfer and the loading of the weapons would have worn a hazmat suit. Without them, they wouldn’t have had chances of survival in case of breakdowns. Sarin is endowed with additives made to increase its toxicity. Each drop is projected to maximize the damages: it is invisible, odorless, and it kills in few minutes without generating clouds. Why produce a chemical weapon that people can escape from?” – said the Pulitzer prize in his inquiring. On the other hand, the few evidences presented against Assad from April until today appeared rather weak and unconvincing.