Award-winning investigative journalist Robert Parry has published an article claiming last week’s chemical attack in Syria was launched not from a Syrian government airfield but, rather, a Saudi-Israel special operations base.
Parry’s article, hosted on ConsortiumNews.com, comes nearly one week after President Donald Trump ordered an airstrike against a Syrian airfield that, at the time, was alleged to have been the launch site for the chemical weapons attack that killed 70 people.
Citing a U.S. intelligence expert, Parry claims The White House is withholding evidence pointing to the Saudi-Israel base as the true source of the drone that carried the chemical bomb.
“According to a source,” he writes, “the analysts struggled to identify whose drone it was and where it originated. Despite some technical difficulties in tracing its flight path, analysts eventually came to believe that the flight was launched in Jordan from a Saudi-Israel special operations base for supporting Syrian rebels.”
According to Parry, the intelligence official further said that “the suspected reason for the poison gas was to create an incident that would reverse the Trump administration’s announcement in late March that it was no longer seeking the removal of [Syrian] President Bashar al-Assad.”
Parry goes on to point out that, if that really was the motive, the operation was successful considering the Trump administration’s current stance towards Assad.
Parry goes on to call into question a four-page report Trump’s National Security Council released to bolster claims of Syrian involvement in the airstrike.
Particularly, Parry takes issue with the administration’s unwillingness to declassify its specific visual evidence for the findings.
He writes, “it is unclear why releasing these overhead videos would be so detrimental to ‘sources and methods’ since everyone knows the U.S. has this capability and the issue at hand – if it gets further out of hand – could lead to a nuclear confrontation with Russia.”
Parry further describes the report as “argumentative in that it assumes that Russian officials – and presumably others – who have suggested different possible explanations for the incident at Khan Sheikdoun did so in a willful cover-up, when any normal investigation seeks to evaluate different scenarios before settling on one.”
Parry is not the only person who took issue with the report.
MIT national security specialist from Massachusetts Theodore Postol did his own analysis and states, “I have reviewed the document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without a doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack.”
Postol goes on to describe the evidence cited by the White House for Assad’s involvement as “tampered with or staged.”
The theory stated in the works of Postol and Parry gives credence to concerns raised by many following last week’s attack that the whole thing was a false flag.
Here’s a video from Paul Joseph Watson – one of many conservatives who described the event as a false flag.