On February 25th, 2021, two F-15 fighter jets dropped seven precision-guided munitions on buildings allegedly used by Iranian-backed militias. According to Rami Abdulrahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, these stikes left 22 dead, with a much higher death toll expected due to several others being injured. 

Syria responded by stating the attacks represented “cowardly and systematic American aggression.” Perhaps there is some truth in Syria’s statement. The last three US presidents have been bombing Syria with seemingly no goal in mind. If America intended to topple the Assad regime, they could have done so with relative ease. In 2003, Iraq had far greater political, economic, and military strength than Syria does today, and the US managed to topple the Saddam regime in less than a month. What is currently ensuing in Syria is not regime change but rather a process of destabilization.

Three popular theories as to why the US is involved in Syria are:

1. The armaments manufacturers greatly benefit finically from the US in long-term warfare.
2. Syria is rich with natural resources like oil and natural gas that can potentially be appropriated.
3. America is aligned with nations, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, that benefit from the US fighting their adversaries for them.

Regardless of which (or all) of these reasons are true, one thing is sure – American citizens do not benefit from the US being military involved in the Middle East. Prior to America’s aggression in the Middle East, we had great trade and diplomatic relations with most Middle Eastern countries. The region was modernizing due to political stability, and there was far greater economic assurance for citizens. These benefits were abandoned due to America’s far more important interest in fighting the war on terror. The war on terror, however, has simply been used as a recruiting tool to generate further terrorism. Is it any wonder why ISIS recruiters will travel to the bombed-out ashes of former cities in Iraq to target young men, who’ve just lost their community, asking them to join ISIS to resist a forced Westernization upon the rest of their nation? The same can be said about the motives of Al-Qaeda wanting to resist Western influence in the Arab world; in Bin Ladin’s “Letter to America,” he made that very clear. Even if the West continued its prevailing foreign policy arrangements and obliterated ISIS and other terrorist factions, new ones would spring up within months. It seems obvious that the best way to fight terror is to cut ties with the Middle East and allow them to fight and make peace among themselves. 

One group that was targeted in the recent attack was Kataeb Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militia in Syria. One may hear the name “Hezbollah” and immediately think of the negative connotations we’re bombarded with from the mainstream media. Well, despite what political pundits may tell you, Hezbollah has never posed a serious threat to America, nor have they ever carried out an attack in the United States. Frankly, they think about you in their daily lives just as much as you think of them. In reality, Kataeb Hezbollah is preoccupied with fighting ISIS and Al-Qaeda, both of which have attacked and killed American civilians. So why is it that America is attacking a group that poses no threat to itself and who is also fighting the same enemy as us? The answer may lie in whom Kataeb Hezbollah is fighting with. Kataeb Hezbollah is aligned with the Assad regime in fighting ISIS and other terrorist organizations. With Washington having an adamant hatred for the Assad regime, it may be clear as to why America is struggling against all of Syria’s allies. But again, we come back to the question of “why?” Why does the US care about the President of Syria anyways? We are told that for humanitarian reasons, we have to overthrow Assad. The most common justification for invading Syria is the alleged chemical weapon attacks Assad has carried out on Syrian citizens. 

To the disappointment of the pentagon, no evidence has come forward of these chemical attacks. There are no Ba’ath party documents of any planned attacks. There is no photographic or video evidence of these alleged strikes taking place. There were inconsistencies in the UN report when a whistleblower released emails showing that original claims were altered to fit the anti-Assad political narrative. For example, upon the first inspection, the UN sent the OPCW (The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) to report that the gas canisters were placed in their locations and then detonated. When the report went back to the UN, the report was modified to state that the canisters had been dropped from aircraft. More than 20 inspectors on the OPCW’s Syrian project expressed concern over the “findings” of the final report. The original claim that Assad was dropping deadly gas on civilians was sent to the CIA from the FSA (Syrian rebels whom Assad is fighting) and Al-Sham, who is the Syrian proxy militia for… wait for it…, Al-Qaeda. At this point, if anyone still believes Assad is chlorine gassing the people he’s elected to protect, I have some WMDs from Iraq to sell you. 

It’s unfortunate that the standard for waging war in so many Americans’ hearts is “if the TV man said so.” Gone are the days of demanding proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of crime before sending our troops to fight and die in foreign lands for the interests of other people. Luckily, the US has military capabilities that don’t require boots on the ground or risk many American lives being lost. We can simply drone strike and send hellfire missiles crashing down on sovereign countries with relative ease. “Justification? Morality? Evidence?” you may ask. Nonsense! We have the biggest guns, so we get to do what we want. What could possibly go wrong?” Washington would reply. Perhaps Bashar Al-Assad was right, America is acting cowardly, and the public should demand change from our warmongering establishment parties.