Political Scientist Blows Up Mainstream Narrative on Syria

Max Abrahms the Associate Professor of Political Science at Northeastern University argues that “mainstream narrative of the Syria conflict has imploded.”

In a tweet thread, he revealed that new information came out showing that the Syrian “rebels” were  “in cahoots not only with Al Qaeda but also ISIS & official reports of Assad using chemical weapons were doctored according to the reports’ own authors.”

Trending: WTF? Peter Thiel Suggests Bitcoin is a Chinese Weapon, Justifies Biden Regime’s Crypto Crackdown

The Syrian Civil War, which started in 2011, has dragged into the presented and has brought many external actors such as Russia, Iran, and the United States. 

Abrahms raises several interesting points.

First, he asks why would Assad authorize “chemical weapons attacks when they were the one thing that put his winning the war at risk?” 

He added that authors of the official reports that connected Assad to chemical weapon usage have now brought forward evidence that shows their own reports were doctored.

Abrahms expressed skepticism about the mainstream narrative regarding Assad and chemical weapons. In the political science professor’s view, Assad using chemical weapons makes no sense because it “would reverse his hard-fought victory.”

Instead, Abrahms argues that “The #1 story should be that authors of the official reports linking Assad to WMD usage have supplied evidence that they were doctored in defiance of the scientific evidence & exploited to push regime change in Damascus, which risked creating the Islamic State & war with Russia.”

For Abrahms, falling for regime change narratives on Syria makes people susceptible to getting “duped into supporting other costly ventures to the local population, international stability & our counterterrorism efforts.” He insisted that the “story of doctored WMD reports & Al Qaeda-led rebels must be told.”

Political elites wanted Assad out of power, so they devised WMD reports that were ultimately doctored in order to justify intervention. In the end, countries like the U.S. wound up supporting “rebels” who were “Al-Qaeda-led & helping ISIS.”
Even after a blunder like the Iraq War, the U.S. political class insists on intervening abroad. Thankfully, Trump has remained cautious with his foreign policy. Nevertheless, he could be much more assertive in trying to withdraw from the Middle East completely.
Given its long history of instability, the Middle East is no place where America should be intervening in. It’s time to bring back the troops home and focus on more pressing domestic matters.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.