Foremost, given that the report
emphasis the use of rockets, the Saudis should be asking themselves  why
it is that the accusatory finger has been pointed to them. There is no
doubt that Saudi Arabia is involved in the Syria conflict.    Their
involvement is not restricted to providing arms to the rebels but as USA Today reported in January, they have been sending death-row inmates to fight in Syria.   That said, the UN report clearly repudiates dubious reports which surfaced on the internet
citing a rebel’s father who had claimed that the Saudis supplied the
chemical weapons without instructions, or without telling the rebels
what they were which is why “they” (chemical weapons) went off in the tunnel.

While
it is not a secret that the Saudis aim to spread their influence in the
region by assisting neocons remove Assad from power, what should be of
note to the Saudis and of interest to media watchers is the fact that in
spite of the Saudi ‘s full cooperation with America and Israel in
funding and supporting wars against fellow Arabs and Moslems, and even
providing them with terrorists, the neoconservatives such as the
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies are now claiming that Saudi Arabia is responsible for pushing for war .   This should give Saudis reason to pause and reflect.  But to the report….

According
to the UN report two types of rockets had been used, including an M14
artillery rocket bearing Cyrillic markings and a 330-millimeter rocket
of unidentified origin – though perhaps not so unidentified.    Shortly
after the August incident, Foreign Policy published
and made mention of these mysterious rockets which according to former
UN inspectors bore a strong resemblance to a 1970’s American weapon—the SLUFAE.  
Although SLUFAE had been shelved, the concept was built upon by several
countries—namely Israel.  According to the former UN inspector, “a very
similar munition was found 3-5 years ago, during one of the Israeli
excursions,” into Southern Lebanon”.  Further, there is the strong
possibility that the rockets with Cyrillic markings (attributed to the
Soviets) can be traced back to the “Bear Spares” program.

  According to the 1995 Teicher Affidavit,
the United States had a “Bear Spares” program with the objective to
provide ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry and deliver them
third countries without direct involvement.  Israel which had a large
stockpile of Soviet weaponry and ammunition captured during its wars was
active in this program and, according to Teicher, transferred the spare
parts and weapons to third countries or insurgents (such as to Iraq in
the Iran-Iraq war, to the Afghans, and the Contras).

Of
note is the fact that Israel possess Sarin gas and it is not party to
the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).  It is worthwhile repeating here
that it was Israeli “intelligence” which alerted the United States of
the use of Sarin on August 21, and of its delivery method long before
the UN report was published.   It was the Israeli ‘intelligence’ which
prompted John Kerry to point the finger at Assad with confidence.

 Often
left unmentioned is the fact that it was John Kerry’s  public
suggestion to rid Syria of its chemical weapons which became the basis
for the Russian initiative to avert war.  Undoubtedly, Israel stands to
gain from this initiative given its territorial ambitions (see HERE for example) given that it is thought that Syria’s entire defense against Israel may rest on chemical weapons and warheads[i].   Not surprisingly, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu regards the initiative as a precedent for dealing with Iran’s civilian nuclear program.

 While
Israel has the most to gain by the chemical attack incident,  it is not
unique in its access to Soviet weaponry –  and to Sarin gas.   Egypt
also served as a supplier for the Bear Spares program where it
manufactured weapons and spare parts from Soviet designs and provided
these weapons and ammunition to the Iraqis (during the Iran-Iraq war)
and other countries.  The United States approved, assisted and
encouraged Egypt’s manufacturing capabilities.   It is not without
relevance to mention here that the Syrian opposition group had
headquarters in Egypt for some time.  The leader of Egyptian military
coup, General al-Sisi was hailed as a “national hero for all Jews’
by the Israeli ambassador in Cairo.  The military continues to be in
charge with the full support of and funding from the United States (and
Saudis).

Contrary
to the Western media pundits who attempt to pain this as a
straightforward case against Assad, without evidence or without thought,
one can point the finger to other more likely culprits who stand to
gain a great deal from this heinous crime.  The only way to narrow down
the field is to consider ‘cui bono’.   Clearly, Assad is the biggest
loser. 

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign
policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy.

 Note