11:00 GMT18 June 2021
Listen Live
    Military & Intelligence
    Get short URL

    The joint US, British and French assault on Syria last week was an abject failure in terms of wiping out Syria’s chemical weapons capabilities, Israeli intelligence officials said Tuesday.

    One intel analyst reportedly said for good measure that US President Donald Trump's pronouncement of "mission accomplished" simply "has no basis."

    "If President Trump had ordered the strike only to show that the US responded to [Syrian President Bashar] Assad's use of chemical weapons, then that goal has been achieved," an Israeli defense official told Israel's YNet News on Tuesday.

    "But if there was another objective — such as paralyzing the ability to launch chemical weapons or deterring Assad from using it again — it's doubtful any of these objectives have been met," the defense official emphasized.

    Following missile strikes on targets in Syria, which were triggered by a so-called "chemical attack" in the town of Douma a week prior that an American journalist yesterday reported he could find "no evidence" for, Trump exclaimed the following day on Twitter, "could not have had a better result. Mission Accomplished!"

    "The statement of ‘Mission Accomplished' and that Assad's ability to use chemical weapons has been fatally hit has no basis," a second intel official told YNet news.

    ​The Russian Ministry of Defense announced Monday that Syria's Pantsir-S1 anti-aircraft and aerial-defense systems intercepted 71 of the 103 missiles fired by US, French and British forces.


    IDF Claims Downed Iranian UAV "Armed With Explosives" Tasked to Attack Israel
    Israel's Netanyahu Expresses 'Total Support' for Syria Strikes
    Israel's Attack on Syrian T-4 Airbase 'Won't Go Unpunished' – Iranian Journalist
    New Wave of Clashes Erupts Along Israel-Gaza Border: Over 700 Protesters Injured
    Israel to Discipline Filmer of Viral Gaza Protest Sniper Shot, Not Shooter
    air strike, Donald Trump, Syria, Israel
    Community standardsDiscussion