On the evening of Sept. 8, Israeli airstrikes targeted areas in Hama and Tartous in central and northwestern Syria. The incident, described as one of the most violent Israeli attacks on Syria, killed 18 and injured 40 others.

According to a report by the Lebanese Al-Akhbar newspaper, the Zionist army followed a new strategy during this attack, composed of two stages. First, it bombed the targeted area with heavy missiles, inflicting severe damage on infrastructure. 

This led to the destruction of communication, transportation, and drinking water networks, as well as the ignition of fires in nearby groves. 

The second stage came after a period of time had passed, and after rescue teams had rushed to the area to evacuate casualties. It included the use of assault drones that targeted rescue groups and civilians nearby, resulting in the high casualty count.

A Syrian Arab Army source reported that on “Sunday night, at 23:20, the Israeli enemy conducted an air aggression from the Northwestern Lebanese direction, targeting a number of military facilities in the central region.”

The source also reported that the Syrian air defenses were able to down some of the missiles and thwart them.

Media Outlets React

The Israeli army did not comment on the incident. A number of Western and Arab media agencies, however, quickly adopted the narrative that the target of the airstrikes was a Syrian chemical weapons facility, with some outlets calling it a “chemical warfare center.” 

News outlets such as Reuters referenced unnamed sources claiming that the center housed “a team of Iranian military experts involved in producing weapons.”

An Al-Mayadeen source in Syria, as well as a senior regional military authority, denied these claims, stating that the target of the Israeli attack was a standard military facility of the Syrian Arab Army. 

The sources also stated that contrary to Western reports, there were no Hezbollah members or Iranian consultants killed in the airstrike. The casualties included five members of the Syrian Arab Army and 11 Syrian civilians. 

The Al-Mayadeen source also explained that the Syrian Army does not use chemical weapons, as they are banned by international law.

The Khan Shaykhun Incident 

The claims of a targeted chemical weapons facility come as part of the media campaign waged against Syria throughout the decade-long war. 

In 2017, the Syrian government was accused by Western and international bodies of conducting a chemical attack on Khan Shaykhun in Northern Syria.

The area was occupied by Syrian opposition groups, and an investigation by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) pointed to the use of sarin gas in the attack. 

Syrian authorities, however, categorically denied these claims, and rejected the results of the OPCW’s investigations, as the collected samples were not gathered by an OPCW representative and did not undergo official verification. 

Syrian authorities found in an independent investigation that the chemical attack had been staged by militant groups in Idlib, and invited the OPCW to an open investigation in collaboration with the government. 

Experts Weigh in on Khan Shaykhun

In February 2018, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon that the US has “no evidence” that the Syrian government used chemical sarin on its citizens. He was not the only one to point this out. 

Several experts, including MIT professor emeritus Ted Postol, a physicist and one of the world’s leading analysts on military defense systems, also argued that sarin gas was not used in Khan Shaykhun. 

After conducting extensive research on the incident, Postol concluded that the attack was a false-flag operation staged by U.S.-funded terrorists.

He attempted to publish his findings in a leading scientific journal, which had originally accepted his paper, but later retracted its approval after facing intense public backlash.

In an interview, Postol responded that “universities and university journals are no longer a source of truth… There is a lack of independence of thought and ability to referee exposés of this nature carefully and a betrayal of the fundamental moral obligation of scientists and academics to society to investigate and then present the truth on important matters—even when it makes people in positions of power uncomfortable.”