When US President Barack Obama addressed the nation on September 10, he emphasized the August 21 gassing of a civilian district in Damascus as a justification for the use of force in Syria. He indicated a military strike was needed “to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.”

The planned military strike for which President Obama was seeking Congressional approval has been forestalled in the wake of a US-Russia agreement. The deal would see a UN Security Council resolution put forward that would require the Syrian government to give up its chemical weapons arsenal and have them destroyed under international control.

It seems unlikely that the August 21 chemical gas attack is the principal motivator behind the US President’s aggressive military posturing. As Michel Chossudovsky has documented on the Global Research website, five US Naval Destroyers, including one used during the US-NATO war with Libya had been ordered deployed off the Syrian coastline well in advance of the August 21 incident. Each of these vessels have the capacity of carrying up to 90 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Moreover, the US has been inconsistent in respecting international norms with regard to the use of chemical weapons.

For example, the United States used napalm and Agent Orange quite extensively during the Vietnam War.

Furthermore, the US did not seem to feel obliged to launch strikes against Israel for that country’s reported use of White Phosphorous against Palestinian civilians during the 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead offensive.

The US itself used the deadly chemical during the siege against Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah nine years ago.

According to foreign policy analyst Yves Engler, even Canada has a long and sordid history in developing and testing chemical weapons agents for use in Vietnam and Korea.

If the chemical weapons attack is not the true motivation for a military confrontation with Syria, then how likely is it that the recent Russia-US agreement will end the threat of a confrontation with Syria?

On this week’s Global Research News Hour, guests Rick Rozoff, Ellen Hodgson Brown, and Yves Engler brilliantly cut through government jargon and examine some of the geo-strategic objectives in play.