The Assad Regime's Use of Chemical Weapons on April 4, 2017
The United States is confident that the Syrian regime conducted a chemical weapons attack, using the
nerve agent sarin, against its own people in the town of Khan Shaykhun in southern Idlib Province on
April 4, 2017. According to observers at the scene, the attack resulted in at least 50 and up to 100
fatalities (including many children), with hundreds of additional injuries.
We have confidence in our assessment because we have signals intelligence and geospatial intelligence,
laboratory analysis of physiological samples collected from multiple victims, as well as a significant body
of credible open source reporting, that tells a clear and consistent story. We cannot publicly release all
available intelligence on this attack due to the need to protect sources and methods, but the following
includes an unclassified summary of the U.S. Intelligence Community's analysis of this attack.
Summary of the U.S. Intelligence Community's Assessment of the April 4 Attack
The Syrian regime maintains the capability and intent to use chemical weapons against the opposition to
prevent the loss of territory deemed critical to its survival. We assess that Damascus launched this
chemical attack in response to an opposition offensive in northern Hamah Province that threatened key
infrastructure. Senior regime military leaders were probably involved in planning the attack.
A significant body of pro-opposition social media reports indicate that the chemical attack began in Khan
Shaykhun at 6:55 AM local time on April 4.
Our information indicates that the chemical agent was delivered by regime Su-22 fixed-wing aircraft that
took off from the regime-controlled Shayrat Airfield. These aircraft were in the vicinity of Khan
Shaykhun approximately 20 minutes before reports of the chemical attack began and vacated the area
shortly after the attack. Additionally, our information indicates personnel historically associated with
Syria's chemical weapons program were at Shayrat Airfield in late March making preparations for an
upcoming attack in Northern Syria, and they were present at the airfield on the day of the attack.
Hours after the April 4 attack, there were hundreds of accounts of victims presenting symptoms
consistent with sarin exposure, such as frothing at the nose and mouth, twitching, and pinpoint pupils.
This constellation of symptoms is inconsistent with exposure to a respiratory irritant like chlorine—
which the regime has also used in attacks— and is extremely unlikely to have resulted from a
conventional attack because of the number of victims in the videos and the absence of other visible
injuries. Open source accounts posted following the attack reported that first responders also had
difficulty breathing, and that some lost consciousness after coming into contact with the victims—
consistent with secondary exposure to nerve agent.
By 12:15 PM local time, broadcasted local videos included images of dead children of varying ages.
Accounts of a hospital being bombed began to emerge at 1:10 PM local, with follow-on videos showing
the bombing of a nearby hospital that had been flooded with victims of the sarin attack. Commercial
satellite imagery from April 6 showed impact craters around the hospital that are consistent with open
source reports of a conventional attack on the hospital after the chemical attack. Later on April 4, local
physicians posted videos specifically pointing out constricted pupils (a telltale symptom of nerve agent
exposure), medical staff with body suits on, and treatments involving atropine, which is an antidote for
nerve agents such as sarin.
We are certain that the opposition could not have fabricated all of the videos and other reporting of
chemical attacks. Doing so would have required a highly organized campaign to deceive multiple media
outlets and human rights organizations while evading detection. In addition, we have independently
confirmed that some of the videos were shot at the approximate times and locations described in the
footage.
Further, the World Health Organization stated on April 5 that its analysis of the victims of the attack in
Syria showed they had been exposed to nerve agents, citing the absence of external injuries and deaths
due to suffocation. Doctors without Borders (Medecins Sans Frontieres; MSF) said that medical teams
treating affected patients found symptoms to be consistent with exposure to a neurotoxic agent such as
sarin. And Amnesty International said evidence pointed to an air-launched chemical attack. Subsequent
laboratory analysis of physiological samples collected from multiple victims detected signatures of the
nerve agent sarin.
Refuting the False Narratives
The Syrian regime and its primary backer, Russia, have sought to confuse the world community about
who is responsible for using chemical weapons against the Syrian people in this and earlier attacks.
Initially, Moscow dismissed the allegations of a chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun, claiming the
attack was a "prank of a provocative nature" and that all evidence was fabricated. It is clear, however,
that the Syrian opposition could not manufacture this quantity and variety of videos and other reporting
from both the attack site and medical facilities in Syria and Turkey while deceiving both media observers
and intelligence agencies.
Moscow has since claimed that the release of chemicals was caused by a regime airstrike on a terrorist
ammunition depot in the eastern suburbs of Khan Shaykhun. However, a Syrian military source told
Russian state media on April 4 that regime forces had not carried out any airstrike in Khan Shaykhun,
contradicting Russia's claim. An open source video also shows where we believe the chemical munition
landed— not on a facility filled with weapons, but in the middle of a street in the northern section of
Khan Shaykhun. Commercial satellite imagery of that site from April 6, after the allegation, shows a
crater in the road that corresponds to the open source video.
Moscow has suggested that terrorists had been using the alleged ammunition depot to produce and
store shells containing toxic gas that they then used in Iraq, adding that both Iraq and international
organizations have confirmed the use of such weapons by militants. While it is widely accepted that the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has repeatedly used sulfur mustard on the battlefield, there are no
indications that ISIS was responsible for this incident or that the attack involved chemicals in ISIS's
possession.
Moscow suggested this airstrike occurred between 11:30 AM and 12:30 PM local time on April 4,
disregarding that allegations first appeared on social media close to 7:00 AM local time that morning,
when we know regime aircraft were operating over Khan Shaykhun. In addition, observed munition
remnants at the crater and staining around the impact point are consistent with a munition that
functioned, but structures nearest to the impact crater did not sustain damage that would be expected
from a conventional high-explosive payload. Instead, the damage is more consistent with a chemical
munition.
The Syrian regime has used other chemical agents in attacks against civilians in opposition held areas in
the past, including the use of sulfur mustard in Aleppo in late 2016. Russia has alleged that video
footage from April 4 indicated that victims from this attack showed the same symptoms of poisoning as
victims in Aleppo last fall, implying that something other than a nerve agent was used in Khan Shaykhun.
However, victims of the attack on April 4 displayed tell-tale symptoms of nerve agent exposure,
including pinpoint pupils, foaming at the nose and mouth, and twitching, all of which are inconsistent
with exposure to sulfur mustard.
Russia's allegations fit with a pattern of deflecting blame from the regime and attempting to undermine
the credibility of its opponents. Russia and Syria, in multiple instances since mid-2016, have blamed the
opposition for chemical use in attacks. Yet similar to the Russian narrative for the attack on Khan
Shaykhun, most Russian allegations have lacked specific or credible information. Last November, for
instance, senior Russian officials used an image from a widely publicized regime chemical weapons
attack in 2013 on social media platforms to publicly allege chemical weapons use by the opposition. In
May 2016, Russian officials made a similar claim using an image from a video game. In October 2016,
Moscow also claimed terrorists used chlorine and white phosphorus in Aleppo, even though pro-Russian
media footage from the attack site showed no sign of chlorine use. In fact, our Intelligence from the
same day suggests that neither of Russia's accounts was accurate and that the regime may have
mistakenly used chlorine on its own forces. Russia's contradictory and erroneous reports appear to have
been intended to confuse the situation and to obfuscate on behalf of the regime.
Moscow's allegations typically have been timed to distract the international community from Syria's
ongoing use of chemical weapons— such as the claims earlier this week— or to counter the findings from
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)-United Nations (UN) Joint
Investigative Mechanism (JIM), which confirmed in August and October 2016 reports that the Syrian
regime has continued to use chemical weapons on multiple occasions long after it committed to
relinquish its arsenal in 2013. Russia has also questioned the impartial findings of the JIM— a body that
Russia helped to establish— and was even willing to go so far as to suggest that the Assad regime should
investigate itself for the use of chemical weapons.
Moscow's response to the April 4 attack follows a familiar pattern of its responses to other egregious
actions; it spins out multiple, conflicting accounts in order to create confusion and sow doubt within the
international community.
International Condemnation and a Time for Action
The Assad regime's brutal use of chemical weapons is unacceptable and poses a clear threat to the
national security interests of the United States and the international community. Use of weapons of
mass destruction by any actor lowers the threshold for others that may seek to follow suit and raises the
possibility that they may be used against the United States, our allies or partners, or any other nation
around the world.
The United States calls on the world community in the strongest possible terms to stand with us in
making an unambiguous statement that this behavior will not be tolerated. This is a critical moment—
we must demonstrate that subterfuge and false facts hold no weight, that excuses by those shielding
their allies are making the world a more dangerous place, and that the Syrian regime's use of chemical
weapons will not be permitted to continue.
We must remember that the Assad regime failed to adhere to its international obligations after its
devastating attacks on Damascus suburbs using the nerve agent sarin in August 2013, which resulted in
more than one thousand civilian fatalities, many of whom were children. The regime agreed at that
time to fully dismantle its chemical weapons program, but this most recent attack— like others before
it— are proof that it has not done so. To be clear, Syria has violated its obligations under the Chemical
Weapons Convention and the UN Charter, and no drumbeat of nonsensical claims by the regime or its
allies can hide this truth. And while it is an embarrassment that Russia has vetoed multiple UN Security
Council resolutions that could have helped rectify the situation, the United States intends to send a clear
message now that we and our partners will not allow the world to become a more dangerous place due
to the egregious acts of the Assad regime.
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11