The attack was strategically important for the US as control by the legal and duly elected Syrian government would allow it to link Syria and Lebanon via Iraq to Iran.

The Centcom statement included: “”Syrian pro-regime forces initiated an unprovoked attack against well-established Syrian Democratic Forces headquarters Feb. 7.”

The statement continued: ” In defense of Coalition and partner forces, the Coalition conducted strikes against attacking forces to repel the act of aggression against partners engaged in the Global Coalition’s defeat-Daesh mission.”

It should be noted that the language used by Centcom greatly obfuscates the legal framework of this conflict. The US is operating illegally, with an overt invasion force, and also continues to fund and direct a side in what it frames as a civil war .

 While many international legal experts, as well as the Syrian government have concluded that the war in Syria is a US and ‘Coalition’ backed invasion, it is nevertheless also illegal to fund or control a side in a civil war, which is what the US claims it is doing. The US also claims this alongside its phantom war against its own ISIS creation.

Thus, any attack by the SAA and it’s allied fighting groups upon an illegal, internationally backed, terrorist or otherwise ‘militia’ group existing on the territory of Syria, can not rationally be described in any existing framework as either ‘aggression’ or ‘unprovoked’.

Centcom claims that US bombers struck ‘pro-regime forces’. This is the area where there have been successful Syrian military advances because the US created ‘Syrian Democratic Forces’ (SDF) moved out. The SDF is a rebranding of some of the US backed Kurdish forces which are operating in areas which include sizable Arab populations.

As we reported previously, Kurdish-led and US backed forces have deployed elsewhere to fight Turkish backed forces.

It is unclear at the time of publishing whether these ‘pro-regime forces’ were auxiliary militias, or the Syrian Arab Army itself. FRN still awaits confirmation on more reliable details from the officials of the SAA. Centcom official statements are historically inaccurate and rife with factual ambiguities and legal untruths.

Diplomatically, and legally, this difference – whether the SAA or allied militias were attacked – may result in a different response from the Syrian government, and its allies in the conflict: Iran and Russia.

In either event, this represents another major escalation in the US’s growing and direct role in the conflict which it has supported through various proxies since the start of this decade.

This story at the time of publishing, is still developing.