US Marine Ship Approaches Syria; Russia Blasts Any “Acts Of Aggression” – Full Syrian Update

While there may have been a verbal attempt by the Obama administration to diffuse Syrian tensions in the aftermath of Thursday’s shocker out of the House of Commons, the action on the ground so far is hardly conciliatory. Or rather water, because a sixth US warship has now anchored in proximity to Syria, joining the recently arrived fifth destroyer USS Stout, which joined the warships already “breathing down Assad’s neck.”From AP: “Five U.S. Navy destroyers – the USS Gravely, USS Mahan, USS Barry, the USS Stout and USS Ramage – are in the eastern Mediterranean Sea waiting for the order to launch. And the USS San Antonio, an amphibious assault ship has now joined them. The USS San Antonio, which is carrying helicopters and can carry up to 800 Marines, has no cruise missiles, so it is not expected to participate in the attack. Instead, the ship’s long-planned transit across the Mediterranean was interrupted so that it could remain in the area to help if needed.” So in addition to a cruise missile based force, the US is now bringing in the marines? The justification that they are there “just in case” seems a little shallow in context.

Not surprisingly this contradicts what Obama said yesterday, promising there would be no land-based invasion.

Elsewhere, Russia predictable once again warned against a US escalation. Russia Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov met with U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul today, Foreign Ministry says in e-mailed statement. Ryabkov summarized: any use of force by U.S. against Syria without UN sanctions would be an “act of aggression, crude violation of the norms of international law.” Whether this means an immediate retaliation by Russia is unknown.

What is known is that the UN inspectors who were supposedly the only gating issue for a full-blown US “surgical strike” have now left the country. Per Reuters, the team of United Nations inspectors that was investigating the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria arrived at Beirut International Airport on Saturday, a Reuters witness said. The team had crossed the land border from Syria into Lebanon earlier in the day after completing its four-day investigation.

However, anyone expecting a quick turnover from the UN force will be disappointed. Accoridng to NBC, the U.N. said Friday that the team had finished collecting samples from the site of the alleged attack but that a complete analysis would take time. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the five permanent Security Council members that it may be two weeks before final results are ready, diplomats said.

In other words, the “surgial strike” options are now fully open and Obama may strike at any minute, and of course reap the consequences.

Those still unclear how a typical strike would look like, here is another completet rundown from the AP:

WHO DECIDES

The order for the strike would come from Obama, delivered to Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. The operation probably would fall under the purview of U.S. Central Command, headed by Army Gen. Lloyd Austin. The more immediate commander probably would be Adm. Bruce Clingan, who heads U.S. naval forces in Europe.

U.S. commanders would communicate and coordinate with military officers from other nations involved in the fight, such as France.

___

WHO LAUNCHES WHAT

Five U.S. Navy destroyers – the USS Gravely, USS Mahan, USS Barry, the USS Stout and USS Ramage – are in the eastern Mediterranean Sea waiting for the order to launch. And the USS San Antonio, an amphibious assault ship has now joined them. The USS San Antonio, which is carrying helicopters and Marines, has no cruise missiles, so it is not expected to participate in the attack. Instead, the ship’s long-planned transit across the Mediterranean was interrupted so that it could remain in the area to help if needed.

The destroyers are armed with dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a range of about 1,000 nautical miles and are used for deep, precise targeting. Each one is about 20 feet long and less than two feet in diameter and carries a 1,000 pound warhead.

The missiles fly at low altitudes, and their range allows the ships to sit far off the coast, out of range of any potential response by the Syrian government. Some ships have cameras that can provide battle damage assessments.

The Navy also now has two aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea that are loaded with fighter jets. The USS Truman arrived in the region to take the place of the USS Nimitz, which was supposed to head home. But the Navy ordered the Nimitz to stay for now.

U.S. officials described the decision as prudent planning and said it doesn’t suggest the Nimitz would play a role in any possible strikes in Syria.

With Britain on the sidelines, France has said it is preparing for military action against Syria. French President Francois Hollande does not need parliamentary approval to launch a military operation that lasts less than four months.

French military officials confirmed the frigate Chevalier Paul, which specializes in anti-missile capabilities, as well as the hulking transport ship Dixmude, had set off Thursday from the Mediterranean port of Toulon as part of normal training and operational preparations – but denied any link to possible Syria operations.

France also has a dozen cruise missile-capable fighter aircraft at military bases in the United Arab Emirates and the Horn of Africa nation of Djibouti, as well as fighters that could launch from air bases in the French island of Corsica or western France.

HOW DO THE NATIONS COORDINATE?

Details are unknown about how the mission strikes are being allocated or if the U.S. and France have mapped out separate, agreed upon target lists. But the U.S. routinely conducts exercises with allies, particularly NATO countries such as Britain and France, in which they all practice exactly this type of joint attack mission.

Commanders have a wide variety of ways they can talk to each other, including through integrated communications systems honed over many years of NATO operations ranging from the Afghanistan war to the 2011 attack on Libya and the fighting in Algeria and Mali early this year.

The military officers can speak or email across classified, secure lines and even have systems that allow them to talk in real time in Internet chat rooms. The nations also often have military liaisons embedded with each other to help assist communications.

Because any operation is expected to be limited, there likely won’t be more organized, formal war rooms.

___

WHAT ABOUT TROOPS, FIGHTER JETS AND BOMBERS?

Obama has ruled out putting troops on the ground in Syria, and because of Assad’s extensive air defense systems, officials believe it is too risky, at least initially, to deploy fighter aircraft or even low-flying drones that could be shot down.

While less likely, the U.S. could deploy fighter jets or bombers as the operation continues, particularly if the Assad regime begins to take retaliatory actions and manned aircraft are needed in order to strike specific, critical targets.

Obama has rejected trying to impose a “no-fly” zone over the country. Military leaders have said that creating one would be risky and expensive.

___

WHAT MIGHT THEY TARGET?

U.S. officials say any operation must have clear goals that can guide decisions on what the military must strike.

Dempsey has told Congress that lethal force would be used “to strike targets that enable the regime to conduct military operations, proliferate advanced weapons and defend itself.”

At a minimum, Western forces are expected to strike targets that symbolize Assad’s military and political might: military and national police headquarters, including the Defense Ministry; the Syrian military’s general staff; and the four-brigade Republican Guard that is in charge of protecting Damascus, Assad’s seat of power. Assad’s ruling Baath Party headquarters could be targeted, too.

U.S. officials also are considering attacking military command centers and vital forces, communications hubs and weapons caches, including ballistic missile batteries.

Air defense systems, including Syrian aircraft, interception missiles, radar and other equipment, also could be targets. The majority of those systems – as many as 500 defense positions and 400 operational aircraft – have been positioned along Lebanon’s border, in the Syrian-controlled part of the Golan Heights, along the Syrian Mediterranean coast and in and around Damascus.

Helicopter and fixed wing aircraft air bases across the country, including the Mezzeh air base in Damascus, and Nairab, a major military air base in Aleppo, could be targets.

Because any strike would be considered payback for Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons, Western forces could zero in on the headquarters of the Syrian Army’s 4th Division, 155th Brigade. That unit is believed to have been responsible for the Aug. 21 attack that U.S. officials say involved chemical weapons. The brigade is headed by Maher Assad, Bashar Assad’s younger brother.

The brigade has a missile base across a large terrain in a mountain range west of Damascus, including underground bunkers and tunnels. It is believed to be surrounded by army bases as well as weapons and ammunition storage sites.

Systems for moving Assad’s chemical weapons stockpile could be top targets as well. But the stockpile itself probably would not be hit because of risk of accidental release of deadly nerve agents that include mustard gas, tabun, sarin and VX.

___

WHAT PROBABLY WOULD BE AVOIDED?

It’s doubtful the U.S. would directly target Assad. U.S. policy prohibits assassinating foreign leaders unless they have attacked America first.

It’s also unclear if Assad’s military intelligence headquarters, a symbolic target, might be attacked; it’s believed to hold hundreds of prisoners.

___

WHEN MIGHT A STRIKE COME AND HOW LONG MIGHT AN ATTACK LAST?

The most common answer to this question in recent days has been “soon.” But a number of factors could affect the timing.

U.N. inspectors wrapped up their investigation into the suspected chemical attack and left Syria on Saturday. And officials say they are still talking to allies.

There has been a so-far unsuccessful effort to seek U.N. Security Council approval for a strike, but there is also significant pressure on the administration to act quickly and decisively.

Any military operation would probably unfold at night or in the predawn hours in Syria, with an initial assault possibly lasting several hours and involving dozens of missile strikes from several warships.

What could follow is a period in which the U.S. would use satellites and other intelligence capabilities to assess the damage.

Such an assessment could be followed by an additional round or two of missile strikes, if ordered by the president. Officials believe the strikes could be limited to a single operation, but if extended would likely last no more than a few days.

Other U.S. military assets in the region, including an Air Force air wing of F-16 fighter jets located in Aviano, Italy, are available but might not be used, at least right away.

___

WHAT ABOUT THE SYRIAN MILITARY?

The Assad regime is believed to have about 400 operational aircraft and one of the most robust air defense networks in the region. There are multiple surface-to-air missiles providing overlapping coverage of key areas in combination with thousands of anti-aircraft guns capable of engaging attacking aircraft at lower levels.

Syria also has a mobile, land-based coastal defense system, including Yakhont anti-ship missiles capable of sinking large warships, including aircraft carriers.

Two years ago, the standing army was estimated to be about 250,000, but if reserves are included it could number closer to 700,000. The last two years of civil war, however, have taken a toll on the military, due to defections and the ongoing warfare.

The biggest concern, however, is that any U.S. attack could prompt retaliation by Assad, including the possible use of chemical weapons against Syrian citizens or even attacks on nearby nations.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Under Colossal Global Backlash, Obama Holds Off on Syria Strike

Obama decides to follow the Constitution and seek Congressional approval for Syrian military strike

Julie Wilson and Alex Jones
Infowars.com
August 31, 2013

Obama addressed the public on Saturday from the White House Rose Garden. He confirmed the United States’ intention to use force against Syria, however, is reportedly waiting to enforce military action until Congress is able to hold a debate and vote on the matter.

“House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said on Saturday that he expects the House to consider the measure the week of Sept. 9,” reported The Hill.

Obama claims he has the authority to move forward solo, but surprisingly stated it’s important for the country to debate military intervention.

“I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress. The country will be stronger if we take this course and our actions will be more effective,” said Obama.

His position most likely stems from innumerable world allies and government officials who have strongly voiced their opposition to military involvement in Syria.

Just as Dr. Paul Craig Roberts wrote today in a piece entitled America Totally Discredited, he assesses this is the greatest diplomatic meltdown in US history.

In his report he acknowledges the greatest danger now is that the White House may attempt to stage something else in order to persuade the unconvinced public into a war with Syria.

“The rest of the world has learned to avoid Washington’s rush to war when there is no evidence,” writes Roberts.

Both Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul have come out saying the chemical attacks have all the hallmarks of a false flag or staged event.

In closing, Obama nonchalantly informed the public that the US is in a position to strike, and that the strike could come tomorrow, next week or even a month from now.

A military response is “not time sensitive,” reiterated the President.

Following the UK Parliament’s decision to vote no against Syrian intervention, “Obama indicated he will not wait for either approval from the U.N. Security Council or the conclusion of U.N. inspectors’ investigation into the Syria attack,” reported Fox News.

Obama’s decision to follow the Constitutional law of the republic, for now, is a tremendous victory for America.

 

This article was posted: Saturday, August 31, 2013 at 4:14 pm

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

US Attack On Syria to Begin Saturday

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 29, 2013

A reporter with Israel’s most widely read newspaper has been told by defense establishment officials that a US-led attack on Syria will begin on Saturday and end when Barack Obama meets Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

 

Despite an apparent softening in rhetoric as British Prime Minister David Cameron faces a parliamentary revolt over military intervention, in addition to reports that the intelligence against Assad’s regime is by no means a “slam dunk,” Israel Hayom reporter Amir Mizroch tweets that the attack will begin on Saturday immediately after UN inspectors have left the country.

Inspectors had initially planned to leave on Sunday after concluding their investigation but their departure a day early has increased speculation that air strikes are imminent.

British and American military might is now fully in place and prepared for strikes which experts say will take the form of Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles fired from warships or submarines.

Mizroch also highlights remarks made by former Mossad director Danny Yatom, who says that the apparent delay on green lighting military strikes is only so Bashar Al-Assad can’t use the UN inspectors as human shields.

Mizroch was also told that Israel sent Assad a message via Russia threatening that if Syria attempts to attack Israel, Damascus will be targeted and Assad’s regime will be toppled.

This threat was made despite attempts by Gulf nations to secure a promise from Israel that it would act with restraint if Syria attempts retaliatory strikes against Israel in response to a western onslaught. Israel replied that it would act with restraint, but only if aggression against it “did not exceed reasonable bounds.”

In a related story, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro has promised a “strong and serious response,” to Assad’s alleged chemical atrocity last week, despite American officials admitting to the New York Times that there is no “smoking gun” that directly links President Assad to the attack.

US intelligence officials also told the Associated Press that the intelligence proving Assad’s culpability is “no slam dunk,” a far cry from the Obama administration’s rhetoric, which held that Assad’s responsibility was “undeniable.”

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

22 Reasons Why Starting World War 3 In The Middle East Is A Really Bad Idea

Submitted by Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse blog,

While most of the country is obsessing over Miley Cyrus, the Obama administration is preparing a military attack against Syria which has the potential of starting World War 3.  In fact, it is being reported that cruise missile strikes could begin “as early as Thursday“.  The Obama administration is pledging that the strikes will be “limited”, but what happens when the Syrians fight back?  What happens if they sink a U.S. naval vessel or they have agents start hitting targets inside the United States?  Then we would have a full-blown war on our hands. 

And what happens if the Syrians decide to retaliate by hitting Israel?  If Syrian missiles start raining down on Tel Aviv, Israel will be extremely tempted to absolutely flatten Damascus, and they are more than capable of doing precisely that.  And of course Hezbollah and Iran are not likely to just sit idly by as their close ally Syria is battered into oblivion.  We are looking at a scenario where the entire Middle East could be set aflame, and that might only be just the beginning.  Russia and China are sternly warning the U.S. government not to get involved in Syria, and by starting a war with Syria we will do an extraordinary amount of damage to our relationships with those two global superpowers. 

Could this be the beginning of a chain of events that could eventually lead to a massive global conflict with Russia and China on one side and the United States on the other?  Of course it will not happen immediately, but I fear that what is happening now is setting the stage for some really bad things.  The following are 22 reasons why starting World War 3 in the Middle East is a really bad idea…

#1 The American people are overwhelmingly against going to war with Syria…

 
 

Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria’s government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

 

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria’s civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

#2 At this point, a war in Syria is even more unpopular with the American people than Congress is.

#3 The Obama administration has not gotten approval to go to war with Syria from Congress as the U.S. Constitution requires.

#4 The United States does not have the approval of the United Nations to attack Syria and it is not going to be getting it.

#5 Syria has said that it will use “all means available” to defend itself if the United States attacks.  Would that include terror attacks in the United States itself?

#6 Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem made the following statement on Tuesday

 
 

“We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves”

#7 Russia has just sent their most advanced anti-ship missiles to Syria.  What do you think would happen if images of sinking U.S. naval vessels were to come flashing across our television screens?

#8 When the United States attacks Syria, there is a very good chance that Syria will attack Israel.  Just check out what one Syrian official said recently

 
 

A member of the Syrian Ba’ath national council Halef al-Muftah, until recently the Syrian propaganda minister’s aide, said on Monday that Damascus views Israel as “behind the aggression and therefore it will come under fire” should Syria be attacked by the United States.

 

In an interview for the American radio station Sawa in Arabic, President Bashar Assad’s fellow party member said: “We have strategic weapons and we can retaliate. Essentially, the strategic weapons are aimed at Israel.”

 

Al-Muftah stressed that the US’s threats will not influence the Syrain regime and added that “If the US or Israel err through aggression and exploit the chemical issue, the region will go up in endless flames, affecting not only the area’s security, but the world’s.”

#9 If Syria attacks Israel, the consequences could be absolutely catastrophic.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is promising that any attack will be responded to “forcefully“…

 
 

“We are not a party to this civil war in Syria but if we identify any attempt to attack us we will respond and we will respond forcefully”

#10 Hezbollah will likely do whatever it can to fight for the survival of the Assad regime.  That could include striking targets inside both the United States and Israel.

#11 Iran’s closest ally is Syria.  Will Iran sit idly by as their closest ally is removed from the chessboard?

#12 Starting a war with Syria will cause significant damage to our relationship with Russia.  On Tuesday, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said that the West is acting like a “monkey with a hand grenade“.

#13 Starting a war with Syria will cause significant damage to our relationship with China.  And what will happen if the Chinese decide to start dumping the massive amount of U.S. debt that it is holding?  Interest rates would absolutely skyrocket and we would rapidly be facing a nightmare scenario.

#14 Dr. Jerome Corsi and Walid Shoebat have compiled some startling evidence that it was actually the Syrian rebels that the U.S. is supporting that were responsible for the chemical weapons attack that is being used as justification to go to war with Syria…

 
 

With the assistance of former PLO member and native Arabic-speaker Walid Shoebat, WND has assembled evidence from various Middle Eastern sources that cast doubt on Obama administration claims the Assad government is responsible for last week’s attack.

You can examine the evidence for yourself right here.

#15 As Pat Buchanan recently noted, it would have made absolutely no sense for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons on defenseless women and children.  The only people who would benefit from such an attack would be the rebels…

 
 

The basic question that needs to be asked about this horrific attack on civilians, which appears to be gas related, is: Cui bono?

To whose benefit would the use of nerve gas on Syrian women and children redound? Certainly not Assad’s, as we can see from the furor and threats against him that the use of gas has produced.

The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war.

#16 If the Saudis really want to topple the Assad regime, they should do it themselves.  They should not expect the United States to do their dirty work for them.

#17 A former commander of U.S. Central Command has said that a U.S. attack on Syria would result in “a full-throated, very, very serious war“.

#18 A war in the Middle East will be bad for the financial markets.  The Dow was down about 170 points today and concern about war with Syria was the primary reason.

#19 A war in the Middle East will cause the price of oil to go up.  On Tuesday, the price of U.S. oil rose to about $109 a barrel.

#20 There is no way in the world that the U.S. government should be backing the Syrian rebels.  As I discusseda few days ago, the rebels have pledged loyalty to al-Qaeda, they have beheaded numerous Christians and they have massacred entire Christian villages.  If the U.S. government helps these lunatics take power in Syria it will be a complete and utter disaster.

#21 A lot of innocent civilians inside Syria will end up getting killed.  Already, a lot of Syrians are expressing concern about what “foreign intervention” will mean for them and their families…

 
 

“I’ve always been a supporter of foreign intervention, but now that it seems like a reality, I’ve been worrying that my family could be hurt or killed,” said one woman, Zaina, who opposes Assad. “I’m afraid of a military strike now.”

“The big fear is that they’ll make the same mistakes they made in Libya and Iraq,” said Ziyad, a man in his 50s. “They’ll hit civilian targets, and then they’ll cry that it was by mistake, but we’ll get killed in the thousands.”

#22 If the U.S. government insists on going to war with Syria without the approval of the American people, the U.S. Congress or the United Nations, we are going to lose a lot of friends and a lot of credibility around the globe.  It truly is a sad day when Russia looks like “the good guys” and we look like “the bad guys”.

What good could possibly come out of getting involved in Syria?  As I wrote about the other day, the “rebels” that Obama is backing are rabidly anti-Christian, rabidly anti-Israel and rabidly anti-western.  If they take control of Syria, that nation will be far more unstable and far more of a hotbed for terrorism than it is now.

And the downside of getting involved in Syria is absolutely enormous.  Syria, Iran and Hezbollah all have agents inside this country, and if they decide to start blowing stuff up that will wake up the American people to the horror of war really quick.  And by attacking Syria, the United States could cause a major regional war to erupt in the Middle East which could eventually lead to World War 3.

I don’t know about you, but I think that starting World War 3 in the Middle East is a really bad idea.

Let us hope that cooler heads prevail before things spin totally out of control.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Catalyst for WW3

Video | Posted on by | Leave a comment

No Negotiation: China and Russia Walk Out of UN Security Council Meeting: “This Isn’t An Exercise”

earthonfire

As Jerome Corsi warned earlier today, “this is one of the most serious moments that we’ve ever faced in world history.”

Events are happening quickly and as it stands, the United States, Britain and other western allies are preparing a missile strike on Syria.

Russia has been the most critical opponent of the possibility of mid east military action, but now China has also stepped in.

Russia and China have stepped up their warnings against military intervention in Syria, with Moscow saying any such action would have “catastrophic consequences” for the region.

BBC via Zero Hedge

And moments ago the Interfax new agency announced that China and Russia have left the negotiating table in response to a proposal for Britain’s David Cameron on pending intervention in Syria.

UN-SECURITY/COUNCIL-RUSSIA-CHINA DUBAI. Aug 28 (Interfax)

Russian and Chinese representatives have left the UN Security Council session that discussed the draft resolution on Syria proposed by Great Britain.

We could be days away from the start of a conflict the likes of which the world has never seen before.

The United States and Britain are pushing forward with plans to execute a “brief and limited” strike on Syrian targets, but all signs suggest it will turn into much more than that. In January of 2012 the United States positioned 100,000 soldiers off the coast of Iran, and just last weekend it was reported that hundreds of US soldiers and intelligence assets had moved into Syria ahead of the attack.

In response, Syria has warned it will immediately target Israel with Russian supplied advanced weaponry. Syria’s closest ally in the region, Iran, has echoed the threat and warned that it, too, will turn its military capabilities on Israel.

This is a game changer. Any response by Israel against Arab nations would turn the entire middle east against the U.S. led coalition.

According to a report from the LA Times, that’s exactly what Israel intends to do.

“We are not part of the civil war in Syria, but if we identify any attempt whatsoever to harm us, we will respond with great force,” Netanyahu said after huddling for a second consecutive day with key Cabinet members to discuss the possible ramifications of a U.S. strike against Syria.

Armies are mobilizing, and that includes Russian troops, who are reportedly now being deployed in Syria to help Assad defend against “rebel forces,” which adds additional strength to the 160,000 Russian troops mobilized in the region earlier this summer. Furthermore, the Russian Navy deployed nearly its entire Pacific fleet to the Mediterranean in May.

Moreover, after a meeting with Saudi Arabia in which the Saudi head of intelligence directly threatened Vladimir Putin with terrorist attacks during the coming winter Olympic games in Russia if they didn’t let the U.S. move forward with their plans in Syria, President Putin has reportedly responded with the threat of a massive counter-strike against the Saudi Arabian monarchy.

This isn’t an exercise.

The writing is on the wall.

The militaries of the most powerful nations on Earth are preparing to engage.

If President Obama initiates a missile strike on Syria, however limited in scope, it could set the whole world ablaze.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Indexes fall on Syria Fears

The main U.S. stock market indexes lost 1.1-2.0% yesterday amid fears of a possible U.S. military strike against Syria. Additionally, the sell-off in stocks was accompanied by a surge in oil and gold prices, which shows an increase in anxiety among financial markets. The broad market S&P500 index extended its June-August uptrend’s correction, breaking below the uptrend’s 50% retracement at 1,635.00. The next possible support level is at 1,617.38, marked by the Fibonacci retracement of 61.8%. The nearest level of resistance is at 1,652.54-1,656.02, marked by yesterday’s daily gap down. The S&P500 index has been in a downtrend for the whole month of August, as we can see on the daily chart:

Daily S&P 500 Index chart - SPX, Large Cap Index

Expectations before the opening of today’s session are slightly positive as investors hope for a rebound. Major European stock markets have been mixed, following yesterday’s sell-off. Rising tensions over Syria continue to be the main driver for the financial markets at the moment. The S&P500 futures contract (CFD) continues its downtrend, breaking below last week’s local bottom at around 1,630. The nearest level of resistance is at 1,640-1,650. Still with no clear downtrend reversal signs, well below the month-long downward trend line, as the 15-minute chart shows:

S&P500 futures contract - S&P 500 Index chart - SPX, Large Cap Index

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment