The West’s Gridlock in Syria
Soraya Helou
If we're to buy the much staid and serious America's Foreign Policy, then the US must have encouraged former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in his determination to use chemical weapons during the war on Iran, back in the 1980's.
More than 20 years later, the Americans waged a war against the very Saddam Hussein claiming he detained weapons of mass destruction.
The dictator was overthrown in a war that was costly for the US and terrible for Iraq, which until today still bears the aftermath. Even so, the Americans consider doing it again in Syria as they ostensibly seek to condemn an alleged use of chemical weapons by the regime, totally omitting what they have done three decades ago.
That is to say that the argument brandished by the US and the West in general in terms of chemical weapons use by a regime they seek to topple and hence attack even without the UN mandate does not make any sense! Simply, it shows the despair of the West vis-à-vis the situation on-the-ground in Syria, two and a half years after war has begun. Going down in the annals of time, data bases provided by the intelligence services in Turkey, France, UK, and USA pointed out that the Syrian regime would not last for more than three months. They believed they could easily get rid of it and replace it with their puppets, in what perfectly seems a chaos assuring and favorable to "Israel."
From a vow to another, the Syrian regime remained steadfast and even victorious in the battlefields, despite the tremendous aids rebels received. Moreover, the international community has many times wagered on well-prepared attacks to deal a fatal blow to the regime; all bids were doomed to failure. Most recently were the preparations for an attack to be staged via Jordan, in coordination with the US GI present there and Mossad officers. Having learned about this, the Syrian regime carried out a preventive operation in Ghouta, thus foiling the plans of the opposition and its sponsors, just like it did in Latakia suburbs.
That is to say that the current outcry of the West is the reflection of the embarrassment of the western community following its respective fiascos in betting on the Syrian opposition, backed up by Qatar, Turkey, KSA, and relatively by Jordan.
A European diplomat on a visit in Beirut reveals that the western states don't know what to do anymore to weaken the Syrian regime. All the attempts to beef up the Free Syrian Army and to unite the national coalition have thus far failed. On the ground, it is the Takfiris that have become the strongest. The diplomat acknowledges that Takfiris are a danger to Syria, the opposition, and even the West, as many western citizens are indeed fighting in Syria alongside hardliners. There is hence no question helping them. Yet at the same time, it is neither question accepting the victory of the Syrian regime. T
he European envoy also recognizes that it is the West that does not wish to hold Geneva II talks as long as the balance of power is swinging the regime's way. Amid all this, what is the alternative? The diplomat says that there are currently efforts to arm the FSA under the command of General Salim Idriss, in hopes that it manages to take up the reins.
Otherwise, the West could have seriously mulled accurate airstrikes similar to the US bombings of Serbia and Kosovo in 1998. These attacks would aim to weaken the regime and deal a fatal and material blow that would make the departure of al-Assad a basis for Geneva talks. If not, the diplomat adds, war would be extended because the West would certainly not take any defeat. Little would it care if innocent civilians continue to fall in Syria and blood is shed due to Takfiris' brutality. The West, fervently concerned with human rights, renounces as yet the very basic right to life for the Syrians.
As the West worships at the altar of its interests, it is ready to sacrifice the entire planet, except for itself of course. This is a lesson for whoever still doubts the real motives of the US and its allies!
