Russian plan to put Syria’s chemical arms under international supervision has baffled US President Obama who is now saying that initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force. This has cool down the warmongering mood of President Obama as he is virtually looking failed to seek any significant global support to attack on Syria.
Antonio Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has said that “A political solution to end this cycle of horror is urgently needed. There is no humanitarian solution to the Syrian crisis. Rather there needs to be a political solution that ends the humanitarian crisis.”
This is the voice of wisdom that has been raised by a UN official in the pounding of war drums by US lawmakers and President Obama who are adamant to conduct punishing military strikes on Syria. The option to attack Syria is so imprudent, premature and risky that no significant ally of USA is in favor except France and Canada whereas a stunning rejection of any military action in Parliament forced Britain, USA devoted and loyal ally, to pull out of any participation in operation to punish Syria for allegedly using chemical weapons. British Premier had to bear a defeat in voting in parliament who was striving hard on behalf of America, Israel and their Arab allies advocating regime change in Syria.
Despite, UN Inspection Team has yet to confirm the allegation of chemical attack is true or false, French President Francois Hollande expressed a warm backing for a possible American operation to hit Damascus regime, saying that “The chemical massacre of Damascus cannot and must not remain unpunished” but reluctant to attack Syria alone. Even Obama Administration has no other reason to strike Syria than use of chemicals weapons are “violation of basic standards of decency.” So far, Washington finds itself alone on strikes but looking for partners in its Syria mission, to form an international coalition that will act together.
What is making USA so hasty to attack Syria?
It is not easy to discover but I can assume that after the struggle of three years and spending heavy amount of Dollars, US fails to topple Bashar regime and support to Bashar is increasing in region whereas no significant opposition has yet come into being to replace Bashar regime. Their security agencies have virtually failed to seek a “rebel” from Bashar’s nearest teammates so it’s a frustration and a sense of humiliation more than wisdom to go to the option of attack on Syria.
What will be the reaction of Russia a great supporter of Bashar-alAsad Regime?
Russia is opposing any military intervention but not yet open how it will react in Syria if US invades. Keeping in view the strategic interest in region, it is expected that Russia will go to last extent to prevent any attack from USA and its recent initiative about Syrian’s chemical weapons may be an attempt to gain time. .
Will UNO allow USA to attack on Syria? Or Will a VETO from Russia or China bring a halt to USA?
In recent pasts, INO has never gone against USA intentions and always gave a path to carry on what USA demanded in Security Counsel. But if this matter is put up in Security Counsel for approval of Resolution to attack on Syria then it is expected that Russia or China can veto that resolution and a cold war will trigger among World’s strong nations until they agree on a mutual interest formula.
I still don’t understand why ousting Bashar will be beneficial for Syria or entire Middle East as there is no alternate leadership or opposition in Syria to take over the power in Damascus. Another point is that, it is the Syrian people who have to decide about their ruler, no outside forces have right to interfere in internal affairs of any country. In such circumstances, the attempts made by anti Bashar forces are nothing but to destroy Syria and put the entire region in fire of war. Those who want to see USA to jump over Syria are the enemy of USA. They want to put USA in a mess where finally a humiliation will be waiting for it.
I don’t think USA leadership and think tank so imprudent – certainly they all will be calculating and estimating the advantages and disadvantages of this adventure but eventually all those will be only estimations before entering into Syria. Once they (USA) are involved inside Syria, who knows what will be dimension of war and its outcomes. One should not forget about other stake holders of this conflict – I mean Iran, Russia, KSA, Turkey and Israel. All they have their own interests and strategic objectives along side US-led any coalition. Any unexpected and undesired result for any stake-holder can turn the situation in Syria towards a big collision eventually moving towards a massive regional war not restricted within Syria but to other surrounding countries. This is a real threat to the region.
I have not seen any Western report that Syrians are standing against Bashar regime like Hosseni Mubarak in Egypt but if USA attacks Syria then anti-government reaction from masses may break out throughout the Middle East against monarchies supporting USA – that could create another turmoil and a new dimension to Syrian conflict and any that kind of situation would create severe difficulties for USA but would provide Israel a golden opportunity to bring forward its hidden agenda in Middle East that obviously is not possible in era of peace. Every kind of political turmoil and militarily disturbance in Middle East give Israel to move forward strategically that will make the situation more complicating and perhaps uncontrollable.
So as I expressed in my previous Article, military intervention is not a prudent option to resolve Syrian Issue. If USA can think to hold dialogue with Afghan Taliban then a comprehensive dialogue with Bashar regime will provide more meaningful peaceful political solution and stability in Syria. A respectable formula will make the situation easy for every party to think over rather than continue fighting and increasing sufferings of Syrians and hanging in the balance the future of entire region.