IRAN is backing Assad. The GULF
STATES are against Assad!
Assad is against the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against
General Sisi.
But the GOLF STATES are pro-Sisi! Meaning they are against the Muslim
Brotherhood!
Iran is pro. Hamas, but Hamas is backing the Muslim Brotherhood!
Obama is backing the Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas are against the US!
The GULF STATES are pro US.
TURKEY
is with GULF STATES against Assad; yet TURKEY is pro-Muslim Brotherhood and
against General Sisi, and General Sisi is being backed by the GULF STATES!
Welcome to the MIDDLE EAST and have a nice day.
Posted by KN
Al-Sabah, London, UK on readers comment forum of Austrian daily “Der Standard”
(www.derstandard.at )
Article Title: “ASSAD:
US- ANGRIFFSPLÄNE ZUM SCHEITERN VERURTEILT” Translation: US INTERVENTION PLANS ARE DOOMED TO FAIL
Germany has urged caution in
response to French calls for the use of force in Syria. Its stance is
more than a mere aversion to military intervention, however. The country
is quietly asserting itself and fleshing out its foreign policy.
Raising the ante in the confrontation with the Assad regime and its
international supporters, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius this
week called for the use of force in Syria. Across the Rhine Valley in
Berlin, however, his German equivalent Guido Westerwelle urged caution:
"Before speaking of consequences we must first have clarification."
French daily newspaper Le Monde ran the outsized headline "Toxic
Gas Massacre in Damascus". Most German newspapers that day led with the
Bradley Manning verdict.
The 50-year-old Elysée Treaty, the European Union, and the euro join
France and Germany at the hip, and their national security interests are
fused at every other point above and below by virtue of a shared 451
kilometer (289 mile) border. But they exhibit diverging strategic
postures vis-à-vis North Africa and the Middle East. Germany has gone
from foot-dragging -- abstaining from the Libya intervention in 2011 and
equivocating in Mali in 2012 -- to putting its foot down against French
involvement in Syria.
Since a rare misstep
responding to the uprising against Tunisian President Ben Ali, France
has sought redemption by betting early and often on opposition
movements. In successive interventions, the Sarkozy and Hollande
administrations have courted the Arab public square and its
revolutionary avant-garde. Germany, meanwhile, is much more comfortable
with Color Revolutions or the noble resistance of protesters in Teheran
or Taksim Square than with armed revolt. While France rides the bronco
of Arab Awakening, Germany looks on aghast.
Franco-German Rift
Germany started deviating from French leadership in March 2011, when
its diplomats ruled out participation in Libya regardless of UN Security
Council resolutions. The following year, Germans long refused the
French assessment that the occupation of northern Mali by al-Qaida in
the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) presented a threat against Western interests.
France has continued to raise international pressure on the Assad
regime over German objections -- leading the lifting of the arms
embargo, disclosing suspected cases of the regime's use of chemical
weapons and inviting Syrian coalition leaders to Paris.
While French leaders were declaring that "all hopes for a political
solution or a political transition in Syria are destroyed" and
considered unilaterally arming the opposition in March, German ministers
were doing their best to get the parties to the negotiating table. "As
long as the logic of violence and military victory is in place, there
can be no lasting peace and stability for Syria," Westerwelle said in
May.
The post-reunification "German Question"
has time and again challenged Germany's partners to reconcile the
federal republic's economic power with its reticence to contribute to
collective security. The oddity of an unaligned behemoth at the heart of
NATO has begun to harden into reality, even as allies refuse to allow
Germany to slip into Swedish-style neutrality.
Gaining Confidence
But something different is at work here. Contrary to appearances, Germany is not
simply receding ever deeper into itself. In fact, the Berlin Republic
is quietly asserting itself and fleshing out its foreign policy. The
unwillingness to act as France's cheerleader in the greater
Mediterranean comes with the creeping recovery of self-confidence, and a
desire to reposition itself vis-à-vis this historically French sphere
of influence.
France insists its recent military interventions abroad are grounded
in humanitarianism and counter-terrorism, to safeguard "the fate of the
local population and French nationals." Germans perceive instead a
French sense of entitlement in a region rich with extraction and
infrastructure contracts, and refuse to play a supporting role.
When explaining why it did not join France in Mali earlier this year,
Germany pleaded superfluity: France was intervening "because of its
tradition, history, and relationship with this part of Africa" and
because "France is the only nation capable." The polite demurral belies
Germany's intention to undermine the Franco-centric status quo.
German obstructionism also reveals the consensus across the German
political spectrum that an Islamist regime in Syria is to be avoided.
Left-wing politicians say Germany already has blood on its hands since
groups receiving aid have attacked Kurdish areas in Syria. The deputy
leader of Merkel's Christian Democrats has said orthodox Christian
populations risk ethnic cleansing or worse if the French-allied
Islamists come to power. French commitment to the region's Christians is
also sincere -- French kings guaranteed protection of Maronite
Christians for centuries -- but now more Maronites live outside the
region than in it.
Contradictory Positions
This occasionally leaves France and Germany with contradictory
positions in the clash between broad-based Sunni and Shi'a alliances --
with critical implications for religious minorities in the region. There
are echoes of December 1991, when the tables were turned: a newly
confident and unified Germany proactively granted diplomatic recognition
to Croatia, which the French viewed as dangerously premature and as a
brazen grab to reassert German influence in that part of the Balkans.
Twenty years later, German foreign policy has made the next step and
challenges France's traditional spheres of influence to the south.
France and Britain ultimately dropped their objections to German plans
to recognize Croatia in 1991. But it is unlikely that Germany will
accomodate French designs on Syria in 2013.
With fewer German ghosts in the Mediterranean basin, Germany can sell
its successful national brand with less historical baggage and
distinguish itself from France. This had begun shortly before the Arab
Awakening, at a time when Berlin resented exclusionary moves like
Sarkozy's Union for the Mediterranean and took pride in the "small
differences" of its own policies.
Unlike in France, for example, Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi was
not allowed to pitch his tent in Berlin, and no German government ever
praised Tunisian President Ben Ali's democratization efforts. Germany's
long-term security, a regional strategy report from the German Institute
for International and Security Affairs argued in 2009, depended on the
credibility of such German policies among local populations.
Germany still sold plenty of arms to the same regimes: The same report
noted the "especially negative consequences of France's special position
on the German economy" and openly complained that "when it's time to
sign contracts, it's the French firms that always come in ahead."
The Merkel government has not shrunk from all relevant military
roles. It sent personnel to help in Iraq and Mali, and AWACs to Libya
(and to Afghanistan to free up allies' own planes for use in Libya).
German Patriot batteries installed under NATO in Turkey have already
detected hundreds of missiles fired in Syria this year.
But Germany's goals differ markedly and signal a
counter-revolutionary stance against French activist zeal. None of the
Merkel-led coalitions to come out of September's elections are likely to
judge things differently. In addition to the 50 years of the Elysée
Treaty, this October also marks the 200th anniversary of the war
liberating Prussia from Napoleonic occupation.
JIHAD
IN SYRIA: THE PENETRATION OF RADICAL ISLAM IN THE SYRIAN CONFLICT
Recent reports of
dozens of KUWAITI jihadists traveling to fight in the SYRIAN conflict further highlight the stronger
foothold radical Islamic groups are gaining in SYRIA. Since January 2012, SYRIA has been transformed into a major battleground of the
jihad world, with a number of foreign and SYRIAN jihadist groups surfacing to
participate in the conflict. This development not only poses a serious threat
to the present SYRIAN government or any government that may follow, but also threatens the armed opposition in SYRIA,
headed by the Free SYRIAN Army (FSA).
At present, at least ten different
notable foreign and SYRIAN groups with varying ideologies are waging militant jihad
in SYRIA. In spite of these differences, a useful distinction becomes apparent
when comparing each group’s mode of operation, which can be categorized as one
of three types:
·The first type is “support” groups that predominantly
assist the flow of arms and fighters into SYRIA.
·The second are “guerilla” groups that carry out small
scale but regular attacks on security forces.
·The third are “terror” groups that carry out high
profile bombings outside the usual areas of conflict. Through this distinction,
it quickly becomes evident that the “terror” groups have had the most
significant contribution to the conflict in SYRIA.
These groups have carried out at least twelve high profile
attacks since January 2012, including suicide car bombings in Damascus, Aleppo,
and Idlib. In addition to helping escalate the violence in SYRIA, the attacks caused
a psychological blow to the SYRIAN regime by highlighting some weaknesses of
the SYRIAN security apparatus. Primarily these attacks were carried out by two SYRIAN
Salafist groups, Jabhat al-Nusraand its Idlib based offshoot, Kata’ib Ahrar
al-Sham, these “terror” groups
have been inspired and assisted by al-Qaeda
in IRAQ to become two of the most prominent SYRIAN groups currently
operating in the conflict.
SALAFIST
INSURGENCE FROM IRAQ, JORDAN, EGYPT, AND MOST RECENTLY KUWAIT.
Despite this, “terror” groups in SYRIA do not receive
widespread support within SYRIA and have not attempted to forge links with the
FSA. Nonetheless, outside SYRIA these groups have gained wide support,
including receiving small numbers of foreign Salafist fighters from IRAQ,
JORDAN, EGYPT, and most recently KUWAIT.
This external support has also been extended to a number of
“guerilla” groups operating in the SYRIAN conflict and is linked to the
increased violence around Homs as well as a significant percent increase in
improvised explosive device (IED) attacks against SYRIAN security forces since
January 2012. Despite different ideologies, many of the SYRIAN and foreign
groups in this category have forged loose ties with the FSA and are assisting
them in their fight against the SYRIAN security apparatus, through the use of
guerilla warfare tactics based on experience gained in other jihad arenas. Two
examples of groups that work with the FSA are the SYRIAN group Dhu al-Nurayn and the LEBANESE based
group Fatah al-Islam.
The “support” groups, which constitute the third category,
remain a key link in supplying arms and fighters into SYRIA along preexisting
smuggling routes, mainly from IRAQ and LEBANON. These groups, though remaining
at the sidelines, are important in helping feed the conflict in SYRIA and have
indicated they may join the conflict at a later date. One example is the group
called “The Free Army of IRAQIS.”
SUNNI
GROUPS ON THE DOORSTEP TO SYRIA CHALLENGES HIZBOLLAH’S PREVIOUSLY UNRIVALED
DOMINANCE
With the pressure of the internal
conflict already straining the current SYRIAN government’s authority over the
country, these radical Islamic groups only add to
this pressure. With the small size of these
groups, the unpredictability of their attacks, and their increasing capability
in fomenting unrest, it makes it difficult for SYRIAN security forces to
effectively combat these groups as well as the FSA. In the long term, this
prolonged pressure helps continue to weaken the SYRIAN government. For the main
SYRIAN opposition, the radical Islamic elements are currently a necessary but
problematic partner in its fight against the SYRIAN government: By keeping
these radical Islamic groups at arm's length, making alliances with some, and
denouncing others (especially al-Qaeda),
they are hoping to utilize these groups' fighting power without damaging their
credibility in the eyes of the SYRIAN people and the international community.
Yet in the long term, with these
radical Islamic groups gaining more support and competence, this uneasy
relationship may waver and the opposition, especially the FSA, may find it
faces an additional challenge to its rise to power in SYRIA. The ability of any
future SYRIAN government to control the impact of these radical Islamic groups
is a key question, as a possible repeat of events in IRAQ after the AMERICAN-led
invasion of 2003 demonstrated. In the IRAQI case, radical Islamic elements took
advantage of the power vacuum left from the disintegration of the security
apparatus and established a strong presence there that is still felt today.
Outside SYRIA, radical Islamic
elements in SYRIA could, in the long term, affect two key regional actors:
Hizbollah and ISRAEL. With the conflict already disrupting, Hizbollah’s vital
long term support from SYRIA and IRAN, the emergence of openly hostile radical
Sunni groups on its doorstep in SYRIA challenges Hizbollah’s previously
unrivaled dominance.
For ISRAEL, the conflict in SYRIA has largely been
beneficial, helping destabilize SYRIA’S government, and by extension, two of
its key allies, IRAN and Hizbollah. However, with the emergence of several
radical Islamic groups in SYRIA strongly hostile towards ISRAEL, ISRAEL’S northern
border may begin to see attacks from these groups in the future. With the
situation in SYRIA growing more sectarian and chaotic, the radical Islamic
groups in SYRIA are sure to profit, but to what extent is an open question.
WHO REALLY USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS, THAT IS THE QUESTION
SYRIAN
opposition figures based in Istanbul, TURKEY, have claimed that up to 1,400
people have been killed in chemical weapons attacks!!!
Could it be that the BRITISH and FRENCH stance and eagerness of military action in SYRIA is because that the two are former
imperialist, colonialist powers in that region, thus resurrecting colonial ambitions and
distant memories of the SYKES–PICOT AGREEMENT? (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement)
Chemical Weapons False Flag Against Syria?
This video clip was posted on YouTube April 2012
The coincidence couldn't be more telling. No sooner than the UNITED NATIONS chemical
weapons inspectors arrived in Damascus - within 72 hours, in fact - the SYRIAN
opposition figures based in Istanbul, TURKEY, have claimed that up to 1,400
people have been killed in chemical weapons attacks by the government forces
on the outskirts of the SYRIAN capital.
The media blitzkrieg has been equally stunning - press conferences, video
presentations by opposition activists, "expert opinion" from
Western capitals and instantaneous reactions by western politicians.
The UNITED STATES, BRITAIN, FRANCE, GERMANY, the EUROPEAN UNION and the ARAB
LEAGUE are among those who have demanded for urgent action.
The UN Security Council promptly held a closed-door
meeting to consider the allegation against the SYRIAN government.
Unsurprisingly, the SYRIAN government itself has strongly refuted the
allegation calling it a "dirty" media war, which reflected the
"hysteria, disorder and breakdown" of the rebels who have suffered
a string of devastating military defeats in the recent days and weeks.
SWEDISHWEAPON INSPECTOR SELLSTROM:IRAQ DÉJÀ VU?
What is the game plan? One vital clue lies in the appointment of the SWEDISH
expert Ake Sellstrom as the head of the UN team that landed in Damascus three
days ago. Sellstrom served in the select band of UN weapon inspectors in IRAQ.
Reuters quoted Sellstrom backing the demand that the alleged attacks in
Damascus suburbs should be investigated and he even mooted a plan of action.
Sellstrom suggested,
It [SYRIAN opposition claim]
sounds like something that should be looked into. It will depend on whether
any UN member state goes to the secretary general and says we should look at
this event. We are in place.
BRITISH Foreign Secretary William
Hague picked up Sellstrom's excellent idea and said, I call on the SYRIAN
government to allow immediate access to the area for the UN team currently
investigating previous allegations of chemical weapons use ... The UK will be
raising this incident at the UN Security Council.
France concurred within no time.
President Francois Hollande too felt that the allegations "require
verification and confirmation" and Paris would ask the UN to go to the
site "to shed full light" on the allegations. GERMANY nodded in
agreement.
The TURKISH foreign ministry had a full-fledged statement ready, which said
Ankara is "deeply concerned" and the team of UN inspectors already
in SYRIA "must investigate the allegations in question and present its
findings" to the security council.
Interestingly, the much-awaited statement by the White House in Washington
turned out to be an endorsement of the EUROPEAN-TURKISH demand - stopping
short of confirming the incident but adding it was working to gather
additional information, while demanding,
There is today, as we speak, on
the ground in SYRIA, a UNITED NATIONS team with a specialty in investigating
the use of chemical weapons. So, let's give this team the opportunity to
investigate what exactly occurred and get to the bottom of this so that we
can hold accountable those who were responsible.
Indeed, an emergency meeting of
the UN Security Council has taken place in New York. The council did not
explicitly demand a UN investigation but agreed that "clarity" was
needed and welcomed UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon's calls for a prompt
investigation by Sellstrom's team.
In the words of Ambassador Cristina Perceval of ARGENTINA, currently
president of the Security Council, there is "strong concern among the
Council members" about the allegations, and "a general sense that
there must be clarity on what happened" and that the situation has to be
followed carefully''.
Meanwhile, Ban's spokesman told journalists in New York that Sellstrom is
already "in discussions with the SYRIAN Government on all issues
pertaining to the alleged use of chemical weapons, including this most recent
reported incident''.
CAMEL IN BASHAR'S TENT
In sum, the UN inspection team which is mandated to be in SYRIA up to 14 days
- as agreed between the SYRIAN government and the UN - "with a possible
extension" to probe the use of alleged use of chemical weapons at Khan
al-Assal and two other undisclosed cites may just be getting an enhanced
mandate.
If so, it becomes a diplomatic coup of sorts for the Western powers and their
MIDDLE EASTERN allies who have been persistently seeking some form of UN
intervention in SYRIA.
In essence, Sellstrom may well be on an open-ended mission now since the SYRIAN
opposition will endeavor to make fresh allegations in other places in SYRIA
as well. Most important, Sellstrom may tiptoe at some stage toward the
chemical weapon stockpiles of the Bashar Al-Assad regime.
Clearly, the camel has entered Bashar's tent. Sellstrom will now begin filing
reports to Ban, which the latter will be obliged to bring to the notice of
the Security Council and that, in turn, could mean the opening of a SYRIAN
file in New York, which the West all along wanted.
What does it all add up to? Three things emerge. One, the momentum of
stunning successes by the SYRIAN military over the rebels is almost certainly
going to be punctuated. The SYRIAN regime will need to turn attention to the
diplomatic battle that lies ahead.
TURKEY
HAS NOW REALIZED ITS STRATEGIC MISTAKE AND LEFT THE FRONT
The government forces have won successes in key battlefields such as in the
central and coastal regions of Homs and Latakia and the suburbs of Damascus.
General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the influential military aide to IRAN'S Supreme
Leader Ali Khamenei, claimed in Tehran that the "[SYRIAN] terrorists
have been almost defeated from the military perspective." Savafi added,
What
is left is the Geneva 2 conference. On one side there will be the US, ISRAEL,
FRANCE, ENGLAND, TURKEY and some ARAB states, which supported the opposition.
As a result of its domestic issues, TURKEY has now realized its strategic
mistake and left the front. SAUDI ARABIA is dealing with its EGYPT project.
The rest of the front is present but defeated.
RUSSIA’S
REACTION?
But on the other side of this front, there reside RUSSIA, CHINA and IRAN,
which aided SYRIA. Of course, IRAN and the LEBANESE Hezbollah aided SYRIA politically
and internationally as they support restoration of peace, stability and
tranquility to SYRIA.
Did Safavi speak one day too soon?
Is Iran fully in the loop? Is its triumphalism warranted? The answers will unfold
soon.
Meanwhile, Moscow is maintaining deafening silence over the latest
allegations on chemical weapons, presumably taken aback by the lightning
speed with which the Western powers and their regional allies got the SYRIAN
file into the agenda of the Security Council.
TECTONIC
PLATES IN THE GEOPOLITICS OF THE MIDDLE EAST SHOW SOME MOVEMENT
RUSSIAN Foreign Minister Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov had a telephone
conversation with the SAUDI spy chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud to
"discuss the situation in EGYPT and SYRIA ... [and] the relations
between the two countries''. Bandar is a delightful bag of tricks, and at any
rate, by Wednesday evening, Riyadh sang a different tune, with Foreign
Minister Saud al-Faisal saying,
The UN Security Council should
work out a clear resolution to put an end to the tragedy. We are shocked by
the massacre in SYRIAN cities with the use of chemical weapons, which are
prohibited under international law.
This is the second thing. The
tectonic plates in the geopolitics of the MIDDLE EAST were beginning to show
some movement in recent weeks over developments in EGYPT. The disharmony
amongst the erstwhile allies who were until recently collaborating over the SYRIA
project was becoming too obvious to be papered over.
TURKEY began openly criticizing the EGYPTIAN
junta and its GULF Cooperation Council (GCC) supporters and taunting the WEST
over its much-vaunted democracy project in the new MIDDLE EAST. QATAR
vanished from the SYRIAN frontline. Washington still wouldn't call the EGYPTIAN
coup by its real name, while the EUROPEAN UNION is dithering on imposing any
embargo on EGYPT, with SAUDI ARABIA threatening to make up for any Western
embargo on EGYPT.
STALLING A RESET
But the most sensational part of the
realignment is the nascent proximity between RUSSIA on the one hand and SAUDI
ARABIA and its GCC allies (especially the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES) on the other
hand in their shared antipathy toward Muslim Brotherhood.
At the very least, the SYRIAN chemical weapon controversy puts a sudden break
on the incipient moves of a "reset" in the political alignments in
the MIDDLE EAST. The Western powers have circled the wagons and their restive
ARAB allies - SAUDI ARABIA, in particular - are being told to stay put, with
the signal that the SYRIAN project is work in progress.
THE HEART OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE
WEST SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD A REGIONAL ASCENDANCE BY RUSSIA, CHINA AND IRAN.
Nor is the West comfortable with
the increasingly maverick ways in which its regional allies are behaving.
Paradoxically, the chemical weapons controversy provides a vital lifeline for
TURKEY'S beleaguered Recep Erdogan to break out of acute isolation over EGYPT.
Erdogan is at his wit's end in coping with the KURDISH problem, which has
been surging lately as the leitmotif of the SYRIAN conflict.
The SYRIAN KURDS have frontally
challenged Ankara's covert nexus with the al-Qaeda affiliates operating in
northeastern SYRIA bordering TURKEY, which puts Erdogan in a tight spot.
A tantalizing question, however, arises. The EUROPEAN powers - BRITAIN and FRANCE
in particular - and TURKEY are evidently spearheading the latest controversy
over chemical weapons. But how far and how real is the Obama administration's
involvement in it?
Comment by Geopolitical
Analysis and Monitoring:
SYKES–PICOT AGREEMENT
Could it be that the
BRITISH and FRENCH stance on SYRIA and use of Chemical Weapons is all about
the resurrection of colonial ambitions and distant memories of the SYKES–PICOT AGREEMENT? (See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement)
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, General Martin Dempsey, went on record that the Obama administration
is opposed to even limited military intervention in SYRIA because it believes
that the rebels fighting the Assad regime wouldn't support AMERICAN interests
if they were to seize power right now.
He wrote with brutal frankness in a formal letter addressed to US Congressman
Eliot Engel (Democrat - New York),
SYRIA today is not about choosing
between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides. It is my
belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and
ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not.
It is a deeply rooted, long-term conflict among multiple factions, and
violent struggles for power will continue after Assad's rule ends. We should
evaluate the effectiveness of limited military options in this context.
Comment by Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring:
Worthwhile to mention is that the SYRIAN conflict will most
probably continue for some time, similar to the civil war in LEBANON, which
lasted 15 years.
The use of US military force can
change the military balance. But it cannot resolve the underlying and
historic ethnic, religious and tribal issues that are fueling this conflict.
Dempsey concluded that the Obama
administration is on course with its current policy of focusing on
humanitarian assistance and bolstering the moderate opposition in SYRIA,
since such an approach "represents the best framework for an effective
US strategy toward SYRIA''. SYRIAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONTROVERSY OPENS AN EXIT DOOR OF SORTS FOR THE
WESTERN POWERS (AND TURKEY) IN SYRIA
All in all, therefore, the
chemical weapons controversy opens an exit door of sorts for the western
powers (and TURKEY) in SYRIA. The western powers have been dodging the issue
of arming the SYRIAN rebels after making verbal pledges while Assad's forces
have been gradually gaining the upper hand militarily.
The SYRIAN opposition is in a mess and EGYPT'S strongman General Abdel Fatteh
el-Sisi told its leaders who were based in Cairo to get lost. On the other hand, the Brotherhood, which
dominated the SYRIAN opposition, is under heavy SAUDI artillery fire all
across the region.
In sum, the compass of the "regime change" project in SYRIA has
shifted in favor of the Salafists. Besides, these are still early days in
Egypt and what happens on the Nile banks would ultimately rewrite Middle
eastern politics. In the present situation, Assad will negotiate from a
position of unassailable strength at the "Geneva 2" negotiating
table, which is untenable.
This is where the chemical weapons controversy and the opening of a SYRIAN
file at the UN Security Council offers a breather to break the momentum of
Assad's army and the swagger of the Hezbollah and IRAN and end the look of
smug satisfaction on the RUSSIAN face.
SELLSTROM
DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A MANDATE TO NAME THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE.
Is this a prelude to an IRAQ-like scenario? The chancelleries in Moscow,
Tehran and Beijing will be assessing. No doubt, Sellstrom is tiptoeing
dangerously close toward Bashar's WMD stockpiles, something, which the US
(and ISRAEL) always wanted to fasten.
The only task assigned to weapon inspector Sellstrom when he landed in
Damascus three days ago with his team was to inspect three specific sites to
determine whether chemical weapons were used in SYRIA. He didn't have a
mandate even to name the party responsible.
Now, all that is history. The plain truth is that Sellstrom's footfalls are
beginning to echo in the memory. One could visualize Sellstrom going down the
passage towards the door "we never opened into the rose-garden''.
Maybe, as T. S. Eliot wrote,
"But to what purpose
Disturbing the dust on a bowl of rose-leaves
I do not know."
But we know that what was an
abstraction until the dawn broke on Wednesday is becoming a perpetual
possibility in today's world of speculation.
