November , 2018

People Aur Politics

A liberation zone for democratic rights, multiculturalism, international brotherhood and peace.

Syria: On Brink of War-Boris DOLGOV

Posted by admin On August - 28 - 2013


The news made public on August 21 about the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian army against anti-government formations and civilians living in Damascus suburban area prompted further exacerbation of the situation. It is getting worse by leaps and bounds. Ahmad Jarba, the head of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, rushed to put the blame for the «crime» committed on Syrian government and called on the United States of America, Great Britain and France to intervene immediately. The West was quick to support the unfounded accusation. Wasting no time for the investigation results to be announced, it started to make threats to launch a military intervention against Syria.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said Western claims his regime used chemical weapons were an «insult to common sense» and warned the United States that it would face failure in case Syria were attacked. It’s a really absurd to think the Syrian army could use the chemical weapons against itself in the densely populated urban areas under the control of government forces. Damascus also said there is a solid material proof the chemical weapons were used by radical opposition. The Syrian state TV broadcast images of plastic jugs, gas masks, vials of an unspecified medication, explosives and other items made in Saudi Arabia that it said were seized from rebel hideouts. There were also chemical attack protective gear with «made in USA» labels. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said unambiguously the accusations against Syria were absurd and applied efforts to initiate a UN inspection on spot.

Washington is evidently trying to hinder the UN inspectors mission saying it possesses irrefutable evidence to prove it was the Syrian government who did it. The United States believes a military intervention is possible without the United Nations Security Council’s resolution. On August 27 US media started to report the strike is scheduled on Thursday, August 29. Three aircraft carrier strike groups are located in the vicinity of Syrian shore ready to deliver powerful air and cruise missile strikes. The US is supported by Great Britain, France and Turkey. A Western military attack on Syria would only create more problems in the region leading to more bloodshed and resulting in the same sort of «catastrophe» as such previous interventions in Iraq and Libya, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said. But will it stop those who want a big war?

It’s clear the propaganda campaign about the alleged use of chemical weapons is a planned provocation aimed at undermining the emerging opportunities for political management of the Syrian crisis and creating a pretext for military intervention into the country.

The organizers of provocative action acted like laymen not setting much store by producing anything like convincing evidence to justify the planned aggression. The world recalls the events of 2003 when the same type of scenario took place. Back then invented pretexts was also used to justify the 2003 intervention by the United States and Great Britain in Iraq. One can remember how the Germany’s special services staged an imitated attack presumably launched by Polish servicemen against a German radio station in 1939.

The real intent of the incumbent US administration in Syria is to topple the country’s government led by Bashar Assad and dismember the decapitated country. In other words it wants to eliminate the Iranian ally so that it could concentrate on doing away with the Iran’s nuclear program, to deal with Hezbollah in Lebanon and to make the Sunni type of «political Islam» come to power in Iraq having it over and done with the clout of pro-Iranian Shiites. Israel sides with the United States, it believes that the main thing is to eliminate the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance.

As Washington believes, a victorious intervention in Syria would bolster the United States image as «the only global superpower», the image that suffered a heavy blow when the US-led policy of supporting Islamism in the Arab world failed. The failure is obvious: the US diplomats killed in Libya in 2012, the overthrow of President Morsi in Egypt, who once enjoyed the Washington’s support, the inability to topple the regime of Bashar Assad during more than two years using Islamists for the purpose. It was in 2011 when Obama said Assad lost «legitimacy». The Snowden’s case has greatly undermined the image of the United States as the «bulwark of freedom and democracy».

The threat of military intervention in Syria is the continuation of US global policy aimed at eliminating the statehood of power centers (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya), which were not among US satellites and lacked the potential to counter the aggression.

The White House follows the ancient Greek political formula which said it’s easier to rule those who are small and weak than the ones who are big and strong.

If an intervention takes place, the ramifications will be dire. The Syrian army is one of the most powerful ones in the Middle East, it has modern equipment in the inventory. No matter the aggressor has an advantage, it won’t be an easy walk.

There is no doubt the military conflict sparked by Americans will spread throughout the entire Middle East region to encompass Iran, the Hezbollah movement and Palestinian groups. Israel may be attacked. The response will be asymmetric (small special operations teams, terrorist acts in cities)…

The military defeat of Syria would lead to the country’s division and proliferation of instability, interconfessional strife and terrorist activities spreading over other regions far beyond the Middle East boundaries. The US policy towards Syria is a cynical hegemonism while ignoring each and every norm of international law. The events in Syria demonstrate that all the efforts to be a US partner end up as utopias. Once there is no bipolar balance, the US politicians believe there can be only a lord-vassal relationship in the contemporary world. If a vassal is not needed anymore and possesses no capability to defend himself, then he is unceremoniously disposed of.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Ahmed Shawki: Perspectives for the Left - Socialism 2013 Tsar To Lenin Tariq Ali & Oliver Stone "Untold History of the US" (May, 2013) Marx's Early Writings: Once More Unto the Breach: Video 2 of 2 Marx's Early Writings: Once More Unto the Breach: Video 1 of 2 Marxism & the Legacy of Subaltern Studies Tariq Ali: the crisis in Syria - questions and answers Scotland: Tariq Ali on independence;Dismantling the British State: Strategy, Tactics and Ideology Luxemburg, Lenin, Levi: Rethinking revolutionary history The power of the people Anti Stalin Left . How should socialists organise? Paul Le Blanc, Gilbert Achcar discuss Leninism, left unity, revolutionary parties Is religion good or evil? Michael Lebowitz: Primitive accumulation versus contested reproduction Adam Hanieh: A strategic overview of the struggles in the Middle East Relevance of Marxism Today The future of the Bolivarian Revolution after Hugo Chavez Enter the video embed code here. Remember to change the size to 310 x 250 in the embed code.

Recent Comments

There is something about me..

Recent Posts