Should we therefore think that the West will go to war without a mandate from the Security Council, as NATO did in Yugoslavia? This is unlikely because at the time Russia was in ruins. Today, after issuing three vetoes to protect Syria, it must intervene or forsake any international action. However Sergey Lavrov has wisely rejected a Third World War. He said that his country was not ready to go to war against anyone, even over Syria. It could therefore be an indirect intervention in support of Syria, as China did during the Vietnam War .
Iran then, through its Deputy Chief of Staff, Massoud Jazayeri, indicated that the attack on Syria would be crossing the “red line” and that if it took this step, the White House would endure “serious consequences.” Though Iran has neither the resources of Russia, nor alliances, it is certainly one of the top 10 global military powers. Therefore, to attack Syria is to run the risk of retaliation against Israel and uprisings in much of the Arab world, including Saudi Arabia. The recent intervention of the Lebanese Hezbollah and the statements of its Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, such as the Palestinian organization PFLP- General Command, leave no doubt.
Questioned by the Russian press, Syrian President Bashar al -Assad, said: “The statements made by US politicians, Western and other countries is an insult to common sense and an expression of contempt for the public opinion of their peoples. This is nonsense: first accuse, then gather evidence. This task is carried out by a powerful country, the United States ( … ) This kind of accusation is a purely political response to the series of victories won by government forces against the terrorists. ”
In Russia, the President of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Duma, the journalist and geopolitician, Alexei Pushkov, commented on his Twitter account : ” Washington and London have pronounced Assad guilty before the conclusions of UN inspectors . They will accept nothing but a guilty verdict . Any other verdict will be rejected. ”
The notion of a new war in Syria squares badly with the economic problems of the United States and Europe. If selling weapons is a way to earn money, destroying a state without hope of return in the short or medium term can worsen the situation.
According to a Reuters / Ipsos poll conducted after the August 21st attack, 60% of the US public opposed intervention in Syria against 9% who supported it . If they were convinced of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, they remained 46% in opposition to the war and 25% in support. The same survey indicates that U.S. respondents are even less fond of secret war : 89 % said the US should not arm the rebels, against 11% who want to arm them more. Finally, four options were offered to respondents : airstrikes ( supported by 12%), creating a no-fly zone ( 11%), the financing of a multinational force ( 9%), and direct U.S. action ( 4%).
In France, Le Figaro, published by the arms dealer Dassault, asked its readers and, at the end of the day, 79.60 % opposed the war versus 20.40% in support. It will certainly be difficult to reverse public opinion and go to war.
Another interpretation of events is possible: some videos showing the victims of chemical attacks actually circulated on the Internet a few hours before the attacks. It will always be possible for Westerners to “discover” the deception in time and backtrack. However, the case of chemical weapons in Iraq has shown that Westerners could lie to the international community and escape with impunity once their evil deed is accomplished.
The charges from jihadists and their Western sponsors emerged while the Syrian Arab Army launched a major offensive, “Shield of Damascus” to free the capital. The shot of the two shells of the “Brigade of Islam” came at the beginning of the offensive, which continued for 5 days and resulted in significant losses among jihadists (at least 1,500 killed and wounded of the about 25,000 present). All this agitation may be only psychological warfare to both hide this defeat and attempt to cripple the Syrian offensive. This is especially a way for Washington to test the Iranian response after the election of Sheikh Hassan Rohani to his presidency. And it is now clear that the latter will not oppose the policy of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
However, during the war against Libya, I had underestimated the ability of the United States to violate all the rules, including those of NATO. Basing myself on documents from the Atlantic Alliance, I insisted on the long resilience of the Libyan Jamahiriya confronting its armed opposition. I ignored the holding of a secret meeting on the NATO base in Naples behind the back of the Atlantic Council. At the time, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Turkey, Israel, Qatar and Jordan secretly planned the use of Alliance assets to bomb Tripoli. Not trusting their allies, whom they knew would be opposed to an attack so costly in human lives, they had not informed them. The Atlantic Alliance was no longer an Alliance proper but an ad hoc coalition. In a few days, the taking of Tripoli caused at least 40,000 deaths, according to internal reports of the Red Cross. Such a manoeuvre may be being organized : the Chiefs of Staff of approximately the same states, plus Saudi Arabia and Canada, are gathered since Sunday and until tonight in Amman under the chairmanship of the CentCom commander, General Lloyd J. Austin III. They are considering five options: supplying weapons to the Contras, targeted bombings, creating a no-fly zone, establishment of buffer zones and land invasion.
(Article continues on next page.)