by Boaz Bismuth
The world has been
thinking out loud about the expected Western attack on Syrian President
Bashar Assad's regime. The question is no longer if, but rather how and
when. The media is inundated with pictures of victims from the regime's
use of chemical weapons.
And now it is not only
the generals who are preparing for the strike, but opinion makers are
preparing the world for it as well. U.S. President Barack Obama would
obviously prefer to be dealing with other things. Truth be told, so
would we. But since when has the Middle East ever promised us and the
world that it would be quiet?
Four of the most
powerful and central countries in NATO -- the U.S., France, Britain and
Turkey -- have ramped up their rhetoric in the past 48 hours. In their
eyes, the U.N. chemical weapon inspectors' work in Damascus, set for
Wednesday, has already become pointless. Assad crossed the line this
time and needs to be punished. The question of whether an alternative to
Assad is preferable is not even on the table. The answer to that is
clear, and no one is fooling themselves into thinking that if and when
Assad falls Syria will be come a better place for the region and the
world as a whole.
No one believes that
after this attack -- the scope of which has yet to be determined -- a
democracy will arise in Syria. After Western actions in Muslim lands
such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, it has become clear that the day
after will not be pretty.
But the West does not
have much choice. Standing idly by as chemical weapons are used would
make the West look like a pointless and impotent moral force, even in
its already limited capacity. The West would turn into an all-bark,
no-bite entity. The age-old global divide between good guys and bad guys
would make way for a world split into bad guys and weaklings.
Washington understands this cannot happen. Secretary of State John
Kerry's speech on Monday night was something we expected to hear from
America.
The question is how
Assad's friends will react in case of an attack. Tehran has recognized
the use of chemical weapons, but is a staunch opponent of any attack on
Syria and has threatened dire consequences if one takes place. It is
fair to assume that Iran will not become involved. It is the last thing
it should do during a time when it wants to keep a low profile and allow
its centrifuges to continue spinning. Tehran is more concerned with its
own regime's survival and its nuclear project. It is likely that Iran
will do as it did during the U.S. invasion of Iraq: Keep its head down,
and perhaps advance its illegal nuclear project until things settle
down.
The real test is
Russia. This is without a doubt the biggest confrontation between the
U.S. and Russia since the end of the Cold War. While we have seen
disagreements between the superpowers over Kosovo and Iraq, this time
the clash appears to be much more serious. Since the beginning of
Syria's civil war on March 15, 2011, Russia has become Assad's guard
dog. It will be interesting to see just how far Russian President
Vladimir Putin is willing to go in his opposition to the slated attack
on his last ally in the Middle East. Let's not forget that this
diplomatic showdown is taking place on the heels of the NSA
whistle-blower Edward Snowden affair.
Clearly, there is some
set of actions that could accommodate both Russia and the Obama
administration: One such scenario could be a surgical strike by the
Americans using cruise missiles on Syrian targets -- something which
could be carried out over a very short span of time -- while at the same
time moving up the scheduled talks between the U.S. and Russia in The
Hague, originally set for October, before the second round of Geneva
talks. It would be very convenient for Obama to attack, it would fulfill
his obligation while not going overboard, and now he has the
international green light and the means to a quick diplomatic solution.
Assad can also live with this scenario, especially if he gains Russia
and Iran as active members in the second round of the Geneva talks.
The winds of war have
blown as far as Australia, which is now stepping in line with the U.S.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd spoke with Obama over possible NATO
plans for a strike on Syria.
Assad, just like Saddam
Hussein in 1991, is threatening to set the region ablaze. He has no
choice. But a united world has no reason to fear Assad, and a united
West needs to stop fearing him as well. Even the ailing Arab world, in a
fragile state after the events of the past two and a half years, is
unable to prevent an attack on Syria. There may be no democracy in the
Arab world, but the will to live in freedom has grown and so has the
sway of the Arab street, which has long ruled on Assad. Hezbollah leader
Hassan Nasrallah did not see this and nearly lost everything as a
result.
Assad is long due to be
the sixth Arab leader to be ousted since 2011. The pictures we have
seen for months of children's bodies in Syria have it made it clear as
day: He has to go. But the West will presumably be satisfied with simply
preventing the use of chemical weapons, something which the U.N.
Security Council should have taken upon itself from the beginning.
Removing Assad from power was not supposed to be part of the plan.
Success for Obama in Syria spells
success for us as well. Woe to the world which stands silent while
unconventional weapons are used. And to think we still have a regional
madman striving to get nuclear weapons.
Boaz Bismuth
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=5525
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment