In recent days much has been said about the possibility of a western military intervention in Syria with the help of regional powers. The pretext from which this talk takes its starting point and by which the coming military strike is justified are the barbaric, criminal, hideous attacks with chemical weapons that took place in the Damascus countryside days ago, claiming hundreds of innocents as victims. Before entering into a scrutiny of the incident and the reactions to it from various sides, I must affirm that – until the writing of these lines – none of the parties to the conflict has brought proven arguments for condemning the other party and holding it responsible for the criminal act. Everyone speaks of evidence and proof in their possession, but the clear ocular proof has not been presented to the media until now. The strange thing about the matter is that the enemies of the regime and their supporters among western powers and regional governments insisted, from the first minutes after the news of the shameful act was published, on emphasizing that the Syrian regime and its army are the ones who carried out the chemical attack, and that the punishment must be a direct military intervention of the western powers. In my belief, regardless of whether there is evidence convicting the regime or not, a military strike against Syria – most likely only aerial and seaborne missile – is coming, and the capacities to meet it diminish every hour. This scenario, which we have been following for days, did not come from nothing; it has been thought through and planned for a long time. The statements of some western politicians relentlessly bent on a military strike, even before the UN team of experts began investigating the incident, confirm that these people have not learned from their past mistakes when they let themselves be driven into the vain war on Iraq, and they are once again ready for killing and destruction without condemnation. These are also ready to willfully trample their own principles of judicial justice, which state that the accused is innocent until his guilt is proven!
And it is right to pose a clear question: The prince of speech bubbles, Obama, said that the use of chemical weapons is a red line! Morally there is no blemish on such a position, but why the threat only against the regime? And what, one wonders, if the UN experts prove that the enemies of the regime are the ones who used the chemical weapon? Will Obama send his air force to bomb the al-Nusra Front and its followers? Or will the party that supplied them with the chemicals be punished? Without beginning to market conspiracy theories, which fill our media and thoughts in the East: it has become clear to everyone that behind all this tumult is a complete plan for building a new Middle East to American measure, and the acceleration toward realizing this plan increased after the abysmal failure of the Muslim Brotherhood in both Egypt and Tunisia. And one of the fundamental pillars of this plan is breaking the Shia crescent led by Iran, extending from Pakistan to Lebanon. And everyone knows that the regime in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon are the backbone of this crescent, which Israel, the Wahhabi governments and America all consider a danger to their interests in the Middle East. The military strike against Syria will also be a strike against Iran and Hezbollah alike. A military strike against the regime will restore some of the balance on the Syrian arena, after the regime recorded important victories on the ground and drove its enemies from essential positions. And it is also a rescue for the rapidly accelerating disintegration of the front of the regime's enemies, which in the recent months has revealed the vast differences in the goals, intentions and plans of each of its parts. And it is without doubt an attempt by the supporters of the regime's enemies to extinguish the criticism directed at them from all sides for supplying the armed men with advanced weapons, while they are certain that the al-Nusra Front, which publicly pledged allegiance to al-Qaida, and the other jihadist movements are the greatest beneficiaries of the West's weapons. The military intervention in Syria will shuffle the cards anew before going to Geneva. And this, as far as it is concerned, will without the slightest doubt facilitate the Saudi mission of closing the Syrian file before the end of the year, as Prince Bandir pledged to his allies in his shuttle visits weeks ago to the western capitals. The military intervention in Syrian affairs also serves the interests of regional powers allied with the West and fundamental pillars of the new Middle East. Turkey, for example, has stumbled politically of late and become nearly isolated after its relations deteriorated with Egypt, Iran, the European Union, Israel and the United States. And it is seeking a way out for its return to the regional and world political arena, knowing that Turkey's economic situation is tied to the quality of its external political relations. Its military participation alongside the West against Syria opens for it the doors of warming the atmosphere with the West, at least. And its return to the political arena. Saudi Arabia, which is doing everything in its power to drag the West into a military campaign against the Syrian regime, realizes that the absence of the other regional forces – Egypt, Turkey, Iraq and Iran – opens for it the space to return to playing the fundamental role in the Middle East and guarantees it a leading role in ordering the region after the crisis, a role that other countries of the region have embodied for long years. The sole loser in this game is the ancient Syrian people, who will pay the high price for the adventures and mistakes of some politicians. The sole winner is the reactionary Salafi forces and their followers in the region, for they will grow in strength and self-assurance, and most of them will continue their journey, which they began in Afghanistan, through Iraq to Syria. And the question remains about the next station for these people who have appointed themselves God's representative on earth?
* Director of the Institute for Strategic Studies of the Middle East – Hanover/Germany
