As competing claims on the use of chemical weapons in Syria continue to make the world’s headlines, with opposing camps accusing one another of war crimes - under one of the protocols of the Geneva Convention the use of poisonous gas, chemical agents, asphyxiating gases and all other bacteriological weapons are strictly prohibited and classified under war crimes - Washington has been slowly warming the public to a possible direct military intervention in Syria.
While the idea of American boots on the ground is still very much hypothetical as US President Obama would have not only to by-pass the UN Security Council and convince its main western allies - France and the United Kingdom - that yet another potentially protracted conflict in the region would serve their immediate interests, before he could stand before Congress and ask for a declaration of war against Syria, recent military movements near the Levant are signaling a definite change in tune.

If the storm of war has yet to break out, dark clouds are certainly gathering up in the horizon, foreboding and menacing.

One needs to understand when looking at the Syrian conflict that even though Washington is trying to play to high morality card by arguing that its main concern is to save civilians’ lives, it is really its interests and that of its main ally and patron, Israel, which the Obama administration is looking to protect, defend and promote.

If back in 2011, Syria seemed like an easy win, given the speed at which revolutionaries in Egypt and Tunisia ousted their respective regime, Western powers soon realized that President al-Assad was indeed no easy target and that consequently some level of military interventionism would have to take place if they were ever to regain control of the situation.

The attempted Syrian coup which hid behind the veil of the Islamic Awakening stands now in all the splendor of its deceptiveness. Those who in 2011 smiled and shrugged at President al-Assad’s warnings of a foreign plot now stand in dismay before the destruction Western powers brought upon the Syrian nation, realizing that their president’s words rang true.

Just as Washington used al-Qaeda militants in Afghanistan to fight off Russia in the 1980s, the West has been bankrolling militants to oppose the Syrian army, thus risking to set alight the Levant. The arrival into the region of militants has turned the region into a sectarian hotbed, with Sunni and Shiite communities everywhere rising in condemnation of the death of their brothers.

A people which stood once united, now stand divided.

The West has worked to demonize the Syrian government and its allies - Iran and the Hezbollah - ensuring through its control of the media that only their truth would make it through, thus brainwashing not only Western viewers but Arabs everywhere.

At a time where grave allegations of mass murder are being thrown around, caution is mandatory. One needs only to look at history and America’s track records for manipulations and lies to simply take media reports at face value. Not so long ago the Pentagon claimed Iraq was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. As it turned out no such weapons were ever found, but by the time reporters challenged then-President W. Bush, America’s new mantra was that it liberated the Iraqi people and brought democracy to the region; WMD became by then an irrelevant argument.

In light of such deceit, it would only be natural to ponder over not only Washington’s claims against Syria but also to look at its motives.

As it happens Iraq and its oil riches presented an economic opportunity far too great for the US to pass... What could Syria bring to the American table? Or rather, could Syria represent too much of a threat for Israel to ignore? And thus for Washington to act upon?

When looking at the Syrian conflict one needs to look beyond a simple stance on ethicality and more at Israel’s immediate geostrategic priority in the Levant to understand what game is really at play.

With the formidable alliance of the Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and Iraq, Israel sits uncomfortable in the region, especially since former Egyptian Hosni Mubarak’s ouster in 2011 meant that its main ally in the region was lost to its cause.

If for some time Israel stood an oasis of calm amid the region’s revolutionary flux and reflux, the arrival into Syria of militants has proven increasingly unmanageable, especially since such groups have proven to hold no other ambition but to annihilate Israel.

While al-Qaeda could only dream of ever looking upon the hills of ancient Palestine, Global Jihad has now elected domicile alongside Zion’s borders, literally staring down at the very people it wants to see destroy, making officials in Tel Aviv very nervous indeed.

If Israel has learned over the decades to deal with its natural nemeses in the immediate region - Hezbollah and Hamas - having set in place some rules of engagement, Global Jihad is an entirely new monster, one which does not have any head or strict chain of command. Moreover, while the Hezbollah and the Hamas are legitimate political factions with a defined agenda and therefore strategy and foreign policy, Global Jihad’s only purpose is to destroy, its loyalties are to its terror ideology, not a people, making it not only dangerous but unpredictable.

Israel found out the realities of living a stone throw away from real terror militants when on August 20 three Jihadist groups fired rockets onto its territories - Ansar Beit al-Makdas Brigades, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades and the Ziad Jarah Companies.

With this in mind, one can now understand why Washington seems so intent on sending troops on the ground; it only needs now to find a proper cover story - chemical weapons.

US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel confirmed on Saturday that a fourth US warship has been deployed to the Mediterranean in anticipation of a military intervention.

Three other destroyers are currently deployed there - the USS Gravely, USS Barry and USS Ramage. All four warships are equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles.

By US Closeup

 

The Iran Project is not responsible for the content of quoted articles.