A Big Lie about the Syrian Crisis

Britain and France reiterate sending military assistance to the Bashar Assad opposition while, first of all, in the meeting of the EU Foreign Ministers held two days ago, the member countries did not agree on sending weapons and this meeting ended with no outcome regarding Syria. Secondly, the emphasis of both countries is taking place while the UN Security Council has issued a resolution with regard to Syria based on not sending military assistance to any of the disputing parties in this country, and both Britain and France have signed this resolution. Therefore, the lack of commitment of these two countries to the ban on sending military assistance to the opposition and violation of the military sanction on Syria would mean the violation of international agreements and covenants and ignoring the UN Security Council resolution.

They claim that military assistance to the Syrian opposition is pursued due to the unbalanced conflicts in Syria. This is while evidence shows that both sides in Syria are involved in a balanced military conflict.

The opposition has shown during the past two years that they have the capability of downing jetfighters and helicopters and setting fire to the progressive T-72 and T-92 tanks. And this would not be successful with just any kind of weapon. It means that retaliating against the military equipments of the Syrian army will only be possible by having progressive anti-aircraft missiles and missile-launchers.

Sending military assistance and also expanded military attacks aimed at overthrowing the government of Bashar Assad have now created a big gap and a major part of the international players, including the US, have now stood on the side which defends a political solution to end the crisis in Syria. In fact, those who support military attacks and sending military assistance to the opposition are now a minority.

After two years, the Americans have reached the conclusion that they have miscalculated the crisis in Syria; hence, they have changed their approach.

The first objective of the US has been the weakening of the Syrian army; an army which was a real threat for Israel and, compared to the armies of other Arab countries of the region, enjoyed high capabilities. The second objective of the US was to expand the conflicts in Syria so that the ground would be prepared for the presence of the radical Islamic forces and most importantly al-Qaeda in this country, so as to be able to have an opportunity to weaken the Syrian army and/or destroy the al-Qaeda forces in Syria. On this basis, both cases, i.e. weakening the Syrian army and destruction of the al-Qaeda forces, would be beneficial for the US.

Contrary to the US calculations, after almost two years since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, neither has the army of Syria been weakened, nor have the dispatched al-Qaeda forces been destroyed. They have instead even turned this region into a new base for their revival which by itself can be a serious threat for the US.

It is strange that the Israelis give orders to the Arabs about what they should or should not do. Shimon Peres’ request for the military intervention of the Arab League in Syria is proposed at a time when the Arabs, due to their present divergence, do not have the possibility of dispatching even 100 military forces to Syria, let alone planning a military intervention in this country.