US Fearful of Military Intervention in Syria
(FNA)- Analysts believe that the US cannot launch an air strike on Syria similar to what happened in Libya due to various reasons, saying that Washington is fearful of a military intervention in Syria, yet they believe that the US will do its best to oust the Syrian rulers due to its numerous strategic interests.
"US President Barack Obama's administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria similar to the campaign in Libya, for three main reasons," James P. Rubin said.
"Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians, the longtime patron of Syria, are staunchly opposed."
That's why working with "allies", the Arab sheikdoms -Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey- "organizing, training and arming the Syrian rebel forces" has come to be Washington's first move.
This "first step" has already been launched. It was implemented at the very outset of the insurgency in March 2012. The US and its allies have been actively supporting the Free Syrian Army (FSA) terrorists for over a year. The organization and training consisted of the deployment of Salafist and Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, alongside the incursion of French, British, Qatari and Turkish special forces inside Syria. US-NATO sponsored mercenaries are recruited and trained in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Sidetracking the UN
Rubin's proposed "second step" is "to secure international support for a coalition air operation." outside the mandate of the United Nations. "Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council" says Rubin. The air operation contemplated by Rubin is an all out war scenario, similar to the NATO air raids conducted in Libya.
Rubin is not expressing a personal opinion on the role of the UN. The option of "sidetracking" the UN Security Council has already been endorsed by Washington. The violation of international law does not seem to be an issue. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice confirmed in late May, in no uncertain terms, that "the worst and most probable scenario" in Syria might be the option of "acting outside of the UN Security Council's authority".
"In the absence of either of those two scenarios, there seems to remain only one other alternative, and that is indeed the worst case, which seems unfortunately at the present to be the most probable. And that is that the violence escalates, the conflict spreads and intensifies, it reaches a higher degree of severity… The Council's unity is exploded, the Annan plan is dead and members of this Council and members of the international community are left with the option only of having to consider whether they're prepared to take actions outside of the Annan plan and the authority of this Council." (Actions outside UN Security Council Likely in Syria - Rice | World | RIA Novosti, May 31, 2012)
Rubin also points to "the reluctance of some European states" to participate in an air operation against Syria: "this (military) operation will have to be a unique combination of Western and Middle East countries. It should be possible to gain strong support from Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. US leadership is indispensable, since most of the key countries will follow only if Washington leads."
The article calls for continued arming of the Syrian Free Army (FSA) as well as carrying out air raids directed against Syria. No ground operations are to be envisaged. The air campaign would be used - as in the case of Libya - to support the FSA foot soldiers integrated by mercenaries and Al Qaeda affiliated brigades:
"Whether an air operation should just create a no-fly zone that grounds the regimes' aircraft and helicopters or actually conduct air to ground attacks on Syrian tanks and artillery should be the subject of immediate military planning… .
The larger point is that as long as Washington stays firm that no US ground troops will be deployed, à la Kosovo and Libya, the cost to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would lose its strategic ally against the Zionist regime and would be unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will likely regard the United States as more friend than enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes." (Rubin, op cit)
While the participation of Israel in military operations is not mentioned, the thrust of Rubin's article points to active cooperation between Washington and Tel Aviv in military and intelligence affairs, including the conduct of covert operations in support of the opposition rebels. This coordination would also be carried out in the context of the bilateral military-intelligence cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey.
"Coming to the rescue of the Syrian people" under a fake "humanitarian" R2P mandate is intended to destabilize Syria, weaken Iran and enable Israel to exert greater political control and influence over neighboring Arab states, including Lebanon and Syria.
A war on Syria is also a war on Palestine. It would weaken the resistance movement in the occupied territories. It would reinforce the Netanyahu government's ambitions to create a "Greater Israel", initially, through the outright annexation of the Palestinian territories:
"With the Islamic Republic deprived of its gateway to the Arab world, the Israelis' rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on its nuclear facilities would diminish. A new Syrian regime might eventually even resume the frozen peace talks regarding the Golan Heights. In Lebanon, Hezbollah would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor. All these strategic benefits make intervention in Syria a calculated risk, but still a risk worth taking." (Rubin, op cit)
Written by: Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research