Military Voyeurism or Invasion Of Syria?
By Ismail Salami
09 December, 2012
As part of the sinister plan for Syria at work, French military agents have recently held face-to-face meetings with the foreign-backed militants inside the country in a bid to “assess the situation on the ground.”
A report carried by French paper Le Figaro on Friday indicates that “Their main task was to know who controls the battlegrounds around Damascus.”
It seems that a West-orchestrated plan to invade the country is under way and that they are teaming up and gearing up for united military action against the country.
The report adds that the meetings were held last month with the full knowledge of the French government and that the French government wants to know the “operational capacity of each group” and their “political colors.”
To make matters worse, NATO has agreed to deploy Patriot missiles on the Syria-Turkey border under the pretense of defending Turkey as Britain has warned Syria of ‘serious consequences’ if the regime used chemical weapons. All the pieces of the puzzle are being meticulously put together by the ‘foes of Syria’ to lend a cloak of legitimacy to an imminent invasion of the country: that Syria mulls using chemical weapons against its own people and the militants, that the war may spill over into Turkey and that Turkey should be able to defend herself against any potential attacks.
While in Brussels for a NATO foreign ministers' meeting, William Hague, British foreign secretary, said that Britain had delivered a stark message to President Bashar al-Assad, echoing the words of the Obama administration on Monday.
"We are worried about chemical weapons," said Mr. Hague. "We have become more concerned about them in recent days for the same reasons the US has. We have already sent our own, clear, private message directly to the Syrians about the serious consequences that would follow from the use of those weapons."
Syria has blasted NATO’S decision to deploy Patriot missiles as “psychological warfare,” saying the new deployment would not deter it from seeking victory over the militants it views as terrorists.
Despite some western countries claiming that NATO’s decision to deploy the missiles shows a low appetite on their part for military intervention, it is to be seen as a strong naked message that the West is indeed gearing up for military intervention.
Syria said the NATO deployment shall not make Assad change course, calling the talk of chemical weapons part of a conspiracy to justify future intervention.
“The Turkish step and NATO’s support for it are provocative moves that constitute psychological warfare,” Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad said in an interview with Lebanon’s Al-Manar TV. “But if they think this will affect our determination and work for a decisive victory in this fight against terrorism, they are very wrong.”
He added, "In the event that [foreign powers] actually considered an aggression, they should consider the consequences. I believe the cost will be high.... They need to understand that they are putting the entire region and its environs to danger, if they tried to commit such a folly."
That Assad will use chemical weapons against his own population or even the militants is a threadbare claim and a feeble excuse concocted by the West to embark on their initial militaristic voyeurism and eventual military expedition. In fact, it is very much reminiscent of Washington’s claim that Iraq was in possession of Weapons of Mass destruction before it launched a military invasion of the country and brought about a human loss of inconceivable degree. Sadly some realities are soon forgotten. An opinion conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) on August 12–19, 2007, indicated a human loss of 1,033,000 in Iraq War. Although the range varies between 946,000 to 1,120,000 deaths, the sheer idea of such colossally disastrous human loss is beyond imagination. According to ORB, “48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance.”
Russia’s new ambassador to NATO, Alexander Grushko, has de plano perceived some pernicious amount of threat in the move and said, “This is not a threat to us, but this is an indication that NATO is moving towards engagement and that's it. We see a danger of further involvement of NATO into the situation in Syria as a result of provocation or some border incidents.”
It is cruel but highly likely that West may provide the militants with chemical weapons so they may use them against the Syrians and shift the blame on the Syria government so that they can carry on with their long-though-out plan of invading the country. This idea is further consolidated when we focus on the attention recently accorded to this issue by the US and some western countries. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama have for their parts vowed to take action if Syria uses chemical weapons in the country. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned on Tuesday that any use of chemical weapons by Syria against gunmen would prompt an immediate military response.
The sad truth is that they have already formed their coalition against Syria with even Israel being part of this coalition. According to Hebrew-language Maariv newspaper, Tel Aviv is preparing for such a scenario amid increasing speculation that the US military will intervene in Syria “within days” if chemical weapons are used.
The ‘chemical weapons’ scenario seems to be the best cue for Washington and their western allies in order to gorge the international community on a tacit consent to another military adventurism in the Middle East.
Dr. Ismail Salami is an Iranian writer, Middle East expert, Iranologist and lexicographer. He writes extensively on the US and Middle East issues and his articles have been translated into a number of languages.
Comments are moderated