Orkhan Sattarov, head of European office of VK
Alleged use of chemical weapons on August 21 in the province of Eastern Huta in Syria was definitely a turning point in the protracted conflict. Despite the fact that, two weeks having passed, the international community has so far failed to give a clear response to this war crime. While no one doubts the fact of the use of chemical weapons, the world still cannot provide answers to the two age-old questions: who is to blame and what to do?
The attempts of the Western Allies led by the governments of the U.S., Britain and France in the wake to attribute the blame for the tragedy to the regime of Bashar al-Assad have so far failed. Russia rejected the accusations against the Assad regime at the highest level. President Vladimir Putin has called the accusations "nonsense," as the advancing army of Assad has been having success, and in this situation using poisonous gases is foolish.
However, within the political elites of western countries the prospect of military intervention in Syria is perceived negatively. Thus, the Syrian issue has recently become a very sensitive topic for the image of the British Prime Minister. David Cameron in his active desire to bomb Damascus was not supported not only by the Parliament of the country as a whole, but, which is far worse, by thirty of his own party members. As a result, the British have had to temper their military ardor, promising their American allies to supply them with intelligence data.
France, which does not require parliamentary approval to begin a military operation, seeing this development, hastened to announce through its Prime Minister Hérault that it is not going to fight in Syria alone. The French military are ready to intervene only within a coalition. It should be noted that, according to opinion polls in France, two-thirds of its citizens are opposed to the country's participation in a military operation against Syria.
Germany, on the eve of elections to the Bundestag, prudently distanced itself from participation in a military adventure. However, as expected, Berlin still expressed political support for Washington. So the German secret service released data confirming the involvement of the regime of Bashar al-Assad in the chemical attack near Damascus. However, modern Germany has never been famous for its strong foreign intelligence, and it cannot be ruled out that the material for further disclosure was generously provided by more knowledgeable colleagues from other countries.
Finally, intervention plans were not approved even by League of Arab States, loyal to Washington - not least because of the changed official position of Cairo after the overthrow of the Islamist President Morsi.
In this situation, the key word remains with the United States, because it will be the nucleus of any possible coalition. But its position is not completely clear. For example, President Obama does not have to seek congressional approval for a military operation if it lasts less than 60 days. However, he decided to voluntarily raise the issue of military intervention in Congress. In this case, Obama could not be unaware that Congress contains many skeptics openly condemning Washington's war plans, and support for the initiative of the White House does not seem apparent. Whether the American president will order the bombing of Syria, despite the lack of support not only from the UN Security Council but also from his own Congress, is an open question. This dual position of Washington may be the result of internal contradictions in the democratic administration, where not everyone supports the "hawks", headed by the current Secretary of State, John Kerry.
In addition, in the absence of international legitimacy for the attack on the Syrian positions, for the U.S. president it is very important to enlist the support of his own legislators. Especially as the UN Security Council turned into a platform for resolving geopolitical disputes of the world powers has once again demonstrated its helplessness in situations that require rapid intervention of the international community releasing American supporters of the "war ."
If, as for European partners, the U. S. can only count on France, the key regional allies of Washington can be Turkey which has a vested interest in the suppression of the Kurdish movement in the north of Syria, as well as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, seeking to neutralize Syria as a link between Shiite Iran and its offspring - "Hezbollah" in Lebanon.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East the preparation for a military invasion of Western countries is underway. Shiite organization "Hezbollah", according to media close to it, has already started to mobilize its troops. According to the newspaper "Al- Akhbar ", the Syrian governmental units which have not participated in the fighting against the opposition have already been on full alert . Together with the command of "Hezbollah " they organized a crisis management center . Despite the fact that the land intervention is not expected, the possible strike of the allies will inevitably be followed by large-scale activation of the Syrian opposition fighters, who will try to maximize the tactical advantage to reverse the course of the military campaign in their favor.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, trying to hold on to power, can be treated differently. However, analyzing the evolving situation, it is difficult to disagree with him on one thing: a military strike on Syria could trigger a regional war . And, given the number of interested parties, lost control of its course seems inevitable. The war of "all against all" on Syrian soil is unlikely the prospect that the emaciated by two-year civil strife Syrian people wishes for itself, but it looks like it is prepared by the countries who act as advocates for ordinary Syrians.
