Since the outbreak of the Arab Spring revolution in Syria in 2011, the Syrian regime has committed one crime after another, and Syrians have been subjected to killings and torture before the eyes of the whole world, which has remained silent, not stirring a finger.
Last week’s massacre in East Gouta, in which the regime used chemical weapons that claimed the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians, including women and children, is clearly a war crime.
The international media has carried horrifying images of victims that depict the magnitude of the crime and the cruelty of the Syrian regime, and at the same time has provided evidence that the regime has significant stocks of chemical weapons.
This is in addition to the acknowledgement by the spokesperson of the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jehad Makdasi, that Syria has chemical and biological weapons, which he threatened would be used in case of any foreign attack.
Syrian authorities later denied his statement.
There are certain political and moral responsibilities that the international community needs to fulfil: The responsibility of confronting a bloody regime that continues to violate the rights of its people, especially children and women, particularly since the latest crime coincided with the presence of UN inspectors in the country. This is a serious challenge to the international community and defiance of the superpowers, except Russia and China, of course.
What is the international community waiting for after the confirmation by US Secretary of State John Kerry that chemical weapons were used in Syria by the regime and it was now trying to obliterate the evidence?
And after the statement by the White House that there is no way to deny the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and the statement by French President Francois Hollande that his country “is ready to punish those who made the lowly decision of using gas against innocent people”? And after the Arab League’s announcement that Bashar Al Assad is responsible for the chemical attack?
By using chemical weapons, the Assad regime has crossed the “red lines” that President Barack Obama spoke of a year ago.
However, it seems there are several red lines regarding Syria. After talk of possible US-led military action against Syria, Iran warned against “crossing the red line”, and threatened that any such action against Syria would have dire consequences for Washington.
Although the nature of any military action against Syria is not clear yet, it will most likely not be painful for the regime. The proof of this is the statement by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov two days ago that “Russia will not go to war against anyone in case of a military intervention against Syria”.
According to Britain’s Independent newspaper, a possible strike will be punitive for the regime, which has crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons.
Therefore, it will not lead to the overthrow of the Assad regime or change the military balance between the regime and its opponents.
This explains the hesitation of President Obama and the differences between the US and other powers about what is happening in Syria.
As is well known, Syria does not have oil wealth like Iraq or Libya, which is what makes the US administration rush to intervene in regional and international conflicts, to protect oil wells.
There is concern about the possibility of an agreement between Russia and America to launch dozens of missiles to hit several targets in order to embellish America’s image in the eyes of the world, and to silence voices condemning US inaction on Syria.
In the final analysis, there will be no painful strikes because the West does not want to bring down the curtain on the tragic chapter of the play taking place in the Syrian theatre, where everyone is contributing to the killing of Syrian children… starting with America, with its hesitation, and including Russia, China and Iran, with their strong support for the Syrian regime, and the Arab states, which have shown weakness and an inability to act.
