photo: AFP
This week has seen a shift in the Syrian war that should alarm more than few.
Israel, with the pretext of protecting its interest by bombing military caches in Syria, might be opening its own inroad to an excuse to put Iran squarely into the conflict and in so doing, allowing itself the causa bellis to bomb Iran.
Iran for its part has already responded to the dual strikes by Israel in Syrian territory by saying it will now 'train' Israeli forces directly as if their presence had not already been made in the Syrian war theatre. Iranian guards are already aiding Assad and Iranian crack troops are side by side with the Syrian Army.
But do we really need to have unilateral strikes from Israel? Spreading of the conflict cannot be in any way a positive thing. If there is to be any intervention from the outside, it should come from the other Arab nations.
For their part, Syria has already vowed retaliation. Whether or not they are able to carry it out amidst an intense civil war is another matter.
Egypt and the Arab league are also non aligned with the unilateral action of the Israeli government and have condemned it as a violation of sovereignty. If there is anything positive about American non-intervention, is that for once it has placed itself in a neutral position, where Syria is an entity whose problems must be resolved inland as much as possible. As cruel as that sounds, it is better than an aggressive stance that could be construed as another invasion.
Op-ED
Partial Source: France 24/ 5.5.13
No comments:
Post a Comment