The spectre of a concerted war from the West against Syria has been in the air for quite some time now but never as tangible as at present.

Yet, I am not convinced that the international community is really ready to go to war, despite the fact that missiles have been fired on Syria.

The Western powers know that they will not be solving the Middle East problem by deposing Bashir al Assad. Nor have the missiles fired solved any problems. These attacks have left the Middle East more fragile than ever.

In the past, this same political rhetoric was used for Muammar Ghaddafi and Saddam Hussein. Both dictators ended being deposed but conflicts continue playing havoc in the regions and the countries concerned. Removing  Hussein and Ghaddafi only accelerated Islamic terrorism.

What has finally pushed Western Powers to intervene in Syria is the recent news of the use of chemicals on civilians in the town of Douma close to Damascus. Over the weekend, the US, France and the United Kingdom launched an attack on Syria targeting three specific sites; a scientific research facility; a chemical weapons storage facility and a chemical weapons equipment storage site with important command post. All three powers are insisting that the attack was a successful one. People on the ground are expressing a different opinion. 

Still the West is claiming victory. It is being said that this attack was intended to deter Assad and his Russian and Iranian allies from resorting to the use of chemical weapons, thus breaching international law.  

Following the foreign news, what has surprised me most was the way reliable western sources reported the chemical attack on Douma. The BBC, Le Monde and La Repubblica, to mention just three international sources, do not convince their readership that the reportage about this chemical attack is a real piece of news. I mention these three sources because they are normally on the leftist side of the political spectrum. They cannot be qualified as hawks. Yet, the way they reported this chemical attack throws serious doubts as to the veracity as to whether Assad was behind this attack.

This is extremely important because, lest we forget, the Iraq war was started by the West on the premise that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. These included claims that he possessed arsenals of chemical weapons. Documents or photographs of these arsenals were shown to the western world. Both Bush and Blair, at the time, convinced us of the truth of these statements. After the war, it became obvious that Saddam had no such weapons. So ‘fake’ news had been resorted to to justify such an intervention. Blair tried to justify this attack by stating that it led to a dictator being deposed. The same justification was used in Ghaddafi’s case  in Libya.

Macron is talking the same way as Blair did before the start of the second Gulf War. He is projecting himself as the new Napoleon. Macron too has declared that France has proof that Syria used chemical weapons.  Theresa May in her statement declared that Syria is in breach of the country’s obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. But these declarations are being made now when it is clear that Assad is on the verge of winning this war. This brings in another question. Why should Assad resolve to chemical weapons when he is at the point of winning this conflict? Who has an interest that Muslim fundamentals win this conflict?

In my point, the general knowledge of these facts explains why, unlike the Gulf War, Western Powers are not finding popular support back home. In France, the grave concern at the moment is internal instability and having to be on constant alert for terrorist attacks. Macron needs war to divert attention from his internal problems.

Furthermore, Western Powers have no credibility regarding their claim to democracy. They all support unconditionally one of the most undemocratic countries in the world; Saudi Arabia. After the agreement reached in 1971, America began offering immunity to Saudi’s dictators. Christians are killed in Saudi Arabia. Women are stoned to death in Saudi Arabia. Women are not on equal footing with men and until recently they could not even drive a car. Yet the Saudi regime is protected by America and the West, because this regime agrees to sell its oil only in dollars. Thus, to accommodate the Saudis, we had the invasion of Iraq. To accommodate the Saudis, we are being targeted for our Christian values, and all with the blessing of America.

The Saudi are Sunni but Assad is an Alawite, while Israel today is a major ally of Saudi Arabia.  Assad was the only guarantee for the Christian community in Syria. Such a community has no chance of surviving should Assad be removed.

Perhaps, this may appear a contradiction, given the fact that President Trump was elected under a different ticket to Obama’s. Trump got elected on the pledge to support conservative views of the western values. However, Trump is under pressure back home from the Democrats on the presumed support he received from Russia to get elected. One is tempted to believe that he uses strong language in an attempt to diffuse the idea that he is pro-Russia. Even the firing of missiles falls under this internal rhetoric. Trump is stating that these missiles had reached their objectives. In fact, they are being described as ‘one time shot’.

International critics think that this strategy is being used deliberately in an attempt to destablize Russia. Before becoming President, Trump used to send different messages to unnerve his business opponents. I don’t think that his aim is to confuse Russia. I believe that the real aim is to destabilize his Democratic opponents.

For sure, no one can criticize Russia for using her veto at the Security Council. The USA had no doubt that Russia would block such a resolution. Therefore, it could easily propose knowing beforehand that it would not go through. These resolutions are mostly for internal consumption. The Republicans cannot be accused of not doing anything. But once Trump started to speak about the possible use of missiles, the international media, started to air its doubts about the correctness of such news.

Then, there were three other bits of news that cannot be ignored.  The first one concerned Israel. Some days ago, Israel faced a censorship motion at the Security Council for the way it behaved against Palestinian demonstrators.  America blocked it. Therefore, if America can block a resolution because Israel is her ally, the same holds for Russia towards Syria.

Then there is Turkey to consider. Turkey is in Nato but only recently started getting closer to Russia because of the Kurdish issue. No one on the international scene wants to give the Kurds a state of their own. The north of Iraq, which is Kurd, was stopped from becoming a fully-fledged state by America. 

There are interesting developments within Europe. Victor Orban won with a significant majority. Yet western liberals in the European Parliament want to censor him because of his ultra conservative views. Such a stand is only proving that Europe is not at all democratic. Europe is only democratic when certain positions of the left are endorsed by the electorate. When the electorate rejects these positions, it is accused of going against western values.

The political agenda is becoming so charged that European democracy is losing its credence. While there was great enthusiasm in Europe for the war against Saddam, I am noticing less favour in the case of an attack on Syria. By attacking and destroying Syria, Europe will be only increasing the risk of having more terrorism within her boundaries.

The irony of it all is that, this is an attack against a dictator who is a defender of minorities. He defends the same values of diversity that the fundamentalists in his country want to destroy in favour of a theocratic Sunni Muslim state.