In the exercise of caution and with guarded trepidation, President Obama seeks to garner support from Congress before launching an attack against Syria in the wake of Syria’s use of chemical weapon.
President Obama had come to that resolution following Britain’s House of Parliament rejection of the use of military action against Syria. Now, the French government has equally dialed back their earlier pronouncement to use military action. The French Parliament plans to debate on Syria’s case by Wednesday this week.
One common thread runs through the key allies frame of thought on Syria’s saga. That thread is their vehement and unambiguous condemnation of any use of chemical weapon against any group of people, particularly in this case of Syria. To stretch the thread further, Obama’s administration appears poised and determined to punish Assad’s regime, although he is seeking for Congress approval. He, President Obama has never equivocated from this determination, hence “crossing the red line.”
While we wait for the votes from U.S. Congress and the disclosure of the findings from the United Nation, I’d like to take a detour to revisit what I had promised to discuss in my piece on “President Obama and crossing the red line.” In that article, I inductively asserted that the feet-dragging gimmick by Syrian authorities (referring to Syria’s delay in allowing the inspectors to proceed with their task) loudly suggest they are either guilty of the allegations against them or they are privy to the “underlying maneuver” by the elements or states whose relationship with the United States has not been cordial.
Here is what I mean. What you are about to digest at this juncture may be the faintest from the reality and I have no external intelligence to support it, but just mere suspicion and I pray it never succeeds. Now, let us for the purpose of the puzzle assume Syria did not directly employ poison gas against the residents near Damascus. Let us then excoriate two possible maneuvers from some non-friendly elements in the region in question-Iran and Al-Qaeda.
Why Iran?
Iran, the old Persia, and a regional power hub of the Middle East, its unwholesome discord with America are no mystery to readers of history and current affairs. Since 1979, after the Iranian revolution, America’s foreign policy towards Iran has been nothing more than the eagerness to contain and control the influence it exerts over the region and to impede or halt its development of nuclear program.
Thus far, to achieve that goal, America has employed the imposition of sanctions mixed with negotiations and more sanctions upon Iran, which has yielded no quantifiable deterrent, at least in the short run. Instead, it has forced crippling economic conditions on Tehran and has further bought them time to continue the expansion and development of their nuclear pursuit. The use of military force to prevail against Iran has always been contemplated; whether or not the strikes are necessary or would produce the desired result is arguable. All these undercurrents seen or unseen has constantly fueled anxiety among Iranians and hatred for America.
Why Al-Qaeda?
The case of Al-Qaeda and their wanton hatred towards the West and America are clearly known with their signature fingerprint attacks against U.S. Since 911, America has bolstered its counter attacks and counter intelligence efforts against the forces of Al-Qaeda. The result is a much-subdued Al-Qaeda although they remain a threat to U.S.
So, putting the pieces of the puzzle together, Syria has becomes the theatre or stage rife with the right conditions, which permits the convergence of these aforementioned elements to descend on America while Russia observes cunningly, aiding and abetting, if and only when America strikes Syria.
President Obama has said America’s strike against Syria will be tailored and decisive, but observers and the general public fear that such an attack may plunge the country into an undesirable and protracted conflict for which it had not intended. Caution is paramount and a clear assessment of the possible outcome is necessary. Equally, this writer believes that Syria’s action if verified, is unacceptable and by necessity, a robust and multilateral action must be taken to communicate in the strongest and equable measure the world’s rejection of such inhumane act.
Written by Dr. Edwin Ndukwe
Edwin.ndukwe@gmail.com
About the Author
