On the tenth anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq, Obama made a pledge while in Israel to uphold its security. On the tenth anniversary of the destruction of an Arab country's capabilities and the liquidation and displacement of its scientists, the war in Syria is undermining the unity of the people, eating up its children and burning all the foundations of the state. In both cases, the Baath party and dictatorship are the targets, despite the difference between the invasion and occupation of the Land of the Two Rivers, and the uprising which has transformed into a revolution and a war of mass destruction in Syria. But in both cases, is there any cheaper price to pay to uphold Israel's security, on which all the American presidents insist? On the tenth anniversary of the American tanks' storming of Iraq under the pretext of punishing the evil ruler who threatened the world and Israel with WMDs, many recall that the Syrian Baath received the message sent by Washington, warning it that it will be the next target. The Marines are now on the border separating a Baath party which has already collapsed and another that hid behind the cards of the resistance against the American occupation of Iraq and the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Ten years have gone by and what is new is that Iraq, which used to protect the Eastern gate of the Arab world, is now a thing of the past, especially due to Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, his illusions over his ability to defy the West and his exaggeration of his strength. In Syria, and following the illusions which surrounded a swift spring (the Damascus Declaration), an iron fist planted the seeds of the uprising and the revolution. The scenario is different since there is no foreign side to carry out the invasion, while the people are invading the forts of fear. The Americans who learned the lesson and reached an agreement with Iran to ensure their safe pullout from Iraq, will not invade Syria or interfere to topple the ruler. This was Obama's message to the Syrians since the beginning, considering that Syria is not Libya, which is why Washington resisted the attempts to drag it into the arena of the revolution against Al-Assad's regime. But two years after the eruption of the uprising, what has changed to remind Admiral James Stavridis, the commander of the American forces in Europe, of the Libyan scenario? Was it due to the suffering caused by the fall of 70,000 people in the "vicious war," or to an attempt to anticipate the imminent fall of the regime which prompted an American-British-French race over the sponsorship of a decisive chapter in the tragedy of the extermination war in Syria? However, did Stavridis not recognize that the intervention required a Security Council decision, which is not likely to be seen as long as Moscow and Tehran are expanding their protection of the Syrian regime? In reality, a mere French or British intervention to bomb the Syrian air defenses and strip the regime of its aerial superiority over the opposition, will undoubtedly provoke Kremlin, which is seeking the revival of its hegemony over the seas and is deploying its fleets in the region to stamp Putin's approach with the print of Soviet power. Therefore, nothing on the ground reveals that Moscow will relinquish its red line in Damascus. And as much as the regime's accusations to the opposition of using chemical weapons in Rif Aleppo constitutes an attempt to undermine the inauguration of the interim government with the selection of its prime minister Ghassan Hitto – whom Damascus says fled the military service (when he was young) to serve American interests – Moscow is going too far in exchanging roles with the regime, to instigate the West or provoke its concerns over the provision of weapons to the revolutionaries. As for the Israeli tale which is remaining neutral between Al-Assad and the revolutionaries and is only concerned about the alleged chemical weapons, it is probably provoking a form of European military intervention under American tutelage (the Libyan scenario by air) to transfer the stocks of sophisticated weapons from Syria and dismantle the long-range missiles. Once this is achieved, nothing can bother Israel and the West, even if the opposition and the groups dubbed by Moaz al-Khatib as being Takfiri ones, including the Al-Nusra Front, head to wars in which the factions and brigades will win over Syria's unity and the Syrian people's revolutionary hopes. The chemical smoke in Rif Aleppo did not conceal the opposition's disputes which escalated following the selection of Hitto as the prime minister of the interim government. But the paradox is that both the regime and the opposition are calling for an intervention by the international community following the sarin gas strike. The first did so to save itself, and the revolutionaries to hasten its collapse, at a time when Israel is rooting for a Western intervention to eliminate any chances of seeing Syria remaining a unified country, capable of regaining its strength following Al-Assad's departure.
