Neoconservative theorist Daniel Pipes, the man behind the concept of "militant Islam", has advised the United States and the West not to allow one side to triumph over the other in the war taking place in Syria, so as to "let the forces of evil fight each other as long as possible". Pipes backs his argument with precedents from modern and contemporary history. In 1982, Iranian forces were able to achieve a significant advance over Iraqi forces, which prompted the United States to support Baghdad in order to alter the balance of power. Then when Iraq achieved some progress, Washington struck what became known as the "Irangate" deal, by which it supplied Tehran with weapons in order to preserve this balance. During World War II, when German forces were in a position of attack against the Soviet Union, Roosevelt resorted to supporting Stalin, in order to keep Nazi forces busy at the eastern front, thereby allowing the Allies to achieve decisive victory in battles at the western fronts. Pipes concludes from these two historical precedents that the West should support both sides of the conflict in Syria, politically and militarily, so that they may "pose less danger to us", and calls on Western powers to "guide enemies to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong their conflict". At this point, Pipes suffers a pang of conscience and expresses grief because people are being killed. However, anything can be glossed over when it comes to achieving strategic interests. Indeed, "Stalin was a far worse monster than Assad". This most enthusiastic advocate of Zionism did not invent gunpowder. He merely described historical precedents known to everyone, and especially to those who plan to strike against two or more enemies at the same time. Indeed, he could have added Hollande, Obama, Cameron, and naturally Israel, to his referring to the precedents of Hitler, Stalin and Roosevelt during World War II. The countries concerned with the war on Syria had been wagering, throughout the past two years, on the strength of the opposition to topple the regime, and preparing for the post-Assad phase. Meanwhile, they disagreed amongst themselves about the identity of the future rulers and their leanings in foreign policy, unconcerned with what is happening to the Syrian people, or with the blood that is being shed every day, despite lamenting in the media and on satellite television. In fact, the portrayal of tragedies has turned into a method of inciting to create more of them, instead of representing a shock to the world's conscience, in order to restrain politicians from continuing to play the game of death and to dance around dead bodies. Following the advance achieved by the Syrian army in Qusayr, and its preparations to wage an assault against armed fighters in Aleppo and its countryside, European countries, headed by France, Britain, the United States and all the lobbies pressuring the Obama administration, considered that the military balance of power between the armed fighters and the regular army had been lost in favor of the latter. They thus all rallied to send more weapons to the opposition, even if they were to fall into the hands of the Al-Nusra Front, a group classified as a terrorist organization. Thus, the US administration has decided to arm the opposition, after the Syrian government "crossed the ‘red line' with its use of chemical weapons", as announced by the White House. In Paris and London, officials have been quick to threaten to send more weapons to the opposition – weapons which the opposition had asked for in the first few weeks after the start of the events, going even farther and insisting on applying the Libyan model to this battle. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has called for stopping the advance of regime forces in Aleppo, and asked to provide more weapons in order "to re-balance things", because "if there is no re-balancing on the ground, there will be no peace conference in Geneva as the opposition will refuse to come". One who reads the statements of French, British and American officials might imagine that Pipes is making plans and that they are implementing them. Yet, the fact of the matter is that they are applying invariable principles of classic colonialist policy, while he is studying them and reformulating them theoretically. The new phase in Syria, then, is that of restoring balance, so as to "let the forces of evil fight each other as long as possible". ...let then Syria be progressively destroyed; let the Syrian people die, and long live freedom, democracy and human rights!
