President Obama does not want to carry out a military strike against the regime in Syria. He drew red lines but only to ignore them, time and again. When pressure on him intensified after the chemical weapons attack in Ghouta, which claimed hundreds of lives, he said he would carry out a strike. But then he said that he would ask Congress for authorization to spread the responsibility around, and before the vote that was scheduled to take place in the Senate today, the U.S. President decided to delay it and to agree to a Russian proposal that would see Syria's chemical weapons arsenal placed under international supervision. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry had requested the Syrians to hand over their chemical weapons to international control, but I ask, why did the Secretary not call for placing Israel's nuclear arsenal under international control too? This arsenal is much more dangerous than any other weaponry in the Middle East, and is controlled by a neo-Nazi government that occupies, kills, and destroys on a daily basis, and sits waiting for excuses to commit further crimes. Anyway, now, Barack Obama said the Russian proposal is a ‘breakthrough,' and wants Syrian chemical weapons to be dismantled at a later time, though he did not mention nuclear weapons in Israel. The evidence of the Obama administration about the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons against its people is conclusive and indisputable, as U.S. officials claim. I was nearly going to believe this when I heard the term ‘slam dunk,' which is borrowed from basketball when a player jumps over the basket and drops the ball inside from above. "Slam dunk" was the term used by the administration of George W. Bush repeatedly as it sought to justify a war on Iraq. But this war was proven later to have been based on falsified premises for oil-related and Israeli reasons, killing one million Arabs and Muslims, and then handing over Iraq to Iran as a Shia colony long after the era of colonization was over. Meanwhile, the killing continues in Iraq. The Americans, based on their ‘indisputable' information, said that the chemical attack in Ghouta killed 1429 Syrians, so it seems that Syria somehow opened its doors to them, and they managed to count the victims one by one, concluding that a third of them were children. However, Doctors Without Borders, which is present in Syrian hospitals and treated the injured, said that the number of victims was 355. In addition to the difference between the number of the witness ‘who saw nothing' and another who is on site, I noticed that women were absent from the tally of the casualties, or that the number of dead women was very small. This is hard to believe because where there are children there would be mothers with them. I hope I am absolutely clear when I say that I am with changing the regime in Damascus, and that I support the position of the Arab foreign ministers, so that no oppositionist would read a paragraph and skip another. However, if the U.S. strike takes place, it would not change the regime but only cause death and destruction as though Syria has not had enough of that. Meanwhile, I categorically reject the role the United States claims for itself, because it is not the world's policeman, as long as its foreign policy is in the hands of a pro-Israel criminal gang. Indeed, we have seen the result of this approach in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and perhaps tomorrow in Iran and beyond. Another reason to object to the strike is the presence of terrorists aligned with al-Qaeda in the ranks of the armed opposition. I want the Arab countries and the United States to fight terror as well as fight the regime, and not to give a role to al-Qaeda terrorists in the new Syria. My third reason for opposing the limited strike is that its supporters in the Western media happen to be the neocons, the Israel lobby, and the Likudnik writers whose views against Arabs and Muslims are clear on their dirty record. These individuals do not limit themselves to agitating for a strike on Syria, but want the United States to also attack Iranian nuclear facilities so that the gates of hell would be unleashed on the entire region. I insist that Iran may threaten its neighbors in the Gulf, but it is impossible for it to threaten any U.S. national interest. Therefore, I refuse to be in the same trench as the gang of war and evil, even by coincidence. I will continue tomorrow.
