US Ready for a New War

The United States has already made a decision regarding the future of Syria, but, as usual, it’s one that is isolated from the paths established by the rules of international law, highlighted by infringement on the principles of non-interference, the protection of peace and international security.

Recently, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Security Council, uttered: “To act outside the Security Council of the United Nations would be the only solution if Kofi Annan’s plan fails and there are differences in the assembly over the resolution of the crisis in Syria.”*

Rice’s declaration reveals the intentions and plans of the North American country, which is heading toward a future Syria-U.S. war. The U.S. would surely act while shielded within NATO; therefore, foreign intervention is on the point of arrival in the Middle East, cracking open what was affirmed by Rice, for two fundamental reasons:

The first is that Annan’s six-point plan is already a failure. The plan went into effect on April 12, and the results have been far from what was hoped. To the contrary, the Syrian opposition and the central government have intensified their confrontations. A clear example of the failed peace was the massacre in Houla, where 108 people died, including 34 women and 49 children.

Annan’s plan is an instrument to suffocate the Syrian government; on one side the U.S. is a promoter of the peace plan, but at the same time the U.S. is watching and directing its failure by arming the Syrian opposition, with the support of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, with devices of war that come through the neighboring borders of Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey.

Secondly, with respect to the differences in the Security Council, it’s highly certain that positions won’t be made more flexible, especially those of China and Russia, which have forcefully pronounced that they will not support a resolution condemning Damascus.

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been clear in opposing a planned assault of [the president of Syria] Bashar al-Assad from outside the country; in addition, the military alliance between Russia and Syria is widely known, the Kremlin being an arms supplier for the regime.

For its part, China denies being an obstacle to resolving the conflict in Syria and emphasizes its role in promoting the end of the crisis and supporting diplomatic rapprochement and negotiation.

Being frank is to recognize the repressive role of al-Assad and his dictatorial court, but at the same time it should also be noted that the struggle of the Syrian opposition would be legitimate if the revolution that they exalted was praised outside of, and for, the Syrians.

The principal actors in this vague revolution are terrorists that have converted according to the times into friends or enemies of the U.S. in its political relations with other countries. For Bush, al-Qaeda was his principal enemy; for Obama they’re his best friends, who he has armed to topple Gaddafi a few months ago and to vote for al-Assad today.

The participation of al-Qaeda in the Syrian rebellion is not speculation; it has been recognized by the United Nations by Ban Ki-moon.

*Editor’s Note: This quote, while accurately translated, could not be verified.