US Flounders in Security Council, While Syria Advances Its Security

What is the United States aiming to achieve against Syria with the Security Council when it knows the Council's realities?

This question arises because all of the present conditions unequivocally indicate that the Security Council will not authorize the United States to declare war on Syria as it did in the case of Afghanistan. It also will not authorize anyone to intervene militarily in any way in Syria, whether by the imposition of a no-fly zone as in Iraq and Libya or the establishment of buffer zones, humanitarian corridors, etc. This is because Russia, with the support of China, has clearly stated that a veto lies in store for any international decision that repeats the experiences of the past. The last of these was the Libyan experience, which led to the destruction of the country and its entry into a period of darkness and uncertainty after more than 130,000 were killed as a direct result of the NATO bombardment and the resulting conflagration. This was during its intervention to impose a no-fly zone that overstepped its mandate from the Security Council and turned into a far-reaching aerial attack that toppled the Libyan regime. And the United States knows that Russia is not simply maneuvering with its stances on this matter because the Syrian issue requires no maneuvering to directly relate it to Russian interests or to organically tie it to Russian national security. That is, this issue is non-negotiable and is not subject to the logic of mutual exchange or deal making. In spite of this, the United States insists on knocking at the door of the Security Council using Arab and Western ''instruments'' and indulging in the hope of something against Syria.

In the science of strategy there is an agreed-upon principle that says ''they who have strength or an opportunity should not refrain from using it to achieve a desired goal.'' In practical application those who have the capabilities make plans and try to invest their strengths, and if their plan fails they have to come up with an alternate plan as long as they have not lost those capabilities. When applying it to U.S. conduct towards Syria and the observation of the results of Western intervention there, this logic leads us to see that Syria has held out for nearly a year and has foiled all the plans aiming to topple it. These range from so-called ''peaceful protest'' and the attempt to ''divide the army'' along with seizure of land and establishment of regions outside of the state's control, to the uncovering of wide-spread terrorism and finally the outright declaration that an armed opposition was being organized, armed and funded from abroad.

In its unshaken stance, Syria has thwarted the onslaught against it plan after plan, but the hostile forces have not lost their capabilities. They still have the media, money and the capability of economic influence and mobilization of mercenaries and terrorists, and are able to throw all of that into their battle of revenge against Syria. They are doing so despite the certainty they have gained that Syria — people, regime and army — has achieved a resistance and strength that prevent its overthrow and that the regime has resolved to retake the regions shaken by the terrorists. It will begin carrying this out by taking advantage of the historical opportunity that it was granted by the report of the Arab observers who bore witness to terrorism and crimes against the state and Syrian citizens. They also confirmed that the broadcast of aggression by the sensationalist satellite channels is a fundamental part of the aggression and sabotage in Syria.

The United States now realizes that it has lost in the Syrian arena, and there is nothing in its hand that can change the outcome either militarily or politically, but it also knows that surrendering to defeat will be impossible in a difficult year for its president as he prepares to plunge into his re-election campaign. And it knows that surrender would be catastrophic for what it has gained by embracing the movement in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya where it cleared the way to power for those who made pacts recognizing Israel and guaranteeing its security and existence.

Yes, the United States is now in a predicament in Syria from which it cannot emerge victorious, and it cannot withdraw declaring failure either. For all of these reasons it seems that the United States is searching for a possible solution that will not be counted as a defeat: to postpone settling the Syrian issue for a while, during which things will be stirred up again and the situation will be turned to its advantage. Therefore it seems that the United States is aiming to repeat the Lebanese experience. That was when it issued Resolution 1559 and placed Lebanon under an international mandate with the U.N. special envoy for the resolution keeping Lebanon an issue permanently on the table in the Security Council and permitting the United States daily intervention under the lie of international legitimacy.

Hence, the United States wants a resolution similar to Resolution 1559 to impose some international mandate on Syria that deprives it of its right to choose its president and suppresses its right to international relations, not to mention its right to possess the means of defense. The United States is entertaining the hope of success in this effort, which it can promote as an accomplishment that dislodges Syria from the axis of resistance, just as its efforts expelled Lebanon from its relationship with Syria in 2005 and reversed their relations in the direction of estrangement and then hostility.

This is what is left in the United States' hand and what it wants to do. Can it achieve this?

The United States succeeded in 2004 and issued Resolution 1559 with a majority of nine votes (the minimum required to pass a resolution in the Security Council) under the auspices of an international climate that suited it. At that time it was proud of its occupation of Iraq and was boasting that it was on its way to complete control over Afghanistan just as it had extended its power over the Gulf. The United States encountered no one in the Security Council who dared to bring up personal or international views, no one who dared to oppose the United States, but today everything has changed. The Security Council has come to be ruled by a balance that prevents the United States from controlling its decisions, which means that issuing a resolution any time soon has become almost impossible.

Moreover, despite the fact that Resolution 1559 was issued, the United States was not able to implement any part of the resolution in the sense of actual implementation. General Lahoud remained president until the very last minute of his term and the resistance targeted by the resolution retained and still retains its arms, building up strength that it used to defeat Israel in 2006. It continues to mock the sponsors of this resolution and pays no heed to them but rather scoffs at the periodic reports of the U.N. special envoy. As for the Syrian army's withdrawal from Lebanon, which is the third clause of the resolution, it did not take place in order to implement the resolution. Rather, it was the result of an important strategic decision taken by the Syrian leadership after developments that shook the security of the Lebanese arena and put the Syrian military withdrawal in the interest of Syria and its national security.

The United States, which has engaged in killing and terrorism as its profession and then met failure, will be powerless this time around in the Security Council and will not be saved by inane instruments like the ''Arabist'' League, which suspended the observers' mission to put pressure on Russia and avoid witnessing the terrorism of the so-called ''Syrian opposition.'' Circumstances have changed and the world is now entering a new period of international relations in which the United States does not have exclusive rights to leadership and power. Russia knows that it is also targeted and must resist. This means that Syria will not find itself confronted with a new Resolution 1559 and will not have to struggle against giving in to it as Lebanon did. The balance of power has spared Syria that evil, and it remains for Syria to uproot the evil in its streets by subduing terrorism, and it seems this is on the way to being realized. At that time the United States will have no choice but to accept reality and there will be nothing else its Arabs can do after their last arrow is spent and they turn over the matter to the Security Council, which will not carry out their ambitions.