Aggression: From Proxy Warfare to Direct Warfare

America’s positions on a potential offensive in Syria have provoked a huge wave of condemnation. Those positions have been built on flimsy allegations that Washington has made in order to move from a proxy battle through terrorists, supported and strengthened by a number of other countries (exemplified by support from the Saudi-Gulf spearhead, limitless support from Turkey’s Justice party government, and Israel’s continual direction and containment of the conflict), to public openness about its desire to intervene militarily and attack Syria directly. This shift in approach comes after the massive victories that the Arab Syrian army has achieved in its fight against terrorism and it’s pursuit of the remnants of the terrorists. After the painful blows that Syria has directed against terrorists, this is the message from Washington: “Victory over terrorism is impermissible.”

The repercussions of the British parliament’s refusal to participate in the offensive on Syria still constitute a topic of discussion and analysis. The French opposition followed the British parliament’s refusal, when [the French parliament] demanded that if [President François] Hollande insists on pushing France to participate in the attack on Syria, he must refer the issue to the parliament. The French opposition’s position is supported by opinion polls of the French public, which rejects participation in the offensive.

Days ago, the council of the so-called Arab League, which is really the Gulf League, convened and came out with positions that induce astonishment and even laughter. This “League” council decided that it was the Syrian state that used chemical weapons, before the inspection committees or the United Nations could determine which side used them. The League’s position on the chemical weapons culprit outdoes that of America, and may open the path for the League to attack Syria.

This contradiction between European positions rejecting participation in America’s offensive and the Gulf League’s stance of support takes the Arabs further and further away from solidarity on an official level, and encourages hostility toward Syria in the same way hostility has been encouraged and legitimized toward other Arab countries since the offensive against Iraq.

At the same time, new, honorable positions have been adopted by some governments and countries, adding to the permanent support for Syria’s independent political decision-making provided by the likes of Russia, Iran, China, the BRIC countries and other friendly states.

The most notable was the position of Egypt’s government and people, which has not been seduced by Saudi aid and support. The Egyptian Army, nationalist and popular powers have not seen Saudi support as something that restricts Egypt’s political positions. [Egyptians] may have begun to free themselves bit by bit from the chains imposed by some countries. This is what reassures us that Pan-Arab Egypt is returning to the Arab, regional and international political theaters to retake the pioneering national role that its people and army have been awaiting. “Cairo and Damascus are twins,” and no one can dismantle the bond between them, regardless of what the Muslim Brotherhood tried to do while it controlled the governing apparatuses inside Egypt (before the Egyptian people rose up and, with the help of the army, unseated it from power).

The Egyptian army realized that the U.S. is trying to implement a plan that targets Arab armies and Arab countries, aiming to destroy Syria after it destroyed Iraq and tried to destroy Egypt through its support of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Whatever the result of America’s inflammatory positions, whether it be an offensive on Syria or abstention from it, Syria will continue standing firm, the United States will continue to be an aggressive country that supports Israel, and whoever calls for, encourages or welcomes foreign military intervention in his own country will remain a traitor forever pursued by the curse of his treachery.