The feasibility of intervention was greater two years ago. I know that there is little public appetite for it in the west but inaction has empowered the radical jihadists. This has made it harder to achieve either a political settlement or a pluralist Syria which would protect the rights of minorities such as the Kurds, the Christians and the Alawites.
As the Syrian conflict rages on the European Union took the significant decision in recent weeks to lift the arms embargo on the beleaguered country, paving the way for the Governments of major European countries to send weapons to rebel forces (a.k.a. the Free Syrian Army) fighting against the Assad regime.
The five things you need to know on Friday 14 June 2003... 1) OBAMA COMES OFF THE FENCE ON SYRIA From the Guardian: "The US government said l...
Although no weapons will be delivered before the end of the summer and the EU insists that only weapons shall be delivered that serve the protection of civilians. One wonders what kind of weapon that might be as there are hardly any - if at all - weapons out there that have a pure defensive character. Whether rhetoric needs to be underlined by action remains to be seen.
Israel would much rather deal with neighbours it knows, however unfriendly they are, than have to get used to living next door to new neighbours, who may well turn out to be even more unfriendly. Whatever the people of Syria might want, Israelis would be much happier with a brutal, secular dictator than a brutal, Islamist one.
In effect the Westerners want to take sides in a multi-dimensional war, with no guarantee that their chosen protégées will prevail. Most likely, by arming the rebels they will give carte blanche to the Russians and Iranians to reinforce their support for Assad and his allies, including the Lebanese Shia faction Hezballah.