Nobody expected this turning after the joint press conference of the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain William Hague and US Secretary of State John Kerry the past 9th of September 2013 in London. As it appears while answering to a journalist question about which options did the government of Syria have, to avoid the confrontation, Kerry said that if all chemical weapons were handed over to international control, and eventually destroyed, an attack may be reconsidered. As it seems Kerry never thought that such an idea could become the springing board for the Russian Foreign Secretary Serguei Lavrov, to make this very offer to his Syrian counterpart Wallid Mouallem. He also added to the demand the need of subscribing the international Convention about Chemical Weapons Prohibition. Only a few hours later the Syrian government acceded fully to it, to the surprise of some of the current players, still looking how to promote an intervention in the country. As Ban Ki-Moon openly acknowledged the Russian plan, that in fact will need a great amount of effort of the UN, as a key player, suddenly the US State Department said first that the demand was being said in a rhetorical way by the US Secretary. Then Obama himself took himself some time for this subject in one of his numerous interviews given that same day on US television, that this same offer was “potentially positive”, but needed to be absolutely authentic.
In any case what does seem self-evident is that far from reaching a general consensus over the intervention in his last international tour through Western Europe, John Kerry, with or without the intention, gave the magic words to avoid it, giving way to a political solution. As it seemed there was none in the opinion of the Obama administration. The fact that Russia took over the argument, could weaken the argument of the inevitability of the intervention. The relative concession that Obama had to give to the proposal is only degraded by this powerful doubt, that anything coming from the Syrian Government isn´t trustworthy. Furthermore the new events should not interfere with the upcoming quest for the bill in the Congress concerning the limited intervention in Syria, to be duly approved by enough Congressmen. This battle is the beginning of the war the president is looking for, and having dropped the appearance neutrality this could only go through a tough marketing of the war, which isn´t a normal one, just a limited one, they say in the Hill.
While the general ambiance in Washington is mainly around the Syrian issue and as the next session in the Congress scheduled for this Wednesday, this has been postponed again, only making the happening of the event more uncertain and less immediate than expected. And again the French government has shown their likeliness to follow the US path to war, still doesn´t see yet the positive signs for doing this openly. Nor the British Prime Minister Cameron, after the big blow of the Parliament, having lost in his seek for a bill to be passed, allowing military intervention in Syria. Due to this limitation, he should be out of the club of this new potential Coalition of the willing, still under the Bush II administration.
If Bashar was to show any collaboration in this new political draft, his position would improve by far, as he will be having a whole new UN presence working for the recollection of all Syrian chemical arsenal as a shield preventing any hits from the sea. As for the starting consideration, that bombing military infrastructure, specially containing Chemical Weapons, is far from being helpful in order to insure the safeguard and control of those. If Damascus allows the complete destruction of the existing material an important argument would have been neutralized by Bashar Al-Assad, until the results of the other UN team in Rotterdam, Netherlands gives finally its results of the analysis of the alleged chemical attack of the past 21 August in the outskirts of Damascus. These should either way give a reason to resolve the enigma around the authorship and accountability that some countries have determined in advance, as being the government forces of Assad. Despite the proven responsibility of the rebels in the other alleged chemical attacks of Aleppo in march 2013 showed the link to the rebel forces, still doesn´t dismantle in the eyes of the logical and self-evident impossibility of the oppositional forces to handle these kind of devices.
Once the premise should be granted by the Syrians, it would be quite difficult for Obama to promote his limited war, as the main objectives would have been destroyed beforehand. Then again in the midst of harsh political times for the president, when critics inside are growing on the left of the Democrats as of the extreme right of the Republicans, it seems quite obvious his approach to take over international leadership. This will eventually require the back up of a certain majority in both chambers, nevertheless it looks as if even his own party is not really willing to go into another conflict, and not getting very much convinced of the arguments given to the Congressmen and Representatives. As a matter of fact his first front line seems to be inside the US, wining the approval for his military quest. Then would come the real thing, if until then, any surprise effect will be second to none. Even more, if there weren´t any chemical weapons to hunt, isn´t this getting an obsession of the hawk side of Obama, who after giving his smoothest side, even getting the Peace Nobel Price, now shows us his Rambo side of his government.
The true leadership of the new coalition might fall apart if the evil Syrian were to be disarming for true. The statements on this of the Obama himself, were that his offensive approach was the only way of getting a consensus for a political solution. Once again war is just an extension of politics to the governing class. If this had been his original inclination, why then doesn´t he aborts his quest for the forsaken bill for intervention against any international law? Still all of his statements show a poker face of someone who in the past had shown people the new hope, the new leadership of the US. To the deception of many his real intention are by far quite similar to the ones of his predecessor, only the skin colour does make a certain difference to the eye.
Finally if the planned attack was to occur, as soon as possible, the latter conclusion would be that this new humanitarian interventionism isn´t open to any autonomous and proactive enemies. They obey to an image, a mold of the evil, but never give in to anything, as they are tyrants. Still this particular tyrant shows quite a resistance, and is close to put the Us strategy at stake with its own arguments. If the US are naturally world players, used to these games, then how can someone understand how they are having such a hard time to actually persuade even their closest partners to join them. Or are they running out of arguments by now?