Discovering MENA and other thoughts

One of the unforeseen consequences of the much bragged about Russia & U.S. backed deal on Syrian Weapons of Mass Destruction has been casting light on one key stakeholder which nonetheless was trying to remain on the sidelines as of lately, Israel. Indeed, Assad´s regime immediate reaction after relinquishing and accepting to give up its weapons (and therefore admitting their being in possession of them) was to point its finger to the eternal usual suspect when it comes to WMD in the region. A suspicion that might have been clarified by a 1983 C.I.A. paper that has been recently declassified whereby the Hebrew state has for decades amassed this kind of arms. Israel has however always acted with ambiguity and never acknowledged having nuclear weapons, even though many amongst its authorities have hinted they have the right to assemble and stock them in order to defend themselves (and by themselves, without having to call for outside intervention) from all these danger...

While  two weeks ago  Western intervention in Syria seemed imminent , today it merely stands as the second track  after the  diplomatic option both the US, Russia and Syria have embraced . This situation has lead many, including me, to draw parallels that somehow justify or refute the usefulness of an attack on the Syrian regime, the most likely comparisons being drawn with Iraq, Libya and Kosovo.  I hereby point out the major differences that make such comparisons unfeasible and even dangerous. 

Everything suggested an American attack was imminent ... until Putin and his five-star Foreign Minister made magic and amazed us all by buying Assad a little more time. While never-ending debates about intervention were still invading the media and after the UK Parliament threw a bucket of cold water on the idea of a Libya-style Western-led operation, President Obama decided the US congress would have the last word on any eventual attack. It appeared the Republicans supported this move and, even though a vote has not still been cast, it seemed only the moment and exact target were still to be decided.

Throughout the week, a lot has been said about Israel attacking Syria. The news was about Israel carrying out airstrikes in and around Damascus, targeting missiles Iran intended to smuggle into Lebanon through Syrian soil. The final addressee was Hezbollah, which would in turn have later used this "game-changing" weapons to attack Israel. Even though Israel did not confirm the military move at the beginning (the first information came from US intelligence sources), many officials (including an Israeli ambassador acting as guest speaker in a conference on the Southern Mediterranean I had the honour to attend) have commented on it, affirming that Israel is not looking forward to intervening in Syria, but has drawn its particular "red line", that is, Iran providing the Shiite militia with powerful arms that will put in danger both the stability in the region and Israeli citizens' safety. As a matter of fact, and in anticipation to some kind of counter-attack, I...