Nonetheless, getting back to the Sarajevo analogy, the fiendishly perplexing thing is that the configuration of forces is such that the logic of war can over-ride what leaders say with rationality. It is probably fair to say that European leaders back in 1914 did not want nor foresee how events would unravel in an uncontrollable and catastrophic way.
In Syria today, we have American, French and British forces operating on the ground and in the air. A US aircraft-carrier battle group has now arrived in the Mediterranean within striking distance from Syria. All of these NATO forces, including Turkey, it should be said, are illegally threatening Syria.
There seems little doubt that the recent build-up of NATO military power threatening Syria is a result of their proxy terror groups having been defeated after a seven-year war. That strategic defeat can be attributed to Russia and Iran's intervention on the side of its Syrian ally following a legal request for help from Damascus.
US President Trump has lately been talking about withdrawing American forces from Syria. That could be idle bluster from Trump given that the Pentagon seems determined to do just the opposite. Also, if Trump manages to draw down some US troop levels in Syria, he has stated a desire to replace those forces with military units from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab regimes, as well as possibly contracting private mercenaries under the charge of his friend Erik Prince, the founder of infamous Blackwater USA.
Then we have French President Emmanuel Macron this week urging Trump to maintain US military presence in Syria, warning that the Western states cannot afford to let Iran gain influence, despite the fact that Iranian forces are legally present in Syria under request from Damascus, and despite the fact that Iran, along with Russia, helped defeat the Western-backed covert war for regime change using terrorist proxies. The sheer arrogance of Macron!
Adding to the combustible mix is Saudi Arabia and Israel who have said they are willing to join in any future US-led air strikes on Syria.
It seems clear that the Saudis and Israelis are itching to start a war with Iran which they obsessively view as their nemesis.
Almost a week before the April 14 US-led air strikes, a far more dangerous incident occurred on April 8, when Israeli air-launched missiles hit the T-4 military airbase in central Syria. Among the dead were seven Iranian advisers. Again, it was another spark jumping at the powder keg.
Iran's national security chief Ali Shamkhani this week warned of "consequences and retaliatory actions" for what was an outrageous act of war by Israel.
In response to this legitimate statement of Iranian self-defense, Israel's Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman had the chutzpah to say: "Israel doesn't war but if Iran attacks Tel Aviv we will hit Tehran."
Apart from Lieberman's arrogant irrationality, what his statement implies is that a false-flag incident is begging in order to give Israel a pretext for more aggression against Syria and Iran.
The danger in Syria is not just the accumulation of military forces but the dynamic of many moving parts. An incident involving Israel and Iran could be the flashpoint that explodes with impact on the concentric forces aligned.
Politicians and military leaders in the US and Russia may have no intention of all-out war. They may even genuinely abhor such a scenario.
But that is why the Sarajevo analogy invoked by Daniel Lazare holds. Disastrous consequences can follow ineluctably from the circumstances, regardless of better intentions.
This is why it is imperative that all military forces in Syria must stand down and let the country pursue a self-determined political process, as several UN resolutions have mandated.
The legal and moral onus is first and foremost on the US, France and Britain to stand down their military forces, and to stop interfering in Syria. They, after all, are illegally present.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
2
