|Le Petit Parc - Jean-Honoré Fragonard|
The Syrian deal, reached last summer, appeared to have been a Russian success and a Western defeat. However, the victory was actually granted to Israel (unwittingly or not): a chemical threat - that had been denied for over 30 years - has been removed from its way.
Russia justified the Levant's chemical arsenal as a way to counter the Israeli menace; but now that the Syrian weapons are on their way to destruction, I wonder how Syria intends to counter the "Jewish threat"?
Bashar al-Assad, and his father before him, was always good in keeping the status quo when it came to the Golan Heights (perhaps because he read all the relevant literature and knows very well that those heights belong to Israel) but whomever succeeds him may not share the proclivity to maintain the status of things, therefore we must start thinking of scenarios where Syria will either restock its chemical arsenal or make use of Jihadist activity against Israel.
The Iranian deal, celebrated last November, appeared to have been a Western victory and an Iranian success. However, the victory was surprisingly granted to Israel for if Iran fails to keep its side of the bargain, and everything starts to point in that direction, the Jewish State will be validated to deal with the Persian problem in any way it sees fit.
I am not quite buying the recent love-making between the US and Iran. I can't show enthusiasm because we have been down this road before: President Bush's administration cooperated with Iran (to capture Al-Qaeda elements and fight the Taliban in Afghanistan) however it all ended when President Bush realised that Iran kept supporting terrorism, around the world, and had misled the West with its nuclear programme.
When we read Iranian declarations such as "We have put in 1,000 centrifuges of the second generation (IR-2m), but we have not injected the UF6 gas into them given the ongoing nuclear talks," we may want understand this sort of statement is for domestic consumption; but at the same time we have to ask ourselves how far Iran is willing to go to assuage domestic fears...
The fit Saudi Arabia had last year, by rejecting a UN Security Council seat (one it lobbied so heavily to get), appeared to have been well founded given the Saudi disappointment in the US. But once again, appearances deceive.
Saudi Arabia rejected that coveted seat because it realised what being in the UNSC really meant: it signified to be on the spotlight (which carries with it a heavy burden of responsibility). At the UNSC, the world would suddenly realise that Saudi Arabia does not contribute with one cent to the Palestinian "Refugees" problem and Cause (leaving it all to the West); the world would also realise that Saudi Arabia is actually responsible for most of the Sunni Islamist problem and mass conversions in the West, Africa and Latin-America; we would all realise that the Arab League Star moves in the Western arena to protect its own interests and outrightly play against westerners; and if Saudi Arabia had taken that seat, it would have had to show America that it plays a double game most of the times and, thus, it would've been precluded from voting alongside the US...a true conundrum it would have been. So, the easiest solution is to pretend to be a political brat and turn down the seat...that way the Saudi game remains preserved...or so they think.
"All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu