Russia has many vested interests in arming Assad, they get money, they have their only Mediterranean naval base on Syrian coastline, and they are worried about radical Islamists taking power should Assad’s regime topple. Russia also has energy interests, with regards to Syria-Iraq-Iran oil pipeline deal that would supply them with oil.
Syria would be a useful place for the US to keep a close eye on Iran, plus it would be useful to topple one of Iran’s most powerful allies. The EU is already buying oil from rebel seized oil fields. But who know’s maybe “the west” are genuinely intervening to promote human rights and democracy.
Oh, I found this:
Dubious statements by Western and Israeli officials — couched in suspicious language of unknown likelihood like “varying confidence” and “limited evidence” — have now accused the Assad regime of using chemical weapons, a purported “red line” for direct military response on the part of the U.S. and its allies.
None other than United Nations official Carla Del Ponte, who cooperated with the U.S.-NATO war against Yugoslavia, exposed the chemical weapons charge. She said that if chemical weapons were used, it was the anti-Assad forces that used them. (Reuters, May 5) Who knows whether it bares any truth whatsoever.
China’s veto to intervention could be because of it’s long standing policy of non-intervention. Or because it doesn’t want to see another westernized Arab country.
Who knows?
