The presumption in the first part of the article re destruction of Syria's chemical weapon is built on the assumption that Syria would use these weapons in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran. This is what the Israelis and the Jewish lobby propagate, for obvious reasons (the existential threat scenario); it is mimicked mindlessly by other American columnists. But actually in the past two weeks Iran has made it clear that it would not go to war to back Syria if Obama carried out his threat, so it is reasonable to assume that Syria would not use its chemical weapons if the situation was reserved. Syria would use these weapon only if Israel launched an overall attack against Syria, but as I don't see such an attack happening, we end up with deeming Syria's chemical weapons useless and expensive. Syria is doing herself a service by ridding itself of weapons she is never likely to use, and this is neither for the better nor for the worse for Israel.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
ISIS claims responsibility for Saturday's attack that killed 4 near Cairo (AP)