Simple folk from among Communists used to, and still do despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, believe in historical inevitability, and in the notion that societies would move from their primitive state to Communism after the defeat of Capitalism and Colonialism... and other such simplification of the maxims of Marxist thought. Today, the Americans come (without simplification) to determine the right side of history. Commenting on the stance taken by Russia and China in support of the Syrian regime, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the United States had informed Moscow and Beijing “that supporting the Assad regime is placing oneself or one's nation on the wrong side of history", adding that “Assad will be remembered forever for what he did this past weekend [the Houla massacre] and what he has done for the past 15 months". It is no secret that what the United States and its allies seek after is issuing a Security Council resolution to make use of force against the Syrian regime. Indeed, the latter's fall is a “historical inevitability", to use the American expression borrowed from Communism, and, the faster this takes place, the fewer massacres there will be and the more the Syrian people will be able to avoid the civil war everyone is warning them about. The truth is that the stance taken by Russia and China is not alone impeding the use of force and the movement of history – i.e. the waging of wars, as the Americans understand it. Indeed, when the United States found that it could wage a war, it invaded Iraq to remove the “mistake" and reach the “end of history", in the words of Francis Fukuyama, without paying heed to the countries that rejected it at the Security Council, among them France at the time, and sufficing itself with a “coalition of the willing". Perhaps the statements made by State Secretary Hillary Clinton best express Washington's desire to wage war on Syria. It is not history that prevents it, but rather many political and military factors. Comparing Syria with Gaddafi's Libya, Clinton said that “Syria ha[s] a more diverse society with greater ethnic divisions, no unified opposition, stronger air defenses and a more capable military than Libya's", and that “above all, (...) there [is] no international support because of Russian and Chinese opposition at the UN Security Council". The US Secretary of State forgot, perhaps intentionally, an important reason preventing a war from being waged now against Damascus – which is that Israel would be directly concerned with such a war, and would inevitable have to take part in it. And this would mean, among other things, changing the view the Syrian opposition holds of the regime, which could lead to fragmenting it even more than it already is, with the exception of a small minority that no longer gives any importance to the conflict with Israel. The truth is that the United States is working diligently to bring to maturity the appropriate circumstances for waging a war on Syria. It seeks to convince Russia to change its stance, and hopes to achieve this during President Vladimir Putin's meetings with European leaders. It also seeks to unite the opposition, arm it and support it financially and politically. This is why US officials keep repeating, whenever they are asked about it, that military intervention is on the table, but “not now". Ambassador Susan Rice spoke of three scenarios: Syria implementing the UN-sponsored peace plan; the Security Council strengthening pressures on Damascus; or waging military action. She deemed the first and second scenarios unlikely, and favored the third – but “not now". As for Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, he said that “all options remain on the table". One could sum up US activity at this stage in three points: demonizing the Syrian regime, working on wearing down the domestic situation through the embargo; and gathering the greatest possible number of supporters for the war – in addition to keeping Israel out of the equation as much as possible, before undertaking any military action, of which no one can estimate the danger and the repercussions in all of the Middle East. Standing on the right side of history represents an attempt to justify “just" wars.
