The colors have become mixed up and what American President Barack Obama used to call red lines – in regard to the prohibited use of chemical weapons – now requires a green light to move forward with the implementation of his pledges. And by linking the military strike to the preservation of American national security, he is probably trying to convince those who are reluctant inside Congress. The transfer of the battle inside America is prompted by the wish to avoid repeating the mistakes of the Iraq invasion. By doing so, Obama – who could have issued the war decision alone – sought Congress's participation to prevent any possible repercussions on his image, as a president who made a commitment to withdraw his country's troops from Iraq and then Afghanistan. As for his insistence on a limited strike with preset goals, it merely means that he does not wish to appear as though he recanted his talk about the red lines, towards which no tolerance can be shown. And much as he was weakened by the position of the British House of Commons, after he had his mind set on building a strong international alliance in the face of the Syrian regime's arrogance, he wishes to move the battle inside Congress under the banner of national security. He is well aware of the fact that British disgruntlement will have an impact on some European Union states, at a time when Paris, which is the most eager to address a blow whose date was set by President Francois Hollande for next Wednesday, might consult its deputies. This brings back to mind the military intervention in Libya, which is probably what pushed Obama to submit a draft resolution to Congress and not the Security Council, in order to render this issue a purely American one and raise the humanitarian facet of a war that is wanted to be legitimate, based on the eradication of prohibited weapons threatening the world. Between the various interpretations, some of which are calling for maintaining the Security Council as the only decision-maker when it comes to war, while others are tackling national security standards and the humanitarian dimension, a predicament is emerging over the legal and moral reference of this war. This facet is not related to the principle of the military strike in itself, but rather its justifications, which would spare the West from the apologies it made in previous cases, namely in Iraq. As for Russian President Vladimir Putin's involvement, it means that Moscow wants the world to feel that its role – alongside China's – cannot be written off from the equation of international decision-making, while eager to render the G20 summit an opportunity for the recognition of its role in the developments. To add to this, it questioned the circulated evidence, knowing that it could have had its say during the last Security Council meeting. Therefore, it chose to use a diplomatic discourse to keep the door open before dialogue. And as long as the Western states concerned by the war decision went back to their parliaments, the least they could do is treat international powers with a strong presence in the international decision-making hierarchy the same way. Hence the importance of the stance that will be adopted by the Arab League as a regional organization directly concerned about the tragic developments in Syria on one hand, and because it accepted the membership of the Syrian opposition Coalition and recognized it as Syria's representative on the other. In other words, regardless of the nature of the decision, it will not be imposed and will be ratified with the participation of the opposition Coalition, which goes in line with the role bestowed upon the League to draw up the Arab decision that is considered to be an extension of international legitimacy. At least, this would allow participation in the Geneva 2 conference without prior conditions, amid facts pointing to a wish to preserve Syria's unity and prevent the detonation of a more tragic civil war. In many previous cases, the international decision to head to war was based on this Arab reference. This was seen in the war to pull the Iraqi troops out of Kuwait and in NATO's war against Libya to protect the civilian population. But when the course of events was displayed since the eruption of the Syrian crisis, these options were not on the table, as there were calls for dialogue, monitoring committees and the use of economic sanctions, but to no avail. And any decision issued in light of the current circumstances will be the outcome of bitter experiences in dealing with the Syrian crisis, one which was led by President Bashar al-Assad's regime to a dead end and caused the mobilization of warships along the Atlantic Coast. The regime only understands one language, and the time has come for it to impose itself. And while the Americans are addressing national security issues at this level, the Arab League is more entitled to tackle this dimension, because an Arab state is being subjected to division and the threats of a destructive war. On the opposite end of the enthusiasm shown by Turkey in favor of the military strike against Syria and the solidarity shown by Iran which threatened with the spread of war to include other sides, the Arab countries that do not want the expansion of war or the achievement of ambitions in the Syrian territories, must have the final say. And if the Arab League is able to become a miniature Arab parliament during the era of transformations, this would undoubtedly confirm that the most relevant decisions are the ones stemming from democratic concord. Only then can all the sides observe the upcoming developments with a clear mind and conscience.
