What President Obama declared about a military intervention in Syria in case it used or transported chemical or biological weapons has been explained but being a declaration for local consumption only which purpose is serving the elections. However, let's suppose that implementation of such work is possible in a similar scenario to what happened earlier in other countries such as Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia and other countries, in spite of Russia's stand in the opposite direction of intervention. Let's suppose that it kept watching what's going on in spite of that. The situation in Syria is different with the heavy Russian military presence near the Syrian coast in addition to the experts and advanced technological means of monitoring & spying it is providing Al-Assad forces with. In the case of the American intervention; will Russia take the risk of starting a war which ends are not predictable as it may reach the level of a third world war? Iran itself wouldn't take the risk of entering into such spider web, especially because it would be facing forces which are superior to it in regard to arms and money. The United States does not have they will of fast intervention in the Syrian case as its previous experience caused it to suffer severe human and material losses, in addition to that Syria is armed enough to face the intervention through a good force. However, if we compare the Syrian army with Saddam Hussein's army; we would find that Iraq had a professional force which started a destructive war with Iran, in addition to occupying Kuwait. Its army used to be considered one of the biggest armies in regard to its population and traditional arms. However, all the said factors did not prevent the United States and its allies from invading and occupying it. Thus, Syria may become a target if the interests and gains have become preferable. Some parties consider that Security Council represents the obstacle and the solution at the same time and that without an agreement between its members there would be no solution for any case which is not agreed about. Syria is entering into this racetrack of competition between the rivals but since when has the said council been the standard or criterion? Russia interfered in many countries earlier without considering the decisions of this council & so did the NATO countries. Accordingly, the council is not the authority which sets the adherence to the international laws. The possibility through which Obama may implement his warning through the support of U. S. allies may be for the sake of saving the Syrian people but for other considerations which cares for preserving the Israeli security. This reason, in particular, is a justification which is stronger than agreeing or disputing about the conditions in Syria. There is a new polarity which is being formed and may protect the nations from the interventions and wars. China, Russia, India, the European Union & Northern America may become the representatives of such new polarity. However, before these countries become equal in power; NATO under the leadership of the United States shall remain the basic player. The United States have exceeded the standards after the decline of the Soviet Union as it used to move to the areas of critical conflicts without seeking the permission of any one, including the Security Council and the United nations. We are still watching how it is Surrounding Iran and practicing political and economical pressure over it, in addition to North Korea, Cuba and, recently, Syria which are considered outlaw countries by it. If The United States is practicing such roles due to its power; it may does not find what objects it from interfering in Syria as nobody is going to challenge for such action due to the inevitable fact of that it is still the only polarity in regard to the actions applied on this planet.
