Russia, of course, has its own agenda in Syria. Nevertheless, when the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, says that some are willing to undermine Kofi Annan’s mission by presenting Damascus with “ultimatums” and “threats”, he is is only speaking the truth. This is neither about any national reconciliation, nor is it about democratic change. This is about regime change in Syria as a preconditon for war on Iran. Therefore, we might confidently conclude that the last thing the so-called ‘Friends of Syria’ want is any resolution of the present conflict which will not bring about regime change.
That is why, it is important for “some” that Annan’s mission does not succeed and for it not to succeed, it is important that the blame is attached to Damascus, which, in turn means that we will have previously unknown groups such as the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) claiming that the government in Damascus is still slaughtering its opponents even if there is evidence to suggest that it has in fact begun to withdraw its troops from the areas of conflict in line with the plan, brought to Syria by UN and Arab League envoy Kofi Annan.
“Friends of Syria”, “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights”, and surely we can have nothing against “friends” and “human rights”? No, of course, not and most of us would prefer to live in a democracy of sorts, but, even if that democracy is under threat here in the West, you won’t have me for one rushing to buy my ticket to the “Democratic Republic of Korea.” The “friends”, with Israel furtively pulling the strings in the background, are, of course, the West, Turkey, and, mainly, the Gulf Arab states, and what is the SOHR? Well, according to RT it “employs only two people (its head and secretary-translator)”. Of course, that should not be a disqualification in itself. Nevertheless, surely the fact that it is mainly Western media sources that refer to the data from this organisation with two employees, in their reports on Syria, should make us, at least, a little suspicious of that information.
Then, of course, we have the ‘Free Syrian Army‘ which is “composed mainly of mercenaries and fanatics, funded by Qatar, armed by Turkey and organized by France and Britain and is neither Syrian, nor free.” Yes, Russia might have its own agenda, indeed, the regime in Damascus should be challenged, however, make no mistake about it this is not about democratic change, it is about regime change, it is not about human rights, it is about the right to impose the West and its Sunni Arab allies agendas on the people of Syria and ultimately this is not even about Syria, it is about Syria’s ally, Iran.
The United States and its allies could not, of course, get away with a direct intervention, which would not only difficult to sell, but also costly more expensive and extemely complicated and, that is why, we have this particular brand of hypocrisy and the accompany drivel regarding “human rights abuses” and “democratic change”. Indeed, not only do they not need to intervene directly in Syria, but why would they want to? After all, unlike the interventions in Iraq and, more recently, Libya, where there is oil, there is no oil in Syria. …… and in Iran?