Syrian Crisis: France's Stance and Its Strategic Partnerships.

“I am struck by how eager Great Britain and France appear to be in favour of military action. And I am also mindful of the fact that both of these two powers are former imperialist, colonialist powers in the region.” -former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski

France has been more hawkish over Syria throughout the conflict there than either Britain or even the US. When news of the alleged chemical weapons strike on East Ghouta broke on 21 August, the French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, was first out calling for a 'reaction with force'.

A continuous stream of the most belligerent rhetoric has emanated from Paris since then, with calls from President Hollande that France was 'ready to punish' Assad to Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault claiming the attack involved a "massive use of chemical agents".

France's knowledge about Syria's chemical weapons stock may come from the fact that in the 1980s it was French pharmaceuticals that were imported for 'dual use purposes'. The French dossier is technically specific about Syrian CW capabilities but adds nothing towards exact responsibility for the attacks.

The 'public diplomacy' behind the dossier is to back up Washington's version on Saturday and John Kerry's rhetoric about 'we know' everything and 'we have assessed'. Indeed France has been more persistent in backing the Syrian opposition than the US as it was responsible for setting up 'Friends of Syria'.

The 'Friends of Syria Group' or 'Friends of the Syrian People Group' was set up in June 2012 by Sarkozy to bolster support for the Syrian National Council and to prepare for a post-Assad government. The aim is 'revolution' but the reality from the French perspective is its national interests.

France is a staunch ally and strategic partner of Saudi Arabia and Qatar both in the Friends of Syria Group and which support militias with arms and money against Assad. French military ties with the oil rich kingdom have put it at the forefront of the push to directly provide weapons to the Syria rebels.

The FT reported on June 21 2013 an analyst close to ruling circles, Jamal Khashoggi, revealing that Saudi Arabia would never let its Persian Gulf rival Iran 'win a victory in Syria' because Assad had had the upper hand until the alleged chemical weapons attack by his regime occurred.

'”Saudi Arabia has to do something now, even if it will do it alone. The goal now must be toppling Bashar, even if the US is not involved. If Saudi Arabia leads the way, Sunni tribes and o ther countries, including France, will eventually join.”

France, concerned that Syrian opposition forces are losing ground, has suggested it is ready to push ahead with increasing the scale of equipment it supplies to the rebels, but it remains coy on what weapons it may be prepared to include.

Officials said this week that Paris had already “ticked the boxes” of materiel it was willing to deliver on a list presented to the Friends of Syria members by the Free Syrian Army. But they declined to say what these included.'

France's defence of Saudi Arabia's policy in Syria so as to check Iran, its main regional geopolitical rival and Shia enemy, is a lucrative and mutually beneficial partnership. On the August 30 news broke of 'a billion euro defence contract with Saudi Arabia to overhaul four frigates and two refuelling ships'.

France's bilateral ties with Qatar, the other main funder of the Islamist militias, brings numerous benefits from Total's stake in the liquefied natural gas ( LNG ) market and the supply of it as an increasing part of the gas energy portfolio for north west Europe via France's EDF group.

France's energy policy is interconnected to geopolitical strategy and competition with Russia and Gazprom for control over the global market for LNG. The volume of Qatari LNG threatens to displace the importance of Russian gas. The proposed Qatar-Turkey pipeline would rival Russian imports and so it backs Assad.

France's interest in energy diversification coincides with many EU states. However, only France ( apart from Britain ) is a military power that can assert those energy security interests in the Middle East. More than that, Qatar invests billions of petrodollars in French real estate and grand projets.

Syria: Is Labour Really Opposed to Military Action ?

The Labour opposition is not realistically going to be able to prevent a military strike if Washington decides upon it.

Ed Miliband's shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander is a fervent believer in Atlanticism. Alexander studied in the USA, worked for a Democratic Senator in Washington DC and remains a staunch Blairite in principle if not practice. They look to Obama for vision and inspiration.

And Douglas Alexander and Ed Miliband supported the disastrous Libya campaign. They are posturing solely in order to distance themselves from the bad dent Iraq had on Blair's fortunes and Labour's election loss. Both are craven and self serving career politicians without integrity.

They are substantially no different from Clegg or Cameron or Hague. The opposition has to be seen to be 'reflecting' the 'public concern'. This does not mean Labour has taken a substantially different line as the amendment makes clear.

The reality is that Miliband needed a boost in his profile and popularity after his 'leadership' was criticised for being indecisive and lame throughout the summer Since the US is prepared to give time for the inspectors, Labour can pose as 'responsible' should any military strikes go badly wrong.

But it can only do that if it is, ultimately, prepared to defy Washington with enough rebel MPs from other parties. It is very difficult to see how enough in Parliament are loyal to their country which does not want war rather than their careers.

The voting on military action has been carefully staged by Cameron and Hague. The first motion is worded carefully so as to contain reference to the house being willing to support a military action should the evidence of the UN inspectors prove sufficient for a case for it to be spun before a second motion.

The test will come if the US pushes on and Cameron tries to browbeat Parliament. Labour is unlikely go against that if the spin can spun prove Assad definitely carried out intentional chemical attacks and some sort of dodgy legal pretext can be cobbled together before a second vote in Parliament happens.

As no vote is legally binding, Cameron and Hague would be able to proceed anyway but will get enough MPs to be whipped into supporting the government line because not enough of them are going actively oppose the government should the US decide that strikes are necessary and legal.

Can anyone imagine Miliband having the backbone to forthrightly condemn Washington and any military action completely ?

Brian Milne.

I agree on what Alexander and Miliband are, but I somehow suspect that they are reflecting the will/opinion of the people. That is two things in one. Firstly, they do get a bit more support for the 2015 election out of this, but secondly it is a reflection of public opinion which is the last thing Cameron and Clegg ever take into account.

Also, it may just be that they have looked at the situation and see that the chemical weapons may not have been the government's doing but of one of the groups attempting to bring Assad's regime down. Perhaps they have also paid attention to the possibility that if the USA rushes in and bombs the place into all round submission, the aftermath will be an encroachment by a radical Islamic regime that will add to the woes of the west. It is that much closer to both Egypt and Turkey that are getting closer and closer to the 'precipice'. As we can see, Egypt is now a mess and can the west afford Turkey becoming hard line Islamic instead of moderate and within the EU?

Karl Naylor.

The Labour amendment only echoes the government motion with further demands that the UN weapons inspectors have the 'necessary opportunity' to report to the security council on their findings. But nobody has denied that the UN inspectors would not be given the opportunity.

The USA has not indicated that the UN inspectors would not be given the opportunity to present their findings. All of the 'conditions' laid down by Labour could be met easily enough if Washington decides military strikes have a 'legal basis in international law.

Apart from Iraq, and even then international law was invoked to justify it, all Britain's wars have been justified by upholding international law in some way. The wording of the Labour amendment is twaddle. They are calling for 'a legal basis' for an action and that could be provided easily enough.

The real argument is not really only about a possible 'legal basis in international law; but about the power political consequences of any military strike. Ultimately, the Labour leaders, in my opinion, will not vote against a military strike if Washington can spin a plausible case.

Attempting to intervene in Syria in accordance with a 'legal basis' shows the absurdity of the way politicians have tended to leave out a discussion of the real politics which is briefly referenced in part six of the Labour amendment,

'action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region'.

The point here is that even if, the 'legal basis' for intervention can be tacked together and Assad is clearly beyond doubt held to have intentionally launched a rocket strike with chemical weapons to kill civilians, any military strike can only be judged on that basis.

Yet there have been no arguments from the Labour opposition on that basis at all so far. This is not the debate either they or the government want. They both prefer wrangling over words and framing devices in presenting any case for military action.

Yet there is no doubt that the debate between the British government and the opposition is about the correct manner in which to proceed and not any deeper discussion as to what the aims of any military strike would be beyond the supposed primacy given to that of chemical weapons.

Syria: The West Blunders Closer into the Syrian Civil War.

Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector in the run up to the Iraq War has given his opinion on Syria.

'Obama, like Bush and Blair, seems ready to ignore the council and order armed strikes on Syria with political support from only the UK, France and some others.

While much evidence points to the guilt of the Assad regime, would not due process require that judgment and consideration of action take place in the UN security council and await the report of the inspectors that the UN has sent to Syria – at the demand of the UK and many other UN members?'

Given the British government's threat that it could launch an attack on Assad's state without UN Security Council backing, the responsibility for the possibly justifying any attack depends on the absolute proof that it did use chemical weapons intentionally and poses an imminent threat to the Middle East.

Without giving time for the UN inspectors to complete their findings, any military strike is an act of aggression that sets a precedent for taking international law into the hands of the US, Britain and France. Even the 'responsibility to protect' is a shaky pretext with regards to Syria.

Missile strikes by the US on Syria's military installations cannot do anything to protect the civilians on the ground on either side of the sectarian divide in a brutal civil war. As the West cannot be intending to take out chemical weapons facilities, the argument about deterring further chemical attacks is weakened.

The aim cannot be to get full 'regime change' as that would lead to greater chaos and a worse version of the lawlessness that has engulfed Libya after the US, France and UK promised to use air power to prevent a massacre in Benghazi.

Moreover, by effectively siding with the anti-Gaddafi insurgents in 2011 the West overstepped its mandate after China and Russia approved of a limited use of air power in a nation not as crucial to their geopolitical interests as Syria and, by extension, Iran is.

The fact is that any response to the Syrian crisis has to involve diplomacy and not military intervention. If 'the West' ignores the other global powers, there is no longer any reason why China and Russia would need to take Western states interests or opinions into account in future.

The ratcheting up of the drive towards military action against Syria is about maintaining Western credibility and being seen to stand by Obama's previous declaration in August 2012 that Assad's use of chemical weapons would 'cross a red line'.

A 'red line' however is a rhetorical device not an international law. More evidence in US foreign policy for two and a half years after the civil war broke out; that is is the use of the threat of coercion to bring Assad to the negotiating table based on the precondition he hands over power.

The apparent drive towards war at present and the presence of ships in the Eastern Mediterranean armed and ready to strike is an extension of the most coercive form of diplomacy short of effectively threatening military action. It could be a way of breaking the 'political deadlock' with Russia on US terms.

One aim is to force Russia into a corner should the UN inspectors find evidence that chemical weapons were used and then it could be proved that Assad must have used them. The Western powers will in the next three days before the UN inspectors complete the task be searching for a legal pretext for action.

However, it looks very unlikely Russia is going to withdraw its backing for Assad nor for there to be a clear version of events and evidence presented as to 'who did it'. The US claims it has all the intelligence already but if it wants to pursue even a semblance of legitimacy in dealing with the crisis it has to renew diplomacy.

But now the drive to war has been cranked up it is very difficult how the West is going to be able to back down without 'doing something'. This would be an idiotic blundering into the unknown as military strikes unleash their own dynamic and create unforeseen circumstances that could draw it in further to the Syrian civil war.

Syria: Caution Thrown to the Wind.

'Putin's position on Syria and the determination to act scrupulously within the law prompted government sources to caution against an immediate military response. Sources said ministers, in common with the US administration, would want to take time to study the evidence from the UN'

Caution was obviously necessary. Yet there has been very little evidence that the UK, France and the US leadership has done anything contrary to giving the impression that they are very much decided upon  attacking the 'Assad regime' no matter what the evidence from the UN inspectors turns out to be.

What is so dangerous here is that the US is regarding the alleged chemical weapon attack as a propaganda trump card necessary to restore its 'credibility' after two and a half years of demanding Assad should go without any success. This is brinkmanship of a very dangerous sort that could spin out of control.

Using cruise missile attacks against Assad as 'a show of strength' when the UN inspectors have not completed their mission nor presented their findings cannot acheive anything of benefit. It cannot remove Assad nor guarantee the situation on the ground would not deteriorate further.

As Machiavelli knew, in politics an action can be adjudged evil or not in the light of what it is meant to acheive and whether it has any realistic chance of realising the end or not. With Syria, there is no clear end that missile strikes could acheive other than trying to aim at 'degrading' its ability to wage war.

Given that it is unclear if or why Assad would have launched a chemical weapons attack, the attempt to use missile strikes to take out his 'assets' is hardly going to bring about the political and diplomatic settlement that the West claimed it wanted and evidently did not..

Having continually made Assad's removal the precondition of negotiations and by not engaging with Iran in June 2013, missile strikes are hardly likely to compel Assad to negotiate and yet have no guarantee of removing him. At the same time, if they embolden the FSA, that is only going to intensify the war.

Moreover, there is no guarantee that missile strikes will not lead to further chaos on the ground which Al Qaida affiliated jihadist groups would exploit. As it has not yet been conclusively proved that such groups would not use chemical weapons themselves, then greater amounts them could be seized-and used-by them.

Syria: Implementing Attacks.

Prime Minister David Cameron's decision to recall of Parliament is not going to stop any decision on military intervention in Syria happening. When Hague was contemplating giving direct military support to the anti-Assad insurgents in June he displayed the same insouciance he does now.

"We have a good record on going to the House of Commons for a vote. There would be a vote one way or another. I can't see any reason why it couldn't be before any such decision was implemented"

As I warned on June 11 2013 Hague took it as a given that it was a formality since the implication of his statement was that it would make no real difference anyway. He referred to a vote before a decision was implemented and not before one was actually made.

Hague knew full well that no vote either way was legally binding then no less than he knows that now with the prospect of cruise missile strikes against the Syrian government being launched. The propaganda machine is in full spin, the media is focusing on the 'implementation' of an attack.

The staunch neoconservative Michael Gove made it quite clear that Parliament is an irrelevance on this urgent matter of national importance.

 "I think the decision about how the government is going to respond to the horrendous humanitarian atrocities we have witnessed is one which is properly taken by the prime minister and the members of the national security council

 "I know the prime minister has said in the past he respects the right of the House of Commons to be kept up to date. I don't think there has been any foreign secretary who has been as assiduous in keeping the House of Commons up to date with not just what's been happening in Syria but with what's been happening elsewhere in the Middle East as William Hague.

So, I am absolutely confident the prime minister and the foreign secretary are the right people to be leading at this time and I think their response so far has been absolutely right in the face of what are horrendous crimes."

There are token nods from the US towards the UN inspectors finding the facts first but the momentum towards military action is in full swing in order to maintain Western 'credibility', the same position held by Madelaine Albright with regards the 78 bombardment of Serbia during the Kosovo Conflict in 1999.

But Syria is not Kosovo and the potential for the conflict to spin out of control as the result of military action far greater.

Syria: The West Wants War

If the US, France and UK attack Syria without a UN mandate then it will contribute further to the the creation of lawless strikes imposed by powerful states. If the UN mandate is ignored once more, then obviously it becomes increasingly clear that it no longer matters.

Foreign Secretary Hague's claims that 'we' ( i.e "the West" ) could act without a UN mandate before the UN inspectors have found any conclusive evidence and after having pressed for the inpectors to go to the site of the alleged chemical weapons attack, is both foolish and belligerent.

The refined absurdity of Hague's position was evident this morning,

"Is it possible to respond to chemical weapons without complete unity on the UN Security Council? I would argue yes it is - otherwise it might be impossible to respond to such outrages, to such crimes, and I do not think that is an acceptable situation. It is possible to take action based on great humanitarian need and great humanitarian distress. It is possible to do that under many different scenarios'

Hague starts off by claiming Britain would be 'responding' to chemical weapons. That leaves it open to interpretation that a response is not to a proven attack by Assad but to a 'regime' that could have been capable of using them and then destroying the evidence, as Hague already hinted it might.

Legalistic constructs such as 'the responsibility to protect' used in Kosovo in 1999 are becoming an artefact bolstering the de facto power of the US, France and UK to determine what international law will mean. Yet that cannot be other than an assertion of political power.

In the case of Syria, there is a brutal civil war in which regional and global powers have geopolitical interests. No amount of posturing over legalistic formulas can override the fact that the crisis has been in need of diplomatic and political negotiations.

Unfortunately, it has been those such as Hague who have continually tried to make Assad's departure a precondition for any talks at the postponed Geneva Conference. Now Hague believes ' the West' has an opportunity to use unproved attacks by Assad to force its unilateral will to resolve the crisis.

This delusion that law and a universal regime of rights can supplant politics and not be restrained by its considerations is a dangerous fiction. Cruise missile strikes will not remove Assad nor would a victory for 'the opposition' in the civil war ensure Syria would not disintegrate into a failed state.

Any proposed strike by 'the West' is less to do with 'humanitarian need' and more to do with 'credibility' and being seen as a force able to impose its will to show it has both might and right on its side. The West rejected diplomacy with Assad and Iran and wants to sideline Russia.

Belligerent rhetoric is about global geopolitics and reinforcing the idea of Western domination over the Middle East. As historian Mark Almond writes,

'They have been demanding the fall of Assad for more than two-and-a-half years now and it has become increasingly frustrating that his regime has shown much more resilience that they had expected, despite the resources that they and the Gulf Kingdoms have thrown into the war on the other side.

It is also like a distraction from the embarrassment of Egypt, where we see the European and the US governments basically using weasel words to avoid any kind of condemnation of a massacre in the streets of Cairo. So there are both the specifics of Syria and the context of what is going on elsewhere in the Arab world, especially in Egypt.'

Syria : Spinning Towards War

As I predicted, the presumed chemical weapons attack on Ghouta east of Damascus is being spun into a diplomatic offensive to assert the will of the Western powers as the ones 'calling the shots' in global power politics. This seems more vital after Egypt ignored the West in using force to crush the Muslim Brotherhood.

The news headlines are full of Obama and Cameron's meeting to discuss what is to be done. The Guardian reported,

'The prime minister and US president said time was running out for Assad to allow UN weapons inspectors to the areas where the attack took place. Government sources said the two leaders agreed that all options should be kept open'.

It looks ominously as though the same drive towards threatening war has now been set in motion as it was in the months preceding Iraq. Though a full scale invasion is not going to happen, air strikes and aid to the FSA are most likely the 'options on the table'.

The assumption of Assad's responsibility and the problem that no conclusive proof will be found, with all the media tending to insist the responsibility primarily lies with Assad, is too good a propaganda opportunity to waste when it can be used to prove the 'credibility' of the West in dealing with the 'threat'.

The establishment of the exact facts is not considered so important. The aim is to put pressure on Russia, the better to get it to respond in such a way as to deny Assad's responsibility in the hope any evidence that subsequently comes out can be spun in favour of Hague's and Fabius's position earlier in the week.

The choreography was fairly predictable. The attempt to preempt any findings of the UN inspectors is the Iraq format. The way that Britain and France ramped up the rhetoric after the attack happened while Washington deliberated is in accordance with the format for intervention used in Libya.

Syria: William Hague is Dissembling.

The facts are not out yet and UN inspectors have not yet had a chance to get to the site, presuming that they are going to be able to. This has not stopped William Hague coming out with similar innuendos used about Saddam Hussein before 2003 having 'something to hide' and his 'non-compliance'.

Likewise, Hague airily dismissed the notion put forth by Russian Foreign Ministry that the attack could have been a deliberate 'planned provocation' by 'the opposition',

"I know that some people in the world would like to say that this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria. I think the chances of that are vanishingly small and so we do believe that this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime."

Evidently, the conspiracy theories are often in force in times such as these, whether the supposed Daily Mail clippings that have suddenly resurfaced now about US intentions to supply Al Qaida with chemical weapons or George Galloway's Press TV rant about his 'theory' that it was Israel that 'gave' them to Al Qaida

Yet TV film footage, most of children suffering the effects of some gas or their dead corpses, is guaranteed to get the Western media and politicians spinning the line of 'something must be done' when the nature of the attacks and who did it is actually very far from clear.

Experts on chemical weapons such as Gwyn Winfield at CBRNe have made it quite plain that it is important to know, 'what percentage of those died from exposure to an unknown chemical' and that the facts are, in reality, rather 'difficult to pin down'. Winfield states ( Reflections on Ghouta 22 August 2013 ),

'The spread of these casualties/fatalities is important, without this information we are forced into the conclusion that the spread of attacks was at the maximum reported - which then presupposes a significant, organised force behind it

If this isn’t the case, and all the chemical casualties come from a single area (and it’s downwind path) then it makes it more likely that a smaller, potentially rogue faction, was behind it. This is certainly the Russian view, as espoused by RT and it is interesting that their comments about a rocket ties in exactly with the suggested analysis from Brown Moses on the munition used (though he makes no claims as to how many devices or who fired them).

Large amounts of munitions, many different sites, makes it more likely that it was a large, organised agency behind the firing; an isolated, small exposure (with a big ol’ ATP45 track behind it) would make it more likely that it is a splinter force.'

The idea that the there no questions as to whether Assad has launched a large chemical weapon attack on one area is pure propaganda. The situation is complicated in East Ghouta with the al Nusra Front being defeated there in early August.

William Hague's attempt to blame the attacks squarely on the Assad regime and to preempt any findings by UN inspectors is in continuity with the ploy used to justify the Iraq War in 2003 and was later found to be based on a tissue of lies and fabrications.

So, apart from which chemicals were used, the other question remains as open as it did when the story first broke on Wednesday-'Who gains?'

Syria: The Propaganda War and 'Shocking Escalation'

William Hague continues to deploy loaded language in relation an alleged chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime, the word regime being accurate but hardly more than the continuous misuse of the word 'rebels' instead of the more neutral term 'insurgents'

Hague calls it a 'shocking escalation of the use of chemical weapons'. which he then followed by calls for the need to "wake up to... its murderous and barbaric nature". "I hope this will wake up some who have supported the Assad regime, to realise its murderous and barbaric nature."

What is so ominous about this is that he has prejudged the situation by putting the blame firstly on the Assad regime full well knowing that the UN inspectors have not established the facts and that the chances of them being able to get to Ghouta to verify the claims can be preempted by propaganda.

Hague is merely compounding the mistakes he has already made in continually repeating 'Assad must go' from early on in the civil war and trying to make Assad's departure a precondition of any peace negotiations at a future Geneva Conference earlier in June 2013.

When Hague refers to 'those who have supported the regime' he is referring to Iran and Russia. With Fabius threatening "a reaction that could take the form of a reaction with force ”, they are dangerously ratcheting up the prospect of violence. For the target of this threat is ultimately Iran.

The fact is though, there is nothing that either France or Britain could do without US approval. The danger is that they are putting Washington is a position where Obama's 'credibility' is on the line after he made it clear in 2012 that the use of chemical weapons would cross a 'red line'.

Even if this were a chemical weapons attack, there is little the West could do to remove Assad that would not make the situation on the ground worse. Arming the FSA would only increase the potential for arms falling into the hands of Al Qaida who would then try to capture these weapons themselves.

It is not completely implausible that the attack was not caused by nerve gas but by riot control agent unleashed by the FSA as a last ditch attempt to get Western intervention. By all accounts prior to this attack they were being rolled back by Assad's armies and Hizbollah.

The International Business Times reported a short time ago,

'Gwyn Winfield, editorial director at CBRNe World, a magazine specialising in chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive weapons, told IBTimes UK that it is difficult to identify an agent by the signs and symptoms alone.

"We can say there is some form of chemical used. But until we take blood samples, samples of the soil and the water in the area we can't say that a chemical agent has been used," he said.

"It can be a riot control agent, like in the recent Egyptian case of the tear gas used in the back of a van that killed 36 prisoners. We have the same symptoms in the children and casualties."

Winfield said he finds it "suspicious" that in the week UN inspectors enter the country with the acquiescence of Assad, the Government welcomes them with a chemical weapons missile barrage.

"It is not impossible that some faction in the Free Syrian Army did it to get attention or maybe it was an accident by an inexperienced operator who may have not realised what he was doing."

The security expert said there are numerous cases of riot agent used in a lethal way, for example in confined spaces and not to disperse a crowd.

He added that the idea that the FSA is single and unified is "a myth," because "there are different factions and something like that could be a win/win for them: launch the attack and raise amount of profile of their cause by the UN."

Winfield said that more than 570 victims, if confirmed, are a lot of people in a not densely populated area. "It means the attack targeted a large area and it is not an isolated incident. If there are 570 fatalities it would suggest that evidence of what it is will not be hard to find."

This seems a pretty fair summation of the situation.

Further Thoughts

The fact Hague is prejudging this alleged use of chemical weapons to be just that and proof of previous claims that were not independently verified is packed tightly into the soundbite 'shocking escalation' which presupposes the Assad regime had already been using it

Words matter. 'Escalation' was an essentially Cold War term used in relation to a war between two nuclear powers with 'weapons of mass destruction'. Hague is using is to mean an increase from a previous level of destruction by Assad against 'rebel held' areas using 'WMDs'.

The entire point of any strategy to contain conflict and good diplomacy is to prevent 'escalation' because it implies a potentially unstoppable process or what has been called an 'irrational escalation of commitment' , as in when gamblers make poor decisions or businesses 'throw good money after bad'.

Hague has been committing himself to playing for the highest stakes from early on ( 'Assad must go' ), he seems irrationally fixated on promoting a foreign policy that could not be attained by anything other than arming the 'rebels' and so intensifying the conflict.

As any weapons that could be supplied directly to the insurgents against Assad would necessarily fall into the hands of Al Qaida fighters itching to get their hands on chemical weapons ( or so it has been supposed by some reports and intelligence briefings ). It's possible this is another 'pretext' to arm the 'right rebels'.

This whole episode still seems too convenient; the FSA was in retreat, and the UN inspectors entered Syria a week before Assad is accused by the FSA that a chemical weapons attack has killed 1,400 exactly a year after President Obama claimed this would cross a 'red line'.

After being seen to be weak and 'indecisive' on the Egyptian coup by those such as domestic opponents as John McCain,the danger is that Washington will be forced to go further than it might otherwise have done by the hawkish and rather sinister rhetoric of Hague and Fabius.

If this alleged chemical weapons attack turns out not to have been one or not the work of Assad, as is very possible, then certainly Hague must resign from his position. Yet the amount of choreography between Hague and Fabius very may have already involved Washington as it 'ponders the options'

And this is a chilling thought.

Syria : The Hague and Fabius Duet.

The usual propaganda mechanisms are being cranked up fast as the momentum of a drive towards war proceeds in accordance with the usual formats. This time it is a blend of the 2003 Iraq War one ( Chemical Weapons) and the 2011 Libyan War version ( Dictator Out of Control ).

First, Britain via Hague pops up rather sprightly and acts a public diplomatic mouthpiece by squarely blaming the Assad regime without giving the UN weapons inspectors time to get to the site of the alleged chemical weapons attack. That's the Iraq Format.

Secondly, then Fabius of France ratchets up the pressure by claiming that even if "no ground troops' will be used" but states “There would have to be reaction with force in Syria from the international community”. That is the Libyan Format. So far the political choreography is as predictable as it could be.

By "international community" it is meant that Britain, France and, lastly, the USA who Hague and Fabius hope will give them green light for either supplying arms to "the rebels" or perhaps even using air power. Expect to hear the phrase 'all the options are on the table" a lot in the next few days.

Syria: The Drive Towards War

Written 11 hours ago.

William Hague was on the BBC a few minutes ago laying the blame for the chemical weapons attack squarely with 'the Assad regime'. No other foreign policy figure has publicly come out with that yet to my knowledge. This attempt to preempt diplomacy between the US and Russia is ominous.

Given that nobody knows the exact facts. Yet this complete fanatic, who was at the forefront of lifting the EU arms embargo to Syria, should refrain from uttering such statements before other diplomats and statesmen convene to discuss it at emergency meetings of the United Nations following inspections of the attack site.

Hague seems to be trying to ramp up the rhetoric in order to prove that his policy of 'Assad Must Go' has been vindicated. Yet that reckless diplomacy helped draw in Iran and make the civil war worse. He is a cretin and should certainly be sacked if it is proved that the Assad regime did not order it.

It's likely the US and Russia will ignore him anyway and Hague is not going to sway Washington to get involved if its vital interests are not at stake. But this crisis now seems to be a lot about 'credibility'. He bears some responsibility for having made this crisis potentially intractable

The fact that Hague lacks any on any extremely dangerous foreign policy issue, while trying so desperately to pretend he doe,s is contemptible and a menace to world peace.

Syria: The Impact of the Chemical Weapons Attack on Ghouta

With today's claims of chemical weapon attacks by Assad's regime on Ghouta near Damascus, the danger is  an instantaneous flurry of media coverage in which the rush to judgement benefits those statesmen wanting to harness it to support their realpolitik agenda under the cover of humanitarian concern.

It is obvious that the FSA would want to ramp up the claims of chemical weapons use in order to get Western intervention to overthrow Assad. But it is not impossible that Al Qaida could get its hands on chemical weapon. If it were to use them for an attack, they would hope to draw in the West.

Assad's regime would have had to be seemingly insane to use chemical weapons just days after the UN inspectors arrived in Syria because the US and Britain were bound to want to use this as a pretext to demand the inspectors have access and, if they cannot, this can act as a sign of his 'non-compliance'.

However, the fact is that even if Assad had rained down nerve gas on Ghouta, the West has no means of controlling events in Syria. If it sends huge supplies of weapons to the 'rebels', the chances are that they will fall into the hands of Al Qaida and help them 'liberate' chemical weapon stocks.

The bleak fact is that Syria is in such a situation that states, such as Britain with statesmen such as Hague at the forefront especially, are going to have to recognise that they cannot affect the outcome of this brutal civil war having been partly responsible for it in demanding 'Assad must go'.

Britain's diplomacy has been catastrophic. By backing the 'rebels' and refusing to engage in diplomacy with Iran, and so stay onside with Turkey and Iran's Persian Gulf rival in Saudi Arabia, Hague has blundered into a position where the oil rich kingdom is now calling the shots in Egypt.

In effect, this means widening already existing divisions among 'the rebels', as those backed by Qatar and Turkey belong to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood are hardly going to want to fight alongside those backed by Saudi Arabia and who are less inclined to want the ballot box in any post-Assad Syria.

The only possible motive the Assad regime could have had in using chemical weapons ( assuming this attack is its work ) was to show that if the US and Western nations could allow the Egyptian military to repress the Muslim Brotherhood by 'eliminating them' then he could do something similar.

If that is so, it is hard to think what the Assad regime could think it was going to achieve, other than to show that he is still a force to be negotiated. In the absence of any realistic alternative to ending the civil war and with Iran and its Lebanese based proxy in Hizbollah backing him, he might have tried to play his hand this way.