, , , , , , , , , , ,


As UN inspectors traveling in convoy into Damascus face sniper fire, and with the British government already throwing doubt on any findings by claiming that it has taken too long for an investigation into a possible chemical attack, and with the US moving more warships into the eastern Mediterranean, there appears to be an unstoppable momentum towards a strike against targets inside Syria.

Of course, Russia, China and Iran have warned against this action.

And domestic opinion inside the US and UK is firmly against another military conflict.

David Cameron has been told that there needs to be a debate within parliament before the British PM throws his weight behind any military action.

Cameron has said that if that action does occur, that he will have no choice but to back it regardless of whether parliament is recalled in time.

A strike on Syria will also draw in further retaliation from Hezbollah whose intervention has swung the conflict in Asad’s favour.

Of course, the last time chemical weapons were used in war was by Iraq in Hallabja and on the battlefield against Iran,when the very nations who are condemning its use now were strangely silent.

The UN has already stated that was the last time these weapons were used.

And the pictures that have been broadcast show a few people, not hundreds or thousands as being claimed, clearly in discomfort from something whether that is a chemical attack is not certain.

So, the move by Washington and the soundings from London and Paris could be an attempt by these governments to catch back some lost ground, and to meet Damascus around the negotiating table on equal terms.

For a strike on Syria at this moment will achieve nothing – except draw in the regions’ key players into an endless cycle of further conflict in a state whose key asset is its strategic location.