Like a real
life game of ‘Cluedo’, we know the weapon, the victims, the place and the time.
Only the identity of the perpetrator remains a mystery. The primary suspects are the Syrian regime
or the rebels; both sides have the capability to deliver these nasty weapons, as
for motive, there is a degree of uncertainty.
The Syrian regime is winning the war on the ground, and the use of such
weapons would only unify the rest of the world against them, thus, such an
action looks irrational and counter-productive.
Especially in light of the fact that Obama already stated the use of
chemical weapons was a line that could not be crossed. Moreover, the immediate
and equivocal Syrian response, requesting an UN inspection team to verify the matter
seems to point to their innocence.
Could the
rebels have done this? One cannot imagine they would use chemical weapons on
their own people, to perpetuate an uncertain military response, with an
uncertain outcome, unless it was done by a lunatic fringe extremist group among
the rebels.
Let’s ask:
cui bono (to whose benefit?). An attack
on Syria would benefit its rival, Israel. For sure, they have the experience
(e.g. Lavon affair) and the capability to engage in a covert operation, if
needed in collusion with the CIA, to deliver these weapons and manufacture a
crisis. Of course, there is a difference between logic and truth, it does not
always follow that the party who stands to gain the most benefit is
automatically guilty.
