Many criticisms arise in this regard between interventionists and not , are we sure that Western countries can afford a waiver by the United States to the role of world policeman?

It 'obvious that the United States can not take the weight , and the burden of unilateral action without the commitment and support of the Western Allies.

Obama has asked Congress to authorize "limited action" in response to the attack perpetrated by the Syrian government with sarin gas that killed more than 1400 people men, women and children.

The Western world has tacitly accept the pure horror?

A U.S. attack on Syria would lead to increasing tensions with Iran ( Syria is the only regional ally of Iran), on the contrary any failure of the United States in Syria could lead Iran to believe they can pursue with impunity its nuclear program.

The inaction of the United States in Syria would encourage Iran to go ahead with its nuclear ambitions . But it is also true that if the United States attacked Iran Syria will experience an even greater degree of needing a " nuclear deterrent ."

At this point the Iranians will be the leaders who will have to assess the benefits and costs regarding the choice whether to support Assad.

The Obama administration announced that any attack, it will aim to topple Assad or encourage the rebels at the expense of the government forces.

It ' clear that we are faced with an extremely complex situation of difficult solution also consider the positions of Russia and China .

But one thing is for sure, despite the stated objective of deterring Assad , the U.S. military will not be able to ensure that their attacks will prevent Assad to use chemical weapons in the future..

© All rights reserved