During August 2011, there have been clashes between security police in Albu Kamal on the border with Iraq where rebels are presumably backed by US-backed forces and are conducting raids and engaged in sabotage. Reportedly, US-trained rebels bombed an export oil pipeline near Homs, causing an oil leak. One of the most important cities because of the two oil refineries, Homs has suffered street protests presumably guided or at least influenced by agents that cross over from Iraq. Ironically, the Assad regime has stated that it is fighting terrorists that are trying to overthrow the legitimate government - America's freedom fighters are Syria's terrorists.
These arguments have been used before against Muslim leaders that the US opposes, but not a word about the massive arsenal of countries that possess even more powerful weapons, like Israel and Saudi Arabia that the US supports. The world has known for a number of decades that Syria has a Russian, Chinese and North Korean connection, just as it has known for decades that Syria is a major player in the regional balance of power and especially in Lebanon. It turns out, now that Gaddafi is finished, Syria is the real threat, not Libya as the US, UK and France, 'the crusading trio' as I have been referring to them in my writings. US intelligence is not necessarily arguing that Assad would use such chemical weapons or that he would hand them to Muslim extremists interested in using them. But what if those chemical weapons, scud missiles, artillery and laser rockets, which are reportedly considerable, fall into the wrong hands?
The central issue before the US is to have pro-Western regimes in as many Muslim countries as possible, given that Iran is refusing to yield its sovereignty to Washington and remains determined to have a voice in the regional balance of power. And let us assume that the US and its junior partners succeed in installing pro-West regimes across the entire Muslim world, how long before there is grass roots opposition rises to challenge surrender of sovereignty to the Crusading West? Already the African Union, which had been behind Gaddafi but did nothing to support him against the might of the "Crusading trio", is now rejecting the Transitional National Council that the West supports and calling for an all-inclusive government that would be able to bring together all of the various factions and tribes in Libya.
What is achieved by replacing one dictatorship with another as far as the people are concerned? Can neo-imperialism prevail in the 21st century when there is no patron state on which client states like those of Libya and Syria rely? Many believe that it can because it has in Muslim countries for more than a century, assuming that Russia and China wash their hands of these regimes and are rewarded with contracts when new regimes take over.