Syria 'had covert nuclear scheme'

Thus goes the headline for a news article available here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7364269.stm.

The polarisation in the world of pro- and anti-American stances brings with it an asymmetric outlook on defense which, in my opinion, is the single biggest threat to global stability. One need only consider Russia's complaints against the USA's anti-missile defense system. Russia is worried that an unassailable USA could bring with it an abuse of power leading to an anti-democratic world system in which a minority of people (i.e. the people of the USA) get to dictate to the rest of the world how it should be run. To be fair, those are my words, not Russia's; but the fear is the same: of an over-powerful USA dictating to the world from on high.

It is common knowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel neither confirms nor denies possession of nuclear weapons, but Mordechai Vanunu was kidnapped from Rome by Israeli agents in 1986 and taken to Israel, where he was convicted of treason for revealing to the British press the details of the Israeli nuclear weapons programme. Presumably Israel would not have taken this drastic action if they did not actually possess nuclear weapons.

It is also known that Israel is expansionist: the occupied Palestinian territories. Nor are they pacifist, having had wars with nearly all of its neighbours since 1948. Nor yet are they modest in their dealings with other countries: Israel has a fierce spy machine in Mossad which does not shy away from political assassinations in foreign territories. No wonder, then, that its neighbours are worried. The area is dominated by Israel and its brutal treatment of the Palestinians in order to safeguard land and a high standard of living for its own citizens. Just as the USA has, for over a century, put pressure on its neighbours, particularly in Central and South America, to maintain a USA- and capitalist-friendly attitude (even where that meant overthrowing a democratically elected government in favour of a right-wing dictatorship), one could easily imagine Israel developing a similar policy towards its neighbours.

That brings us nicely to Syria. There is a tendency for anyone in any country to think that their own security is the most important. You might say that the psychology of a country is akin to the psychology of an individual. No-one can feel at ease when there is someone sitting next to them with hostile intent who is also much more powerful. Pride and self-preservation might urge such a person to work out, take self-defense classes and maybe even invest in weaponry - all for the sake of defending oneself and one's family. It may even be that that menacing person is not so menacing, after all - it is the perceived level of menace that is important. Similarly, Syria may want to defend itself. It is important for people in the West to realise that Syria does not think of itself as a failed, evil State (nor does any country). It is a country with an ancient heritage - it makes European culture look positively modern. It is a heritage it is likely to want to defend; and with an aggressive, highly powerful neighbour in Israel, it has to do a lot of working out and invest in a lot of hardware in order to feel more secure. Since Israel has weapons of mass destruction in the form of nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that Syria will feel secure until it has the equivalent 'deterrent'.

As with Syria, so with Iran.

When the USA-led Western coalition starts to respect the sovereignty of other nations and their need to feel secure, then there might be the hope of a more peaceful co-existence. Once again, the asymmetric American foreign policy is to blame.