The UN says that in Syria to use chemical weapons were rebels

To the researchers of the United Nations and the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal, Carla del Ponte, about the use of chemical weapons by some forces that oppose Assad, brings a new element of confusion in the Syrian War. Until now insurmountable, for which you had to decide on a possible American intervention was made by the use of chemicals by Assad's army and not by its opponents. The discovery of the UN, not totally confirmed but very close to certainty, instead attaches to the rebels and, for now, not to Assad the use of non-conventional weapons of chemical origin. This factor, along with various assessments of political, allow to understand the Obama administration to move cautiously on land that is becoming increasingly more difficult. Not that the non-use of chemical weapons, change the judgment of the Assad regime and the way in which he is fighting fierce civil war, but it is undeniable that sheds a different light on the rebels. Even assuming that the use of these non-conventional weapons have been dictated by a disadvantage and urgency, the resolution to use them can not weigh as heavily negative element of judgment, especially in a future perspective, when and if the regime in Damascus should fall. The decision of using these weapons indicates an unreliability that hangs over the whole movement of opposition to Assad and weigh a ton on the international stage. On the picture you can safely say that we are faced with a situation strongly affected, which plays once again in favor of Assad, who had stated, without being taken seriously, since March 19, this reality now recognized by 'UN, this fact can also be an element that can allow the regime to gain precious time. In light of this new American attitude is more understandable, having faced opposition less and less reliable, deeply divided internally and characterized by the presence of Islamist militias that have the clear intention to reduce Syria to a caliphate. However, it remains the humanitarian emergency, given the large number of victims, always on the rise and the plight of the survivors and refugees. On this level, however, can not be blamed entirely the responsibility of the U.S. failure to act, but rather, the UN, which has not yet managed to find a synthesis capable of producing at least a cease-fire. It remains to ascertain the origin of the chemical weapons used by the rebels, it is known that Assad's army has one of the largest reserves of chemical weapons in the Middle East region, but according to the U.S. Secret Service's entire arsenal would all still under the control forces loyal to the dictator, even the fact that the Israeli bombing seems to have been aimed deposits of conventional arms contributes to strengthening the hypothesis of U.S. intelligence. One of the worst fears of Israel and the United States was, and still is, that hazardous fractions of the opposition, but also allies of Assad, were able to take possession of part of chemical weapons, but if it did not happen we can assume outdoor supplies, for bring further imbalance in a war which revolve around too many interests, for the position of the country? And if the answer is positive, what are the powers that may have taken this step? There are no public analysis in this regard, but it is a fact that the Sunni Gulf countries are supplying the rebels with weapons and their intention is to finish as soon as hostilities with the defeat of the dictator, but that is not enough to be referred to as the main suspects, it could also be a clever move of the same duplicitous Assad to discredit the opposition, which still has not made scruple to have used weapons so deadly.