The USA could supply weapons to Syrian rebels

U.S. Open timidly to the possibility of directly supplying weapons to the Syrian opposition fighting against the government in Damascus. What has characterized until now, the American position on the Syrian issue, it was an attitude of non-intervention directed, with the only limit to Assad to ban the use of chemical weapons. This border has been called the red line of the Obama administration against the Syrian dictator, in fact quite a few commentators have redefined the so-called insuperable line red to pink, to the lack of firmness shown by the USA, right in the presence of evidence of ' use of chemical weapons by the regular army. In fact, there would also suspicious of some of the formations that make up the heterogeneous opposition force. Washington was prompted several times about the possibility of a direct intervention precisely because of the violation of the limitation on the use of chemical weapons, but the responses of the White House have seemed stammering and insecure. Probably the United States when they made this threat to intervene in the conflict, estimated that the fall of Assad would come before the need for American involvement, giving little chance for a regime that seemed destined for certain defeat, but the prolonged civil war has gave strength to Assad, also by virtue of an opposition held together only by the aversion against the dictatorship and without a common political project, even just basic. Washington's real intentions are not to intervene on Syrian soil, unless agreement is reached at the headquarters of the Security Council, which is practically impossible for the determined opposition of Russia. The United States finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having so threatened an action without having the real intention of putting it into practice, but despite this, the evolution of the many situations that arise in the region will force Washington to a final decision, even if too many unknowns weigh on the road to take. The key variable is formed from the fragmentation of the forces that make the opposition, both in the case of direct intervention, that only as regards the possibility of providing arms, the U.S. will have to make selective choices for not reinforce those groups, that in a future more or less near future, they may become enemies, especially in view of a preventive war against Iran. Washington wants to avoid at all costs that require those factions who aspire to establish a theocracy, although Sunni type, too focused on the application of Islamic law, preferred situation, on the contrary, from the Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates States and Oman, who are already supplying weapons precisely this part of the opposition, with a view of the anti Iranian and anti-growth. Despite the alliance, rather narrow in the countries of the Persian Gulf Sunni matrix, with the United States, their attitude, contrary to U.S. policy in the region, is a get further variable in the decision-making process to be adopted. For now, the U.S. has openly expressed opposition to the maneuvers of the powerful and essential Sunni allies, but in the future, should at least seek a joint solution that will end up not satisfy anyone. With conflict prevention against Iranian atomic approaching, Washington must choose an attitude as soft as possible, to avoid displeasing each ally present at the scene, but must also, in preserving their objectives, which are essentially those of trying to avoid Religious influences on political structures, as has happened in the Arab Spring. In the meantime and in concert with Britain, which has declared itself open to any possible solution, the U.S. is taking steps to ensure that his allies in the EU eliminate the embargo on arms to Syria to give a semblance of legality to a supply probably already in place. This is a political act that on the diplomatic scene will serve to allow the Obama administration to take time to develop a new strategy for Syria.