The impacts of the announcement of the Syrian regime to put its chemical weapons under supervision

In order to analyze the event and to understand it, we have to highlight the entire scene as follows: 

First: Despite the willingness of Syria and its allies for any U.S. aggression and despite the fact that the region as a whole was going to be at risk, but the outbreak of a regional comprehensive war is in favor of no one at all, since it may evolve into a global war. It would be neither in favor the axis of resistance nor America and not even Israel. The devastation will surround the region and thus such an aggression would have serious repercussions that might drag the world into a third world war. 

Therefore, finding a settlement is in favor of all parties. 

Second: The announcement of the Syrian regime to put its chemical weapons under the international supervision gives America the argument that it is looking for to undo the step, where it found itself solely taking it. It is also a risky step as recognized by U.S. military experts, so it was necessary to produce in a specific way a scenario to undo the American strike. 

This possibility is likely linked to two issues: 
-    The European countries rushed to declare their satisfaction with the Russian proposal immediately, what made us feel that it was as if sinking and it finally found a lifeline. 

-    The United States accepted the agreement at a time when it would have rejected it or would have added it’s impossible conditions if it wanted to launch an aggression. 

Yes, the U.S. president was facing a very awkward position. What could be more touch than losing Britain’s support and abandoning his option? The U.S. president has turned into a trapped cat in the corner of the room, and it was necessary to make way for him to escape, otherwise he was going to attack although he was aware that this step is dangerous. 

However, is this agreement, accepted by Syria, considered a retreat and a great loss to the axis of resistance? 

The answer is definitely no, and this comes for several reasons: 
1-    Avoiding a regional war that could destroy what is left of Syria is a Syrian national supreme interest. 

2-    The agreement is not on submitting the chemical weapon, but on putting it under the international control; this means that any arm remains to Syria inside Syria but there are international observers checking out whether Syria is using it or not, and this is not so bad: 
-    The regime can whenever it wants ask the observers to leave and it can use this weapon if necessary in any future war. 

-    Using the chemical weapon by some forces as a peg to accuse the regime would be stopped, and then any use of chemical weapons would be proven to be done by the opposition and this is in favor of the regime. 

-    The chemical weapon is not a combat weapon through which wars are fought, but it is a deterrent weapon and it is found to deter Israel from using nuclear weapons in any future wars and not more. 

-    The chemical weapon has not been used in the 1967 war.

-    The chemical weapon has not been used in the 1973 war.

-    It has not been used in the eighties Lebanon War. 

-    Hezbollah did not use it to achieve victory in 2006. 

-    It has not been used in Iraq to defeat America. 

-    Syria will not use it in any confrontation with Israel. 

Hence, the real Israeli fear is from the Syrian army, Hezbollah, and the Syrian missiles and not from the Syrian chemical weapon, which has never been used and will never be used. 
The Syrian military threat to Israel has always been by the Syrian missiles and not the chemical weapons. 

All the Arabs’ battles with the Israeli occupation have been fought with the conventional weapons. 

One may say that this may be a gateway to more interventions, as happened in Iraq or Libya, and here we have to clarify three significant differences between the Syrian situation and the cases of Iraq-Libya: 
1-    The two countries were alone and were not the cornerstone of the axis extending from north Moscow to south China and from east Tehran and to west Lebanon as Syria. 

2-    The two countries did not have strong allies associated with them at the strategic level such as Iran and at the existential level such as Hezbollah. 

3-    The two countries did not have a strong army or modern weapons, as is the situation in Syria. 

4-    The two countries were not very close to Israel as Syria and Lebanon, what poses a direct threat to the Zionist entity, where any kind of missiles whatever primitive can target the Zionist entity. In the case of Iraq, Saddam was only able to launch ballistic missiles that need a significant period of time to reach the Zionist entity, what facilitates the process of monitoring and dropping them before reaching their target. 

Hence, with all the above mentioned, we believe that putting this non-usable weapon under the international supervision to spare Syria, the region, and the world from engaging in a war that could spare no one is a Syrian victory. We also believe that causing the failure of the schemes of the conspiring Gulf countries that are seeking to destroy Syria is a Syrian victory as well. 

Moreover, we believe that defeating the Israeli schemes with a Syrian -American chattering is a Syrian victory. 

Our military, ballistic missiles, and missile capabilities are the real threat to the Zionist entity; in addition to a great price paid probably by Russia to achieve this relinquish i.e. to provide Syria with the S-300 missiles or other advanced weapons. 

With this agreement, the possibility of a foreign military intervention in Syria would completely dye out in the future, what would force the United States to open the door to serious negotiations with the Syrian regime, and it has been clear enough that it is unable to drop it with its interior tools.