Intervene? Or Stand By

Syria insists that no fewer than 800 rebel fighters are responsible for the Houla massacre.  The regime launched their own investigation into the massacre, and Qassem Jamal Suleiman, tasked with discovering what had occurred, why and by whom, has come to the conclusion that hundreds of rebel gunmen were responsible for the slaughter.  Which they launched after a co-ordinated attack on government security checkpoints.

Hezbollah is becoming quite alarmed at the level of insecurity in Syria.  While the West is concerned about the large stocks of chemical weapons that Syria has in reserve, Hezbollah is concerned about the Scud D missiles located near Damascus, considering moving them to Lebanon, along with other weapons it plans to safeguard from being used against President al-Assad's regime. 

It worries that the Syrian Free Army may loot the weapons stockpile.

Meanwhile, the Russian ship, Professor Katsman, unloaded a cache of heavy weapons for the regime this week, in defiance of the United Nations and Western sanctions against supplying Syria with additional weapons.  Russia contends that what was delivered was their way of honouring an old weapons sales agreement; it was merely dispatching its responsibility through delivery of the product.

Despite the loud condemnation from the international community in the wake of the Houla massacre, the regime is continuing its artillery bombardment of other nearby towns.  President Bashar al-Assad is singularly unimpressed with the pleas and arguments of Kofi Annan, envoy of peace for the UN and Arab League.  That rictus of a smile just never leaves his face.

France, Britain and the United States continue to fume and speak in elliptical terms of "doing something".  It's unlikely the Security Council would agree on "doing something" relating to intervention, on the scale of what occurred in Libya.  And Syria isn't Libya with vast stretches of unoccupied dessert; drop bombs in Syria and towns and villages and civilians are certain to become collateral fall-out.

The powerful Arab League has been unable to sway the regime.  With the armies at their disposal they could, if the will was present, assemble their own intervention.  Except of course that this would unleash a conflict that would draw in Lebanon and Iran.  And the Arab League, presumably, is not prepared to launch anything so dangerous.  Though they would not demur if NATO undertook such a mission.

In which case, Lebanon and Iran and possibly Iraq as well, might become involved on the opposite side.  Although with Turkey aligning itself with NATO, since it is a member of NATO, it would also have to confront Iran, and given its recent friendly relations with Iran, that would most certainly complicate already-complicated matters.

It's a dog's breakfast of uncertainty with the potential to unleash a wide-ranging and pretty deadly conflict that could consume the entire region.  Not a pretty prospect from any perspective.