As I wrote a few days ago:
Due to considerable progress by the Syrian government against the foreign sponsored, jihadist insurgency new allegations have to be found to justify additional foreign intervention.
Mahir Zenalov, who writes for the Turkish paper Today Zaman, concludes the same. The "chemical weapons" scam is just an excuse to justify a wider use of force against the Syria.
Zenalov points out that other "western" interventions, in Bosnia and in Libya, came when the "western" proxy forces were in serious difficulties and the anti-"western" government forces on the cusps of winning. The state in Syria is just that. The opposition is on the run and the government troops are progressing.
Zenalov writes:
Successful military gains of the Syrian regime forces over the past few weeks have pushed the US and its allies to reconsider intervening in Syria.
…
In the past few weeks, government forces have launched major offensives in Homs, Idlib, Kurdish-populated areas and in and around Aleppo and the capital Damascus. It is evidently clear that the military balance on the ground is tilting back toward government forces again after a counteroffensive.This change in the military balance made the case for intervention much stronger in Washington and other European capitals. Along with Obama, UK Prime Minister David Cameron and Ankara also voiced concerns over the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Other nations will follow suit in the days to come.
On Saturday, Turkish EU Minister Egemen Bağış acknowledged that Washington is preparing to intervene in Syria and that the possible use of chemical weapons are not the main drive.
Washington says the evidence of chemical weapons use is only “preliminary.” The evidence will get “rock solid” if Damascus wins major battles against the opposition next week. In previous months, there had also been reports of alleged chemical use by the Syrian army. True or not, there is no reason why Assad’s regime would use chemical weapons if it knows that that means inviting Washington to intervene.
Mahir Zenalov thinks that the Syrian government knows that winning too much would only invite immediate intervention. He suggest that Damascus will therefor, after cleaning up around Damascus and along the major road arteries, stop the current offensive and, again, offer negotiations:
Damascus faces a major dilemma: If it continues with its so far successful offensive, it will make the case bolder for intervention. Western powers don’t want Assad to win and they were expecting opposition forces to finish the fight. If the opposition fails to make any further gains, the West will come to its aid.
If Damascus is smart enough, it will strengthen its bases in and around the capital to have an upper hand in possible negotiations and offer dialogue to solve the crisis.
That may be an option. But I will not bet on it. The intervention is certainly not a done deal. The recent drone intrusion from Lebanon into Israel was a serious warning. If Syria is attacked Israel will get hit – no matter what. There is no way to avoid that. This fact alone is a serious impediment for any "western" move. There is also a Russian fleet underway which will reach the Mediterranean in mid May and will stay there permanently. It is a wild card in any air attack or submarine launched cruise missile raid on Syria. A ground attack is even less likely. Neither Britain nor any other country is willing to send ground troops.
Aside from those military problems the public in all concerned countries seems to be against any intervention. Judging from the comments at various news sides the chemical attack scam convinced no one.
That is why I disagree with Mahir Zenalov conclusion. The current threat of intervention is not credible.
The Syrian government will therefor not stop its offensive for fear of an intervention. It will not start to negotiate. With whom should it do so anyway? If its current offensive is successful it will continue to build on it and will pursue the enemy as much as it can.