Assad

Wouldn’t it be nice just once in a while to have a war in the -Middle East that wasn’t predicated on outright duplicitous nonsense? Just occasionally? There are, after all, any number of sincere reasons one could advance for intervention now in Syria. (If one thought that was a good idea, which as it happens one doesn’t.) One could say, for example, that Bashar Assad is a nasty murderous bastard, and that now he’s gained the upper hand he’s almost certain to indulge in some even nastier, more murderous murdering than he’s been enjoying hitherto. Pretty good, that. Pretty hard to argue against.

Boris Johnson makes a strong case in today's Telegraph that even if the west wanted to intervene in the Syrian civil war the point at which is was plausible to do so has long since passed. The benefits of intervention no longer outweigh the risks. Meanwhile, Paul Goodman reiterates that there's no obvious British national interest in intervening. It is difficult to disagree with either analysis. Across the Atlantic, meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan is appalled by the Obama administration's decision to offer a modest quantity of modest weaponry to the Syrian opposition. This isn’t just unwise; it’s close to insane, he suggests. Don't be fooled into thinking this will shorten the conflict or save lives, he argues.

Is UKIP a bunch of fringe lunatics, or a party ready to shake the establishment to its core? In this week's Spectator cover feature, James Forsyth examines the Ukip mission and Nigel Farage's plan for dominating the political landscape. On the latest View from 22 podcast, James reports in from South Shields on how Farage is being received on the stump, how the party is coping with growing into a serious force and what to expect in this week's local elections. Someone who certainly doesn't think they should be ignored is James Delingpole.

Now this is what I call a studio discussion. My personal highlights are: 'My shoe and my urine are more dignified than you.' 'I spit on you and on your people.' And - in the midst of all this - the plaintive line: 'George, we don't want the discussion to be like this.' All of which is worth remembering next time we complain about the quality of debate on British TV.

Bashar al-Assad is busy writing his suicide note, ordering military officials to prepare the country’s chemical weapons for use. That’s the assessment of Pentagon officials overnight who have detected a flurry of activity at two facilities where these weapons are known to be stored – in al-Safir, on the outskirts of Aleppo; and Furqlus, about 30 miles from the already destroyed city of Homs. The precursor chemicals for Sarin nerve gas, an extremely lethal toxin, have now been loaded into bombs that can be delivered by Syrian aircraft. Sarin was deployed most notoriously by Saddam Hussein who used it to crush a Kurdish uprising in 1988 during the Halabja massacre. More than 5,000 people were killed by a single missile.

It’s unusual for The Guardian and The Spectator to agree on anything, but Seamus Milne and our own John R Bradley are sceptical about these Syrian rebels whom we’re being invited to support. Bradley was alone in predicting the Egyptian revolution, and argues in today’s magazine that the conventional wisdom is once again wrong. Who’s backing the rebels? The Qataris, keen to depose the last secular regime in the Arab world. And the Saudis and Israelis, whose hatred of Iran eclipses all other considerations: this isn’t about the Syrian people, but about depriving the ayatollahs of an ally. Some in the West also take the view that the enemy’s enemy is my friend — so the rebels must be good eggs.