By Ghaleb Kandil
Some politicians believe that Russia and the United States agreed on compromises in the region, and that everything that happens politically and militarily in Syria is part of a scenario to implement these arrangements.
In fact, international relations are going through a transitional period that will see the outlines of a new balance of power. These new equilibrium were able to emerge through the resistance of the Syrian state against the colonial aggression led by the United States. It is clear that the US unilateral post-domination era is under construction. The rules of the new Cold War are not yet definitively drawn. Recognition by the United States at the end of its unilateral hegemony is accompanied by continued attempts to influence the new equations that are emerging.
It is in this context that fit US and Western pressures and interference in the backyard of Russia. Ukraine crisis is the best example of this attitude, as well as the continuation of the partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia, to prolong the bloodshed in Syria, in the hope of changes for the benefit their agents of balance of power relations underlie all coming political compromise.
These are the realities emerging from the Geneva II Conference, where Americans have negotiated indirectly with the Syrian official delegation, through a delegation established by its ambassador in Damascus Robert Ford. It is in this same context that was taken the decision to exclude Iran from this conference, which was a message to Russia, worthy of the time of the unilateral hegemony through orders given to the Secretary General of the United Nations. The reform of this organization and the rebalancing of relations within it are also unavoidable conditions for establishing a multipolar world.
In this transitional period, the confrontation continues to develop new relations between international powers, and Syria is the mirror of the new international order. The belief in the existence of supposed international arrangements and a serious American will to fight against terrorism, is a pure illusion. Worse, it can distort the calculations and produce erroneous analyzes.
These are the United States, which exported to Syria qaïdiste terrorism in cooperation with the Saudi regime, Turkey and Qatar. It was Washington who hosted and hatched the Muslim Brotherhood, and it continues to do so even though it knows that the brotherhood promotes takfirist thought and terrorism in the Muslim world. The U.S. refusal to consider as a priority the fight against terrorism in Syria, as claimed by the Syrian official delegation, is an admission of Washington’s determination to use terrorism to bleed the Syrian state. The arguments presented by Barak Obama, in an interview at the New Yorker, to explain the reasons for its support to Islamic Front, illustrate perfectly this reality. He described as “jihadist” the fighters of this terrorist organization calling to make a distinction between them and Al-Qaeda. The Front is a pure Saudi-American product that is only active inside Syria and does not constitute a terrorist threat, as claimed by the Foreign Policy magazine in an article published few days ago.
The next step will be characterized by an upsurge in fighting on the ground and the pursuit of American, Saudi, Qatari, French et British support for extremist movements. Despite the last maneuver of Recep Tayyeb Erdogan during his visit to Tehran, which was not accompanied by any concrete measures on the ground, Turkey will also continue its support to terrorists.
The U.S. administration has acknowledged the failure of his bet to destroy the Syrian state. Its new strategy is to permanently install lines of demarcation between the Syrian Arab Army and the rebels, through a massive support in weapons, money, human reinforcements and technical advice. Certain circles in Washington openly mention the dismantlement of Syria by separating the provinces of Idleb, Aleppo, Raqqa, Deir Ezzor and Hasakah, from the central state . Other projects talk about the division of Syria into three regions: the first, under the control of the central state and its armed forces; the second under the hegemony of armed groups; and the third under the domination of the Kurds.
The Syrian Arab Army is therefore fighting for the unity of Syria and for its independence. Americans and their agents will discover that all their plans are only pure illusion, because when it is the unity and independence of their country which is at stake, the Syrian people and its army are willing to make all the sacrifices that are necessary.