Dotting the I’S & Crossing the T’S
The issue is not ISIS but Al-Nusra
Written by Nasser Kandil,
Since the entry of ISIS organization to Al-Ramadi and Palmyra and the discussion is revolving about explaining what has happened in politics away from the theories which the American President Barak Obama has launched, or the explanations which his Minister of Defense Aston Carter has added. If we accept the ongoing theories regarding the American explanations about the weakness of the will of the Iraqi army, and accept the speech about the tiredness of the Syrian army, moreover, accept the previous American speech about the American President’s commitment in leading the Arab international alliance in the war against ISIS where there is no place for the Syrian country, and where he does not want to have a coordination neither with it nor with the Iranian country, moreover does not want to see the popular crowd in the war arenas of Iraq, in addition determines his substitute ally of the Syrian country as his allies call the Syrian moderate opposition which the pillars of his country meet it for months, and talk about a common decision with his allies about training and preparing its fighters. He determines too an opposite substitute to the popular crowd that is the armed clans in Al-Anbar which he meets their delegations for months and promises them of arms and logistics. So the question becomes where is the alliance and its allies, moderate opposition, and its armed clans?
Both Obama and his Minister of Defense cannot talk about the morale of the Iraqi army in explaining the reason of the relapse in Al-Ramadi and make it holds the responsibility, because they saw it wining in the province of Salah Addin where the popular army was fighting with it. This was the only justification which they depended on to call for arming the clans because they agree with the government that it is impossible to win with the army alone, In addition they cannot claim that the government insisted on linking the arming of the clans with respecting the Iraqi sovereignty, and its accomplishment through the Iraqi government as long as the Americans have agreed on the request of the Iraqi government, and considered it right, moreover announced their involvement to it. But the weapons were not received, and the worse is that the weapons which the Iraqi government has bought from the Americans to its army and paid their cost have not arrived too.
Neither Obama nor any one of his allies can hold the responsibility of the progress of ISIS towards Palmyra to the Syrian country which refused any role in the war against ISIS and refused any coordination with it, as well as they cannot hold the Syrian country the responsibility of disabling their programs of training, arming, and preparing their moderate opposition to be able to fight ISIS inside the Syrian territories whether the opposition really exists or the Americans as well as their allies have delayed in arming it deliberately, or it was mere a fantasy, illusion, and mirage as Obama has already said one day.
On the contrary, the Iraqis can hold the Americans the responsibility of collapsing of Al-Ramadi, because they imposed on the Iraqi government under the blackmail of stopping the supportive raids for the Iraqi army against ISIS the prevention of the popular crowd from moving towards Al-Anbar, therefore they have created with their allies a sectarian hostile situation against the popular crowd, more even they indicated through some of the political symbols and clans of threatening of strife, if the popular crowd entered to Al-Ramadi. Conversely, the alliance force has not shown within hours of the progress of ISIS towards Al-Ramadi any military action, especially that the Iraqi army and the militants of clans have talked about sending numerous requests of aerial support but without any response from the alliance.
The Syrians can hold the Americans the responsibility of entering ISIS to Palmyra because they have put the Syrian country by their violating of its airspace under the slogan of the war against ISIS under two difficult options; either to enter in a battle that is unsettled and causes damage, and which all the enemies of Syria want it, and therefore confronting the American aircraft and seizing the option of the monopoly of the Syrian aircraft to its airspace, or to coexist reluctantly with this American claim in taking charge in fighting ISIS. But because Syria has depended on the second choice, so the Syrians can hold the responsibility of the entry of ISIS to Palmyra to the Americans once again, because nothing can explain and justify how hundred of armed cars that belong to ISIS have passed towards hundreds of kilometers in the desert during hours needed for passing the attacking convoy to reach Palmyra without any action from the alliance aircraft.
What has been repeated between Al-Ramadi and Palmyra cannot be hidden by all the speech of Obama and Carter. It is clear that it is a continuous decision, as a result of the organized campaign which Washington continues against the Iraqi decision in resolving the situation in Al-Ramadi with the cooperation of the popular crowd. It is clear too that maximizing the threat of ISIS is an American request as well as weakening the position of the Syrian and Iraqi armies against ISIS. Thus the choice of the moderate opposition as a Syrian partner of the alliance stems from the confidence that it is no longer exist, furthermore the refraining from arming the Iraqi army and the clans, and the pressure to prevent the popular crowd, all of these are needed steps to enable ISIS from expansion and aggravation .
In conjunction with this aggravation of the status of ISIS and showing it as an imminent danger draws much attention. The highlighting in the West media on the battles of ISIS and Al-Nusra, and the concentration that Al-Nusra Front is achieving victories against ISIS, although it is classified as a terrorist organization, and known that it is the official formation of Al-Qaeda Organization, while they disguise its name by using new name entitled Conquest Army which is announced that it is an outcome of the integration of the opposed factions, while in fact it is mere a new nomination for Al-Nusra, and by linking all of that with the announced Saudi, Qatar, French, Israeli, and Lebanese endeavors to legitimize Al-Nusra Front. We will simply be aware that the expansion of ISIS is an American plan half of its announced part is the expansion of ISIS, while the other half is the recognition that “making a virtue of necessity”, and that preventing this dangerous threat is impossible without the cooperation with Al-Nusra and makes it occupy the place of the moderate opposition which is vacant since the starting of the war against Syria.
Was that Washington’s original plan? to normalize the relations with Al-Qaeda from the gate of Syria and giving Al-Nusra as a branch of Al Qaeda a part from Syria and the Mediterranean coast, and the containment of the valid ceasing of engagement for three decades between Al-Qaeda and Israel, between the Americans and their interests?
Neither Syria nor Hezbollah have committed a mistake when they made the war of Al-Qalamoun their main war, where the central force of Al-Nusra is in the most central, vital, and dangerous region in the geography of the region, because of its direct relation with the opportunity of connecting with the Israeli occupation army.
ISIS is an imminent danger, and today it is common among the combatants on the geography of the Middle East, if some have maximize and facilitate the growing of ISIS, then some will not be in the position of objection. The race is in answering this question; who will repel the danger of ISIS? Al-Nusra or the alliance of armies and resistances, this is what Al-Qalamoun war will determine, the winner there will resolve the answer.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,
2015-05-28 | عدد القراءات 1964
