Dotting the I’S & Crossing the T’S

Geneva is Washington’s response to Riyadh and Ankara

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The talk about holding Geneva Conference once again is coinciding with many developments, which the Syrian crisis witnesses during the vacancy of the UN envoy Staffan de Mistura.

Talking about the conference as an outcome of the American Russian consultation, in a situation where the comprehensive settlements have not come yet, is one of two matters, either the clashes between the two teams which are supported by Moscow and Washington are such dangerous, that threaten the fact of their transition to a confrontation which surpasses the borders of Syria, and warn of the blowing up a broader and a more dangerous war, or that one of the parties initiated the other, starting from the previous understandings in order to ask for the activation of the project by putting suitable methods as a mutual political framework, starting from its needs either to dispense with its ally while it is strong or to save it from the weakness.

The equation of the danger of expanding the Syrian fire is not importable as long as the allies are known and acknowledged. Washington’s ally is as the Americans called a “moderate opposition”, it is the opposed coalition which it mourns of its presence and existence, and the “Free army” which London said, that it breathed its last, while the ally of Moscow is the Syrian country and its army, which are now in their best conditions and relations with Russia.

Geneva Conference is an American attempt to contest time, before the war against ISIL turns to a race that ends up with the domination of the Syrian army on the center of Syria and a termination of every existence of “the Free army”, “Islamic Front”, “Syrian rebels”, “the Free men of Sham”, and  “the Soldiers of Sham” and many other nominations  of the West and Arab intelligence, and in return, the domination of ISIL and Al-Nosrah on the north and the south of what is left of the sites of these nominations which were subject to a bet of Washington.

Washington replaced its talk of a moderate opposition against ISIL by seeking for a political settlement grabbing with its strong American military presence, a role for its followers of the opposition, before it disappears in front of the country which is getting stronger. Washington was talking about the ability to ignore it. So it becomes a Syrian partner in the alliance war against the terrorism, it prepared itself to be a substitute of the Syrian country, which Washington does not find for it a role in the coming scenes as it said

Washington is inventing a role for “the Free Army” in the defending of Ain Al Arab, and the intervention of its units, that are estimated as two hundreds fighters, after the military situation has improved, and its presence has become as its unexistence , in order just to say to Turkey and Saudi Arabia, that the time of talking about the overthrow of the regime has passed, and by keeping the methods will mean the reach of a moment when there is nothing left of the moderate opposition except the memories. Syria will become between marginal borders that Turkey and Israel will protect it for the account of Al-Nosrah and ISIL and the depth of Syria, which the country under the leadership of the President Bashar Al-Assad dominates it.

Russia responds by explaining that the opposition is unable to seize the opportunities of engaging, for example, when it hears about the political solution, it will talk as if it captures half of Syria, and it will raise the speech ceiling, so it will waste time, and give ISIL and Al-Nosrah the necessary time to terminate it in the north and south, in addition, it will let the Syrian army to be in a face to face confrontation with these two terrorist organizations. If Washington is able to bring its groups of the opposition to realism and rationality, so why not?  Because the political solution will be settled according to the powers’ balances, this will preserve for its ally (Damascus) the opportunity of participation of some of the opposition figures in a government, in which Damascus buys the unfixing of the penalties and the hostile procedures as a prelude to the elections. It becomes known that the outcomes of the opposition’s magnitude are the same of what is going on in Egypt and Tunisia and elsewhere in the worst cases. All of these will lead to solve the problems between Moscow and Washington from one hand, and Washington and Tehran on the other hand about the alliance war against terrorism in which the one who represents Syria will be in the center of a great controversy.

Washington wants, Moscow wants, but does the needed time for the preparation of Geneva is longer than the needed time to announce the termination of the opposed coalition and “the Free Army”, despite the military attacks against Kobani ?

2014-10-31 | عدد القراءات 1516