Friday, 1 July 2016
Nasser Kandil: What if Washington followed Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel?
Written by Nasser Kandil,
Washington knows the lie of the claims of its Saudi, Turkish and Israeli allies about their independence of it as they say in their public speech, it is aware that what they are doing is just to call it to accept their choices of escalation in Syria, and the continuation of the language of war till changing the facts, overthrowing the country and its president and defeating its army and its allies, but with a direct American involvement, Washington has tested their independence one after another, it knows that these three countries along with France and Britain have weapons of modern air defense, but they do not dare to give them to the armed groups, so they ask Washington to do that for them, or to allow them to do that. Washington knows that Turkey and Saudi Arabia announce that they are ready for a military action in Syria but under American leadership and within an alliance led by Washington. The effective choices are different than the nonsense, and what is less than the effective choices is no more than tempting Washington to change its position and to admit to what it decides at the end, where there is no place for an independent decision for any of them.
If Washington decides to follow its allies, so it adopts their path as a measure not what they tell it, when the US President Barack Obama said that he is proud not to get involved in the war on Syria and not to respond to its allies’ calls who are reckless, arrogant, convicted of hatred, and dictators, he was seeing what those allies were doing, whose their methods of conduct provided him with a real image of what he can do if he will respond to their consultations and their advices, if he hesitates in the settlements, it is not because of his hesitation in accepting their advices, but because he is aware of the high cost of the settlement in exchange of a very high cost of the war , the hesitation prevents the decision.
The method of conduct of Saudi Arabia in Yemen says that it waged a war against an opposition that it rebelled against the legitimacy of a regime that is supported by Saudi Arabia, this resembles relatively the Russian and the Iranian positions with the legitimacy which they support in Syria, in comparison what was available for the opposition in Syria was not available for the opposition in Yemen, the differences are that the Yemeni opposition was deprived from all the supportive ground borders, while all the outcomes of all the Turkish and Jordanian borders are in favor of the Syrian opposition, it gets the military and the human support which is forbidden for the Yemenis, but both of them face capable air force, so why you are obliged to admit of the political solution as a necessity in Yemen with besieged opposition and without missiles, although this opposition drops your missiles but you fail in defeating it, and you want us to believe that the absence of these missiles from the Syrian opposition has caused the failures to it, while their absence did not cause a similar defeat to the opposition of Yemen despite the open borders in front of the Syrian opposition, towards a tyranny of Al-Qaeda organization on its formations. While the borders remained closed in front of the Yemeni opposition, although this neither needs borders nor missiles to bind you to negotiation, while you fear for it not to be crushed if the borders were closed and the missiles were prohibited. But if the matter was an admission of settlements as a need, so the question is how can you expect to ask for more for the opposition in Syria than what you accept for the opposition of Yemen, at least Russia and Iran in addition to their ally the Syrian President accept a government of partnership under the legitimate president without a request of withdrawing weapons or evacuation cities, and to have a new constitution according to parliamentary and presidential elections, so is Saudi Arabia calling Washington to wage a war in Syria as its war in Yemen; to reach to an end that is similar to the end of its war. What is proposed today for the settlement in Syria without getting involved in a war is for what Saudi Arabia has reached after its war in Yemen.
In reading the Turkish method of conduct, it seems for the American that the Turkish who has screamed a lot regarding his intention to pray in the Omayyad Mosque and has put the fate of his rule opposite to the fate of rule in Syria has escaped from the confrontation and remained calling of a buffer zone and secure zones, but he did not do anything to apply it, but he accepted the European money in exchange of this concession. But when he announced his anger from the situation which is represented by the Kurds against what he called his national security he did not dare to penetrate inside the Syrian borders for a big process he threatened of it repeatedly. The ceiling of what he can do today is arming and securing the supply lines for Al Nusra, opening the ways to appease Russia and promoting for the priority of the unity of Syria to any another priority; which means overthrowing the Syrian President, and the seek for a Turkish Russian Iranian alliance for this purpose, what Washington is doing with Moscow remains more balanced than what the Turkish President does in his policies towards Syria, the logic of alliances, and the considerations of the national security. Washington has already decided to test the military choice in better conditions under the slogan of the chemical weapons, it brought its fleets, where neither Russia has positioned in Syria nor Saudi Arabia has involved in Yemen, it returned at least with a political gain which is the peaceful solution for the Syrian chemical weapons, while the Turkish method of conduct presents an example of weakness without return, in addition to replacement, retreat, and evasion of confrontations without any understandings that face-saving, so is it required from Washington to meet the desire of the Sultan and be involved in a war to become like him?
In the Israeli method of conduct, Washington knows that it heard repeatedly the Head of the Israeli government Benjamin Netanyahu boasting of his ability and intention to hit Iran and destroying its nuclear capacity, and it knows as well that the US President has been obliged to reveal this boasting and its false when he visited Tel Aviv , he held Netanyahu’s hand and told him: Israel is an independent state it can take the decision of hitting Iran without returning to Washington which does not exert any pressure on Tel Aviv to refrain from that. Months have passed between this speech and Washington’ signing on the understanding on the Iranian nuclear program,but Netanyahu did not do anything.
Washington knows that when it intended to sign the understanding at the end of the year 2014, it has notified all the allies especially Israel to do what can save papers of strength for them, therefore Netanyahu’s process was Al Quneitra to provoke Hezbollah and to drive him to confront the changing of the engagement’s rules according to their appearance to impose new equations for the deterrent balances specially to Golan front, but when the resistance responded by the qualitative deterrent process of Shebaa Farms Netanyahu kept silent and returned to say that he wants to absorb the impact and to refrain from responding to avoid the escalation.
All the allies of Washington have a method of conduct that is enough to show the inability on one hand, and that Washington has what is enough to prove that they are followers, who do not have their decision on the other hand. The limit of their movement is the bet on Washington’s decision of escalation that it pays its cost, while they got some of its harvest, Washington is not worried neither of their individuality, nor of their pressures, nor of the weak argument they have , no one dare to answer the question if you want a war then give us your proof for its effectiveness from your method of conducts, and the effectiveness of each one of you in it, here your enemies there are so close to you, what are you waiting for?
Washington is confused because through signing the settlement about Syria, it signs the bond of the admission that it became a second world power and that it gave the whole East to its opponents, because it does not have reliable allies, it is confused from going to a war that its allies are calling for, because it has allies that want it to fight for them, not having allies that it fights through them, its simple proof is the question about the meaning of its announcing of the need to defeat ISIS, and the ratio of the participation of its allies whom it will forgive their embarrassing alliance with Al Nusra if they support it in the war on ISIS. Washington is confused with its allies in peace and in war, and through them it is confused of the future of its presence in the mainland Asia and the risks of its elections without achievements.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian