Wednesday, 29 June 2016

Obama and revealing the hidden by refusing the war on Syria

Written by Nasser Kandil,
نهاية سلطنة الوهم وعاصفة الحزم وإمبراطورية القرم
In conjunction with the visit of the Saudi Crown Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman to Washington and before his meeting with the US President there were claims  for the administration of the President Barack Obama for the military intervention in Syria, that were culminated with the Diplomats’ document which was proven that it was Saudi-funded through the participations that were organized by the Former US Ambassador in Saudi Arabia Richard Murphy, for his colleagues the ambassadors in exchange of attractive returns in workshops that end with signing on the document. In spite of the clarity of the political image that the administration which has brought its fleets off Syria’ shores three years ago and has withdrawn of the idea of the military action,  will not do that since it has just three months left of ruling before the presidential elections, taking into consideration all the differences of the intervention in comparison with today, so if the White House responded to the claims it would have the value of what has happened at that time, this is what the US President is assuring that this will happen  in case of thinking of the intervention.
At that date the fleets were in the sea and the title was promoted after making it, today it is clear that the role of the presidential candidate Hilary Clinton who was a US Secretary of State at that time, was in arranging transforming the sarin gas across the American Embassy tin Libya to the armed groups in Syria to accuse the country of using it and thus to justify the military action, the slogan was attractive, the Russians were not positioned yet in Syria, and the understanding on the nuclear program was not signed yet with Iran, as well as the Saudis were not involved and exhausted in the war of Yemen, and despite of that Obama decided to dismiss the military option, he reached in his comprehensive expanded interview in the Atlantic magazine which was described as the doctrine of Obama to say that he is proud that he did not involve America in the military intervention in Syria, he did not listen to his allies who have exerted pressure and temptation to behave contrarily, while today  the response  is brief by saying why?
The White House stated that any military intervention will pave the way for an open war that will transcend the Syrian borders and become too far beyond, it never said that as a hypothesis that the intervention in Syria can make a crisis or a confrontation, but certainly it will be the beginning of an open war that includes what is far from Syria, this was just an expectation and an analysis for those who did not know that the US President has received Russian and Iranian messages which he only knew, but today he reveals their content indirectly, today he does not talk as a political or a military analyst but as the president who has ordered his fleets to target Syria in preparation for a military intervention then he reordered them to return back,  to answer those who asked him today to do what he has not done before, he tells them indirectly and implicitly that :
Do not you know why I ordered the fleets to return back, I have done that because the world was at the gates of an open war that would surpassed the Syrian borders, I have received a Russian Iranian warning that the first shot against Syria will be the first shot in this open war.
The speech of the White House in response to the calls of the intervention has a historic value because it was as a result of an experience that did not occur but only once with America to order its fleets to go to war then to reorder them to come back, the reason is to avoid a wider open war , this is a basis for understanding the balances of the new forces which draw the future of the Middle East today, and an explanation of what Washington’s allies called by the failure of the administration of the President Obama, while he implicitly tells them, we are no longer the decision-makers of war and peace in the Middle East, maybe this explains some of the Russian confidence that Washington at the end will be obliged to accept the understandings because it does not have any other alternative.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

No comments: