TEHRAN (FNA)- Ammar Waqqaf, Syrian political analyst, says Washington’s move to send more troops to Syria to allegedly protect oil fields is meant to kill the chances of the local Arabs in Northeastern Syria joining forces with the central government in Damascus.
In an exclusive interview with FNA, Waqqaf added the US is now pushing for the talks between Kurdish militia and Damascus, before the central government is recovered politically and militarily, while it seeks hard to keep the local Arab population living in Eastern Euphrates away from the Damascus government.
“Daesh has always been more of a pretext to cover for the main reasons of intervention… [the United States] used Daesh to undermine the Syrian state,” the Syrian analyst added.
Ammar Waqqaf is a Syrian and the founder and director of GNOSOS, an organization that focuses on stakeholder opinion in Syria and Middle East.
Below is the full text of the interview:
Q: How you do find the US plan to allegedly protect Syrian oil fields?
A: The alleged American withdrawal from Syria in parallel to the Turkish backed invasion turned out to be only a troop redeployment. The United States simply decided to reduce its scattered presence in Northeastern Syria and focus on the core business of depriving the Syrian state from its own oil resources. This is part of the pressure that Washington has maintained over Damascus for some time now, which includes, amongst other measures, preventing oil shipments from reaching Syria. In other words, only a slight tactical change has taken place, not a strategic one. The reasons for such a change could include partially accommodating Turkish ambitions, in order to stop Ankara from shifting more towards Moscow. They could also include encouraging a start of talks between Kurdish militia and the Syrian state now, before Damascus makes even more political, military and economic recovery.
Q: The Pentagon has said the US reinforces its position in Northeast Syria to prevent the oil fields from falling back into the hands of Daesh; but, Daesh hardly exists. How do you view the Pentagon’s claim?
A: Daesh has always been more of a pretext to cover for the main reasons of intervention. The threat of a terrorist attack is much easier to promote amongst the American electorate than, say for example, regime change. In fact, one could easily argue that the United States passively, and sometimes actively, used Daesh to undermine the Syrian state. Moreover, voices in Washington did clearly come out and say that the objective of the current American mechanized reinforcements is to prevent the oil fields from falling back into the hands of the Syrian state. Nonetheless, even that objective may not be the real reason behind the recent deployments, as the US made a tacit warning to Damascus against taking its withdrawal for granted and attempt at regaining these fields, by insisting that the US military “maintains aerial supremacy in Northeastern Syria.” What could well be the main reason for the current American reinforcements in the oil fields area in Northeastern Syria is preventing local Arabs from ditching the Kurdish dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and joining forces with the central government in Damascus.
Q: President Trump has identified Syria’s oil as a US national security priority, saying “[oil] can help us, because we should be able to take some also.” What legal right in international law may the US have to plunder Syrian oil?
A: It is unlikely that the relatively small quantities of oil in Northeastern Syria would water mouths in Washington. Moreover, the unsustainability of US deployment in that area and the uncertainty of the security situation means that the risk of investing in the rehabilitation of oil facilities far outweighs the benefits. Therefore, one could assume that such a narrative is mainly targeted at an American electorate who could be swayed by the idea that, since there is an economic stake, troop deployment and loss could be tolerated. In fact, the American electorate do not seem to hold administrations to account for whatever illegal interventions they make, and no matter what carnage or suffering that come as a result. A fresh example would be the invasion of Iraq in 2003, where the United States had no right whatsoever, according to international law, to invade Iraq and force a regime change. Despite this, the American administration was voted into office for a second term, despite people demonstrating in the streets prior to the war, and making their objections heard clearly.
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:
Post a Comment