All-Encompassing Political Settlements to Create a Regional System Based on Iran
And Moscow Makes the (SYSAI) Equation to Create Turnarounds
Afrasianet - Written by: Attorney Mohammad Ahmad Al-Rosan* - The political logic based on facts is demonstrated: in that the world prior to the nuclear agreement with Iran (so far actualized neither in the American Congress chambers nor in the chambers of the Iranian Consultative Assembly) is not the same after the agreement. This world signed the agreement with Iran and commenced investing in it economically; an agreement to exterminate terrorism – namely ISIS – in order to revive settlement in the area. This matter is extremely crucial, since "Israel" realizes that the nuclear agreement was carried against Western concessions. And since Europe cannot gamble with massive investments in an unsettled area, the agreement with Tehran was carried in return of a Western concession to some files as a price for the new relation with Iran and in order to pave the way the way for returning normal relations with Damascus (No one knows what Damascus has in mind).
The West is now aware that dividing the area will not result in enhancing the security of "Israel"; therefore it began withdrawing from war on and in Syria, especially that Europe is economically flabby at the current time, and that the Western mood has turned aside from Syria, not to mention that the season of elections is approaching from the entire old continent. The publication of the White House of rare photographs for the Black September of American is no ordinary matter – rather, it is a reminder for the American people f their greatest tragedy of the modern age, and an attempt to prepare the American public opinion for a sort of alterations for the American turnaround in the Syrian file for anti-terrorism reasons.
Nevertheless, America has no pure intention towards what is occurring in the area; especially the events in Syria. The crises is being directed, and the Diplomatic, political, intelligence and economic activities give the impression of American turnarounds, despite the political understandings which level to political agreement in the heart of the nuclear agreement, and the request made by the American research Corporation "RAND", which provides consultations for the American Military Establishment from the Pentagon and ins intelligence community for beginning the interim period in Syria with the remaining of president al-Assad leader. In that request it synchronizes with the amended Iranian initiative, primary considered by Moscow to be its initiative in the first place.
Thus an American-Iranian political agreement in the heart of the nuclear agreement of Iran is a political agreement on reforming the regional system in the area, an agreement obtained by the administration of Obama as an instrument for marketing the nuclear agreement and making it acceptable in the chambers of the American Congress. The nuclear agreement with its political core; therefore, ignored the suggestions and initiatives of de Mistura, and the amended Iranian initiative, initially a Russian initiative as said before, took place. The question that remains is: Are we at the threshold of a political solution in Syria?
And because the international policy is the art of directing contradictions, we find Washington supporting Syrian Kurdish protection forces against ISIS, as it supports the PKK's Syrian arm against that mob, in a fashion contrary to the Turkish interests; as it supports the Kurdish protection forces to fight against ISIS, but at the same time it refrains from aiding them throughout their political scheme lest it provokes Turkey, since Syrian Kurds are now excessively powerful in a way that irritates Ankara. It seems that Kurds are both an American and an Iranian need in the new regional scheme in the area; as Washington facilitates the Kurdish role in the war against ISIS as in Tal Abyad and Kobani, maintaining certain that Iran will not approve the settlement of conflicts in Syria, and accordingly shall cut off or block the bridge supplying Hizballah. It is for that reason that is was said from the beginning that the Syrian conflict of Al Qalamoun is the conflict of international and regional wills (and as always; no one knows what Damascus has in mind).
We can notice Saudi-Syrian communications along the Russian channel, whereas the president in Lebanon in working along an Iranian-Saudi channel of understanding, and in placing Syria on the track of a political solution – reminding that neither any developments nor any turnarounds would take place till after three months and perhaps more, until the American-Iranian nuclear agreement is fully established. Meantime, the presidential file in Lebanon will remain on the international and regional waiting list. On the other hand, and even more profoundly, Moscow works on finalizing an international and regional alliance for fighting terrorism and ISIS mob, leading consequently to an all-encompassing fan in the area, following the launching of the Russian president of his late initiative (against the foes of Syria; Iran, of course, is not one of them) for them to be part of the solution instead of forming a major part of the problem; Putin’s invitation of Mohammad Bin Salman the Saudi Deputy Crown Prince in Moscow, as well as Walid Al-Muallem; and shortly after the signing of the nuclear agreement with Iran (and still, no one knows what Damascus has in mind)
Can it be concluded, then, that the nuclear agreement on the regional level started to collapse even before actualizing it within the American legislative institution and the Iranian one.
Should we expect a regional actualization for the Iranian agreement resulting in placing the whole area on the track of settlements? Was the fate of Yemen determined in the interest of Saudi Arabia and that of Iraq in the interest of Iran? Did the Syrian fate come into the hands of Russia and that of Libya to the hands of America? Where, then, are the rest of the arenas in the area? Have they become only details? Alas for those arenas which might become worthless as a result of bad strategies; strategies of street mongers and diplomacies of tramps.
The idea revolved within the Russian-American understanding; there are other prices on the table in politics same as in economy and the opposite is even truer and deeper. The Russian, as we said before, have dealt with the amended Iranian initiative, to some extent, as if it were their own invention. There is a chance for a near public Saudi-Syrian meeting promoted by Russia in Moscow, where there is an American authorization for Russia to reach a political settlement for the Syrian conflict. In Lebanon, on the other hand, a new formula is being prepared in fewer potions than in Taif and in more portions than in Dawha, or perhaps a restructuring, not reengineering for Taif; as the later means termination, despite that the termination of the Taif Agreement comforts Maronites in Lebanon; considering that the political role of the later has deteriorated since the activation of the Taif Agreement which put the Lebanese Civil War to an end. This regional mobility alone explains the quietness which accompanied the year-long extension for the leaders of the security systems in Lebanon.
Then the table of political settlements will involve everyone, including the Lebanese and Palestinian arenas and their connections with the Jordanian arena (considered by America and “Israel” as the weakest link, only under the table), although the ongoing events in the area, especially after president Putin’s initiative for creating an anti-terrorism regional alliance (Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey) is a monitoring for crises in the Middle East until solutions are ready; then the results are still too far away.
The American authorization of Moscow begins by the political activity based on anti-terrorism, concluding with a political solution that benefits all regional parties (Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey). And regardless the profound discrepancy among the attitudes of the international and regional parties, we find that America is contemplating a political solution that excludes al-Assad, yet not from participating in anti-terrorism. Moscow, on the other hand, insists that the solution will not be effective without the presence of al-Assad till the expiry of his current rule, even still possessing the right of running for presidency afterwards. As for Saudi Arabia, especially after the nuclear agreement with Iran, it insists on a simultaneous solution in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon, that leads eventually to the exclusion of al-Assad from the whole game, and empowers Saudi Arabia in all three countries in the same degree of empowerment given to Iran in the agreement over the region. Turkey, on its part, supports a political solution that dethrones al-Assad and works results in gains in the Turkish interest, represented by establishing a secure area in the Syrian South, and fighting Kurds in return of actualizing their massive investment in fighting ISIS; provided that the fight is carried in a symbolic; rather Hollywoodian fashion. And finally, Iran which is still insisting that al-Assad remains and that the land line continues to be open from Tehran through Iraq and Syria till Lebanon.
A Saudi escalation in Yemen, then, and a simultaneous military escalation with the battles in Syria become more drastic as Saudi Arabia advises its allies in Lebanon to escalate events by smuggling supplies to the leaders of security forces, resulting in eliminating the international settlement umbrella which used to cover Lebanon in the past years. Priority remains in favor of the ongoing events, whether in Yemen, Syria or Iraq.
The decision lately issued by the International Security Council under the seventh section No. 2235, is profoundly linked to the ongoing activity in the area, which came after a Russian-American agreement and understanding on inspecting and investigating – within an international commission and in cooperation with the Syrian government – about those responsible for using the chemical weapon in Syria. An action through which Washington intends to put political pressure on the Syrian regime in order to gain more economic and political benefits in Syria, especially from the investments in the energy sector; whereas Moscow intends through this step to clear the Syrian government in preparation for the next political solution in case matters went well (And I persist that no one knows what Damascus has in mind).
This Russian-American agreement on the new decision scheme about Syria, which was concluded under decision No. 2235, is met yet with an American authorization for Russia to find a solution for the Syrian event following the same old method of cooperating with Iran, without America causing any disturbance, and urging Saudi Arabia to facilitate the missions of Russia and Iran.
On the bases of all the aforementioned, profound Russian efforts are being exerted in creating an approach of turnarounds in the Syrian-Saudi, and the Saudi-Iranian relations, as an essential component of the International and regional bargain. No horizon for any political solution can be seen in Syria without including Saudi Arabia and its allies, nor in Yemen without Damascus and Tehran and their allies; in other words: Yemen versus Syria.
It is Russia who is engineering the Syrian-Saudi meetings, in order to create approaches at turnarounds, which will definitely lead to full, comprehensive and conclusive turns at the moment of ripening. However, that will require time investment processes and cumulative work, which will take some time. Those in the back scenes of the Russian decision are exerting efforts to produce a solution for the Yemeni crisis, simultaneously with producing serious solutions for the Syrian event and post-solutions in Lebanon, Iraq or Libya; with exclusion of occupied Palestine – apart from making Jordan an arena for the outputs of the Palestinian profile, which has now doubled in a parallel Palestinian-Israeli track, only as a small part of the complete scene of the strategic Arab-Zionist conflict; from all of which the only and sole beneficiary is "Israel".
Moscow is scheming the SYSAI (Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran) equation, which shall determine the tracks of the next level in order to reach solutions for the conflict areas, or at least to find half solutions and then expanding to reach the rest. Russians are contemplating upon the next station of the United Nations General Assembly meeting, among which participants will be Walid Al-Muallem, and the prominent Syrian diplomatic Dr. Bashar Al-Jafari deputy of the Syrian National State, being a possible platform for launching a new track in the matter of dealing with the Syrian event through anti-terrorism as a first step, and to do the same towards the Yemeni events simultaneously with an encompassing dialogue gathering all opposing parties in Yemen. In other words, the Syrian and Yemeni lands are two basic stations in reaching political solutions deduced from a dialogue that includes all conflicting and battling groups, to form a national united government as suggested in Yemen with its evident attributes.
We can notice from the Russian, Iranian and Omani roles, towards any initiative being launched, that it is done in coordination with the Syrian state in preserving the national sovereignty afar from any external intervention. The capitals of the positive role in the Syrian event assure that the reluctance in suggesting any initiative, last of which is the Iranian initiative, is the result of the way the international family reacts to it, and the type of enthusiasm Damascus shows only on installments (And no one will ever know what Damascus has in mind).
In short, it seems that we are standing before the first track of the new regional system that started from Yemen towards Syria. From this point does the track of negotiations between Washington and Iran spring toward the possibility of restoring and reviving the regional system, not necessarily an alternative for Sykes–Picot, as it was agreed upon and understood not to start creating gaps in the geographies of Sykes–Picot in the political and security meaning, but rather to develop and modernize it in order for it to be self- administrated – however with new and modern standards. On the other hand, creating gaps in the geographies of Sykes–Picot, in the Russian and Iranian perspective, would reinforce ISIS as a cross-border mob, which would lead to abolishing most of the components called minorities, in their political essence the core of political balance in its strategic meaning.
The rules and tracks of game, then, have changed in the whole area due to the nuclear agreement with Iran, which will be the basis of the new vertical regional system; being geographically located between Syria and Yemen. It is Iran that shall determine the fate of the political regime in Lebanon in terms of its creation and being.
The Western, American, and sometimes the Arab bid on Moscow, Tehran and China abandoning the Syrian political manner after more than four years of global war, is a mistaken bid, or rather a nonsensical one because simply, Syria has come to be the key for transformations in the Middle East and the world. Iran is aware of being targeted by Syria, whereas the Russian Federation, which is granted by Syria the ability to cross over to the Middle East with its crises and fortunes, and the opportunity to found a new multipolarity in which responsibilities, obligations, privileges and awards are divided. And since countries are no charities, being ruled only by interests beside strategic connections and national security targets, in light of the deterioration of the American hegemony or monopolarity in a sense, and despite Washington's attempts to control the world despite its own contradictory crises. Therefore, Moscow does not want to lose its Syrian balcony over the Mediterranean, which represents a strategic leverage for the oil and gas passages. It is for that reason that Moscow became severe concerning the events in Ukraine, influenced by the Syrian matter with Russian details involved.
The Chinese perspective for the Syrian matter springs from the same Russian and Iranian perspectives, and China also realizes that the American Industrial war community deems it an essential foe. For that reason the organization of Shanghai is being activated in Russia, China and Iran to play its decided roles behind the new Warsaw Pact, parallel to the military and intelligence relations with the NATO after the eminent Lisbon Summit (prior the so-called Arab Spring).
Through this strategic background, the attitude of the Russian national state core is considered to be operating according to its own national security mentality. In other words, if the Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad is dethroned as part of a political scheme, especially in this geographical area, it would negatively and deeply reflect on the internal Russian status along with its complexities and entangles with its vital scope.
The Russian intelligence community is well aware that the national government embryo scheme plan and vision (the Bilderberg) begins with establishing a Turkish government under the umbrella of the Islamic Justice and Development Party and making it the spearhead in this scheme, in order to play this role in the backyards of Moscow and countries of Islamic backgrounds. It is as if the West is addressing Turkey stating: "O Turkey, you have no hope of joining Europe; therefore you have to enter the East and play this role in our interests and yours in Eastern Asia and the East Mediterranean". According to this analysis, the Russian mentality operates, and concludes that Turkey must not win the battle in fear for the Federal Russia and in protection for its allies and its vital sphere. Ukraine has lately participated in this perspective, by entering Crimea into the Russian Federation through referendums afar from the gossip of anti-media; the American Bilderberg and related Arab media.
This coherence in basic and common point between the Turkish and Atlantic role in the area will lead Russia to conclude that any harm caused to Syria will be intended directly towards Russia and China for that matter. This coherence even far more dangerous than interests, for if the battle was concluded in the interest of the Atlantic and Turkey, followed by central Asia and the Islamic Soviet states; the subject becomes extends beyond relations among countries t hit the core of the Russian national security, since Russia is jeopardized by the Islamic Brotherhood Movement reaching its border and inside it in the same sense the Islamic Movement entered the Arab Spring which, I case it wins the game, will be carried on by Turkey in Russia on behalf of America and the West. Thus is Turkey in the mentality of the Russian Federation, and this is the Russian general point of view towards Turkey.
Developing on the basis of this strategic vision which stimulates logic and analysis, the Russian stern attitudes came in the benefit of Syria, and followed the common Russian-Chinese Vito more than three succeeding times in the international Security Council, which confirms a new Russian formula different than its precedents. The decision maker in Russia is concerned with defending Syria, and will not be satisfied in a period of American deterioration with a virtual share in a virtual reality intended to be accomplished in the Syrian arena by America for the stage following exiting Iraq and Afghanistan; although I do not consider that America has totally abandoned its involvement, as much as I consider it a reproduction of the American role through reengineering as a concept for rebuilding an reestablishment, along with all related implications, dimensions and strategic results in the area and the world.
The renewing declared and undeclared scapegoating along the Russian-American relations and other Western allies is leading to wars deeper than the Cold War and more severe than any military war, which explains why more groups of Russian experts from different sectors of the Russian army are heading to the Syrian geography, after the imminent determination of the geography of Al Qalamoun, in preparation of the Southern Syrian intentions for Damascus, and the possible intentions for it in the South along with Turkey; which explains also why a number of Russian navy ships are heading from Crimea towards the Mediterranean in order to boost its naval base in Tartus. It seems that this base has interests that cannot meet with those Washington is furnishing and exerting efforts for through cooperation with the West and some delusional Arabs. This should lead to promoting war in the formerly described perspective, including any possible settlement for the Syrian and Ukrainian crises.
Russia comprehends the dictatorship of the Syrian geography, as well as the strategic uprooting condition in the area - realizing that Syria in its political significance as a strategic location that cannot be overlooked. Consequently, Russia wants to increase its domain in Syria through expanding its naval base; especially after Crimea joined the Russian Federation, and has become is anxious, provoked and threatened by the ongoing state of spreading the Atlantic missile-defence capable radars in Turkey and Poland. Hence, it will not abandon its domain in the area, being threatened in terms of its interests, and being secluded and economically geopolitically affected by the situation. This is where the significance of the geographical location of Syria as a role player in the regional and international policies emerges, in addition to the internal adherence and continuous field achievements of the doctrinal Syrian Arab Army, which provided a sufficient chance for cohesion in the Syrian public sector. These are significant and strong opportunities on which Syria depends as part of its political method in confronting the conspiracy and ending the crises, through a political path and a military solution that will abolish the whole sum of terrorism.
I believe, regardless of everything, that Washington D.C is entering new spheres of crises, not spheres of solutions for its deep labyrinths worldwide. Within a very short period not exceeding six years, the American National Security Council enhanced the strategy of containment, by inserting the element of anticipation. The American administration no longer awaits the emergence of risks and threats then attempts at containing them according to the considerations of reality. Instead, the American national security strategy is now forced into mobilizing American political, economic and military energies and resources, and ignoring the structure of international values based on the International Law and the United Nations Chart, and proacting in various military and non-military means towards whatever the American administrations deems as a danger threatening the American interests.
In spite of all the political, economic and military crises the USA has suffered and is still suffering - which might not be realized by the regular person who is not on track with the progression of the American political patterns - and regardless of whether the administrations that controls the activities and reactions of the American pattern is Democratic or Republican, Washington D.C has already started executing its hegemony scheme over the world, in ignorance of the notion of participatory pluralism in ruling the world and maintaining the cosmopolitan balance.
This issue of hegemony included operational steps starting with spreading the American military abilities worldwide, in addition to considering the world map a military stage on which the American force must be prepared in expectation of a war that might set off anywhere at any moment. On that basis, the Pentagon has divided the world into military areas, and each regional area become located with is the sphere of one of the American military leaderships.
Following that step was the issue of Americanizing world economy, by exploiting the three major international economic corporations: the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization in merging world economics within the frame of the American economy. This should grant the American economy an exceptional condition and exceptional international economic privileges that should enhances the ability to transfer inflation, unemployment, low rates of growth and other negative collective economic indicators to other economies. In other words: for others to bear the losses of the American economy.
Moreover, Washington has worked and is working on redirecting the international community through urging the involvement of the International Security Council, the United Nations and the international and regional organizations in the operation of reconstructing and correcting the structure of international values, which would allow the American administration and the Congress to practice their domain over international entities as if they were subject to the American sovereignty – it is the elaboration of American arrogance political impudence.
It is true that after the Russo-Georgian war of 2008, the Russian-American military confrontation did not take place, yet the proxy confrontation between Russia and Georgia did take place, and the later waged war by proxy on behalf of the United States. Leaks and facts revealed that the military operation of Tbilisi was arranged for by the American administration and the blessing of President George W. Bush.
Deducing from the Syrian events, the Ukrainian matter, and the 2008events of Georgia, the analysis of facts and events and their spillovers clearly indicates that a process of an international military-security remobilization will occur, and amongst its most eminent results will be the formulation of a new equation for the (military security-international regional) system. Among the most eminent results which can be expected are the following:
Modifying the Balance of Power within the International Security Council, making Russia and China stand opposite the United States which will find evident support from Britain, with the probability that France would return to its former independent attitude within the International Security Council, creating what we might call the third international power within the council. This would allow France an additional margin of freedom and maneuver within the Council in spite of Germany, something that, if it occurs, will eventually lead to terminating the French-American alliance within the Security Council – which has already resulted in issuing many prejudicial decisions; especially those related to the crises in Libya, Syria, Mali, Lebanon, Darfur and others.
So far, the German economy has been the most powerful of economies until today. The question that remains is how can Germany be economically weakened? This is where the Ukrainian matter comes as a golden opportunity for forcing a German involvement in the details of the Ukrainian events, in order to guarantee a major economic cover that should weaken Ukraine and redirect it towards Moscow, through whose community of economic and financial intelligence it demonstrated all the information and opportunities it possesses on the table of the German intelligence community, in the German language well understood by president Vladimir Putin.
Similar to the American former and current intentions to modify the transatlantic terms and agenda of relations; since during the Cold War, Washington was acting the role of the protector and defender on behalf of Europe in the face of the nuclear Communist-Soviet danger. And after the end of the Cold War, America continued performing its role as a military-security partner who defends the settlement of European security, manifested by its intervention in the Balkan crisis, in addition to playing the role of the international leader responsible of spreading and protecting the Western democratic liberal values.
However, things take a whole different dimension in the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, the Western plot for Moscow in Libya which is living the non-state phase, the global war on Syria which is still on fire, the consequences of the Ukrainian events summed by annexing Crimea to Russia by a profoundly impartial referendum that astonished the West, and the American-European agreement till this moment regarding the events of Kiev.
The important question now is this: will the European-American wall of understanding hold out having taken practical steps for as long as possible? Will the transatlantic relations be involved in the confrontation of the American-European hurricane in later stages in favor of the desire of particular major European parties; such as France and Germany to remain neutral towards the ongoing Russian-America relations, and the desire of several European parties to abstain from responding to the request of the Unites States concerning the file of expanding the NATO alliance Eastwards and joining Georgia and Ukraine in membership, in addition to the European lack of desire to respond to the American request of expanding the European Union Eastwards. Is Europe transferring from the stage of attack to the stage of neutrality later towards the ongoing events? And is Europe capable of devouring Ukraine economically? Doesn't Ukraine form, due to its worn-out economy, a hydrogen bomb in the European lap?
*Member of the political office of the Jordanian People's Movement
www.roussanlegal.0pi.com
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.