While on the ground, the war is ending, and only Idlib still needs to be freed from the terrorists, the Western powers are starting trouble all over again. The United States refuse the process led by Russia, for the reason that they didn’t have anything to do with it, while the United Kingdom and France seek to impose institutions which would allow them to govern the country from the shadows.
Seven years after the beginning of the war against Syria, fought by proxy jihadist forces, the partisans of its destruction want to start again. This attempt to restart the war from the beginning can only be understood if its objective has evolved.
These three Great Powers’ efforts could be for naught if Syria loses patience and commences its campaign ahead of Friday’s event or if a US false flag chemical weapons attack in Idlib manages to radically change the strategic equation.
Encouraging the dignified “phased withdrawal” of Iranian forces from all of Syria just like it recently did from around the Golan Heights would strengthen the Russian-Israeli Strategic Partnership and provide an opportunity for reaching a common understanding with the US.
Iraq has intimate socio-economic and energy links with Iran that are impossible to sever without dealing disastrous damage to the country, though the US is nevertheless trying to pressure it into complying with its sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
Representatives from Iran, Russia, and Turkey met in Sochi to discuss the fate of the province of Idlib. Specifically – to debate the price of a Turkish pullout from the region. But the most significant long-term issues center on Iran.
Trump and his allies are trying to push Iran into a corner and provoke it to lash out at US forces that are poised around it. A navel clash in the Gulf is the obvious pretext for war.
President Trump won the election on his promise to overthrow financial capitalism and restore productive capitalism. From this standpoint, he considers that war damages owed to Syria should not be paid by the United States, but by transnational corporations. Is this revolution in international relations desirable or even possible?
Making humanitarian and developmental assistance conditional on political factors is Machiavellian to the core but unsurprising to those who have a solid understanding of the cynicism behind American strategic planning.
If we consider the war in Syria not as a singular event, but as the culmination of a world war which has persisted for a quarter of a century, we have to ask ourselves about the consequences of the imminent end of hostilities. Its completion marks the defeat of an ideology, that is to say globalisation and financial capitalism.
In northeastern Syria, which is dominated by the Kurdish militia, there are new stirrings. The situation on Syria’s southern border has calmed down. These substantial achievements and the fact that Syrian government has become more stable and is in greater control will give impetus to the efforts at finding a political solution to the conflict.
It should be highlighted that with the U.S. abandoning its proxies in Southern Syria, we can deduce that Israel will have to “pause” its “Greater Israel” ambitions in wanting to absorb Southern Syrian territory, and la pièce de résistance – claim the Golan Heights as Sovereign Israeli territory.