The United States Secretary of State recently said that by destroying ISIL, his country pursued two other goals in Syria: the peace and withdrawal of Iran and its proxy forces from Syria. Of course, he also has a condition for the Syrian government: if Iran and its forces do not leave Syria, they will not even contribute to the reconstruction of Syria for a dollar. Three remarks are worth mentioning about these remarks;
Although Pompeo’s apparent stance of power is conditional, it has a significant meaning; the Americans, who in the early years of the crisis, did everything he did to escape Assad, now to take part in the rebuilding of the country, for He bets. This is clearly a failure to achieve the main goal. Of course, in such a case, the United States tries to use the flexibility to take advantage of the advanced conditions.
There is no rational consistency in Pemo’s statements. He has urged the Syrian government to expel Iranian forces from the country, whose presence in the country has been illegal in the country without the permission of the Syrian government and thus illegitimate. On the other hand, Pompeo speaks for the Syrian government – whose sovereignty has been violated by the United States – of participating in reconstruction, provided that they expel Iranian forces. In other words, the United States violates the Syrian government, but it recognizes it as a reconstruction.
Pompeo’s remarks show that the United States intends to play with a rebuild. Given the urgent needs of Syria in the area of reconstruction, the game will only fail if the governments with Syria, such as Russia and Iran, and some moderate countries will enter this field.
The Syria conflict has rebalanced regional axes of power in the Middle East ( Getty Images )
Three days ago, the United States, with Britain and France, fired more than 100 rockets at bases and some strategic sites in Syria on the pretext of building and using the Syrian government of chemical weapons.
However, the scale and outcome of US missile strikes, which was overwhelmingly and practically uninteresting, has left many analysts with serious questions about the underlying objectives of the operation.
Analysis and evaluation:
Donald Trump, undoubtedly one of the most challenging presidents of the United States, has been in the country for several hundred years. His moral and sometimes economic and security scandals have made him the most marginalized international figure in the world today.
He is currently facing a number of scandals in the internal scene, of which at least four of the most important are:
- Multiple allegations of sexual corruption and illegitimate relationships
- The relationship of his campaign with Russia
- The relationship between the lawyer Trump (Michael Cohen) and the Russian elements.
- The relationship between Tramp and his children with the New York Financial Mafia
Contrary to the general belief that national security issues are separate from the political one, the behaviors of the US president represent another truth.
One of the most important targets of a missile strike on some Syrian installations seems to be the distortion of public opinion about the deviations and scandals surrounding the White House.
Israel, targeting the T4 Air Base, which has resulted in the martyrdom of several Iranian military advisers, was exploited by the use of the tense atmosphere of Russia and the United States following the assertion that the Syrian government’s chemical attack on the Duma. In this regard, what is certain is the need to respond to Israel at least at the same level as the attack on T4. But the other question is when the response time should be. However, immediate responses will mainly increase deterrence, but there are already considerations for it:
The Syrian government and its allies are on the road to victory over the terrorists and the United States and its allies have lost some of their means in Syria. Hence, the hasty movement in the atmosphere where the level of tension between Russia and the United States is high is likely to trigger a larger war for Syria, which may destroy the achievements of the past or worsen the conditions for further achievements.
Iran’s participation in the victory of the western ghouta of Damascus did not have a serious and high level of participation, and therefore Iran’s skirt did not survive the charge of a chemical attack. This led to the accusations against Russia and Syria, if Iran, as the most important resistance government in the region, would carry out an expeditious attack, it could be the focus of Western attention and as a result, there would be many problems for the axis of resistance.
Finally, a missile strike occurred in Syria, with France and Britain running under the US-led coalition. However, as evidenced by the evidence, the level of this presence was negligible, and the main load Was in the hands of the US forces. During the operation, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, 103 missiles were fired for targets in Syria, 71 of which were destroyed by the Syrian air defence before the target, a significant figure.
Theresa May, after the operation, announced that the military strike against Syria was limited and targeted to reduce the Syrian regime’s ability to develop and use chemical weapons. Although it has been mandated, experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will begin their research work on alleged chemical attacks in Syria today.
Recent developments over the past few days showed unbalanced positions on the side of the coalition, especially within the United States, and a news disagreement between the Secretary of Defense (James Mattis) and National Security Adviser (John Bolton) on the response to Syria has been published, indicating that There is no clear and specific strategy following this operation.
The US-backed coalition missile strike was likely to be supported by verbal and practical support from some Western parties that would open their hands for bargaining against Trump. In fact, the West, with the accompaniment of Trump on this issue, is looking for his flexibility and with the West in relation to Iran’s nuclear deal.
On the other hand, and in general, this not-so-effective attack can only be considered as a reaction to the failure of US-Western armed groups in the Eastern Sub-Sahara, which lost one of the most important anti-government bases in Syria and, naturally, in the coming negotiations The Syrian government’s hand will be taller with its allies.