Is it possible to continue the war on Syria after the British earthquake?

Written by Nasser Kandil,

For those who want to minimize the size of the British event and seeing  it mere a reflection of a historic conflict in which points change between high and low between two deep-rooted  movements in the British community and politics, and see that it is an exaggeration to say that the British event is the result of the failure of the dreams which were built by the British swing voters bloc which represents 5% of the voters in favor of the  joining to the Union, after they voted few days ago in favor of withdrawing from it, these dreams were linked organically to the well-being and the sense of power  through inheriting the Soviet Union far from including the Eastern European counties, towards having oil and gas at cheap prices, resizing Russia and China, and having control over the capacities of the Middle East, starting from fortifying the Saudi Israeli bilateral with all the reasons of power, in the wars in which the unified Europe engages under the coverage of the American Empire war after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. One could ask a question are the political conflicts and the shifts made in the rate of voters between two balanced blocs in the British infrastructure in the vacancy or in the heart of the interaction with the policies and what they draw of hopes and dreams and with the facts and what they have of disappointments and pains or gains and achievements, the issue of the refugees which occupies the concern of the British is one of the side effects of the failed wars of the Middle East, and the immigrant competitive labor from the countries of the Eastern Europe is the fruit of the failure  in restricting the Chinese growth, as well as the failure to win in the war of Ukraine to impose the conditions of supplying the Russian gas and its prices, in addition to the failure of having control over Syria to replace this gas with the Qatari source.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the revival and the awakening of the doctrines which based on the religious assets in the world have occurred as a result of the failure of the liberal and the communist doctrines in fulfilling the bright promises which each one of them has drawn in a field and for long decades, they have competed on presenting their examples during half of a century, but neither the communism succeeded in building a well being and justice community which its center is the man,  nor the liberalism succeeded in building an example of freedom, human rights, and  growth. The communism has failed in the inflexible old restrictions at the expense of the identity and the freedom of the man, while the liberalism failed in its colonist wars including crimes, commitments, and alliances that disclose the resounding treason of the slogans and promises of the western democracies,   it is to say that the ideas, doctrines, and the identities are not final data but they are spirits and vivid entities that interact with the variables  with success or failure, towards saying that what has happened in Britain is the peak of the iceberg of the transformations which the world will witness intellectually and culturally and therefore politically as a result of the fall of the project of the new global system, where America was its leading power and the European Union was its fighting front on the Russian and the Chinese borders and within the heart of the Middle East. This  system has fallen with the withdrawal of the American fleets which came to the Mediterranean Sea for the war on Syria, the rolling failure continued with the understanding on the Iranian nuclear program, towards the failure in Ukraine and the failure will continue, and the consequences of that failure will continue as cultural structural and social variables. Therefore, many nations will reconsider their identities, their options, and their entities, the one who expected the fragmentation of the entities of the East may witness this fragmentation in the West with the transformation of the giant entities as the European Union from a grace to a curse.

Away from analyzing the reasons, can anyone deny the presence of major consequences of this earthquake which has ravaged of Britain and which will lead at least and with minimal consideration to  a degree of isolation seclusion, staying away from the involvement and the vital engagement in the international politics and its making and the participation in its wars, bearing the costs of these wars and their consequences at their forefront the burdens of the refugees?, is it possible to ignore that Britain which is preoccupied of itself in arranging its new home after the exit of the European Union was a sufficient matter for the politicians to arrange the interior homes of their parties, their doctrines, and their programs which lived during half of a century on the positive and the negative interaction with  intellectual political and economic equation entitled the membership of the European Union?, is it possible in return to hide the degree of the European preoccupation in particular the German and the French in how to behave with the British change and its consequences on the most important countries in the European Union and the Public opinion and how it will interact to the frequencies of the British earthquake, and towards affecting the effectiveness of the Union and thus its ability to affect the foreign politics, although it is itself an issue that is subject to the search? , is it possible to say that the matter is the same according the American movement in the world especially in the Middle East and in particular in its most important war in Syria, which the Europeans specially the British, the French, and the German people were former partners in it, by drawing its impact and its effect on the relationships with Russia and Iran?, so is it possible to say that the matter has ended and everything will continue as it was before and according to what was planned for it?

The Saudi, Israeli and the Turkish concern is enough to realize that there is a big variable that will consume at least a lot of attention, time, and effort at the expense of the devotion to manage the wars of the Middle East and its settlements under the rhythm that draws the future of the relations’ map with Russia and Iran, and that the paying attention to the interior will be the policy of the coming years according to countries such as France and Germany, where the debate on justifying the spending on a union that is dismantling and which is unable to be an active force in the politics and economics has started, France seems to be more French but under the American umbrella in order to make settlements with Russia and Iran about the East which it considered its chance with the British absence politically and economically, while Germany tends to be more European in understanding its German aspect but on the basis of being more close to the European Russia, for a bilateral that leads the new Europe, in which there is a place for France but the leadership is German and Russian, where it can fulfill the profitable economic promises, and the smooth sources for the energy flowing, this means according to German and France a  hit for the wars’ projects in favor of the settlements’ projects.

Washington observes closely despite its preoccupation with its presidential elections to measure and to know whether it has the sufficient energy to pull the settlements’ wagon in the presence of the obstacle of the Saudi, Turkish, and the Israeli brakes, as long as it did not succeed with those allies to possess the necessary energy to wage the wars according to the wining conditions. As long as the attrition wars are not always political, they produce ascending conviction for Russia and Iran to dismiss the settlements’ plans and to go to the options of the individual resolving of the wars, while they produce on the bank of the formations of Al-Qaeda more of the ability to expand the range of the war of attrition far from what the Americans want, in order to affect the Western countries not only Russia, Iran, an d their allies.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,