Washington and the least bitter choices

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Apparently some assume that Russia, Syria, Iran, and the resistance are in difficult situation because the US President and his allies talk about a military strike against Syria, but deeply everybody knows that the issue is not chemical weapons as interpreted decisively by the Russian and the Syrian statements “there is no evidence for the use of a chemical weapon, come and investigate immediately,  now this area is under our control and we are ready to ensure the arrival of the investigators and to secure their mission”. This was not available before, because that area was under the control of the militants, where Russia and Syria were uncertain about the use of fabricated chemical weapons. But today everything is different, decisive words that deny the presence of any chemical weapon and a challenge to accept the investigation, but if the contrary is proved we will behave according to a resolution by the Security Council.

For Washington the issue is not the issue of the life of the civilians, since a few days ago we witnessed a very clear scene that has not any ambiguities as the chemical issue of Duma, when Washington used the veto to prevent any investigation in the live killing of the armless civilians on air in Gaza, where the killer is celebrating being promised of rewards by the Israeli minister of defense. In politics the issue is not an attempt to adjust the balances of powers. Those who wanted that, it would be better for them to adopt the UN resolution on the cease-fire two months ago to intervene militarily under the slogan of imposing cease-fire by force, where the intervention had a meaning, because the preservation of Al Ghouta as a castle grants the hope of invading Damascus in suitable circumstances and connecting it with Tanf base in another circumstances. Since these two events grant the hope to bet on the division of Syria. After the liberation of Ghouta there will be no military intervention that revives the projects buried in Ain Tarma, Jobar, and Duma.

It is clear that Washington chose the timing of the chemical game under the ceiling of not being involved in an open war and comprehensive confrontation with Russia and Iran; otherwise it did that before the liberation of Al Ghouta. It is clear that it received the message of liberation and the loss of the last important stronghold in the Syrian game with great sorrow, because the left battles are border battles in the south and north where Washington will be involved in them all to ensure its role on one hand, and the future of the security of Israel on the other hand. It is clear as well that any military action thought by Washington is the maximum possible one in order to say that we are here and we will not get out as losers without any cost but at the same time without being involved in any comprehensive war or any reactions that may lead to such a war.

The negotiation on a hot tin is the title of post –Al-Ghouta’s liberation stage. The forces which were involved in the war on Syria are losing their last bet and are unable to adapt to the new situation. All the choices are bitter, the acceptance of an investigation according to the Russian – Syrian proposal is a risk, if it is clarified that there were no chemical weapons used, and making a military strike to ensure the presence will make no difference but at the same time it will be confronted because any expansion of any military action will provoke similar. The US bases in Syria will pay the cost and thus an escalation that will lead to a confrontation. Does the American need half of a confrontation at the edge of abyss to make a negotiation?

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,