Written by Nasser Kandil,
When the limit of the American speech becomes higher than waving of non-diplomatic options many people wait active US steps, but as a result of the rapid comparison between the decision of dismissing the war 2013, despite the huge differences in favor of going to war at that time not today, either in terms of the situation of the US presidential mandate or in terms of the political psychological media and military mobilization for the war, and under the slogan of the chemical weapon, and most importantly is that this opportunity was during the absence of Russian military repositioning comparing with the qualitative magnitude which is witnessed by Syria, and it was before the nuclear understanding with Iran, before the Saudi military exhausting involvement in Yemen, before modifying the balances in favor of the Syrian army by the force in the field, and before Turkey gets confused with its issues, relations, and choices. So the one who dismissed at that date for fear of the cost, will not do it today. The Secretary of State John Kerry says in a leaked recording by the New York Times that the escalation will bring an escalation, and that the US people do not want more war, furthermore, the Congress will not give an authorization for going to war, but the most important is that the decision of the withdrawal despite the coming of the fleets was according to the estimation of the Pentagon, which many people suppose today that its encouragement of the choice of confrontation based on that it does not favor the choice of the understanding.
The Pentagon is behaving by the inspiration of the interests of the big companies in the aerospace industry, especially the missiles which carry nuclear warheads to avoid any military understandings with Russia that make the understanding on recycling the plutonium which its reactors has been disabled by the Russian President Vladimir Putin two days ago a main item in any Russian US cooperation, it is a wearying item for the companies and a source of unbearable losses. The Pentagon is behaving as well on the basis of that the regional issues are not of US concern in order to make Washington pay the costs of their implementation, they are mere attempts to reduce the losses and to achieve the profits of the allies which do not seem that they are comfortable with what is included in the understanding and what the US Department of State assumes it through its spokesman Kerry as an ideal solution, which its content is the partnership of the opposition and the armed groups in a unified Syrian government in preparation for elections in which the Syrian President participates, in exchange of US partnership in the war on Al Nusra front. While the Pentagon sees that just the refusal of the understanding by the groups concerned in the political solution is enough to keep it suspended, especially because it includes an item that supposes the US Russian military cooperation. While Washington can leave the Syrian groups to get matured through the war track in order to ask for a solution, or Russia and its allies will wage a war on Al Nusra, and Washington will just wait the entitlement of the war on ISIS then it will return to the understanding.
The advocates of suspending the Russian US military cooperation consider that America is strong to the extent that it does not need to pay the cost of the understandings from its prestige, because the worst option which is awaiting it is the complete victory of the Syrian country, its army, and its president. In this case the victorious country has to legitimize its victory and to normalize its relation with the abroad at its forefront the West, as well as to restore its position in the global markets, and to retune to trade and the banking transactions. The keys of all of these are American, then the negotiation will have a meaning and justifications, while America is putting its equations of direct interests not the equations of others, so how if this other thinks that it has better alternatives. The waiting here with some moral and political support and a bit of military aid to the armed groups to enhance their resilience without the involvement in escalation form an optimal choice than waging the battle of applying the understanding against Washington’s allies and the emerging as the weak renounced party which has sold its allies to the Russians.
America is extinguishing in the foreign politics due to the plans of intervention, it dispenses of its armies as a tool in making politics, just satisfying with hiding behind the wall of financial diplomatic and legal force which is summarized in the war through the sanctions and boycotting, while its reverse in the states of peace becomes as when Israel seeks protection from behind the cement wall as an expression of the inability to wage a war and the inability to make peace, as when Saudi Arabia fails to make its war and to make its peace in Yemen, with one difference is that the US wall is real not an illusionary, and that its military effectiveness after the experiences of blockade and sanctions on Iran and later on Russia prove its failure in weakening the opponents and the preparation for their fall or subjecting them, but its positive effectiveness in the states of enticement of opening the wall in front of the opponents under understandings that cancel the sanctions is still real.
This is America which is strong and weak.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,