Written by Nasser Kandil,
There is no doubt that the war on Syria was not, and at least it is no longer a Syrian Syrian war, because since its beginning it was a war of an alliance that was formed to change Syria, its location, and its identity. An international regional alliance that has two Syrian parts, the first part is the Wehhabism and whom supported it from the fighters of Al-Qaeda, and the other part is the Muslim Brotherhood and some of the seculars who work in favor of the international and the regional alliance, or the haters whose their blind hatred has made them without insight about the future of their country or those who were provoked for the war by authoritarian promises and Gulf funds. On the other bank Syria was alone during the first months of the war, but the risk of change Syria, its location, the ferocity of the war on it, and the size of the interest and the stubbornness which were shown by the alliance which wages the war to change it has attracted the attention of those who concerned with every geostrategic qualitative change in the region to the dangers of this war and its impact on them, so they started interfering gradually in it till they became an important part of it specially Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.
It is clear that the variation in the capabilities of the allies on the two banks was disturbed in favor of the countries of the war alliance which led by Washington and which includes each of Riyadh, Ankara, and Tel Aviv mainly, but the will and the determination of the supported alliance of Syria grew gradually till they reached to the direct repositioning including its risks which the opposite party was seeking to avoid them, by substituting the presence of its armies with the flow of money, weapons, and more of Al-Qaeda fighters, till the birth of a revised version of it, and that was ISIS. In the heart of this balance between the capabilities and the will the war was disabled and it seemed that the decisive factor was again in favor of Syria, where the surplus of power of Syria’s ally turns into an ability of wider representation, more employment and more willing to fight.
In the heart of the war, bloodshed was a crucial element in determining the ability to withstand according to the fighters, despite the fact that the war alliance has mobilized Al-Qaeda organization in its two versions the original and the revised one which has exhausted thousands of its suicidal, the direct confrontations remain showing that the Syrian army and its ally Hezbollah have a higher ability to bear making blood which was translated in the stability in the sites or the resolution in the attack. It seemed as well through the progress of the war that the cohesion of the alliances is crucial in their ability to draw the ceilings of their war, after it was proven the inability for the resolving, so there were plans for the full victory which was an agreed goal according to those who decided to go to war without having one alternative agreed plan. The sharing of geography satisfies Saudi Arabia and Israel, but it is not suitable plan for the Americans because it is not stable well-established formula, and it forms a red line for the Turks who fear the benefit of the Kurds, while the reach to a political settlement relieves the Americans even if the Syrian President remains, but it will disturb the Saudis, confuse the Turks, and terrify the Israelis. Conversely, the alliance which supports Syria seem converged on higher goal entitled responding to the war, overthrowing its goals, and the openness to political settlement that accepts the judgment of the ballot boxes and the will of the Syrians.
The political process depends on two titles; the war on terrorism as a priority and the political settlement as necessity. The two Syrian teams in Geneva are negotiating in order to prove that each one of them is not responsible for the failure of the negotiation. Therefore the governmental negotiator tries to draw its strategy in a way that discloses the linking of the opposite team with the terrorism and putting it in front of that challenge. in every time it succeeded in achieving the knockout against its opponents, while the negotiators of the war alliance try to put the governmental negotiator in front of the challenge of refusing the political process, but the governmental negotiator succeeded in avoiding the falling into the trap, it drew a goal for the political process, it is the resort to people’s will at the ballot boxes through a transitional formula for a government and constitution that ends with elections, while the opposition negotiator fell in the deadlock of the insistence on the departure of the Syrian President without elections as a condition for the political process, so it fell twice as a negotiator.
In Astana the governmental negotiator has faced the challenge of accepting to cooperate and to sit on the negotiating table with the organizations which it classified as terrorist, on the base let us see the deeds not the talks, it has put a challenge in front of its opponent, it was the ability to prove the separation from Al Nusra, they had hesitated and had lost before Al Nusra started its war against them, so they lost for the second time, while the governmental negotiator faced the challenge of accepting a unified government with its opponents in the political process, but it passed it as long as it ends with elections, while the opposite teams is still have the inability to keep up with it, because it is still stuck in the dilemma of the presidency.
Riyadh’s delegation in Geneva is faltering, it is unable to keep up with the governmental delegation in the ability to act confidently and to bear the tactic losses and the adventure of the unguaranteed proposals, because it does not have the main alternatives which constitute a condition to win in the negotiation, which are the ability to bear the consequences of the return to the battlefields, and the ability to bear to resort to the polls. In both of cases the scale of the Syrian government is turned strongly, so the cohesion of its alliance against the threats of the disintegration of the opponents’ alliance due to the confidence in sources of its power becomes an additive value to the superiority of Syria and the allies and their cohesion together.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,