Syria and the performance of the allies Putin & Lavrov – Al Khamenei & Rouhani

Written by Nasser Kandil,

During the past days we witnessed positions that raised debate about the situation in Syria; these positions were issued by the most prominent allies of Syria internationally and regionally Russia and Iran.  That led to confusion about the image of these two allies in the eyes of the Syrians in particular and the Arabs in general, and the people who observe and see what the Syrians and their allies say about the differences between the treatment of an ally to an ally and  the treatment of the colonial to the subordinate. Some echoes of these questions and suggestions have reached the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov from malicious sites by some of the opponents, which likened the draft of the suggested Russian constitution for Syria to the constitution that was formed by the representative of the US occupation Paul Bremer for Iraq. So this has obliged the Minister Lavrov and his spokesman Maria Zkharova to clarify.

At previous time the Russians talked about a draft of a federal constitution for Syria, and they were trying to open paths in front of the Kurdish groups, however at similar time the Iranians talked about a draft of a new constitution and constitutional reforms for Syria, and about sharing the powers of the president and the government, they were trying to form opposition platform that is similar to Cairo’s platform and Moscow’s platform. In the past days, in addition to the talk about the draft of the Russian constitution for Syria was the speech of the Minister Lavrov which we discussed here in this corner in which he said that without the intervention of Moscow, Damascus was about to fall within two or three weeks at the hands of the terrorism, and yesterday the Iranian President Al Sheikh Hassan Rouhani has said that without the intervention of Iran Damascus and Baghdad were about to be governments for the terrorists.

The debate about the Russian and the Iranian positions is divided between two extremisms, each one of them belongs to misapprehension and misconception. The first extremism is the talk about the Russian and the Iranian interests that put the two allied countries at the level of any countries that have interests that do not behave at the basis of the alliance and the diligence, but at the basis of the convergence of the spirit of tyranny and guardianship according to what they have presented to Syria and consider it a justification to practice this guardianship. The second extremism is a speech of denial that is similar to the error committed by the Iranian and the Russian speech by saying that without Syria, Iran and Russia were about to fall and there is no favor for each one of them in the victories of Syria.

What must be noticed by all the allies; the Russian, the Iranian, and the Syrian and others of those who confronted the US arrogance and its project of hegemony is that the war is not over yet and it still has rounds, and it is not possible for a declining alliance that fights on counting gains to win, so all these lapses must be discusses as lapses, starting from that the speech which expresses deeply the position of Russia is the speech of the President Putin as a leader and politics-maker, he said that Russia has fought with Syria in defense of Moscow, at a ceremony in Kremlin  he said that “ the terrorists in Syria do  not hide their expansion plans” calling his forces to be ready for the appropriate response to the threats, indicating to the permanent seek of Moscow to solve the crisis in Syria through the political and the diplomatic ways. He indicated as well that the terrorists in Syria describe frankly Russia as an enemy and they do not hide their expansion plans, pointing out that the Russian forces in Syria are defending the national interests of Russia, he estimated highly the work of the Russian armed forces in Syria considering that “the war skill of the Russian army is improving now due to the military process in Syria” he added “ Through their fighting in this Middle Eastern county, our soldiers and officers protect the interests of the Russian Federation  and eliminating the militants who call directly our home as an enemy, did not hide their expansion plans on the Russian territories and the Commonwealth of independent States. The Iranian leader and the Supreme Leader of Iran Al Sayyed Ali Khamenei said in similar speech in the funeral of Iranian soldiers and officers who were killed in Syria “if we did not fight in Syria, we would fight the terrorism and the strife in Tehran, Fares, and Khorasan”.

The speech of the President Putin and Al Sayyed Khamenei is based on the depth of the strategy and estimating the mutual contribution of the allies in protecting each other’s security. The speech of Lavrov and Rouhani is the speech of the politician who has to show the strength of the country which he represented and its status as a prelude for the international and regional negotiation. Noting that the security of the Mediterranean which Syria represents an important element in it, and on which the security of the West depends was about to change radically without the Russian and the Iranian roles, but the blame here is that the goal can be reached with expressions that do not affect or hurt the national dignity of the Syrians by showing that their role as people, army and president a secondary role in achieving the victory on the terrorism, while it is a constituent role which without it there is no value neither for the Russian support nor for the Iranian support, which without the people, the army , and the president in Syria they were as the blind US force in Iraq at the phase of the occupation or the failed US force in Raqqa due to the absence of the active ground force which is able to fill the gaps caused by the aerial bombardment in the ranks of the terrorist enemy. The effect of the show which is needed by the major countries internationally and regionally in their maneuvers would not have been underestimated if it had said that without the steadfastness of the people and the army in addition to the two allies in Syria and their support and solidarity, Damascus was about to fall and to be ruled by the terrorists.

In the issue of the constitution and the Russian draft, the followers of the politics sideline know that there is Russian plan that is similar to Astana plan, which many people talked about its failure while it succeeds in igniting a termination and extermination war between the armed groups and Al-Nusra front, as the draft of the constitution which neutralized the right of the President of standing as a candidate, and has ignored his powers in leading the armed forces and his right to be a candidate for two new terms each one of seven years, it has collected what is said by every opponent  faction regarding the other terms and has made out of its incoherent constitution and presented it to be debated upon by everyone, self-rule for the Kurds and positions that depends on sects except the non –sectarian presidencies,  no constitution that based on law, Syria will be entitled the Syrian Republic, no expanded decentralization, two election associations one is national and the other for the areas, ignored the circulation just from the Syrian state, and the final word will be for the referendum, but what is related to the President which is the strategic value of the constitution will be out of circulation after transferring all the powers related to the administrative  and the economic affairs to the Council of Ministry. Once again we say that Russia was not in need to submit a draft under its name, it is enough to gather popular opponents and assuming someone of them to submit the draft under Russian encouragement and sponsorship and to assign a secretariat from the participants to formulate a draft from the discussions under Russian implicit supervision to have the same draft under the name of Moscow Dialogues’ draft without raising what provoked murmurs to the extent of accusing Russia of guardianship.

Deeply, neither Russia nor Iran are countries that have interests in the opportunistic sense, as Syria not so for sure, each of the allies has in its records dozens of evidences of what it received to sell its alliance in prices that surpass the direct interests which it will gain from its sticking to that alliance, but Russia, Syria, and Iran have deep mutual strategic interests that based on opposing the US hegemony and countering the terrorism in the concepts of the national security and the national dignity and the sovereignty. Everything experienced by the past years is enough to say that what drives the allies is the deep strategic interests not the direct superficial interests which usually arise between the colonizer and the guardian on one hand and the subordinate on the other hand as the case with America and its allies, where no one can find a justification that is related to the deep interests and the national security for a country such as France or Saudi Arabia with America.

Neither Russia nor Iran can, knowing that they surely do not want to manipulate with the fate of Syria as some people who talk about buying and selling and transactions that they fear. There were   gaps in the performance that require the review and the attention, because the condition of the power and the cohesion of the allies is their penetrating into the popular conscience, it basis is the feeling of the national pride. It is enough to say what was said by Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrollah after the victory of Aleppo where the resistance has a big contribution in its achievement “ the Syrian people, their leadership, and their army are those who have taken the decision of the confrontation, their steadfastness is the basis for achieving the victory of Aleppo, while the role of the allies was a complementary, integrated, and a supportive factor”, pointing out that “the Syrians are making the future of their country and the entire region”.

The speech of the leaders is different from the non-politicians to which we aspire to that it will be at the level of the speech of the leaders, because we trust those by whom this speech is issued and the size of their experience, their status, responsibilities, and their awareness of the accuracy of what we experience as circumstances and pitfalls and who ambushes us at every crossroads and stop.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,