The fate of the Americans is to deal with Al Assad

Written by Nasser Kandil,

It is easy for those who observe the course of the war in Syria to say that the US role in it was a pivotal and still, either according to Washington’s allies who consider it the war of their presence as Saudi Arabia, or their security as Israel, or their importance as Turkey, or according to Washington’s opponents who see through it a gate for resizing the American hegemony which shares the leadership of the world with Washington as Moscow, or those who see it a start of the birth of the multi-polar global system or a balanced regional system as Iran, or those who consider it an opportunity to protect their independence and their stability as Syria, or those who wage it as their most prominent war to weaken the occupation, aggression, and terrorism system which is led and fed by Washington as Hezbollah and the forces of the popular resistance.

Washington’s position has changed since 2013 when the American fleets came to the Mediterranean sea in order to strike a blow against Syria, but they returned without waging a war that it betted on in order to make a transition in the balances of the field forces and in order to grant the armed groups and their regional supporters an opportunity to wage a qualitative decisive attack to have control over Syria. So Washington moved from a clear equation entitled the commitment to overthrow the Syrian President as a title of the change which it wants in Syria and its position in the region, its balances, and its alliances, to the insistence on its refusal position of the admission of the staying of the Syrian President without having a roadmap to achieve thus purpose. The Americans know as their allies and opponents that what it was said about excuses and justifications that are related to democracy, human rights, change, and the reforming in Syria were not but jut pleas to affect the President Al Assad and to get rid of him. It seemed that the way was passable for such of these goals through political settlements that included the participation of the opposition in the presidential elections for two years ago, from the gate of making Geneva talks in that year restricted by putting conditions on that participation, in addition to the forms and the guarantees of the equality in its implementing, in addition to the forms of the UN contribution in the control and the verification of having a fair electoral process that reflects the will of the Syrians. As it was clear that the refusal of Washington and its allies of such an opportunity has expressed the relation of the internal Syrian slogans in the war as pretexts not as goals.

With the growing of the terrorism and its rootedness on one hand, and after the bet on the military choice of overthrowing Syria and its President has been depleted, and along with signing the understanding on the Iranian nuclear program, the matters have become restricted between two choices of settlement which Washington and its allies are committed to through a settlement that ensures the cooperation in the war on terrorism, where Syria, its army and its president are an inevitable team to have a partnership with in this settlement, towards resorting to the ballot boxes in order to make the Syrian say which constitution and which president they want, or to go on in a war of attrition through pumping more money, weapons, and men to the terrorist organizations escaping from this settlement and to prevent the wining of the Syrian country and its allies, in addition to the risk of the consequences of the terrorism on the western countries, therefore Washington and its allies went on with the second choice.

With the Russian military positioning in Syria it seemed that the war of attrition is limited and that the decision of the military resolving even in phases will become an opportunity for Syria and its allies for a military victory that leads to the totally exit of Washington and its allies from Syria, and despite the American maneuvers in applying the  understandings with Russia it seemed that the matter is determined with a bilateral of choice between accepting a settlement that admits of the role of Syria,  its president , and its army waiting the resorting to the ballot boxes, or to go in a military confrontation  between Syria and its allies on one hand, and the terrorist organizations which form the center of the armed groups which are fighting in Syria and which will be affected as ISIS and Al Nusra, including those who are supported by Washington and its allies on the other hand.

It seems that the month of July is decisive in terms of the American choices, in its begging the American anticipation for Russian-American understanding  for the cooperation in the war on Al Nusra and ISIS has started, it has discussed how Washington would neutralize those whom it called the armed moderate opposition, in early July the Turkish positioning towards Russia has occurred under the title of the Turkish exit of the ottoman and the return to the concept of the national security entitled confronting the threat of the emergence of a Kurdish entity on the borders with Syria. This has happened after months of maneuvers in dealing with the truce which sponsored by Moscow and Washington together, under its coverage the militants and the weapons have been brought in order to make the battle of the northern of Syria, a war of sharing the geography with Syria and its allies, while the completion of sharing is accomplished according to the what the groups which are supported by Washington directly in Rqqa and Hasaka achieve, the two bets have failed together.

Russia has settled a calendar for its allies in Tehran Meeting of the ministers of Defense of Russia, Syria, and Iran, its content is that the month of July is the last deadline for making an understanding with Washington in the war on Al Nusra, and how to neutralize the groups which want to join the political process instead of the war, and then the military resolving will be the choice which is supported by Moscow and its allies in the northern of Syria against Al Nusra and who is positioning with it.

Washington finds itself between two choices either the postponement and the acceptance of the consequences of the Russian resorting and its allies to an individual resolving that devotes the Syrian President as a symbol of this victory, or to accept a settlement that imposed on its allies, it includes the acceptance of dealing with the Syrian President as a partner in the war on terrorism. In both cases it will find itself obliged to admit of the Syrian President as a real fact in the scene of the Middle East which he left it and which will be left by all those who betted on his departure.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,