Written by Nasser Kandil,
The understandings between the great powers are not accomplished through long summits between two presidents, because such of these meetings are a sign of the depth of the disputes on one hand, and the will to understand on the other hand. They led to bridges on which the experts, consultants, senior diplomats and military depend, while the understandings are made by those, and when they are accomplished they are only in need of a mutual smile between the two presidents, signs of body language, and exchange of some words of assertion on the determination and credibility in going on in the understandings with consent and acceptance. This is what we saw in the previous long summits between the Presidents of Russia and America, and what we saw in the statement of the Russian-American understanding about Syria.
The understanding on Syria cannot be achieved without a comprehensive understanding on three organically linked files, the first of which is an understanding about Washington’s file of concern which is represented by the missiles of the North Korea and its military nuclear file, its basis is to stick to the understanding on the Iranian nuclear file as a valid example for North Korea rather than the escalation against Iran, which the leader of Korea says that possessing the nuclear missiles is his guarantee not to be exposed to what Iran is exposed to, while the required is the contrary to make the Koreans see that the example of Iran is attractive, because it gets advantages, roles, and smooth relations because it commits to the ceilings of the international understandings, and that the surrounding guarantees of the signed understanding make it stable. The understanding on Syria is related to the understanding on how to reduce the opposition and disobedience from the Saudi and the Israelis parties, the encouragement of the former to engage in a negotiating choice will lead into a political solution in Yemen, and the encouragement of the latter to engage will lead to a negotiating solution with the Palestinians.
The solution in Syria is drawn by the post-ISIS phase which imposed its logic, but the elements of pressure which accompanied it accelerate to ask questions which the former US Ambassador in Syria Robert Ford has given preemptive answers to them, by saying that Washington has to ensure the participation of the Kurds in the Syrian political solution, and to be ready for the US military exit from Syria otherwise to go to comprehensive war, which it is supposed that those who wanted it to wage it under more attractive titles than supporting the Kurds. It is good for Washington to entrust Moscow with the solution in Syria, it is a solution under political ceiling entitled the elections after a new constitution, as stated by the resolution issued by the UN under Russian-American consent.
According to Russia, the Turkish role in the North is important as a guarantee to cooperate in ending Al Nusra front on one hand, and for the Kurdish participation in the political solution under Turkish consent that ensures subsequent Turkish withdrawal from Syria after being reassured for the Turkish national security on the other hand. In contrast the Iranian role in the South is not under Russian bargaining in order to get the satisfaction of the Americans and the Israelis. The Russian President has already told the Head of the occupation government two months ago that Iran is filling a regional vacancy in Syria, so its participation in the political solution will make its presence positive even to its opponents, because it participates in bearing the responsibility of maintaining stability and keenness on balance in dealing with the Syrian components.
Despite the indicators of wars and the signs of escalation, the meanings of Moscow-Washington understanding cannot be ignored, and it cannot be ignored also the Kurdish retreat in Iraq from the secession in a recorded time without an ignition of an American –Israeli- Saudi war which was the only opportunity for a war, moreover it cannot be ignored the Saudi retreat in Lebanon and the Saudi retreat in the file of besieging Yemen and the need to observe the Israeli alert and the objection of the content of the compromises, in addition to the intention on intervention when the Israeli interest calls, as a repetition of what the Israelis already said with signing the understanding on the Iranian nuclear file.
Many people in Washington say that strengthening the Iranian regional role as a guarantor of stability is more than a message to encourage the North Korea to accept the language of settlements, it is an investment on the relationship with a rising power and the willingness to deal with the retreat of the regional allies who live the phase of end despite the arrogance, denial, and the crazy acts.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,