Finding a way out of the war against Syria

by Thierry Meyssan

The White House is unable to extricate itself from the war in Syria. President Trump is hindered both by the self-proclaimed « stable state » (according to the anonymous op ed in the New York Times), which continues to pursue the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski strategy, and by the reactivated ambitions of his Israëli, French, British and Turkish allies. The logic of these interests could displace the war instead of resolving it.

Although the White House and Russia have agreed to end the proxy war fought by jihadists in Syria, peace is a long time coming. Why?

Why is there a war against Syria?

Contrary to the idea carefully sown by seven years of propaganda, the war against Syria is not a « revolution which went wrong ». It was decided by the Pentagon in September 2001, then prepared for many years, admittedly with a few difficulties.

A war in preparation for a decade

The preparation of the war is explained in depth in Thierry Meyssan’s latest book. It is already available in French, Spanish, Russian and Turkish. It will be published in September in English, Arab and Italian.

A reminder of the main stages of the planning of the war:
 In September 2001, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld adopted the strategy of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, which specified that the state structures of half of the world had to be destroyed. For those states whose economy is globalised, the United States would control the access to the natural resources of those regions not connected to the global economy. The Pentagon commenced its work by « remodelling » the « Greater Middle East » [1].
 On 12 December 2003, George Bush Jr. signed the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. From that moment on, the President of the United States enjoyed the right to go to war with Syria without having to ask Congress for approval [2].
 The Lebanese civil war (1978-90) ended with the Taif Agreement. At the request of the Arab League, and with the approbation of the UN Security Council, the Syrian Arab Army came to the assistance of the Lebanese army in disarming the militias, then, acting as a Peace Force, stabilised the country. Thereafter, Israël accused Syria of having occupied Lebanon, which makes no sense at all. [3]
 In 2004, during the summit of the Arab League in Tunis, President Ben Ali attempted to push through a motion authorising the League to legitimise the use of force against member states who refused to respect the League’s brand new Human Rights Charter.
 In 2005, the CIA organised the Cedar revolution in Lebanon. By assassinating Sunni leader Rafic Hariri and blaming the Christian President of Lebanon and the Alaouite President of Syria, they hoped to trigger a Sunni uprising against the Syrian Peace Forces. With the Marines ready to disembark in Beïrut, Syria withdrew on its own initiative, and the tension was dissipated [4].
 In 2006, Dick Cheney tasked his daughter Liz with creating the « Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group ». They organised the Israeli attack against Hezbollah, thinking that they would be unable to resist for long. US Marines were then intended to disembark in Beïrut and continue their march of « liberation » on Damascus. However, the operation failed, and after 33 days of combat, Israël had to retreat [5].
 In 2008, Washington once again tried to create conflict with Lebanon as its flash point. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora decided to cut the internal communications of the Resistance and to interrupt air transport with Teheran. Within a few hours, Hezbollah had inverted the Western military system and replaced all of its infrastructures.
 In 2010, Washington adopted the strategy of « leading from behind ». The Obama administration handed the attacks on Libya and Syria to France and the United Kingdom respectively (Lancaster House agreements).
 In 2011, beginning of military operations in Syria.

It is therefore absurd to speak of the war against Syria as a spontaneous event sui generis [6].

Indirect war

The original feature of the war against Syria is that although it was declared by states (the « Friends of Syria »), it was in reality fought almost exclusively by non-state armies, the jihadists.

During the seven years of this war, more than 250,000 combatants arrived from overseas to fight against the Syrian Arab Republic. They were without doubt little more than cannon fodder, and insufficiently trained, but during the first four years of the conflict, these soldiers were better armed than the Syrian Arab Army. The most important arms traffic in History was organised in order to keep the jihadists supplied with war materials [7].

The Western powers had not used mercenaries on this scale since the European Renaissance [8].

It is therefore absurd to speak of a « revolution that went wrong ».

A war supervised by allies who have their own objectives

By asking Israël to attack Lebanon on their behalf, then by handing over the wars on Libya and Syria to France and the United Kingdom, and finally by using the NATO installations in Turkey, the Pentagon allowed its plan to be confounded by its allies.

Just as in all wars, the leading country has to promise its obedient allies that they will be awarded a return on their investment. However, with the entry of Russia into the war, Western victory became impossible. Every one of the United States allies turned progressively back towards its own strategy in the region. With time, the war objectives of the allies gained the upper hand over those of the United States, who refused to invest as much as they should have done, militarily speaking.

Israël

Pursuing the colonial ideology of some of its founding fathers, Israël implemented a policy of division intended to split its larger neighbours into a collection of small countries which were to be ethnically or religiously homogeneous. It therefore supported – in vain – the division of Lebanon into two states, one Muslim and one Christian, or again the creation of a Kurdistan in Iraq, then later in Syria. We do not have the Israëli strategic documents, but retrospectively, the line followed by Tel-Aviv corresponds to the « Yinon plan » of 1982 [9] or that of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies of 1996 [10].

The Israëli strategy stayed within the limits of the « remodelling of the Greater Middle East » designed by Rumsfeld and Cebrowski. However, it did not have anything like the same objective – the Pentagon wanted to control the access to the region’s riches by the developed countries, while Israël wanted to ensure that none of its neighbours could become strong enough to challenge it.

The United Kingdom and France

The United Kingdom and France fell back on their colonial policy, as it was defined at the moment of the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the division of the Middle East (the Sykes-Picot agreements).

The British used a replay of the « Great Arab Revolt of 1915 » that Lawrence of Arabia had set up against the Ottomans. At that time, they had promised freedom to all Arabs if they would throw off the shackles of the Ottoman Empire and place the Wahhabites in power, This time they promised freedom if they would overthrow all their national governments and replace them with the Muslim Brotherhood. But neither in 1915, when the British Empire replaced the Ottoman Empire, nor in 2011, did the Arabs find their liberty. That was the « Arab Spring » plan of 2011 [11].

The French were seeking to re-establish the mandate on Syria which had been handed to them by the League of Nations. This was explained by Picot’s great-nephew (as in the Sykes-Picot agreements), ex- President Giscard d’Estaing [12]. And that is what President Hollande demanded during his visit to the United Nations, in September 2015. Just as in 1921, when France stood for the ethnic separation of the Kurds from the Arabs, it therefore defended the creation of a Kurdistan, not on its historic territory in Turkey, but anywhere, so long as it was on Arab land in Syria.

Turkey

As for Turkey, it dreamed of realising the promise of its founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the « National Pact » (Misak-ı Millî) [13], adopted by the Ottoman Parliament on 12 February 1920. Its intention was to annex Northern Syria, including Aleppo, and also to eliminate the Christians, including the Catholics in Maaloula and the Armenians in Kessab.

Turkey entered into conflict with the other allies – with the Israëlis because they sought to annex Northern Syria rather than making it autonomous – with the British because they wanted to re-establish the Ottoman Caliphate – and with the French because they sought to create an independent Kurdistan in Syria. Above all, it entered into conflict with the United States themselves because they made no secret of wanting to destroy Syria after having dismantled it [14].

How to escape from this war?

After seven years of combat, the Syrian state is still standing. The Syrian Arab Republic and its allies, Russia, Iran and the Hezbollah, are victorious. The foreign armies (the jihadists) have suffered a crushing defeat, but not their commanders – the United States, Israël, the United Kingdom, France and Turkey.

Not only has the war re-awoken the ambitions of the beginning of the 20th century, but none of the protagonists who have not paid for their defeat in blood are ready to abandon the fight.

It may seem stupid to want to start over with a war which has already been lost by the jihadists. The presence of the Russian army makes impossible any direct confrontation. Far from being eliminated, the Syrian population is now battle-hardened, ready to suffer even more hardship, and is much better armed than before. Above all, it has given the situation some serious thought, and is less manipulable than it was in 2011. However, just as before, Western political rhetoric has once again taken up its refrain « Bachar must go ».

Logically, therefore, the conflict will have to start again on another battle-field. While in the past, Admiral Cebrowski had planned to take the next stage of the war to Central Asia and the South-East, his successors will first have to finish the job in the Greater Middle East. They are currently studying the possibility of relighting the fire in Iraq, as we see with the spectacular about-face of the Rohani administration and the riots in Bassorah.

Thierry Meyssan

إيران ودرس كردستان العراق الجديد لمن يفهم!

سبتمبر 10, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– فيما الإعلام منشغل والسياسة منغمسة، في استقراء رسائل أحداث البصرة، والاستعصاء الحكومي في العراق، والتصعيد المفتعل في حرب الصلاحيات لتبرير التعطيل في لبنان، وبينهما وفوقهما، بما شهدته قمة طهران ومن ورائها معركة إدلب، التي بدا واضحاً أن كل التهديد والوعيد لا يفتّ في عضد أصحاب القرار فيها، قام الحرس الثوري الإيراني بالإعلان عن استهداف مواقع للجماعات الكردية المسلحة الإيرانية المتمرّدة والمتمركزة داخل كردستان العراق، وهي جماعات ينظمها ويرعاها الأميركيون للقيام بأعمال تخريبية داخل إيران. والحدث كبير جداً ويحمل رسائل تتصل بحجم القرار الإيراني في التعامل مع المحاولات الأميركية لتغيير توازنات النصر في سورية التي تقترب لحظاتها الأخيرة لصالح محور المقاومة الذي تشكّل إيران قوّته الرئيسية وعمقه الاستراتيجي.

– رسالة كردستان العراق ودرسها الأهم، أن إيران التي صمتت عن بعض هذه الجماعات في ما مضى منعاً للتصعيد، واكتفت بالاستعدادات داخل حدودها لمنع تسلل هذه الجماعات، قرّرت مطاردتها وتصفيتها داخل الحدود العراقية في ظل وجود أميركي مباشر في العراق، وفي أشدّ اللحظات العراقية السياسية الداخلية تعقيداً، وتجاذب سياسي داخلي عراقي يتصل بدور إيران، التي يفترض منها مراعاته ويتوقع منها تهيّب القيام بما يثير ضدها بعض المواقف ويستصدر بعض البيانات، فإذ بها تفعل العكس غير آبهة بما سيُقال، لتقول إنه في كل مواجهة تكون أميركا هي الطرف المقابل فيها بصورة مباشرة أو بصورة غير مباشرة، فلا خطوط حمراء تمنع إيران من الذهاب للاشتباك المباشر مهما كانت النتائج، وأنها مستعدّة لتحمل التبعات، وخوض المخاطر.

– هذا يعني مباشرة أن الرسائل قابلة للصرف في ساحتي اشتباك افتراضيتين، الأولى في سورية وفقاً لقراءة ما بعد إدلب، والتبشير الإيراني المتواصل منذ سنتين بدنو معركة الرقة، ومن ضمنها طرد الأميركيين من سورية، وليس خافياً أن العملية التي استهدفت الجماعات الكردية المجهزة لاستهداف إيران، يأتي بعد يومين على قيام جماعات كردية مشابهة يقودها الأميركيون باستهداف الجيش السوري في منطقة القامشلي، والثانية في مضيق هرمز، حيث حذرت إيران من دفعها لإقفاله أمام الصادرات النفطية، إذا جرى تقييد حركتها في أسواق النفط بصورة تصيب وضعها المالي والتجاري بنتائج قاسية، فالتحرك العسكري خارج أراضي إيران، وفقاً لمفهوم أمنها القومي، ودون تنسيق مسبق مع حكومات الجوار المعنية، هو منهج على واشنطن وضعه في الحساب، كلما دنت ساعة الاختبار في الخليج.

– بالتزامن تبدو الرسالة واضحة لجهة عدم ترك المجال للفهم الخاطئ لتعامل إيران وحلفائها مع مساعي الفتن التي يشعلها الأميركيون في العراق ويريدون إشعالها في لبنان، فالاحتواء والامتصاص أسلوبان ناجحان في الأحداث الداخلية العراقية واللبنانية سياسة رابحة لإيران، حيث تحوّلت الفوضى التي أُخذت إليها منطقة البصرة في العراق لإحراق اسم المرشح الذي يدعمه الأميركيون لرئاسة الحكومة، الدكتور حيدر العبادي، وتحميل تيار السيد مقتدى الصدر مسؤولية الفوضى التي استهدفت خصومه والقنصلية الإيرانية، بعدما كان المقصود استهداف تيار الحشد الشعبي ورئيس الحكومة السابق نور المالكي، وتحميلهما مع إيران مسؤولية المعاناة المتراكمة لأهالي البصرة. وفي لبنان فشلت محاولات تحميل رئيس الجمهورية مسؤولية تأخير ولادة الحكومة، وبدا بوضوح أن المسؤولية عند الرئيس المكلف تشكيل الحكومة رغم كل الحشد الذي تمّ استحضاره لافتعال معركة صلاحيات رئاسية. والرسالة، هنا هي لا تسيئوا فهم المرونة، فرسالة القوة في مكان آخر، ولسنا ملزمين عندما تهاجمون بالردّ في المكان والأسلوب ذاتهما، فافهموا الأبعاد والمعاني وضعوها في حساباتكم الأكبر، والأبعد مدى!

Related Videos

Related Articles

• لحرس الثوري يتبنى الضربات الصاروخية على مقر الحزب الديمقراطي الكردستاني الإيراني بكردستان العراق
• مصدر عسكري يكشف تفاصيل هجوم مسلحي “الأسايش الكردية” على جنود سوريين في القامشلي
• المهندس: تهديدات أميركية بريطانية وسعودية وجهت إلى نواب و”الحشد” لن ينجر إلى أي حربٍ داخلية
• الموسوي للميادين: شخصيات وقيادات في البرلمان العراقي تعرضت لضغوطات أميركية كبيرة
• Iran’s IRGC Confirms Missile Attack on Terrorists in Iraq’s Kurdistan 
• “US Threatened to Burn Basra If Abadi Wasn’t Given Another Term”
• Iraq’s Hashd Shaabi Factions Say Ready to Prevent US-Saudi Conspiracy in Government Regard

«صفقة القرن»: منطلقها فلسطين ومحورها سورية ومنتهاها إيران؟

أبريل 30, 2018

د. عصام نعمان

«صفقة القرن» مشروع سياسي ارتدادي تصفوي، صاحبه دونالد ترامب. عنوانه تصفية قضية فلسطين لمصلحة الكيان العنصري الاقتلاعي الصهيوني.

العنوان وحده لا يلخّص مضمون المشروع. ثمة أبعاد له وأغراض لا تقلّ خطورة عن تصفية قضية فلسطين، بل لعلها أخطر وأشمل ويمكن إجمالها بتصفية قضية العرب، بما هي قضية حريتهم وتحررهم ونهضتهم ووحدة بلادهم وحقهم في العدالة والتنمية والفعل الحضاري.

هذا المشروع الارتدادي التصفوي المتكامل صبّ ترامب أخيراً على نيرانه المتأججة زيتاً باعترافه بالقدس عاصمةً لـِ «اسرائيل» ونقْل سفارتها اليها. رَفَد ذلك لاحقاً بما أسماه «مبادرة سلام معدّلة» تنصّ على عودة الطرفين الفلسطيني والإسرائيلي الى التفاوض على قضايا الحل النهائي وترْك ملف القدس الى المرحلة النهائية. الفلسطينيون عموماً، شعباً وتنظيمات، رفضوا «صفقة القرن». تردّد ان محمود عباس رفض مبادرة السلام المعدّلة. الهجوم الصهيو-أميركي مستمر ومتطاول، وفي مواجهته تتصاعد مقاومةٌ فلسطينيةٌ متعاظمة في الوطن والشتات.

الهجوم الصهيو – أميركي متعدد الجبهات. ها هو يمتد في هذه الآونة الى سورية وعبرها الى إيران. وزير الحرب الإسرائيلي افيغدور ليبرمان شدّ رحاله الى واشنطن، حيث اجتمع الى وزير الدفاع جيمس ماتيس ومستشار الامن القومي جون بولتن وبحث معهما ما وصفه، بأنه «التوسّع الإيراني في الشرق الأوسط، خصوصاً في سورية». هدّد قائلاً: «كل موقع نرى فيه محاولة لتموضع إيران عسكرياً في سورية سندمره، ولن نسمح بذلك اياً كان الثمن».

في موازاة تهديدات ليبرمان، أبرز مندوب «اسرائيل» في الامم المتحدة ما زعم انه «خريطة تبيّن ان إيران جنّدت اكثر من 80 الف مقاتل شيعي في سورية، وأن قاعدة التدريب تبعد نحو ثمانية كيلومترات عن دمشق». ألا توحي مزاعمه بعدوان وشيك؟

وزير الدفاع ماتيس أعلن خلال جلسة استماع في لجنة شؤون القوات المسلحة داخل مجلس الشيوخ أن الولايات المتحدة «تعتزم توسيع محاربة «داعش» من خلال إشراك دول المنطقة … ونحن لا نسحب قواتنا الآن، وأنا واثق أننا سنأسف اذا سحبناها … والفرنسيون ارسلوا قوات خاصة الى سورية لتعزيز مهمتنا خلال الأسبوعين الماضيين، وستشاهدون جهداً جديداً في وادي الفرات في الايام المقبلة».

من الواضح، إذاً، أن ثمة ترتيبات عملية يقوم الأميركيون بإعدادها لتنفيذ خطة واسعة النطاق في وادي الفرات تبدأ من شمال شرق دير الزور وقد تنتهي في أطراف محافظة الحسكة. اللافت في هذا المجال، انطلاق عملية واسعة لنقل مقاتلي «داعش» و«النصرة» الذين ارغموا على الانسحاب من دوما وسائر قرى غوطة دمشق الشرقية الى بلدات وقرى وادي الفرات بغية تحشيدهم وتنظيمهم في وحدات مقاتلة تعمل الى جانب قوات سورية الديمقراطية الكردية «قسد» المتعاونة مع القوات الأميركية والقوات الفرنسية الخاصة التي جرى نشرها أخيراً شمال وادي الفرات.

الى ذلك، لا يستبعد مسؤولون سوريون وروس أن تتمحور أغراض الخطة الأميركية في إقامة كيان انفصالي شرق الفرات قوامه عشائر عربية تديرها قيادات سورية موالية للسعودية. كما لا يستبعدون ايضاً أن تنطوي هذه الخطة على إقامة كيان كردي سوري منفصل عن حكومة دمشق المركزية بغية تعزيز دور الأطراف السورية المعارضة في أية مفاوضات قد تجري لاحقاً للبحث في تسوية سياسية للأزمة.

للهجوم الصهيو – أميركي وجهان إقليمي ودولي يتمثّلان بالضغوط التي تمارسها «إسرائيل» في اميركا واوروبا من اجل إلغاء الاتفاق النووي مع إيران. ترامب يبدو متجهاً الى اعتماد خيار الإلغاء بعدما بات واضحاً أن إيران لن توافق على أي تعديل لنص الاتفاق وأن غالبية دول اوروبا ترى مصلحتها في الإبقاء عليه.

إذا ركب ترامب رأسه وألغى الاتفاق، ماذا ستكون خطوته التالية؟

ثمة احتمالان: الاول، ان تقوم ادارة ترامب بفرض عقوبات اضافية قاسية على إيران والضغط على دول اوروبا لمجاراتها في هذا السبيل. الثاني، ان تقوم اميركا بالتحالف مع فرنسا وبريطانيا وبعض دول الخليج، بعمليات عسكرية متصاعدة لإرهاق إيران في سورية وصولاً الى إخراجها منها. ذلك يؤدي، في رأي أنصار هذه المقاربة، الى تحقيق هدفين إستراتيجيين: حماية «اسرائيل» وإبقاء يدها هي العليا في غرب آسيا، وإضعاف نفوذ روسيا ما يساعد اميركا واوروبا ودول الخليج على الاستئثار بالمكاسب المرتجاة من مرحلة إعادة إعمار سورية بعد الحرب.

الى ذلك، تميل القيادات المتشددة في «الدولة العميقة» داخل الولايات المتحدة كما قيادات اليمين الإسرائيلي الحاكم الى الاعتقاد بأن روسيا ستتهيّب مواجهة التحالف الاميركي الاوروبي – الخليجي في الساحة السورية مخافةَ الوقوع في مستنقع استنزافٍ طويل الأمد لا طاقة لها على احتماله. كما تعتقد هذه القيادات بأن لا تداعيات عسكرية خطيرة لقيام إيران بالردّ على أطراف التحالف المعادي بالعودة الى تخصيب اليورانيوم بنسبةٍ مئوية عالية لعدم جدواه ولكونها ملتزمة دينياً وسياسياً بموقف المرشد الراحل الامام الخميني بتحريم صنع اسلحة نووية.

كيف تراها تردّ روسيا وإيران؟

بات واضحاً أن موسكو حزمت أمرها وقررت تزويد سورية بمنظومةَ دفاعٍ جوي متطورة من طراز S-300 من شأنها إعاقة حركة سلاح الجو الإسرائيلي وربما تكبيده خسائر فادحة في حال تصعيد اعتداءاته داخل الأراضي السورية. إيران تبدو مصممة، وقادرة، على مواجهة الاعتداءات الإسرائيلية على قواعد تمركزها في سورية، بل على الردّ في العمق الإسرائيلي اذا اقتضى الأمر. وثمة بين المتخصصين في الشؤون الإيرانية مَن يعتقد ان تصعيد لهجة العداء الصهيو – أميركي والمباشرة في ترجمته على الأرض سيدفع القيادة الإيرانية العليا الى إعادة النظر بموقفها السلبي من صنع قنبلة نووية، وذلك باتجاه تصنيع أحد أسلحة الدمار الشامل لتحقيق توازنٍ فاعل في الردع كاللجوء، في الاقل، الى تصنيع اسلحة نووية تكتيكية للمدى القصير ووضعها في متناول مقاتلي قوى المقاومة السورية واللبنانية والفلسطينية الامر الذي يُلحق بالكيان الصهيوني خسائر بشرية ومادية لا تُحتمل.

قيادات «إسرائيل» تدرك هذه المخاطر والعواقب الهائلة، لذا يدعو بعضها الى استباق المصيرالكارثي لكيانها الهشّ بشنّ حربٍ تدميرية شاملة على إيران في الحاضر طالما ميزان القوى ما زال يميل لمصلحة «اسرائيل» بفضل دعم الولايات المتحدة قبل أن تنجح إيران في المستقبل المنظور، وبدعم من حلفائها، بتحقيق توازنٍ رادع وكاسرٍ لإرادة «اسرائيل» واميركا معاً.

«اسرائيل» لن تتخذ بالتأكيد قرار الحرب على إيران إلاّ بموافقة اميركا وبدعمٍ سخي منها، وربما بشرط مشاركتها فيها. العقل والمنطق يجزمان بأن أميركا لن تنزلق الى اتخاذ قرارٍ جنوني من هذا الطراز، لأنه ما زال في أروقة «دولتها العميقة»، ولا سيما في الكونغرس والبنتاغون، من العقول والإرادات ما يعصمها من نزق ساكن البيت الابيض وغلّه الأسود.

هكذا يتضح ان «صفقة القرن» منطلقها فلسطين ومحورها سورية ومنتهاها إيران، فهل كثير على قوى المقاومة في مشرق العرب اختصار مسار الآلام باجتراح نهاية قريبة للحرب الدائرة في سورية وعليها؟

وزير سابق

SYRIAN KURDISTAN: FROM “OLIVE BRANCH” TO “FALLEN STATE”

South Front

26.04.2018

Kurdish fighters raise flag of PKK leader in centre of Raqqa

Written by Maksim Alexandrov; Originally appeared on warsonline.info; Translated by AlexD exclusively for SouthFront

Not long ago in Washington at the Institute of National Strategic Studies of the National Defence University the round table on “The Multimodal Threats in the Kurdish Region” took place, a continuation of the “NATO and Regional Military and Political Alliance in 2018” Council.

The organisers of the meeting, taking place on April 9 to 11, were the Institute of National Strategic Studies, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), the intelligence community and the commanders of the Special Forces of the US. The main agenda of the event was focused on clarifying the conceptual and analytical foundations of American policy in the framework of topical issues of the “Kurdish question”, the problem of improving the coordination of regional allies, as well as military and political modeling of crisis systems that fall under the topology of “fallen state”.

“Today, the USA, as never before, is faced with the destructive position of the Syrian regime and its allies, the Russian Federation and Iran. We met qualitatively new challenges and hybrid threats to freedom and democracy in Syria (SAR)”, with these words the special representative of the Department of Military and Political Modeling began his presentation, specialist in the field of pre-emptive analysis and the Greater Middle East of the Agency for the reduction of military threats Ray Ross.

During the discussion, experts highlighted the most complex structure of the problems that cause the revision of operational resources, and as a consequence, reducing operational sustainability and “window of response” to the crisis situations. First, such challenges include the issue of harmonisation of positions and approaches.

As an empirical base, analysts cite examples of the destructive positions of the Turkish Republic regarding the “united Kurdish space”, the inconsistent/punctual nature of the work of the UK, France and Germany in providing and preparing the Kurdish militia after the October operations in Iraq’s Kirkuk. During the meeting, the coalition failed to ensure prompt withdrawal of 140 Bundeswehr instructors and 30 specialist of the Special Aviation Service of the British Armed Forces.

Second, comes the imbalance of the asymmetric military and political education within the framework of the international coalition. The fragmentation of Kurdish troops and militia (YPG) during the events related to the referendum on the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan and the subsequent military and political crisis, the split of the Peshmerga and other Kurdish armed groups controlled by Erbil; the growth in popularity of the Movement for Change or “Goran”, are a ready counter-rally against ex-President Massod Barzani’s block, the “Democratic Party of Kurdistan” and the “Patriotic Union of Kurdistan”.

As a result, there is a curtailment of the potential of “Kurdish National Councils” in the Syrian Kurdish Supreme Council, in other words, the growing influence of the Democratic Union Party of Salih Muslim, supporter of the autonomy within the SAR, and the national Councils of Western Kurdistan, which may cause a potential strengthening of Moscow’s and Iran’s positions in the region.

The disagreements between the Kurdish and Arab (Sunni, 23 movements) ethnic and religious components are, in particular the revolt of the Arabs in Syria’s Raqqa, armed conflicts within “independent” groups in North-Eastern Syria, caused by both “humanitarian” and military-political aspects, systemic shortcomings of the previous presidential administration to unite the projects of the “Kurdish Zone”, “Syrian Democratic Forces” and the “Free Syrian Army”.

The data formed the need for duplication of “territorial formations” by independent structures, the creation of Kurdish security forces that are not included in the YPG during the last year. Along with this, it allowed partial substitution and assumption of the contingents of the Arab countries in the area of responsibility of the Alliance. Preliminary rounds of talks with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are now been held.

“The newly formed security forces, along with the implementation of substitution approaches are certainly a guarantee for stability and security in the North-East of Syria”, stated Ray Ross.

Third, the current problems required operational support for the concept “Balance of deterrence and engagement”, as described in previous submissions.

Thus, according to analysts, the greatest actual problems are:

1. Security in the North East of Syria;
2. Containment of Ankara;
3. Exclusion of the growing influence of Damascus, Moscow and Tehran;
4. Revision of the allies system, accompanied by a “balance of deterrence and engagement”.

Thus, the methods to achieve a “balance of deterrence and engagement” through the support and expansion of special measures aimed at the integration of non-system actors of the military and political process are of greatest interest. “We conduct constant monitoring of the military-political process and its dynamics. It has already been six months that we monitor the escalation of the conflict in the north of Syria, which we repeatedly inform our allies, Turkey and other countries. Today within the framework of the modeling, we understand the need to involve all parties in the settlement process. Potentially, it may include the Kurdish Workers’ Party and the Democratic Union”, said the representative of DTRA.

According to data received from the source “occupying a high position” in the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) since November 2017, personnel changes have begun, accompanied by an intra-party conflict. With the beginning of the Turkish operation “Olive Branch” the group “Will to Freedom” stood out, actively cooperating with the YPG troops, coordinated with the United States and its allies. The unit, numbering up to 5000 personnel, advocates for the change of the party’s leadership course and the formation of the “common Kurdish space”. “However, we must work to ensure that this organisation does not engage in destructive activities on Turkish territories”.

In addition, in the ranks of the PKK, according to intelligence, in December last year a “right-oriented core” was formed, which began the extradition of previously left in Afrin intra-party opponents of the “new forces” with Salih Muslim. “The United States have actively watched this process, today we have a unique opportunity to unite these PKK platforms into a new, powerful force that can affect the entire region. These processes are very complex, but positive for national security”, commented Ray Ross.

During the talks held at the end of December 2017, between the “new forces” and the Democratic Union Party, the parties could not agree on “extradition”, but agreements were reached in exchange for the deployment of seven training camps in North Africa in exchange for full support from the “right forces” in the PKK.

The personnel trained at these facilities were intended for deployment on the neighbouring Turkish territory. However the Turkish side took these processes as a strengthening, an attempt to unite the Kurdish Workers’ Party and on January 20 launched the army operation “Olive Branch”, which ended with the capture of the city of Afrin and the division of the canton into Turkish and Syrian-Russian areas of responsibility.

During the Turkish operation, with the support of the US, talks were held between the YPG and the Afrin security forces on the limited material and technical support, as well as sending a number of volunteer units subordinate to the military council of Manbij. Also, the “special contact mission” guaranteed full support in the case of coordination of the Afrin security forces, the dissolution of the HPX battalion and the “Desert Scorpion” brigade.

De facto, this process should be seen as providing an alternative resource base, aimed at the involvement of the security forces and councils of Afrin in the structure of the YPG and the expansion of cooperation with the International coalition, i.e. the removal of Iran and Russia from the northern province of Aleppo. However, cooperation between Moscow, Tehran and Ankara did not allow the formalisation of this union.

At the same time, analysts noted that the division, the failure of “involvement”, allowed to restore the balance of forces in the “Kurdish zone”, since after the military and political crisis caused by the “collapse” of Iraqi Kurdistan and the departure of Masoud Barzani as President, the “Democratic Union Party” significantly strengthened its position, “threatening the integrity of the Syrian Kurdistan”. However, after the division of Afrin, its potential, through natural processes, decreased, opening up new opportunities for the American side and the security forces that were created.

Thus, turning to the conclusions, we can say that the American side is now involved in the processes of operationalization of the concept of “containment and engagement”, considering factor projects of unification of multidirectional forces through the chaos of existing crisis systems and territorial associations. The growing military presence in the area of Al-Tanf, and the disparate information of the transfer of Arab-Kurdish troops to the area, could potentially mean the unification of the YPG, the security forces and the new Syrian Army into a single structure.

With the completion of operation “Olive Branch”, an extensive media company was launched to discredit the positions of Moscow, Tehran and Damascus in resolving the “Kurdish issue”.

In mid-March 2018 in north-eastern Syria, a “Syrian popular Resistance” was formed, advocating the liberation from occupation by a coalition led by the United States.

On April 15, 2018, the Department of Military and Political Modeling of the US agency for reducing military threats adopted the programme of development of the north-east of Syria, labelling this territory as “fallen state”.

An Excessive Emphasis on Theatrics Exposes US Hypocrisy on Syria

PETER KORZUN | 15.04.2018 |

An Excessive Emphasis on Theatrics Exposes US Hypocrisy on Syria

Is the US sincere in its fury about the alleged chemical attack in Syria? If this were more than theatrics, it would repent of its role in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. More than 30 years ago the Iraqi regime was regularly delivering devastating chemical barrages against Iran. The US knew all along that Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader at the time, had been using mustard gas and sarin since 1983. Roughly 20,000 Iranian troops were killed by chemical weapons (CW) in that war.

No emergency UN Security Council meetings were convened, no warships capable of striking land targets with cruise missiles rushed toward Iraqi shores, no belligerent statements were issued, and no sustained military operations were announced. Quite the opposite, the US provided the regime with intelligence. This is an example of how satellite imagery was used to violate human rights. The US assistance was not limited to providing just military data. Arms were funneled in via Middle East allies.

Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy to the Middle East, visited Baghdad in 1983 to shake hands with Saddam Hussein. It was the US and only the US that protected Iraq in the UN against Iran’s charges of CW use. The 1925 Geneva Protocol states that the signatories are to induce other states not to use CW.

In 1988, the Iraqi regime killed 5,000 of its own citizens in Halabja, Iraqi Kurdistan. The US sought to obscure Baghdad’s responsibility by falsely accusing Tehran, despite the fact that Iran did not possess CW.

Washington turned a blind eye toward the use of CW by jihadists in Syria. It did not react when members of the UN independent commission of inquiry warned of its “strong suspicions” that it was the rebels, not the government, who had used CW in that war-torn country.

The US used deadly substances in Syria and Iraq, such as , breaching International Humanitarian Law. The use of white phosphorus munitions in the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004 has been acknowledged by US officials. That is an incendiary weapon prohibited by the 1980

The use of US cluster bombs against civilians in Yemen is a violation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM). Unlike Russia, the US has failed to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). It has also refused to join the 1997 Ottawa Convention, which bans antipersonnel land mines (the Mine Ban Treaty).

The US never stopped working on its biological programs. It operates 25 bio-labs around the world in violation of the UN Biological Weapons Convention. Russia is concerned about the fact that the US has bioweapons programs in place near its borders in Ukraine and Georgia. A leak could lead to mass epidemics that would spread to Russia. No borders exist for killer insects.

The State Department described the alleged CW attack in Douma as “horrifying”. It said so even before the OPCW experts arrived there on April 13. Its statement claims that Russia’s support of the Syrian government is a betrayal of the CWC. No statement coming out of Foggy Bottom has ever declared that the US government is sorry for its multiple violations of international agreements, universally accepted norms of conduct, or for the people who have died or suffered as a result of its misdeeds. Perhaps American diplomats see nothing “horrifying” here.

The State Department fails to explain why a multinational invasion of Syria could be justified by something that might prove a hoax. Besides, no one has proved that anything like a CW attack took place in Douma at all. Should multinational forces invade the US because of its violations of international law? Could anyone in his right mind believe the US is really worried about the Syrian civilians who allegedly suffered as a result of the attack it says has taken place?

Last year, it took the US military about 48 hours to kill 100 civilians in Raqqa. One thousand eight hundred civilians overall lost their lives over the course of the US-led offensive to oust Islamic State fighters during that operation. There was no State Department comment on what happened. Were those civilians different from the ones in Douma?

State Department Spokeswoman Heather Nauert believes Russia bears responsibility for the CW attack because it “shields” Syria. By doing so, it “has breached its commitments to the United Nations.” She has a lot of nerve saying that, given all the numerous violations and illegal activities her country conducts practically in broad daylight. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

What will Washington do against Iran? ماذا ستفعل واشنطن ضدّ إيران؟

What will Washington do against Iran?

مارس 6, 2018

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The US Ambassador to the United Nations Nicky Healy said “If Russia continues to cover up Iran, and if the Security Council does not announce an action, the United States and our allies will take an action themselves” This occurred after the voting on the western –Arab draft resolution for condemning Iran for arming Ansar Allah in Yemen especially with the ballistic missiles that targeted Saudi Arabia.  Therefore the question becomes what will Washington do under the title “if we do not get an action from the Security Council we will take our own actions”?

The American option is restricted between two things; politically, it is represented by announcing the cancellation of the American commitment to the nuclear agreement with Iran and the return to the system of sanctions which applied before, and which will affect the Iranian Central Bank and the international banks which deal with it, especially the European and the Chinese ones. Militarily, it is represented by adopting the comprehensive or the temporal military option which might turn under an uncontrolled moment into a comprehensive confrontation or both of them. But it is certain that the bet on a diplomatic and popular crowd, media mobilization, and sanctions system that does not affect the nuclear agreement is considered less than a threat launched by Healy and showed her silly and her words trivial.

Concerning  the nuclear option, it seems clear that Washington’s problem is not with Iran rather with China and Europe, which stick to the agreement, and which refuse the sanctions system related to the cancellation of the agreement and which their companies will pay the cost for the returning to it, while Russia stands with Iran under the title that the cancellation of the agreement means that Iran has the right to return  to enrich uranium from where it signed its agreement, so those who announced their  sticking to the agreement must not address Iran rationally, but they have to do one of two things. Either to prevent Washington from the cancellation or to refuse the commitment to its sanctions no matter what the consequences will be on the European and Chinese banks. So is it possible after Washington has evaded from the cancellation twice to do it now and to enter an unpredictable financial war and which its repercussions may affect the financial status of America negatively  in a way that surpasses the crisis with Iran?

Regarding the military option, nothing has changed in favor of Washington for years, so it disregarded it. The US forces and interests which are distributed among Iraq, Syria, the Gulf, and the sea waters and the water ways will turn into targets by Iran and its allies. The results of the military action as the former US Secretary of State John Kerry said have no guarantees to achieve decisive results whatever the harm is, because Iran may accelerate to produce a nuclear bomb, as the former US President Barack Obama said on the eve of signing the nuclear agreement in response to the Arab and the Israeli calls, revealed by Kerry from Munich platform for security days ago.

Dennis Ross, the former US diplomat to the occupation entity, the US peace envoy for years, and a researcher who lived through several epochs in the US studies centers  said in his article two months ago that the dual response to two important questions about the American policy towards supporting the Kurds in Syria till the end, and  towards the confrontation of Iran is shown in how Washington behaved with the collapse of the dream of secession of the Kurds of Iraq under the blows of Iran and under the eyes of the US leadership in the White House and Pentagon without reacting, while the Kurdish entity was the most important opportunity for America to work against Iran, and the most important sign of the seriousness of supporting the independence of Kurds. Those who abandoned the Kurdish entity in Iraq because they did not want to get involved in a war, will not do the same in Syria, and those who missed the opportunity of being so close to Iran as the chief of staff in the occupation army Gadi Eizenkot said will not go farer than the political words and escalation.

Does that mean that Healy’s words are trivial and she is silly?

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

ماذا ستفعل واشنطن ضدّ إيران؟ 

فبراير 28, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– قالت سفيرة الولايات المتحدة لدى الأمم المتحدة نيكي هيلي

«إذا كانت روسيا ستواصل التستر على إيران، فسوف تكون الولايات المتحدة وحلفاؤنا بحاجة إلى اتخاذ إجراء من تلقاء أنفسنا. إذا لم نحصل على إجراء في المجلس فسوف يتعيّن علينا عندئذ اتخاذ إجراءاتنا».

جاء ذلك بعد التصويت على مشروع قرار غربي عربي لإدانة إيران باتهامها بالوقوف وراء تسليح أنصار الله في اليمن، خصوصاً بالصواريخ البالستية التي استهدفوا بها السعودية، ليصير السؤال ماذا ستفعل واشنطن تحت عنوان،

«إذا لم نحصل على إجراء في المجلس علينا عندئذ اتخاذ إجراءاتنا»؟

– ينحصر الخيار الأميركي بين اثنين، سياسي من العيار الثقيل يتمثل بإعلان إلغاء الالتزام الأميركي بالاتفاق النووي مع إيران والعودة إلى نظام العقوبات الذي كان سائداً قبل الاتفاق ويطال المصرف المركزي الإيراني والمصارف العالمية التي تتعامل معه، خصوصاً الأوروبية والصينية، أو الذهاب للخيار العسكري الشامل أو الموضعي، والذي يمكن أن يتحوّل في لحظة غير مسيطر عليها مواجهة شاملة، أو كليهما معاً، لكن الأكيد أنّ الرهان على حشد سياسي ودبلوماسي وتعبئة إعلامية ونظام عقوبات لا يمسّ الاتفاق النووي هو دون مستوى التهديد الذي أطلقته هيلي ويجعل كلامها تافهاً ويظهرها سخيفة.

– في الخيار النووي يبدو واضحاً أنّ مشكلة واشنطن ليست مع إيران بل مع الصين وأوروبا، المتمسكتين بالاتفاق والرافضتين نظام العقوبات المرتبط بإلغاء الاتفاق والذي ستدفع شركاتهما الكبرى ثمن العودة إليه، بينما روسيا تقف مع إيران تحت عنوان أنّ إلغاء واشنطن للاتفاق يعني أنّ من حق إيران العودة لتخصيب اليورانيوم من حيث توقف عند التوقيع، وأنّ على الذين يعلنوا التمسك بالاتفاق ألا يخاطبوا إيران بدعوات العقلانية بل أن يفعلوا إحدى إثنتين، التصدي لواشنطن ومنعها من الإلغاء، أو رفض الالتزام بعقوباتها مهما كانت التبعات على المصارف الأوروبية والصينية. فهل باتت واشنطن التي تهرّبت من الإلغاء مرتين، قادرة أن تفعلها هذه المرة وتدخل حرباً مالية غير معلومة النتائج والأطراف، ويمكن لتداعياتها أن ترتب آثاراً على مكانة أميركا المالية سلباً بما يتخطى الأزمة مع إيران؟

– في الخيار العسكري لم يتغيّر شيء لصالح واشنطن منذ سنوات، وما دفعها ويدفعها لصرف النظر عن هذا الخيار يزداد ولا ينقص. فالقوات والمصالح الأميركية الموزّعة بين العراق وسورية والخليج ومياه البحار والممرات المائية ستتحوّل أهدافاً سهلة لإيران وحلفائها، ونتائج العمل العسكري كما قال وزير الخارجية الأميركي السابق جون كيري ليس فيه ضمانات تحقيق نتائج حاسمة، مهما بلغت قدرته على إلحاق الأذى، خصوصاً لجهة ما قد يدفع إيران لتسريع إنتاج قنبلة نووية، كما سبق للرئيس الأميركي السابق باراك أوباما أن قال غداة توقيع الاتفاق النووي رداً على الدعوات العربية والإسرائيلية التي كشفها كيري من منبر ميونيخ للأمن قبل أيام.

– في مقال له قبل شهرين قال دنيس روس، أحد الدبلوماسيين السابقين الأميركيين لدى كيان الاحتلال والمبعوث الأميركي للسلام لسنوات، والباحث المخضرم في مراكز الدراسات الأميركية، إنّ الجواب المزدوج على سؤالين مهمّين حول السياسة الأميركية، تجاه دعم الأكراد في سورية حتى النهاية، وتجاه مواجهة إيران حتى النهاية، نجده في كيفية تصرف واشنطن مع انهيار حلم أكراد العراق بالانفصال تحت ضربات إيران، وتحت أعين القيادة الأميركية في البيت الأبيض والبنتاغون، وهم يتفرّجون، بينما كان الكيان الكردي أهمّ فرصة لأميركا للعمل ضدّ إيران وأهمّ علامة على جدية دعم استقلال الأكراد، ومَن تخلَّ عن كيان كردي في العراق لأنه لا يريد الحرب، فلن يفعل ذلك في سورية. ومن أضاع فرصة التقرب إلى مسافة صفر من إيران، كما يقول رئيس الأركان في جيش الاحتلال غادي أيزنكوت، لن يذهب إلى أبعد من الكلام والتصعيد السياسي.

– هل يعني ذلك أنّ كلام هيلي تافه وأنها سخيفة؟

Related Articles

• Iran to Withdraw from JCPOA If National Interests Not Served
• Iran: US, UK Covering up War Crimes Committed by Saudi in Yemen
• Russia Vetoes UN Anti-Iran Resolution on Yemen
• “Russian Veto, UN Resolution on Yemen Failure to US-Saudi Aggression”

Stop confusing Kurdistans! Syria’s leftists must turn home to Assad

February 22, 2018

by Ramin Mazaheri for the Saker Blog

As Assad-backed troops enter Afrin to fight Turkish invaders, the Syrian conflict has entered its decisive crossroads:

Will Northern Syria cooperate with Damascus, or not? This is the key to Syrian peace and territorial unity.

It’s also the question which will make or break claims that a Northern Syrian enclave which refuses to help expel uninvited Americans can somehow be a “leftist project”.

(I say it is a leftist project…IF they return to full cooperation with the Syrian government. I will detail my analysis of the political structure of “Rojava” in an upcoming article – this article only deals with immediate political concerns.)

No question can be answered, however, until I clarify some key facts about Northern Syria. Indeed, reporting about Northern Syria in the West is rife with the most fundamental errors, and the most egregiously false claims.

Firstly, the Kurds in Syria have only ever asked for autonomy, not independence.

People assume all Kurds are like Iraqi Kurds – separatists – but the Kurds in Syria want to stay within the Syrian state. This disavowal of independence is an undisputed, long-standing (if underreported) fact. Indeed, the arrival of pro-government forces in Afrin was met with celebrations – the “Arab Socialist Baath Party” is a nationalist one, it seems to have been forgotten. The fact that such celebrations could possibly raise some eyebrows only shows how terrible the West’s mainstream reporting is in Syria.

The second most important point is this: “Rojava”, “Syrian Kurdistan”, “Northern Syria” or the “Democratic Federation of Northern Syria” – whatever it is called – is among the most interesting (and newest) leftist projects in the world today.

For that reason alone, nobody is reporting on it honestly.

After all, the Western mainstream media has no governmental or private mandate to support the 99%…much less in a Muslim country…still less in an anti-Zionist country like Syria!

Rojava’s governmental culture is based around ethnic equality, collective unity, local emancipation and undoubtedly socialist-and-not-capitalist inspired democratic & economic ideals. Therefore…the capitalist-imperialist West totally ignores all of that and solely focuses on identity politics: thus, it’s always reported as just “the Kurds”.

That leads to the third important issue: foolishly lumping all the Kurds across Southwest Asia together, thereby assuming that there are no regional differences: For Western media it is as if Kurds walk around all day in a special “Kurdish daze”, so enamored with being Kurdish that the countries and local neighborhoods where they live have absolutely no effect on them or their worldview. Their “Kurdishness” is all-consuming, it seems! The theory underpinning this is identity politics: if you are Kurdish, then you must all think alike.

So it makes no difference if you grew up/lived in Saddam’s Iraq, modern Iran, Baathist Syria, or Istanbul: You are a Kurd and – as a Kurd – you can only possibly see things via the lens of your Kurdishness. But only the West proffers this absurd, one-dimensional view of the Kurds – not the Middle Easterners who live alongside them.

A fourth problem – an even larger one for those in Syria – is that the Kurds in Syria are not even “Kurds”!

What I mean is: Kurds are around ½ of the population of Northern Syria, but only compose around 1/3rd in some of the biggest areas of Rojava, such as Membij. There are Assyrians and Chaldeans – they are Christian. There are Sunni Arabs. There are Turkmen, who are not allied to Turkey and are Syrian patriots despite their name. There are Circassians, Armenians, Yazidis, Chechens and others. Hard as it is for non-Muslims to believe: All these people like each other, live & work together, intermarry and have done so for more than a millennia. You cannot even say that all the fighters in this area are Kurds, either, because the Syrian Democratic Forces forces – who helped rout ISIL – are majority non-Kurd.

But they are all Syrian – and they want it to stay that way.

This IS the case…even though Kurds in Iraq aimed for independence…and despite the Western anti-Assad propaganda.

Clearly, a major overhaul on the idea of “Kurd” is needed for many….

The Kurdish ‘Bad Century’ is relative to where they live

Anyone can have a bad century and finish as winners…look at the Chicago Cubs.

So in Northern Syria the “Kurds” are not even Kurdish nearly half the time, LOL, but let’s be like the West and look at the “Kurds” across their 4 main nations.

If we accept that “Kurdishness” is not all-consuming , we can see how the experiences of “Kurds” in Iraq (which also compose Assyrians, Chaldeans, Turkmen, etc.) – who lived under Saddam Hussein’s wars, were massacred by the anti-Iranian MKO homicidal cult, lived in a country forced to endure material shortages caused by US sanctions from 1990-2003, and who are enduring US invasion and occupation – are fundamentally different than the experiences of “Kurds” in Syria…where these things did not happen.

The experience of “Kurds” in Syria – which is bordered by the menacing, illegitimate state of Israel, which had a different political conception & practice of Baathism than Iraq (which provoked more enmity than cooperation between the two since 1966), which was invaded not by a “coalition of the willing” but radical terrorists, which is on the cusp of benefitting from the extraordinary national unity which can only be created by victoriously defeating foreign invaders – are fundamentally different than the experiences of “Kurds” in Iraq.

“Kurdishness” in Turkey is an vastly larger issue than Syria, because there are vastly more of them than in anywhere else.

“Kurdishness” in Iran is totally different than in any of the four primary Kurdish countries: they are more accepted there than any other country.

This is a result of the acceptance promoted by Iran’s modern, popular revolution of 1979 (by definition, you can’t have a “modern, popular revolution” based on racism/ethnic superiority). Indeed, Iran’s definitive cultural “female Iran-Iraq war experience” was the best-selling, award-winning story told by a Kurdish immigrant from Iraq to Iran – in the book“Da”, which means “mother” (not in Farsi). Such a thing could never happen in Turkey, obviously, nor Arab nationalist Syria and Iraq. This modern acceptance is why Iran is the only nation of the four where there is no chance of fomenting a Kurdish uprising in Iran: being Iranian and Kurdish is not any sort of contradiction – they are incorporated in the national self-conception about as much as any numeric minority can reasonably be, as the success of “Da” illustrates. And for this reason – which is called (Iranian Islamic socialist) “modern democracy” – there is no chance of any sort of a “Kurdish uprising” in Iran. Even amid this ongoing historical era of Kurdish militancy across the entire region, the PJAK Party (Iranian Kurdish separatists) gave up armed operations in Iran in 2011: it’s useless – Iran is different, and on the Kurdish question as well. Israel could spend a zillion usuriously-gained dollars on such a project and it would get nowhere…which is why they spend their time in the southeast (in Baluchestan with Jundallah).

And, to repeat, because this is so important: The people of Northern Syria have never, ever said they want anything but autonomy within Syria. This proves that Syrian “Kurds” are not Iraqi “Kurds”, where Barzani and their bid for independence have been neutralised…much to the dismay of the US & Israel.

An often ignored (or not known) point is that Iraqi “Kurds” had been wooed (or led astray) by the US for two decades via preferential economic, political, cultural and immigration policies. The US paid for a lot of goodwill over many years. In Syria – LOL, not at all. So, Syrian “Kurds” have not come into contact with the American ideology anywhere as much…and their ideology is necessarily different (despite the overpowering Kurdish daze they walk around in, LOL!)

Only by ignoring these realities can one assume the “Kurds” of both regions share the same political outlook in February 2018.

So, I hope we are bit less konfused on who the “Kurds” really are.

Now, because of the leftist nature of northern Syria, we must de-konfuse our notions of their political ideology.

But I’m going to postpone that to part two – let’s talk immediate politics.

A very interesting leftist political project…but not if they ally with the US

It was with great alarm that greeted the recent US declaration that they will keep 2,000 troops in Northern Syria – that news turned off many to the possibility that northern Syria could possibly be leftist.

And rightly so, but Washington’s plans are simply their desire – there has been no official political deal: Rojavan leaders insist their cooperation with the US is strictly military to fight ISIL. Indeed, they have grown up in Syria, which has been attacked by Israel…but now they are going to be allies?

Certainly, the downfall of Barzani in Iraq is a blow to US/Israeli imperialism – so…of course they are refocusing to Northern Syria. But that doesn’t mean they will get what they want!

Certainly, Northern Syria cannot allow a military base inside its borders. There can be no “Syrian Guantanamo” to permanently menace a newly-liberated Syria, like in Cuba.

Let’s keep a couple war realities in mind: It’s not as if Northern Syrians could have stopped the US from planting soldiers and using an airstrip – there has been a huge war, after all, with a well-heeled army called ISIL to stop.

Let’s also remember that the Northern Syrians work with everybody to fight ISIL in Northern Syria: Russia, the US, Damascus, Iran, Hezbollah – everyone but Turkey.(Obviously, the US both fights terrorism and supports it.)

Rojavans…it may be now or never to fight for Syrian unity

The invasion by Turkey means Northern Syrians have now reached the point of no return: to work with Turkey (and thus the US) is to betray the Syrian people which Rojavans have always claimed to want to be.

Therefore, Syria is on the verge of peace and total victory…or major civil war: It will be decided by inter-Syrian diplomacy. Negotiations have been ongoing between the two areas for years, of course, and they are no doubt in overdrive right now.

The fundamental problem is this:

Damascus has always rejected the idea of a federated state and autonomy for Northern Syria. Northern Syria has held their ground militarily, and Damascus has been too occupied with ISIL to demand cooperation…but it’s February 2018, and here we are.

So what will Damascus do, and what will Rojava do?

I am not a Syrian, and thus my opinion should be worth very little – the future of Syria is only for Syrians to decide – but to me it looks like this:

Rojavans may view siding with Damascus as a risk regarding the re-installation of some Arab Nationalist policies they dislike (Rojava has 3 official languages for a reason, for example)…but siding with the Americans is a guarantee of leftist betrayal, a guarantee of a failure and a guarantee of regional bloodshed for decades.

Maybe Rojava can expel ISIL on their own, but they cannot expel the US and Turkey without Damascus…and they must be expelled. How can these troops stay if Damascus and Rojavans cooperate? They cannot, whatever the Pentagon wants.

Therefore, at some point – a point quite soon – Rojavans will need to openly embrace Damascus, in the name of Syrian unity and in the realization of issues larger than their own interests and sacrifices.

On the other side, there is nothing stopping Damascus from making concessions to win over Rojava…and yet, one easily sees the government’s hesitance: Making major changes to Syria’s political structure seems to require the democratic approval of the entire nation via vote. The granting of wholesale structural changes for one-third of the country during wartime appears to lack democratic legitimacy.

Rojava is where most of Syria’s oil is located. Certainly, those funds cannot be made the complete “autonomous” property of Rojavans. One easily sees how “granting autonomy” is a major question that goes beyond just the decades-long elevation of Arab culture over the culture of Turkmen, Chaldeans, Kurds, etc.….

Of course, it should not be surprising that Assad’s view of Rojava never gets an airing…but given Rojava’s leftist bonafides, nobody ever talks about them at all either. “Keep ‘em konfused with just ‘Kurds’” is the media line….

To sum up my view of the immediate political situation: Unity requires faith – Northern Syrians need to trust their fellow citizens that their success has earned them good faith credit in Syria’s common future.

And, finally, what choice does Rojava have? Turkey will never accept them (this is the pretext for their invasion), nor Damascus, nor Iraq. The only ones who will are the US and Israel…and that is leftist?!?!

No…this is why I predict a reconciliation. The failure of Syrian-Syrian diplomacy at this juncture is…civil war.

And who wants that in Syria?

In an upcoming second article I will examine what is the “leftist ideology” of Rojava, and how these ideas might interact with Arab Socialist Baathism in a unified, free, victorious state of Syria.

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television. He can be reached on Facebook.

Related Videos

Related News

• النظام التركي يواصل عدوانه على منطقة عفرين ويدمر رتل سيارات مدنية وآليات محملة بالمساعدات…والجيش يرد على مصادر الاطلاق
• Syrian forces came to defend Afrin, but no deal with Damascus: YPG spox.
• Civilians killed, injured as rebels rain down Damascus with mortars, rockets
• Video footage of Syrian Army reinforcements arriving in the East Ghouta
• US doesn’t consider Russia’s Su-57 fighter jets a threat to their operations in Syria
• Turkish MoD publishes video of their forces attacking convoy in Afrin
• Horrific moment rebel mortar shell kills 3 children at Damascus school (video)
• [Graphic 18+] Turkish-backed rebels gruesomely execute unarmed man in Afrin