The recent remarks by Obama ruled out the deployment of American ground troops in Syria. The remarks, however, don’t deny the brutal direct American intervention in Syria as much as prove that Obama is not keen on being dragged into a direct and intensive war in Syria.

It will be costly for America if it gets dragged into war in Syria, taking into consideration that the Syrian leadership affirmed that any foreign intervention in Syria without its consent will be counteracted with force. This foreign intervention will be regarded as an occupying force, especially since Washington and its allies previously attested their intention to destroy the Arab Syrian army and to leave Syria as the hostage of terror groups whose prime goal is to guarantee the survival of the Israeli occupation. Washington is also aware of the fact that there will be a direct confrontation with Russia if ground troops are deployed in Syria. The U.S. is aware of the repercussions of this risk and the harm inflicted, especially since Russia is keen on protecting Syria and its unity.

Part of Obama’s remarks, at least, were perhaps the outcome of American-Russian agreements on the situation in Syria. The other part of his remarks, however, raised skepticism over Washington’s intentions (as Obama affirmed that the war on the Islamic State will exceed his presidency era and that he is slowly seeking to shrink the environment in which the Islamic State group operates). This is especially true because past incidents confirmed that the United States has always stepped in to revive the Islamic State group and other terrorists through what Washington calls the moderate armed opposition, which, according to prior experiences, proved to be a good transporter of weapons to terrorists.

In addition to giving clarifications around the announced stance that there will be no direct invasion of Syria and unveiling what is going on behind the scenes with the countries that are seeking to overthrow the Syrian regime — even if this requires supporting the Islamic State group and al Nusra — Obama’s statements also unmasked the role of the analyst, which is also practiced by many foreign oppositionists who are still betting on what they will externally receive to enable them to reach their target: toppling the Syrian regime.

These stances are similar to those of the Iraqi opposition, which arrived to Baghdad through America. Past experiences also showed that depending on foreign states is what brought Iraq to this abyss in which it currently dwells. Iraqis will not be able to get out of the abyss unless they realize the value of citizenship, nationalism and when they stop depending on external forces, especially if the latter seek to divide and tear down the society and the state.

The Americans, their allies and those who follow their lead such as agents and terrorists, whom Washington calls moderate rebels, are the reason behind the Syrian calamity. This calamity is experienced by Syrians inside of Syria and Syrian refugees outside of Syria because of the inhumane way the international community deals with them. Those who call themselves humane trade with the Syrian ordeal using their blood filthy hands. The political solution option will remain blocked as long as Syrians are holding onto their social structure while rejecting criminal aggressive interventions and while conspirators, together with their local tools, continue to insist on implementing their criminal agenda. This was communicated by Obama as he affirmed that no solutions are yet in sight in the near future.

Washington will continue to twist the facts and will not differentiate between those who protect the country and those who seek to destroy it. This will happen through an international consensus that seeks to control and manipulate in order to benefit Israel, which is exploiting the situation to devour the Golan heights amid Arab statements which — unfortunately — describe rebels as terrorists and those who work for foreigners and who bargain with their country as revolutionists.