The Evil Position of the US
Recently, several stands by the U.S. clearly show that the Obama administration has decided to avoid military confrontation in the region and to instead buy time through calls for dialogue among the parties to a conflict.
Let's have a look at the U.S.’ recent stands taken on Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Egypt. You will find that they share something in common.
During his visit to Egypt, John Kerry called upon the government and the opposition to pass laws for the parliamentary elections and to put an end to the intense polarization between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salvation Front.
In an official statement following Kerry’s meeting with Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov, Washington announced that it was necessary to bridge the gap preventing dialogue between the Syrian opposition and the Assad regime.
In Palestine, John Kerry worked toward supporting dialogue between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, between Hamas and Israel, and between the Palestinian Authority and Israel on the basis that an agreement on a sort of military truce without any political settlement is required.
In Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai complained in public that the American administration was negotiating with the Taliban after years of fighting them. He encouraged the current Qatari efforts to open a Taliban office in Doha to monitor dialogue with Kabul.
So, we have in front of us for some time a firmly established strategy based on encouraging conflicting parties to negotiate in whatever form and at whatever price, regardless of the political cost or the moral stand that applies to this strange situation.
From Washington's point of view, three things are important:
1) Sparing the Treasury new financial costs after independent scientific studies showed that the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had cost Washington $16 trillion, i.e. one-third of the U.S. public debt.
2) The internal economic situation takes precedence over foreign policy on the list of priorities, and regarding foreign policy, the Asian region — China, Japan and Korea — is of primary importance.
3) In his second and last term in office, the president wants to avoid tough situations that he will fail to solve. Therefore, he has to pacify others and avoid clashes instead of confronting them through political solutions or military action.
Let's have a look at the U.S.’ recent stands taken on Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Egypt. You will find that they share something in common.
During his visit to Egypt, John Kerry called upon the government and the opposition to pass laws for the parliamentary elections and to put an end to the intense polarization between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salvation Front.
In an official statement following Kerry’s meeting with Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov, Washington announced that it was necessary to bridge the gap preventing dialogue between the Syrian opposition and the Assad regime.
In Palestine, John Kerry worked toward supporting dialogue between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, between Hamas and Israel, and between the Palestinian Authority and Israel on the basis that an agreement on a sort of military truce without any political settlement is required.
In Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai complained in public that the American administration was negotiating with the Taliban after years of fighting them. He encouraged the current Qatari efforts to open a Taliban office in Doha to monitor dialogue with Kabul.
So, we have in front of us for some time a firmly established strategy based on encouraging conflicting parties to negotiate in whatever form and at whatever price, regardless of the political cost or the moral stand that applies to this strange situation.
From Washington's point of view, three things are important:
1) Sparing the Treasury new financial costs after independent scientific studies showed that the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had cost Washington $16 trillion, i.e. one-third of the U.S. public debt.
2) The internal economic situation takes precedence over foreign policy on the list of priorities, and regarding foreign policy, the Asian region — China, Japan and Korea — is of primary importance.
3) In his second and last term in office, the president wants to avoid tough situations that he will fail to solve. Therefore, he has to pacify others and avoid clashes instead of confronting them through political solutions or military action.