America Is Feeding Syrians the Idea of Assad Remaining in Power
Published in Al-Quds Al-Arabi
(Pan Arab) on 10 January 2016
by (link to original)
America last week leaked information about the U.S. administration’s agreement that Syrian President Bashar Assad will remain in power until after President Barack Obama's term ends in 2017. The news postulates that theoretically, the American administration worked on toppling Assad. This reveals a lot of information confirming that the overthrow of Assad was the only red line which Washington was committed to. It was not committed to toppling a regime which used chemical weapons against civilians, displaced millions of Syrians, and contributed to the rise of the Islamic State and other radical extremist groups. A regime which is in an alliance with Iran and its allies, which threatened Israel, and which supports the opposition in Lebanon (Hezbollah). These are in addition to the other achievements that the regime’s adversaries have ascribed to it.
It is not possible to consider it as American deceit because several characters from the Syrian opposition have been saying since the beginning of the revolution in 2011 that the White House does not want the regime to collapse. They have said that the White House does not want to support the moderate opposition and that it prevented attacks from the Free Syrian Army in 2012 from toppling the regime. Its actions led to the beginning of the opposition’s losses, thus giving rise to armed Salafist groups and renewed initiative for the regime and its Lebanese, Iraqi and Iranian allies. This contributed to a wave of genocide and massive displacement. What all this means is that it is not possible to consider Russia's military intervention and Washington's broad acceptance of Russia's political solution for Syria a surrender of U.S. policy or a withdrawal from the region. It is more likely to be regarded as a continuation of a policy that explains much of what is not only occurring in Syria but also in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iran!
From here, it is now understood why Washington prevented Turkey's idea of creating a safe zone inside Syria, and why Washington welcomed the Turkish military's retreat from Iraq. It is clear that Iran asked to enter militarily in Iraq after the Islamic State group seized control of Mosul following the defeat of the Iraqi army. Therefore, it is understandable why the United States is supporting the United Democrats group in Syria, and the people’s protection units. The Syrian regime has offered this plan since the beginning of the revolution in order to manage the various areas of the country by erecting barriers to the moderate Syrian opposition.
It is now becoming clear that this is the reason for silence from America and the United Nations in the wake of the systematic genocide in which the Syrian regime, as well as Russian, Lebanese and Iraqi militias have engaged. Their acts have included the siege and starvation currently taking place in the towns of Madaya, Zabadani, Moadamich and the brutal bombings of civilians in Eastern Ghouta, Deraa, Idlib and Latakia.
In fact, the analysis of the siege and starvation occurring in various regions governed by Syria accuses the regime and its allies of such descriptive acts as barbarianism that rely on policies of a displacing demographic sectarianism. These analyses are, however, unable to explain Washington and its European allies’ acceptance of this state of systematic genocide.
The regime and its allies use hunger and torture as a device and, therefore, do not depart from the narrative upon which they have built their policies. However, despite the declared American and United Nations policies, if we want the real truth that is not very far from this narrative, then we can still say that America and the West are exploiting the regime’s devices. They are also responsible for the closure of pathways for Syrians and placing the option of keeping Assad in power back on the table.
When the Islamic State group besieged Kobani, America militarized all of its military and political forces to block the siege and to support Kurdish fighters. America also threw all of its aerial food aid and military assistance at Kobani, which enabled the Kurds to repel the Islamic State group's attacks. However, the Syrian cities and towns whose families are dying from hunger do not have a chance of receiving medical attention, not to mention military aid or the chance to receive humanitarian relief despite a previous U.N. resolution on the matter.
The one who is choosing hunger and submission for Syrians is America, and standing behind it is the world, not the Syrian regime or Hezbollah.
It is not possible to consider it as American deceit because several characters from the Syrian opposition have been saying since the beginning of the revolution in 2011 that the White House does not want the regime to collapse. They have said that the White House does not want to support the moderate opposition and that it prevented attacks from the Free Syrian Army in 2012 from toppling the regime. Its actions led to the beginning of the opposition’s losses, thus giving rise to armed Salafist groups and renewed initiative for the regime and its Lebanese, Iraqi and Iranian allies. This contributed to a wave of genocide and massive displacement. What all this means is that it is not possible to consider Russia's military intervention and Washington's broad acceptance of Russia's political solution for Syria a surrender of U.S. policy or a withdrawal from the region. It is more likely to be regarded as a continuation of a policy that explains much of what is not only occurring in Syria but also in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iran!
From here, it is now understood why Washington prevented Turkey's idea of creating a safe zone inside Syria, and why Washington welcomed the Turkish military's retreat from Iraq. It is clear that Iran asked to enter militarily in Iraq after the Islamic State group seized control of Mosul following the defeat of the Iraqi army. Therefore, it is understandable why the United States is supporting the United Democrats group in Syria, and the people’s protection units. The Syrian regime has offered this plan since the beginning of the revolution in order to manage the various areas of the country by erecting barriers to the moderate Syrian opposition.
It is now becoming clear that this is the reason for silence from America and the United Nations in the wake of the systematic genocide in which the Syrian regime, as well as Russian, Lebanese and Iraqi militias have engaged. Their acts have included the siege and starvation currently taking place in the towns of Madaya, Zabadani, Moadamich and the brutal bombings of civilians in Eastern Ghouta, Deraa, Idlib and Latakia.
In fact, the analysis of the siege and starvation occurring in various regions governed by Syria accuses the regime and its allies of such descriptive acts as barbarianism that rely on policies of a displacing demographic sectarianism. These analyses are, however, unable to explain Washington and its European allies’ acceptance of this state of systematic genocide.
The regime and its allies use hunger and torture as a device and, therefore, do not depart from the narrative upon which they have built their policies. However, despite the declared American and United Nations policies, if we want the real truth that is not very far from this narrative, then we can still say that America and the West are exploiting the regime’s devices. They are also responsible for the closure of pathways for Syrians and placing the option of keeping Assad in power back on the table.
When the Islamic State group besieged Kobani, America militarized all of its military and political forces to block the siege and to support Kurdish fighters. America also threw all of its aerial food aid and military assistance at Kobani, which enabled the Kurds to repel the Islamic State group's attacks. However, the Syrian cities and towns whose families are dying from hunger do not have a chance of receiving medical attention, not to mention military aid or the chance to receive humanitarian relief despite a previous U.N. resolution on the matter.
The one who is choosing hunger and submission for Syrians is America, and standing behind it is the world, not the Syrian regime or Hezbollah.