Between Moscow and Washington: Tel Aviv, Tehran,…..and Pyongyang

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Diplomacy realizes realistically the concept of the balances of forces and the range of movement; it draws its ceiling modestly until it reaches gradually to the equations of power. Since the beginning of the war on Syria under American leadership, Moscow’s ceiling was the prevention of using the international authorization for western military intervention as in Libya, the veto in the UN Security Council formed the most prominent presence in this war, with the acceptance politically of disturbing ceilings to Syria contrary to what it witnesses, as the so-called the first Geneva statement which included a focus on a Syrian internal aspect that ends with the formation of transitional government. Moscow was confident that the prevention of the direct military US intervention will allow the steadfastness of Syria and will lead politically to the opportunity of the direct Russian military positioning in the war towards waging it along with Syria and its allies; Iran and the resistance.

In contrast, Washington which boasts of power and the illusion of the ability to use the surplus power and the capacities of its following alliance is practicing its arrogance, conceitedness, and the high ceilings. It is worth recalling that the two terms “the countable days of the Syrian President “and “those who surpass the red line will not escape from punishment “are two terms of the rational, moderate, and real President Barack Obama as described while comparing him with the current President Donald Trump, because the issue is the issue of America not Obama or Trump’s issue. The rationality affected Obama after he tested the force by mobilizing the fleets and after his failure to adapt Iran and blackmail it in its nuclear file and for fear of the running out of time in the game of useless sanctions, while Iran is approaching from having sufficient quantity of enriched uranium to manufacture its first bomb.

During thirty months of the military and diplomatic role in Syria, Moscow succeeded in drawing flexible ceilings through which it achieved the employment of the Syrian steadfastness and the role of the Iranian ally and the resistance forces to overthrow the war as a strategic concept to bet on Syria or to put the project of its division on the table. What is left from the file of the war on Syria became related directly to identification of the regional role of Syria after the restoration of its entire geography. This is expressed in the announced Russian and American positions. While Washington is trying to impose an Israeli equation entitled there will be no stability or unity in Syria as long as Hezbollah and Iran are on its territory. Moscow tries to put Israel which is involved in this equation in front of two options to accept to recognize voluntarily of the restoration of the Syrian state of its geography and getting the decision of disengagement and a role of the United Nations on the borders of the occupied Golan or the mandatory restoration will be accompanied with a role and deployment of Hezbollah and Iran on these borders. In both cases Russia advises to deal with Syria as a sovereign country that is responsible of the security of its geography and to leave the principle of the presence of Iran and Hezbollah in Syria as a sovereign file that belongs to Syria alone.

As there were negotiation complexities over the legitimacy of the international and regional Iranian role in its nuclear file and the overlap of the American-Saudi-Israeli speech about the nuclear file with the speech about the Iranian influence, as the qualitative transferring to the Russian role in Syria was related to end this Iranian legitimacy which was represented in the nuclear understanding. The Russian military positioning occurred after two months of the birth of the understanding. The American withdrawal from the understanding is an attempt to return the equation to what it was before. The Russian forces became in Syria and Syria has changed, it is not possible to return backward. On the other hand, Europe became a partner in the understanding and it does not seem easy to withdraw it from that understanding as if nothing has happened. The Russian- European convergence under the title of protecting the understanding opens the door in front of Moscow to continue its investment on Eurasia project which is attracted by common Middle Eastern interests and governed by united threats and dangers in the national security. In both cases Washington seems on the other bank, either uninterested in the same interests or it has the interest in tampering with the stability and provoking dangers against Russia and Europe.

Moscow makes a progress in the Syrian and Iranian titles; it realizes the interaction between them. It still links its answer about the file of the strategic security of Israel which is put by Washington as a priority with an Israeli commitment to a settlement based on the resolutions of the international Security Council and the establishment of a Palestinian state which its capital is Jerusalem and which ensures the right of refugees’ return. While Washington bets on the fact that this speech has become from the past after it got the ensuring of the Arab support for getting out of the Palestinian cause, the acceptance of Jerusalem as a capital of Israel, and the calling of the Palestinians to a settlement under the ceiling of the Israeli security. Moscow tries to separate between the future of Syria, its sovereignty, and its unity and the future of the conflict about the visions to solve the Palestinian cause including the future security of Israel by providing the Syrian state as a mandatory option for all the international and regional players including Washington and Tel Aviv, because the alternative is the rootedness of the Iranian deployment and the presence of the resistance forces as a necessity to support the progress of the Syrian state towards liberating its entire geography.

After accumulating the results of the confrontations in several international and regional overlapped titles Moscow turns to North Korea through a special visit by its Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov to Pyongyang after the North Korean nuclear crisis has done its role in overthrowing the sanctions which are represented today in the US withdrawal from the nuclear understating with Iran with European position that becomes clearer, and after the disputes of negotiation showed the fragility of the American arrogance. The visit seems an occasion to draw the framework of the Korean security guarantees that is conditioned with drawing international framework inspired by the formula of five plus one, and perhaps five plus two by including Japan to the five countries along with Germany in the negotiation with Korea and through presenting the guarantees. The first question which will face Washington in the first meeting of this formation is what are the guarantees in order not to expose the intended understanding to what the understanding with Iran has been exposed to?

China which is involved in the Korean file and in the commercial war and the issues of the regional security with America does not need to the Russian stimulate to be strongly present.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,