It is Hormuz’s tale not Idlib

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The Russian military personnel assure the US military presence in the Mediterranean Sea despite the US denial; they link it with the preparations for an aggressive action that targets Syria under fabricated chemical pretext in Idlib in order to disrupt the war on terrorism. All the Western and the UN positions which express their sympathy towards the civilians in the war claim that the goal is to create practically a pressing atmosphere to stop the military operation of the Syrian army for liberating Idlib.  None of those who pretend sympathy offered a solution to separate the humanitarian issue from the legitimacy of the war on terrorism that was agreed internationally upon the necessity to fight. The military presence in Idlib includes in addition to Al Nusra front which is the first dominant among the armed groups and which was classified as terrorist under an international consensus, tens of thousands of the fiercest and the most dangerous foreign militants in the formation of the terrorist organizations.

The attempts of disrupting and obstructing Idlib’s military operation are clear and do not need a proof, because the only result of the warnings of the Syrian state and its allies abounded in the interventions of the western and the UN countries means freezing the military operation without horizon, and the devotion of dividing Syria practically by granting the terrorism a geographic and population base in a form of a state or emirate, not as stated. It is clear that this Western and UN pressure wants to freeze the operation in order to open the door for negotiation on something else other than how to spare the civilians away from its repercussions, rather how to wage it without western noise; the negotiation on something wanted by America and its allies without fabricating political and diplomatic crises. Furthermore, the Americans direct their traditional weapon against the Syrian insistence on ending the abnormal situation in Idlib through the fabrication of a chemical pretext and the anticipation for an aggressive action. Therefore, what is the cost which the Americans want?

It is clear that America which has proposed directly or through mediation the full exit from Syria including the exit from Tanf base and the east of Euphrates bases, and which has proposed the participation in reconstruction, lifting the sanctions, and the recognition of the legitimacy of the winning of Syria, its President, and army does not have any problem with Syria and its victory but only regarding which is related to the security of Israel. This is clear in the American demands regarding the Syrian-Iranian relationship and the relationship between Syria and Hezbollah. Furthermore, America feels the meaning of the winning of Syria and its allies in Idlib battle despite the American uproar, pressures, and threats, because it knows that what will be imposed by the scenario of Idlib will be applied on post-Idlib, which means the area in which the Americans locate; the Eastern of Euphrates.  America tries to barter its presence there, but this bartering will be without value when the battle of Idlib ends with no understanding with Washington and when the Syrian forces move to the Eastern of Euphrates and the Kurdish negotiators to Damascus.

It is clear too that the battle of Idlib is a decisive decision for Syria; the allies do not live this state of confusion desired by Washington which caused by its campaign, pressures, and threats. The critical situation of Turkey which embraced the terrorist groups can be dealt by the Russian-Iranian bilateral, since  the American pressures on Turkey did not force it to accept the role of obstruction and clash with Tehran and Moscow and the risk of losing everything, but it is clear that the American campaign will continue during the battle of Idlib which is expected to last longer than the battle of the Syrian south and it will pass through  a lot of political rounds, including Geneva talks devoted for Syria which America announced that it will participate this time. It is also clear that the successive US messages are taking place on the rhythm of parallel escalation witnessed by the American-Iranian relationships at the backdrop of the sanctions which the ones related to the oil market will be implemented in the early of next November. In return, Iran announces the closure of Strait of Hormuz as a response to these sanctions; and Washington knows the seriousness of the Iranian threat.

Washington wants to win the battle of Hormuz from the Mediterranean Sea and from Idlib to ensure the security of Israel. But Moscow, Tehran, and Damascus realize that well. Therefore the battle of Idlib will be the battle of demarcating the international and regional balances for the war that is waged by two major global and regional axes face to face, now it is the last episode of war before announcing the great victory which culminated the years of confrontation, which the alliance of defeat is trying to lessen its consequences, and to have arrangements in favor of the security of Israel. Thus, it adventures of a full defeat in Idlib, Hormuz, and elsewhere, despite its sticking to sanctions, the obstruction of the paths of settlements in Lebanon and Iraq, and the practice of arbitrariness and brutality in Palestine and Yemen.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,