Washington’s confusion: it needs the escalation with Iran, but it is afraid of it with Moscow

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Washington is aware that it no longer has the ability to control the course of the development of the situations in Syria, and that the diagram of the developments draws a path that makes the Syrian country the only player which emerges. This includes all the Syrian opponent forces which lost their role and status and will lose more, as well as the regional and the international forces that supported the war against the Syrian country and tried to overthrow it, it includes also the terrorist formations especially ISIS and Al Nusra. This means that it will include later the forces which their role was related with the war on terrorism led by America, even the presence of Syria’s allies will be bound by the end of this war with the agreements which organize their presence in Syria. This conclusion is accepted by the allies and they work accordingly to make it closer, because it achieves the real goals which they want; the victory of Syria and their regional and international status after getting rid of the burdens of war.

Washington is at the forefront of those who fear this result. It is aware that it cannot change it as long as it is an inevitable fate, making the war on terrorism a lasting plea is out of the control of America, so finding a Kurdish coverage for the US presence will become a burden on America as an accused of dividing Syria after the end of ISIS. So neither America nor the Kurds will be far from an international regional political confrontation under the title of the unity of Syria, and calling everyone for a political dialogue that paves the way for a unified government, new constitution and elections. So soon there will be assumptions of the exposure of the US and the Kurdish forces to a military confrontation too. Thus the Kurdish groups will become subject to fight under the title of no for the division of Syria, while the American forces will be targeted as an occupying force. This is known by the Americans and they know that its prevention before was more possible than today or tomorrow, but its cost is the acceptance of an entry into a full confrontation with Russia and Iran and which is above the capacity of Washington.

The war on ISIS and its destination will be resolved in Deir Al Zour and under the banner of the Syrian army whatever Washington said that it is exclusive battle and that its entrusted party is the Kurdish groups and that the battle is in Raqqa, after the securing corridors to Badia become closed, and after the Euphrates course has become under the control of the Syrian army from the southern of Tabka till Rasafeh towards Sokhna and then Deir Al Zour, and after the Syrian-Iraqi borders line has become under the control of the Syrian army and the Popular Crowd ,and it sees also that the Southern borders are close to be under the control of the army. So the fate of the assumptive operations against the Syrian country across these borders has been fallen totally.

If Washington took considerations of going to war against Iran and Syria it would do that without hesitation and it would not create justifications for its strikes, and it would translate its red lines with the fiery operations not through scattered firecrackers. Washington’s last opportunities were when Tehran sent its ballistic missiles, knowing that Washington chases Tehran for their manufacture and possession. Washington had to prove first that it was capable of dropping these missiles before reaching their goals, not leaving the impression of the inability and the superiority of Iran as long as the US criterion is to prevent the Syrian army from progress towards ISIS in its military operations areas, under the plea that the matter is not to defense ISIS, however to draw the limits of roles. So why it did not prevent the Iranian missiles, it had the plea of claiming that the missiles were targeting allied groups to Washington or the US forces and it would take this as a plea for confrontation, even in the confrontation with the Syrian army it is clear that Washington escapes from the serious confrontation with the progress of the Syrian army towards the Iraqi borders and its expansion along them, it just provokes the situations so what does it want?

With the approaching of the end of the war in Syria, the end of the American presence is approaching, whatever Washington contends stubbornly or denies. So Washington has to be ready for beyond Syria not beyond the end of the war in it. The end of the slogan of the war on ISIS remains the only slogan that justifies the expansion of the US role in the region; so it tries to make the slogan “the Iranian danger”. It is the axis of the new US –Israeli- Saudi tripartite alliance. This explains the Russian response to the US movement in its hidden dimensions. Because Moscow does not allow involving the region into an open tension entitled making an open confrontation with Iran, Europe does not share the need and the interest with Washington in this goal as it finds itself that it is closer to Moscow in the calling for a Saudi Iranian settlement. This is clear from the European deal with the results of the summits of the US President in Riyadh, and then the European deal with the first outcomes of these summits through the seeking to overthrow Qatar in the Saudi auspices.

The confusion of Washington in its next project is because it is waging it from the Syrian gate in the seeking to escalate the situation with Iran, it needs that escalation, but it is afraid of it with Russia which forms the front in which Iran positions in Syria. Washington is unable to deceive Moscow and to pass its escalation against Iran as a separated matter from the rules of the US-Russian relationship, because Moscow is confident that the US success will mean the continuation of the destructive chaos conducted by Washington, but this time it moves to the Gulf which its rulers are not aware of what will await them other than selling more weapons and going to the financial bankruptcy as close disasters.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,