Washington puts the region in front of all possibilities including the war

Written by Nasser Kandil,

It is certain that Washington does not want to go to war and it is unable to wage it, but at the same time it cannot prevent its occurrence due to its policies, as it is certain that Israel does not want to go to war and it is unable to wage it too, but for sure the Israeli inability to go to war is as the Israeli inability to bear the cost of a viable settlement. In fact, the political movement about the Palestinian cause has many hypotheses due to the uncertainty of the international borders of Palestine, but the conflict between Israel and Syria is well-known, steady, and documented. America is the main partner in sponsoring the political ceiling that prevents the occurrence of war according to the equation of the American recognition that Golan is a Syrian right that can be restored by negotiation versus preventing the occurrence of war. But when Washington decides for any reason to withdraw from this equation by saying decisively that Golan is no longer Syrian and that negotiation is no longer a way to discuss its future which became in favor of Israel, then the war becomes one of the open hypotheses even if this was not a present option for any of the involved parties in the decision of war in the region.

The wrong considerations often lead to war and the absence of a political ceiling for managing a conflict and setting controls may turn small events and clashes into platforms for wars. If the settlements of mutual consent became impossible with the inability of Washington of making any separate settlement form the security of Israel versus the impossibility of the resistance’s involvement in any settlement that ensures such security then the settlements of ignoring that include implicit barters between the parties of the conflict are conditional on the good estimation of the acceptable barters. For example, the nuclear understanding with Iran fell when Washington supposed that this would prevent Iran from supporting the military resolving in Syria against the armed groups. And the project of the assumptive settlement of ignoring will fall if the Americans think that they give the disputing parties what they want. They will leave Syria without ensuring the withdrawal of Iran and Hezbollah from it and without getting a Syrian guarantee of the security of Israel; and they give Israel the ownership of the Golan. Therefore, the assumptive barter may turn due to miscalculation into a war fuse.

Since the beginning of the new century, Washington has been engaged in linking wars in the region, it is aware that it wages the wars of its leadership of the world, but it failed in stabilizing the balances it has sought, as it is aware that the resulting balances of these wars were contrary to its expectations and caused more concern than before. So as a result, potential forces have emerged and became part of the present equations as the presence of Russia, the rising status of Iran, and the emergence of the resistance forces, so it is no longer possible to turn back the clock or to make compromises that devote balances, because Washington cannot make any compromise at the expense of Israel and Israel cannot make any compromises as these current changes, and no one in the resistance axis can legitimize the occupation of Palestine through compromises.

The region is full of wealth and under the pressure of imposing compromises, there are many major conflicts, furthermore, the surplus power cannot be interpreted in politics, but it can be expressed in the battlefields. So war becomes a hypothesis and perhaps an option and maybe a fate.

Some say that today is like the eve of the war of 1973.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,