The American War against the Syrian state without prospects
Monday January 14, 2013, no114
Weekly information and analysis bulletin specialized in Arab Middle Eastern affairs prepared by neworientnews.com
Editor in chief Wassim Raad
New Orient Center for Strategic policies
From what has came out from the tripartite meeting in Geneva between the Russians, the Americans and the international envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, Friday, January 11, it is clear that the refusal of the United States to recognize the failure of the universal war that they launched against Syria and its president Bashar al-Assad, is a major obstacle that prevents a political solution to the Syrian crisis.
It is Washington that has sabotaged all initiatives by refusing to engage through the Security Council to stop arming and financing armed groups in Syria. This is due to the fact that it is the U.S. who managed the war in Syria, set up operating rooms in Turkey, whose members are CIA agents responsible for coordinating international and regional efforts to mobilize terrorists around the world to send in Syria. U.S. officials publicly boast of providing modern communication equipment to armed gangs, and they expressed no regret, even after acknowledging that much of this equipment has fallen into the hands of al-Qaida fighters of al-Nosra Front, an organization they late put on their terrorist list, on which they could include other groups shortly, why they do not change their position on commitments to stop the violence.
As clear commitments to stop military and financial support to terrorist groups are not officially taken in the Geneva meetings, it means that the U.S. administration is determined to continue the war of attrition against the state Syria in the coming months.
The United States, who are unable to bear the human and material losses in a direct confrontation, know that the Syrian national state, which has shown a remarkable strength throughout the war, will be even more determined to preserve its political independence after the end of fighting. It is for this reason that Washington binds the establishment of mechanisms for stopping the war to the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, who is a popular leader, tough, with patriotic choices. If he is to be ousted in the current circumstances, it will open the way to new balances which may put the Syrian army and people away from a truly independent Syria. The axis of the resistance will be, then, seriously weakened.
Lakhdar Brahimi’s comments are below the level of debate, because the international envoy has long been the spokesman for the United States and the West. On the other hand, the strong position of Russia, supported by the Brics countries, especially China and Iran, is motivated by the reality that Syria is the first line of defense for all independent forces that oppose unilateral U.S. hegemony. Assad is the symbol of this reality.
Asking for his resignation is like demanding the departure of Fidel Castro in Cuba of the sixties.
Bashar al-Assad has the support of a large majority of Syrians, who see in him the hope of a better future. Its closest allies know that the Syrian president bases all decisions on the Syrian national interest, and no power on earth can force a leader supported by his people to change his decisions. The true friends of Syria are well aware that the battle has now surpassed the reforms, although they are important. These reforms have indeed become, after the last speech Assad, the work program of the government. In fact, the challenge is about the existence of Syria as a free, sovereign and independent, state, active and influential in its geopolitical environment.
Sooner or later, Washington will fall and Assad will proclaim victory in the most ferocious war ever launched against a country in modern history. The statements of Brahimi after the last meeting in Geneva, that the solution must be political in Syria, is a recognition of the strength of the Syrian state