Tweet
U.S. Goal Is Reminder of Priorities
Barack Obama's administration with its image of a somewhat `dove' of
foreign policy is not popular in the country especially due to
problems of foreign policy.
It is not over with the Republican opposition, especially on the eve
of adoption of the budget and certain social programs. A new stage of
opposition fight is maturing among the Republicans, and the most
important direction is foreign policy. In Washington they know that
the United States has gone too far with concessions and shifting
responsibility in regional policy, first of all in the Near East. In
this case the role and importance of lobbyists of the arms industry is
not high but this factor should not be ruled out completely.
In any case, the main purpose of the United States to strike Syria -
ensuring its influence in the region - is impossible without achieving
success in Syria, namely in forming a coalition government of
reconciliation. In Washington they understand very well that Bashar
Assad will remain the head of Syria, and they will have to deal with
his team but it is necessary to persuade him to make considerable
concessions. It is necessary to propose `victims' also for the friends
of Israel in the United States, and they would love to limit
themselves to hitting Iran, not Syria, especially that this is viewed
in the light of the upcoming talks with Tehran as `the last breath of
pressure' on Iran. (Instead of continuing the idiotic `discussions in
one basket' the Russian-Israeli information website Regnum should
state precisely the essence of the Russian-Israeli relations vis-à-vis
the situation in the Near East).
Over the past two decades the United States has not undertake even not
so very important military actions in the Near East without consulting
Arab states. Israel does have a reason to beware chemical weapon given
the monstrous associations with the crimes of the Nazi regime in the
Jewish people.
It seems that this time the Arab League has `approved' attack on Syria
but if I am not mistaken only Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan
participated in the military forum representing the partners
interested in the attack on Syria. In any case, two leading Arab
states, Egypt and Iraq, did not take part in this forum.
In fact, Egypt and Iraq - two close partners of the United States in
the region - have openly supported Syria. France and the United
Kingdom have altogether lost their influence on the region and are
trying to cling to the `Saudi lifebelt' hoping to regain their
foothold in `new' Syria and the rest of the region. However, after a
`settlement' Syria will be a partner to the United States, Iran, Iraq
and Egypt but not France and the UK. Syria and Lebanon treat European
states as Poland in 1939.
In any case, Syria still sympathizes with Russia, especially in terms
of the future confessional conflict but the United States will be the
chief partner of both Iraq and Iran.
As it has been noted, in this pandemonium all the opinions and stances
were taken into consideration besides the stance and intentions of
Turkey. Although Turkey has been invited to the meeting in Amman, and
it proposed use of the air base in Incirlik, its participation is not
stated in the plans of the United States, the UK and France in any
way. Turkey's participation is possible only in case of a land attack
otherwise it will be meaningless for the United States and France to
use force against Syria because as a result Turkey is becoming
dominant in the region.
The head of the Turkish MFA Ahmed Davutoglu has stated that Turkey
will join an international anti-Syrian coalition in case the world
community decides to form it beyond the UN. According to him, the
issue of forming a coalition is being discussed with over 30 states
but for the time being Turkey wants the UN SC to express an opinion on
crimes committed in Syria and resolve the issue of sanctions.
Ostensibly, Turkey fears involvement in an illegitimate military
conflict due to lack of mutual confidence between Turkey and its
partners in NATO.
Now it is time Syria made political concessions to align with the
interests of its natural partners and not to confine itself to a
long-term marginal existence and fragmentation in one way or another,
which is inevitable in any case. However, the overall impression is
that there will be no strike. There is a solution to everything if the
game is not more delicate, of course.
Igor Muradyan
11:45 30/08/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/politics/view/30759
From: Baghdasarian
Barack Obama's administration with its image of a somewhat `dove' of
foreign policy is not popular in the country especially due to
problems of foreign policy.
It is not over with the Republican opposition, especially on the eve
of adoption of the budget and certain social programs. A new stage of
opposition fight is maturing among the Republicans, and the most
important direction is foreign policy. In Washington they know that
the United States has gone too far with concessions and shifting
responsibility in regional policy, first of all in the Near East. In
this case the role and importance of lobbyists of the arms industry is
not high but this factor should not be ruled out completely.
In any case, the main purpose of the United States to strike Syria -
ensuring its influence in the region - is impossible without achieving
success in Syria, namely in forming a coalition government of
reconciliation. In Washington they understand very well that Bashar
Assad will remain the head of Syria, and they will have to deal with
his team but it is necessary to persuade him to make considerable
concessions. It is necessary to propose `victims' also for the friends
of Israel in the United States, and they would love to limit
themselves to hitting Iran, not Syria, especially that this is viewed
in the light of the upcoming talks with Tehran as `the last breath of
pressure' on Iran. (Instead of continuing the idiotic `discussions in
one basket' the Russian-Israeli information website Regnum should
state precisely the essence of the Russian-Israeli relations vis-à-vis
the situation in the Near East).
Over the past two decades the United States has not undertake even not
so very important military actions in the Near East without consulting
Arab states. Israel does have a reason to beware chemical weapon given
the monstrous associations with the crimes of the Nazi regime in the
Jewish people.
It seems that this time the Arab League has `approved' attack on Syria
but if I am not mistaken only Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan
participated in the military forum representing the partners
interested in the attack on Syria. In any case, two leading Arab
states, Egypt and Iraq, did not take part in this forum.
In fact, Egypt and Iraq - two close partners of the United States in
the region - have openly supported Syria. France and the United
Kingdom have altogether lost their influence on the region and are
trying to cling to the `Saudi lifebelt' hoping to regain their
foothold in `new' Syria and the rest of the region. However, after a
`settlement' Syria will be a partner to the United States, Iran, Iraq
and Egypt but not France and the UK. Syria and Lebanon treat European
states as Poland in 1939.
In any case, Syria still sympathizes with Russia, especially in terms
of the future confessional conflict but the United States will be the
chief partner of both Iraq and Iran.
As it has been noted, in this pandemonium all the opinions and stances
were taken into consideration besides the stance and intentions of
Turkey. Although Turkey has been invited to the meeting in Amman, and
it proposed use of the air base in Incirlik, its participation is not
stated in the plans of the United States, the UK and France in any
way. Turkey's participation is possible only in case of a land attack
otherwise it will be meaningless for the United States and France to
use force against Syria because as a result Turkey is becoming
dominant in the region.
The head of the Turkish MFA Ahmed Davutoglu has stated that Turkey
will join an international anti-Syrian coalition in case the world
community decides to form it beyond the UN. According to him, the
issue of forming a coalition is being discussed with over 30 states
but for the time being Turkey wants the UN SC to express an opinion on
crimes committed in Syria and resolve the issue of sanctions.
Ostensibly, Turkey fears involvement in an illegitimate military
conflict due to lack of mutual confidence between Turkey and its
partners in NATO.
Now it is time Syria made political concessions to align with the
interests of its natural partners and not to confine itself to a
long-term marginal existence and fragmentation in one way or another,
which is inevitable in any case. However, the overall impression is
that there will be no strike. There is a solution to everything if the
game is not more delicate, of course.
Igor Muradyan
11:45 30/08/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/politics/view/30759
From: Baghdasarian