To understand the US policy in Syria, one needs to understand the US policy towards Iran.
The Wall Street Journal showed recently that Tehran threatened to stop all kinds of negotiations with the Obama Administration, if the US President bombards the Assad regime, after the latter crossed Obama’s red line when it used chemical weapons in Ghouta. The US media reported that Obama responded to the Iranian threat by repudiation of intervention.
This policy aims to placate Iran which has played an undeniably strategic role in the tyranny seen in Syria. Thus, Obama’s and Khamenei’s practical slogan was “nuclear agreement in return for keeping Assad”; this might be the explanation of the US being unwilling to uncover the details of Kerry-Lavrov agreement as this will expose the US before its allies and enhance the Russian stance.
It is necessary to recall here that, since the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009, Obama sided with the Mullahs against the revolution and its men. That is why it was natural for him to support Iran by supporting Assad, its ally, after he supported Sisi against an elected government, supported the coup plotters in Libya against the people’s will and the revolution, and (in addition) secretly supported the Houthis against legitimacy.
It is worth narrating the 9 lies reiterated by US politicians concerning the Syrian revolution:
1. Al-Qaeda and its relatives
As soon as ISIS appeared, it was a gift from heaven to Obama’s policy and he started dealing with the Russians and the Iranians as real and practical actual allies in confronting ISIS at the expense of the revolution of a great people. He shelved Assad’s head completely. This justified his hidden implicit policy and his desire to shun Assad’s departure under the pretext of combating terrorism−an idea already in the head of every US decision maker. He militarized politics and mobilized media behind it against a supposed properly produced beast, the Assad beast.
2. Chaos and the state institutions
As soon as you talk about the tyranny departure, some will surprise you by asking: “What about the future of the state and its institutions?” as if the systematic destruction and the dangerous genocide in Homs, Aleppo, Damascus countryside, Daraa, Deir ez-Zor, Raqqa, Idlib and others do not belong to this world. All research centers have been talking about the collapse of these institutions since 2013, asserting that the occupation and the sectarian militias are the ones protecting the gang today.
3. Being dragged to a new war
The Americans justify their negative stance towards the revolution and the positive one towards the gang, claiming that it is a stance that prevents the breaking of a new war with Russia and Iran. Everyone knows, though, that on the top of the cold war, while confronting the Soviets in Afghanistan, no war broke out. Also, the same applies during the US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan and later Libya−something that proves this argument to be a lie. Secondly, the opposition fighters do not want an intervention as much as they want lifting the unfair US veto imposed on friendly countries to supply opposition fighters with sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons.
If confrontation with Moscow is looming, addressing it cannot be by giving the floor totally for its weapons and roister. I believe what the US is doing is probably delaying the confrontation and possibly to drag the Russians to the Syrian quagmire to further make them drown in it.
4. The political solution
Since 2012, the US Administration has been following the same cliché: the military solution is not a way out and it will lead to chaos. It is clear that the military solution for the gang and its regional and international allies is allowed by the US. Attested to this fact is the heinous transfers and displacements that remind us of Ben-Gurion project of displacing Palestinians in favor of the Jews. Meanwhile, the world observes the non-stop massacres that have resulted in one million martyrs, displaced 11 million civilians and destroyed the country. Still the US policy is talking big about a political solution, while it rejects one square meter as a safe zone to protect the children of Syria.
5. Protecting the minorities
The US Administration talks big also about the issue of protecting the minorities, as if the sectarian gang was the one protecting these minorities. I do not know if protecting minorities by force, despotism and dictatorship is what it finds appropriate more than a rule that has a public revolutionary incubator like the Syrian revolution. Secondly, everyone now knows about the displacement of Christians at the time of Hafez Assad and what is happening to the Christians of Damascus’ Bab Toma, as well as the demographic changes in their areas provoked by sectarians from Iraq and Lebanon. Finally, I do not know what the value of the minorities and of Syria is without its Sunni component that protected Syria and its people for centuries.
6. The revolution’s Islamic nature
The Americans talk about the Islamic nature of the revolution, while they are the ones who did not deal seriously with coalition heads who were Christians, Druze or even Alawites. They never dealt seriously with any opposition at a time when there were no Jihadi parties, as if they were calling and waiting for these groups to deprive the Syrian people of gaining their freedom, while the sectarian slogans by the foreign militia members who are crossing the borders is fully tolerated by the US.
7. Sophisticated weapons go to the wrong people
These weapons fell in the hands of malevolent Kurds as well as ISIS; it was clear that TOW weapons, among others, were given to the killers of Syrians and this was proved during the years. The sectarian Iraqi militias which arrived in Aleppo recently, as reported by the US media, were trained and armed by the US. This reminds us of invading Iraq under the false pretext of chemical weapons, which was similar to depriving the Syrian opposition of sophisticated weapons under a totally false pretext.
8. A group of physicians, craftsmen and pharmacists
This is how the US President described the opposition fighters when he came to office, as if those who supported them in Iraq when it was occupied by the Iraqi top war generals and admirals and those who supported his predecessors in Afghanistan at the time of the Soviet invasion, were the same generals. This is ridiculous and a distinctive political mockery, while Obama deliberately ignored the defection of tens of thousands of Syrian soldiers and officers.
9. Intervention needs ideological theories
This is what some in the US Administration say and justify this by their intervention in Afghanistan at the time of the Soviets. But, what about their intervention at the time of Johnson, under the pretext of combating poverty there and what about the intervention in Somalia under the slogan of hope operation. What about the intervention in Darfur, among other interventions, while intervention to confront the Russians today is justified by the same excuse they used in any previous and potential intervention.
US lies will continue towards the Syrian revolution vis-a-vis a shocking correct reality to all Americans, which is that they failed all Syrians, as they will remember today the false US promises in the same way they recall Wilson’s promises to them at the start of the previous century when he handed the Syrians over to France and, similarly, Obama is handing them over to Russia and others.