Home > Uncategorized > Washington’s Road To Iran Goes Through Syria

Washington’s Road To Iran Goes Through Syria

RT
July 2, 2012

Washington’s road to Iran goes through Syria
Veronika Krasheninnikova
Director General of the Institute for Foreign Policy Research and Initiatives in Moscow

====

A “transitional government” based on “mutual consent” will be to Syria what the “no-fly zone” was to Libya. While a normal person understood the term “no-fly zone” as an area over which aircraft are not permitted to fly, Washington defined the term to mean more than 30,000 sorties of NATO fighter-bombers and reconnaissance flights.

For Russia, once again falling into Washington’s trap will have dire consequences. On the international arena, Moscow loses precious credibility with its strategic allies, with Iran in particular. Geopolitically, Syria’s fall will speed up American’s relentless push across the Middle East into the Caucasus and Central Asia, consolidating its infrastructure on Russia’s southern military front and putting a definitive end to the prospects of the Eurasian Union.

====

The results of the Geneva talks on Syria depend on whom you ask.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insists that the principle of “mutual consent” on which a “transitional government” in Syria would be based means President Assad has to go. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, on the contrary, insists the formation of a “transitional government” will be made on an inclusive basis.

Before discussing what it means, let’s stop for a second to grasp the sheer fact: five foreign powers gathered to decide the fate of a country, in the absence of its leader and its people, who never asked them to do anything of the kind, let alone gave any mandate. This is an outrageous breach of international law. And what is even more outrageous is that nobody is concerned or even talking about it.

Now, the wording of the final communiqué, at Russian insistence, does not explicitly call for Assad’s ousting but instead says the new government “shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent.” Russia and China understand this formula to mean, according to the countries’ officials, that President Assad is part of the process.

But listen how the author of the new plan, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, interprets it: “The government will have to re-form by discussion, negotiation and by mutual consent, and I will doubt that the Syrians who have fought so hard for their independence…will select people with blood on their hands to lead them.” French Foreign Minister Fabius, in a surprising continuation of Sarkozy’s allegiance to Washington, spells it out even clearer: “Even if they [Russia and China] say the opposite, the fact is that text…means it won’t be Bashar al-Assad. The opposition will never agree to him, so it signals implicitly that Assad must go and that he is finished,” Fabius told television station TF1.

It sounds as though Washington found the final solution for Bashar Al-Assad. A “transitional government” based on “mutual consent” will be to Syria what the “no-fly zone” was to Libya. While a normal person understood the term “no-fly zone” as an area over which aircraft are not permitted to fly, Washington defined the term to mean more than 30,000 sorties of NATO fighter-bombers and reconnaissance flights.

In Syria’s case, by the Geneva agreement Washington has launched the final phase of President Assad’s removal. And again as with Libya, “regime” change will be carried out with the full agreement of the UN Security Council’s permanent members!

The most appalling element here is that Russia seems to have fallen again into Washington’s trap. Notwithstanding all the right declarations and efforts, at the end of the day Russia nevertheless signed a tacit agreement to abandon Syria, similar to the abstention vote on “no-fly zone” for Libya that allowed Washington to launch strikes.

A few words need to be said about Kofi Annan’s role in the process, which uncovered one more tactical approach in the “regime change” business of America. Compared to the “bad cop” behavior of the US administration, the silken-voiced elegantly-attired originally Ghanaian diplomat served as a perfect peace-loving “good cop” figure.

In February 2012, just as the Syrian government was about to neutralize the armed insurrection within its country by terrorists illegally armed and trained by America and its allies, Annan comes up with a “6-point peace plan” that required government troops to “immediately” return to their barracks while the terrorists had to only “commit to stop the fighting.”

In fact, Annan’s plan gave time to arm and train insurgents, to build up their terrorist capabilities, while gearing up Western public support for war.

In preparation for the Geneva talks, Kofi Annan pulls out one more “peace plan” that promotes the next stage of subverting President Al-Assad: a “government of national unity” must be created, which “could include members of the present government and the opposition and other groups” with the exception of “those whose continued presence and participation would undermine the credibility of the transition and jeopardize stability and reconciliation”. Thus, in the Annan/US vision, the murderers who perpetrated the Houla massacre are entitled to be part of the government, but the only democratically elected leader of the country is not.

As if that were not enough, Annan’s “peace plan” #2 requires prompt “free and fair multiparty elections” – which as “color revolution” methodology proved is the most practical environment to overthrow a government and solidify “opposition” gains.

The US’s immediate goal in destabilizing Syria is to move forward the front against Iran. In this direction, operations in Syria are proceeding in tandem with gearing-up of Azerbaijan on Iran’s northern border.

For Russia, once again falling into Washington’s trap will have dire consequences. On the international arena, Moscow loses precious credibility with its strategic allies, with Iran in particular. Geopolitically, Syria’s fall will speed up American’s relentless push across the Middle East into the Caucasus and Central Asia, consolidating its infrastructure on Russia’s southern military front and putting a definitive end to the prospects of the Eurasian Union.

These losses will hardly, if ever, be recoverable.

About these ads
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. Ribeekah Grant
    July 3, 2012 at 1:56 am

    It’s obvious that the machinations of the US and its allies is to make sure that coming out of the Arab Spring they secure a client state. There are still thousands of Libyans imprisoned, notwithstanding the thousands who were killed by NATO air strikes. The rhetoric by the US and its allies for democracy in the middle east is hollow if one were to judge by the results of Egypt. Thousands flooded the streets of Egypt during its “popular” uprising and yet the election results were very close.

    There is a new government installed in Libya, no doubt the west would have us believe, as a result of a popular uprising. The west has a similar plan for Syria – “a government by a popular uprising”. Instead of arming the opposition at the start of protest, the role of the UN security council should have been to lay down conditions at that time for peaceful elections. Instead, it allowed the situation to spin out of control and wanted the Assad military to become shooting targets for the rebels.

    At the end of the day, the decision rests with the Syrian people what type of life they want to live going into the 22nd century. They want to slaughter each other with the help of their former colonialists and others is for them to decide. They want to lay down a foundation of inequality and poverty for their people, that’s the choice they would have made for themselves.

    The Syrian people share a common history spanning thousands of years with their neighbor, Iran and if they believe that they can solve their problems with the help of another nation on the other side of the Atlantic with a history of cruelty and war, again that is a choice, they would have made for themselves.

  2. TripleC
    November 2, 2012 at 7:18 am

    All I got to say is this site turns a blind eye toward Russian, Iranian or Chinese misdeeds but then claims foul when the US does the same thing. Double standard much.

    • richardrozoff
      November 2, 2012 at 4:35 pm

      It’s a simple proposition. This is a website promoting peace and opposition to war.
      Since the U.S. began the post-Cold War expansion of NATO in 1999 Wasshington has led full-fledged wars in three continents – against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya – as well as launching deadly missile attacks inside Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia and participating in insurgency, counterinsurgency and other proxy wars in Macedonia, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Somalia, Mali, Colombia, the Philippines, South Ossetia and elsewhere.
      Aside from responding to U.S. client state Georgia invading South Ossetia in 2008, Russia has not engaged in any military actions outside its territory since the last Soviet troop left Afghanistan in early 1989.
      China has not used its military outside its borders since its attack on Vietnam in 1979.
      Iran has not been at war since the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988.
      Hence the U.S. is hardly “doing the same thing.”

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 504 other followers

%d bloggers like this: