Middle-east Arab News Opinion | Asharq Al-awsat

European Sources: U.S. Bet on Russia and Iran Proves Gullible | ASHARQ AL-AWSAT English Archive 2005 -2017
Select Page
Media ID: 55353100

Syrian rescuers work on pulling a body out from under the rubble of a destroyed building following a reported Syrian regime forces attack at the Tariq al-Bab neighborhood in the rebel-held area of the northern city of Aleppo on June 20, 2016. AFP

Paris-European diplomatic sources keeping up with developments concerning the Syrian crisis say that U.S. President Barack Obama is spot-on when he deems settlement in Syria to a political solution solely.

No one believes that the Syrian civil war can be put to an end by the elimination of the other. Nonetheless, Obama is wrong in considering that his policy in Syria could lead to a political settlement. A solution must be agreed upon by both parties, and with international parties bolstering the approach.

Uninterested with anything but war against ISIS, President Obama believes that collaboration with Russia in Syria is inevitable, sources speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper added.

Every once in a while, U.S. statements made on what awaits Bashar Assad’s future point out that he has no place in the post-war Syria government, as he had lost legitimacy. However, the statements are meek and meant to portray an in-keep image with those supporting the Syrian Opposition while the reality incessantly proves quite different.

Aware of facts, sources disbelieve in any radical change occurring in U.S. policy within the last six months of Obama’s tenure. Despite criticism facing Obama’s negative policy of political neutrality before, the policy remains unchanged given the president seems very convinced with his approach in Syria.

Made clear as of the beginning, Obama had no intentions on exerting efforts further than he already did; the U.S. administration prohibited the delivery of modern weaponry to the Syrian Opposition even before ISIS made its appearance, sources explained.

U.S. plans on training Syrian Opposition fighters proved an utter failure. Obama also took back his threats on punishing the Assad regime should the latter cross defined limits and by using chemical weapons against its people.

Moreover, Washington continuously refused regional plans on establishing safe and no fly zones, not even secure passages, for no clear reason, only arguing the difficulty in protecting the locations.

Finally sources see into Washington’s randomness as a clear surrendering of the Syria cause to the hands of the Russians and Iranians who had monopolized both military and political arenas in the war-torn country.

Hand in hand, Russia and Iran enabled the Syrian regime to restore lost territory so that it attended the Geneva peace talks with every intention and capacity to thwart the U.N. envoy’s efforts and buy time to further topple field status in hopes of settling the crisis with guns.

Western sources believe that the Obama-Kerry wager on a Russian positive role in Syria or a moderate Iran after the nuclear deal is very deluded and deduced from diplomatic naivetés.

The gullible bet was placed with no realistic foundations guaranteeing limits not being crossed. After the U.S. backed down on a military intervention, Iran and Russia did not even hesitate when deciding on throwing their muscle into Syrian battlefields.