Here a question also rises about the nature and the extent of objectives the US is pursuing in Syria. Clearly, there are no “short term” objectives and corollary to this is the fact there is no short term presence either.
Deployment of forces in Syria means that the US is certainly not looking at restroing Syria to its pre-war political situation. While the question of removing Assad from power doesn’t seem to be on the cards, what is very much on the cards is a division of Syria into zones and thus render Assad as the president in name only.
The plan, as some reports of the western media have suggested, should be the “creation of several autonomous zones within an otherwise still-centralized state.” These zones, according to this plan, will directly engage with, and be dependent upon, the international community for all types of “aid”, leaving potentially nothing in Assad’s hands and instead forcing him into quitting his role.
The plan also places the onus of responsibility of maintaining peace and conducting terror operations in Syria on the US/NATO forces which, by any means, have no legitimate and justifiable presence in Syria in the first place. Accordingly, Russia and Syrian forces are reduced to playing a second fiddle to the US and Iranian forces are completely removed from the Syrian territory.
The plan, in simple words, is to pave the way for a deep entrenchment of the US forces in Syria. The creation of “zones” in Syria thus makes perfect sense when seen against this background.
It only then that the US can reverse the setbacks it had to suffer in Syria during the Obama administration. It is only then that the US can prevent Russia and Iran from having an overwhelming presence and thus stabilize Syria under President Assad. On the contrary, creation of long-term “zones” in Syria means Iran will always remain vulnerable to its Arab rivals’ plans of defeating and destabilizing the Islamic Republic and establish their own hegemony fully backed by the US and Israel.NEO
Trump’s Syria Strategy is in Place Now
Salman Rafi Sheikh
On a somewhat related note:
ReplyDeleteWest will 'lose' if we outlaw Islam, Britain's Nigel Farage says
By ABC News Europe correspondent James Glenday
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-27/west-will-lose-if-we-outlaw-islam-nigel-farage-says/8391590
As Nelson Muntz would have said: Ha Ha!
Mind you, the guy remains anti-multiculturalism and anti-sharia and supports Trump's travel ban. But he ain't too hot about Geert Wilders.
On top, he was invited to Australia among others by Pauline Hanson (our very own cut-price version of Marine Le Pen) and Hanson is one of those asking for Islam to be outlawed.
Nelson, you were right. It is funny.