[ad_1]
On the Syrian dossier in particular, whose relative importance declines compared to the rest of the burning dossiers, and with the exception that Biden summoned a group of hawks to lead the United States government in the next period, so far there is no clear signs of the crystallization of a coherent vision on how to deal with the Syrian situation over the next period. In short, not even at the medium level. Therefore, the US repositioning towards Damascus is likely to take some time, which may extend into next summer, especially as “Syria” is a complex archive that is organically and operationally linked to the results of progress in other archives, primarily the Iranian weaponry, and extends Hebrew hegemony over the part. The Arabs are from the Middle East, not to mention the aftershocks of the Franco-Turkish friction (the two members of NATO) in the eastern Mediterranean.
But whoever it is, there is a ghost haunting Syria, anticipating any possible formulation of Biden’s team’s policies in this regard. It is Barack Obama, and the shadow of his long war, that has exhausted the country, without succeeding for a whole decade to overthrow the regime or discourage it from its political and strategic alliances. Rather, it has given Russia and Iran space to locate themselves militarily and economically in the heart of a region that Americans have always considered their exclusive sphere of influence. There is no doubt that the new team, which will likely be led in the State Department by Anthony Blinken, in succession to Republican Mike Pompeo, sooner or later, and in light of the lack of opportunities for Democrats to develop “creative” solutions. toward Syria, at least urgently, will begin One of Obama’s policies in particular, whether it be seeking a horizon for a divergent policy with Republicans moving in place without much change, or taking an approach to cleaning up the complex and failed legacy, according to many in Washington, that it will not be easy to move in a new direction without eliminating its effects and remnants in the region, starting with the direct US military presence in the Kurdish areas of influence and around al-Tanf on the borders with Iraq, through from the Syrian refugee crisis that has worsened and does not seem to be in the process of being solved soon, to the growing presence of the Iranian within the vital region of the Hebrew entity, and the possibility of ending the anomaly in the Idlib region through a Russian understanding. Turkish, and on top of that, the solid bloc of the Syrian regime remains coherent and in control of affairs.
There will be no radical transformations to change the status quo in Syria in the coming years
Blinken, a veteran diplomat, a senior national security official in the Obama administration and one of the pillars of the war against Syria, described Obama’s policy toward Syria as “a failure” in an interview last May, echoing the The same description that the Republicans give to the legacy of the former president. Anarchism there. In response to a question about a possible different approach from Biden’s crew towards Syria should he make it to the White House, he was quoted as saying: “There is no escape from admitting that in the last democratic administration we failed, not because we didn’t want to try, but we fail in practice. We have not been able to prevent the horrible loss of life, we have not been able to prevent the mass exodus of people internally in Syria and, of course, externally as refugees. It’s a shame, and its bitter taste will always remain in my memory ”.
But what is in Blinken’s quiver to Syria upon his return as minister in the Biden government? The man does not appear to have ready-made recipes, according to his recent interviews with the press, of what the White House can do in the region to “achieve some more positive results.” And in an earlier 2015 interview, he blamed the American “failure” there on the cynicism of a group of outside powers: “I think there is a lot of guilt that needs to start being distributed, starting with Syrians themselves, Iran, Russia and other backers (of the Assad regime) All Arab countries, as well as other neighboring countries. ” These are all elements that have remained virtually unchanged since 2016, with the exception that the Syrian state regained the initiative and allowed it to regain control over most of the republic’s territory again after defeating the jihadists launched by Washington. Explaining the lack of internal enthusiasm in the United States to support a large-scale military intervention in Syria, Blinken complained at the time of “the heavy the burden left by the war in Iraq “, as well as the negative repercussions of the” difficult intervention in Libya. “It seems that Blinken, who admitted at the time of that interview, in vís pears of Trump’s inauguration, of the increasing difficulty of achieving the goal of overthrowing the regime, will find after five years a greater acceptance in the establishment of foreign policy in Washington due to the fact that without comprehensive military action, which is unlikely, the United States has no political options. It is clear to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.
However, this should not be understood in any way that Biden will once again accept the principle of “rehabilitating” the Syrian regime, and it is most likely that his administration, in light of all these facts, will end up continuing with a hybrid strategy that it maintains to Damascus under constant pressure through various economic, political, military and intelligence means: the sanctions that the Trump administration imposed and intensified it, and maintained an active military presence in Syria to protect the Kurdish forces as a permanent wedge against in pursuit of the regime to liberate all Syrian lands, complete the oil theft program, but also press, through the Russian side, to achieve gains in points: such as the understanding to protect the areas of influence of the United States. And pressure the regime to accept political reforms that would give some opposition factions a protected presence, albeit formally, within Syria, this of course with the continuation of playing and exchanging the Syrian card whenever the opportunity arises in “chess. “of the cold conflict between Washington and Moscow.
Therefore, there will be no radical transformations to change the status quo in Syria in the next few years, unless Biden leaves power early (78 years), or the Syrian regime collapses from within (which is unlikely after who succeeded in the litmus test), or a sudden regional chaos causes turning all parties around (and this is definitely not in the Israeli side of the equation).
Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here
