American approaches towards Syria… Damascus and Moscow, and the big headlines.

italiatelegraph

Written by .. Amjad Ismail Al-Agha

Amidst the geopolitical situations and complexities in Syria, a mass of potential political confrontations oscillates between Moscow and Washington, as the raging strategic struggle between the active powers in Syria comes within the framework of the search for strengths, to build alliances and understandings that go beyond the circumstantial alignments produced by the results of the Syrian field. In the midst of the political tensions framing the Syrian file, the US-Russian competition is returning in its political form, after it reached before the point of the military collision, with regard to the Russian-American patrols in northeastern Syria. In the geography of northern Syria, interests and privileges multiply, as well as desires to reap a batch of Political gains, which begin with geographic engineering and adaptation to serve the strategic agenda, and do not end with appropriating the cards of military power to spend them in political understandings.

The reality in northeastern Syria can be summarized through the efforts of the major powers to affirm the state of existentialism, regardless of the legitimacy of existence, this reality applies to the American presence, and the situation of imposing data and jumping on the power cards that Damascus and Moscow have alike, especially since the perspective The American has become framed not to rely on the Kurdish tool completely, especially since this tool has become prohibited from spending, in light of the clans’ tendency to build a military entity that faces American plans, and it has become necessary for America to sharpen Kurdish concerns with more weapons and promises to build an independent Kurdish entity.

The previous US orientations were translated by the US special envoy to Syria James Jeffrey, through a quick visit that carried two dimensions, one of which was a confrontational political one directed against Russia, and the second military with pillars working in the context of preventing the return of ISIS according to US allegations, and on the other hand laying red lines that are forbidden to be crossed by the army The Syrian as well as the clans.

As for the political dimension, it is clear that Jeffrey’s visit took place after the visit of the Russian delegation to Damascus, which indicates a circumvention of the outcomes of the Russian visit in all its dimensions. On the other hand, the American administration is trying to play on the Russian-Kurdish consensus that started from Moscow, during the agreement between the Council The Syrian Democratic Party and the Popular Will Party headed by Qadri Jamil, in addition to a partial effort that Washington still tried to do, related to uniting all Kurdish sects under one political umbrella, with the aim of its content and its only goal, forcing Damascus to look at the Kurds within the angle of accepting the Autonomous Administration as a method and a requirement that must be From achieving it, in accordance with which to deal with Damascus.

As for the military side, it is logical that the US military build-up will continue in northeastern Syria, within the context of the requirements imposed by the military climate in a region that possesses strategic sensitivity and regional dimension, which makes it a golden card whose gains cannot be abandoned. Accordingly, the American officers who accompanied Jeffrey during his visit represent the pressing military dimension on Damascus and Moscow, in addition to the American message that Washington passed through during the visit, which centers on the continuation of the American military presence in the east of the Euphrates.

The American intentions in Syria after the visit of James Jeffrey, can be read according to two facts:

The first – the desire of the American administration to try to prevent Damascus from economic advancement, especially after the visit of the Russian delegation and the economic projects it carried, in which Washington is working to exert pressure in multiple directions in order to create political, military and economic obstacles that will affect the course of the Syrian rise. Especially since Damascus resolved many files related to the ABCs of the conflict in Syria, while Washington, on the other hand, drew political lines after losing many of its military power cards, in order to preserve the justifications that would allow it to prolong its presence in Syria.

Second – Washington realizes that the Syrian island and the economic dimension it represents represents a state of stability and recovery for the Syrian state, with oil fields and the most important strategic agriculture, and within this framework, the return of Syrian sovereignty to the entire Syrian island does not fit the American goals at all levels, and Jeffrey explicitly called for The Autonomous Administration by not selling wheat and oil to the Syrian state. Otherwise, US sanctions will be imposed on the Autonomous Administration regions, and Turkey may again be given a free hand against their areas.

The new American approaches are based on determinants that Washington has always cited, for American terminology such as the return of ISIS and Iran is a phobia, which has become obsessed with the point of nausea, and perhaps the intense American presence serves this agenda and promotes it well with Washington’s regional and international partners, so that Jeffrey’s visit will come at a time when and will not serve the steps of the Kurdish tool. As much as it is a message to Damascus, Moscow and the clans rising up against the Kurds, and accordingly, any escalation by Damascus and the clans will be met by an American escalation, as the political vocabulary passed through Jeffrey’s visit, most of them take the military dimension as their starting point.

Within this framework, American assurances were issued that it is necessary to maintain the military presence that is pressing for any political solution. As for the American justification, it was based on the principle of the necessity to support allies on the ground and prevent the return of terrorist groups. These justifications have been translated by Moscow as a threat to the unity of Syria, and they represent a real obstacle to any political solution. The Russian-American dispute in Syria may not herald a military conflict, but the dispute between the two countries stems from arrangements for the military presence only, and the acquisition of the strategic value of the country’s geographical location Syrian.

Most of the above confirms that the future of the political solution in Syria will be based on Russian and American foundations, with participatory activities that are established beyond the contents of Sochi and Astana. President al-Assad is in power, this can be clearly translated as an American shift towards Russian trends in Syria, and this puts us in front of a new scene that can be built upon in the future in the addresses of the Syrian island and Idlib, and the political solution in Syria.

italiatelegraph