By Eyad Abu Shakra
4 March 2018
“Ghouta will fall.
That is the message. And when it falls, Idlib must surely be next. And
then the Syrians must decide how to break the US-Kurdish hold on Raqqa”,
clearly and succinctly, wrote Robert Fisk in ‘The Independent’.
Fisk did not forget to
mention that Eastern Ghouta (Northeast and East of Damascus) was now a
besieged “enclave”; however, he did not bother to say why it became an
“enclave” after 7 years of killing, destruction and systematic
population displacement.
Stranger still, that
as Fisk used the word ‘Syrians’ in the above opening quote to mean the
Damascus regime, ignoring the fact that this Regime was not fighting
alone, but was backed throughout its wars of destruction and
displacement by the Russian air force and Iran’s sectarian militias
brought into Syria from Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan…
Fisk knows more than
many the true nature of the Al-Assad family regime, even before the
Massacre of Hama in 1982; and yet he regards that Bashar Al-Assad and
his brother Maher who is now shelling Eastern Ghouta – with the
intention of uprooting and transferring its inhabitants, as was the case
with Western Ghouta, Wadi Al-Ajam and Wadi Barada – represent ‘the
Syrians’.
Perhaps, he also
believes that he who has killed a million Syrians and displacing
millions, with direct Russian support, as part of Iran’s settlement
grand project connecting Iraq with the Mediterranean coast, not only
represent the Syrian people but also Syria’s ‘sovereignty’!
This is a simple
example of how some Western experts, circles and media have approached
the Syrian debacle; specifically, since former US President Barack Obama
decided his administration’s priorities in the Middle East.
The western focus has
shifted from the moral duty to support a peaceful popular uprising
against a sectarian dictatorship that controlled Syria since the autumn
of 1970, to a “war against terrorism” that was allowed to proliferate
and commit atrocities, in order to justify aborting the uprising, and
rehabilitate dictatorship and ‘non-suicidal’ sectarianism. That latter
is the famous term alluding to Iran’s, and used by Obama while marketing
his nuclear deal with the Iranian regime.
On the other hand, it
would be naïve to think that the ‘Iranian considerations’ were the only
ones behind Barack Obama’s decision to stand against the Syrian
Uprising. In fact, there is smart and dynamic representative of other
interests in Washington, precisely inside the Democratic Party: which is
‘The Israeli Lobby’. This ‘Lobby’ has been comfortable with the
Damascus regime’s commitment with ‘peaceful co-existence’ with Israel
across the October 1973 ceasefire in in the Golan Heights.
The Israelis know the
nature of Al-Assad regime only too well. They understand its strengths,
weaknesses and existential priorities. The have also become familiar
with its outbidding and escalating belligerent rhetoric while providing
Israel one service after another. This is why we have noticed that
Israeli pragmatism decided against taking a jump into the unknown; and
taking the risk of replacing a ‘useful situation’ with non-guaranteed
alternative.
Thus, with
intersecting Israeli and Iranian – subsequently, ‘Obamist’ – interests
in Syria, the decision was reached to leave the Syrian people to face
its own fate.
Meanwhile, in another
side of the arena, there were two important players: First, Turkey, the
regional power hoping to reclaim its Ottoman imperial role and pose as
the protector of Sunni Muslims in an area where Iran and Israel were in
the ascendency with American approval. Second, Russia, which under a
‘neo-Tzarist’ rule, has decided to keep its last remaining foothold in
the Arab world after losing Iraq in 2003, and Libya in 2011.
Flexing Muscles
Turkey flexed its
muscles and resorted to loud rhetoric, while Russia used a more
efficient approach combining its UN ‘veto’ and employed diplomacy and
misleading negotiations as a cover of changing the rules of engagement
on the ground.
Soon enough, Turkey
suffered two regional setbacks: the first, when it became involved in
inter – Arab conflicts; the second, when it had to beat a retreat in the
face of Russian threats after it downed a Russian military aircraft in
November 2015 over the Turkish – Syrian borders.
These two setbacks
were bound to cost Ankara the initiative, and limit its grandiose
geo-political ambitions in Syria; especially, following Moscow’s and
Tehran’s exploitation of Washington’s bet on the Kurds.
Given these
developments, Ankara realized its limitations, as well as the risks of
being accused of ‘supporting terrorism’; and seeing Washington’s rush to
bolster secessionist Syrian Kurdish militias, Ankara saw a common cause
with Moscow and Tehran that soon resulted in the Astana Process, the
first political ‘coup’ against the Geneva Peace Process for Syria.
As for Moscow, and
following its gains from Obama’s policy appeasement with Iran, it gained
again from the confusion and chaos in Donald Trump’s administration.
This has allowed the Russians, while liaising with Israel, to uncover
their real ambitions in Syria, and provide the much-needed cover to
Tehran and Al-Assad’s regime to carry on their demographic change in the
country.
The policy of
demographic change has resulted so far in uprooting and displacing the
populations of eastern Aleppo, the western and southern suburbs of
Damascus, as well as Wadi Barada (the valley of Barada River), with the
intention of linking Damascus with Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon to the
west.
All that after the
mass displacement of the populations of the majority of Homs city
neighbourhoods, as well as several areas in the provinces of Homs, Hama
and Idlib; and under the pretext of fighting ISIS, many parts of the
provinces of Raqqa, Deir Ez-Zor, Al-Hasakah, and even Deraa.
Today, when Robert
Fisk talks with conviction about the imminent fall of Ghouta, and Idlib
later on, he does because there are no more illusions, despite the
futile haggling taking place in the UN Security Council.
The fact of the matter
is that the demographic conspiracy against Syria is fast nearing its
completion. The dubious ‘evaporation’ of ISIS, and the rush of
secessionist Kurdish militias to hand back the territories they control
to the Al-Assad troops and Iranian militias lead by Suleimani and
protected by Putin’s air force, only confirm that we are now in the last
phase.
What’s Next?
Well, logically, what
remains of the set ‘scenario’ are determining the details of the
Kurdish-American co-operation east of the Euphrates River, and settling
the issue of Southern Syria with Israeli input.
The pre-2011 is now
dead. This is a painful fact that one needs to accept; however, what is
even worse and more dangerous is that we are going through the redrawing
of new maps in an increasingly fragile and weak region.
Eyad Abu Shakra
(also written as Ayad Abou-Chakra) began his media career in 1973 with
Annahar newspaper in Lebanon. He joined Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper in the
UK in 1979, occupying several positions including: Senior Editor,
Managing Editor, and Head of Research Unit, as well as being a regular
columnist. He has several published works, including books, chapters in
edited books, and specialized articles, in addition to frequent regular
TV and radio appearances.
Source:
english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2018/03/04/Greater-Damascus-The-final-touches-on-the-new-demographic-map.html
No comments:
Post a Comment