Tweet
Mideast Mirror
August 9, 2012 Thursday
Washington plays a double game, but Ankara is the loser
As Washington prepares to reap the harvest of the Syrian crisis
regardless of its outcome, Ankara has created nothing but trouble for
itself, says Nahed Hattar in Jordanian al-Arab al-Yawm
The U.S. is playing a double game in Syria, argues a Jordanian
commentator. If the regime falls, it would have imposed its
unquestioned hegemony on the Middle East at no cost to itself. If the
regime wins, it can always negotiate with it. But whatever happens,
Turkey has emerged as the greatest loser from the Syrian crisis.
IMMORAL ENGAGEMENT: "The U.S. is engaged in an immoral double game in
the Syrian crisis," writes Nahed Hattar in the Jordanian daily al-Arab
al-Yawm.
It fully realizes that the route to direct military intervention is
shut due to the newly emerging international balance with Russia,
China, and the BRIC countries. And this means that the chances of
toppling the Syrian regime by force are limited. This stems from the
following factors:
-First, the Syrian Arab Army's overwhelming superiority over the armed
resistance.
-Second, the economic aid that the Russians and the Iranians are
delivering to Damascus.
-Third, the political backing that President Bashar al-Assad is
receiving from at least half the Syrian people.
-Fourth, the fact that the opposition is fragmented, with its
leadership disputed by various capitals and intelligence agencies,
even though its main weight has shifted towards the fundamentalist,
takfiri, and terrorist groups.
Despite this, the U.S. continues to peddle the illusion of toppling
the regime by 'whatever means available.' It is encouraging the armed
elements, including the terrorists, and backing them politically,
financially, and in terms of intelligence. It is providing cover for
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey's efforts to arm and finance these
elements. And it is doing so in the hope that 'a miracle' will occur
and the regime will fall as a result of terrorist attacks accompanied
by political and media incitement and defections.
But that is just a hope; it is not a realistic aim. In fact,
Washington has admitted that it knows little about what is really
happening in Syria and that this does not allow it to form a practical
and realistic vision for the future. Despite this, the Americans have
some practical and realistic aims in Syria. These consist of
prolonging the country's haemorrhage, destroying its infrastructure
and economy, exhausting its army and society, and breaking the Syrian
people's will so that they will accept U.S. hegemony and
reconciliation with Israel.
These aims explain the large number of terrorist attacks that are not
intended to weaken the regime, but to undermine the state and the
army's capabilities. These include blowing up infrastructure, such as
railway lines, gas and oil pipelines, water pipelines, electricity
plants, and public installations, and the assassination of scientific
and military cadres. (What political aim, for example, could be
derived from the assassination of the director of the Syrian missile
project?) In fact, via the monitoring of contacts between American and
Free Syrian Army (FSA) officers, it has been proven lately that these
attacks were planned by the U.S.
The argument over Syria is no longer meaningful. The picture is now
clear, with no embellishments or shades of grey. We are now in the
midst of a war between the Syrian army and the armed groups of every
shape and color. The final word today belongs to force, not to debate
or demonstrations or political and media hallucinations. It is the
outcome of the war on the ground that will decide the political
situation.
For the Americans, if the regime falls, they will reap an all-out
victory in the Middle East at no cost. On the other hand, there is
nothing to prevent them from negotiating with Damascus after it
decides the battle militarily. In the first instance, the Gulf rulers
will find themselves lining up behind their American master. In the
second case, they will have to pay the price in the form of terrible
vengeance.
But regardless of its outcome, the greatest loser in the Syrian crisis
is Turkey. Today, it has lost its regional status and is mired in its
hostility with Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Russia. But its greatest loss
lies in the dramatic explosion of its Kurdish problem. The secession
of the Kurdish region, which includes some 20 million people, is now a
possible item on the agenda.
Damascus delivered a strategic blow to Ankara when it recognized the
Syrian Kurdish problem and armed the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)
fighters who are now seeking to carve out a safe zone inside Turkey
with the aim of transforming it into a base for liberating the entire
Kurdish province.
A united Kurdish state is looming on the horizon. And this in turn
will reopen the file of Iskandarun Province [Turkish Hatay] as well as
the issue of Arabs, Alevis, and Armenians in Turkey. This adventure in
Syria has burnt the fingers of a major regional state of Turkey's
stature. What are we to expect in the case of a state such as Jordan?
In Jordan's case, we are not only referring to the country's limited
capabilities. We also have in mind the realistic elements of the
project to transform Jordan into an alternative homeland for the
Palestinians. These factors will come together with a qualitative leap
as soon as - God forbid - we move towards anarchy.
"The likelihood of this is growing as demonstrated by numerous and
shocking indications," concludes Hattar.
August 9, 2012 Thursday
Washington plays a double game, but Ankara is the loser
As Washington prepares to reap the harvest of the Syrian crisis
regardless of its outcome, Ankara has created nothing but trouble for
itself, says Nahed Hattar in Jordanian al-Arab al-Yawm
The U.S. is playing a double game in Syria, argues a Jordanian
commentator. If the regime falls, it would have imposed its
unquestioned hegemony on the Middle East at no cost to itself. If the
regime wins, it can always negotiate with it. But whatever happens,
Turkey has emerged as the greatest loser from the Syrian crisis.
IMMORAL ENGAGEMENT: "The U.S. is engaged in an immoral double game in
the Syrian crisis," writes Nahed Hattar in the Jordanian daily al-Arab
al-Yawm.
It fully realizes that the route to direct military intervention is
shut due to the newly emerging international balance with Russia,
China, and the BRIC countries. And this means that the chances of
toppling the Syrian regime by force are limited. This stems from the
following factors:
-First, the Syrian Arab Army's overwhelming superiority over the armed
resistance.
-Second, the economic aid that the Russians and the Iranians are
delivering to Damascus.
-Third, the political backing that President Bashar al-Assad is
receiving from at least half the Syrian people.
-Fourth, the fact that the opposition is fragmented, with its
leadership disputed by various capitals and intelligence agencies,
even though its main weight has shifted towards the fundamentalist,
takfiri, and terrorist groups.
Despite this, the U.S. continues to peddle the illusion of toppling
the regime by 'whatever means available.' It is encouraging the armed
elements, including the terrorists, and backing them politically,
financially, and in terms of intelligence. It is providing cover for
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey's efforts to arm and finance these
elements. And it is doing so in the hope that 'a miracle' will occur
and the regime will fall as a result of terrorist attacks accompanied
by political and media incitement and defections.
But that is just a hope; it is not a realistic aim. In fact,
Washington has admitted that it knows little about what is really
happening in Syria and that this does not allow it to form a practical
and realistic vision for the future. Despite this, the Americans have
some practical and realistic aims in Syria. These consist of
prolonging the country's haemorrhage, destroying its infrastructure
and economy, exhausting its army and society, and breaking the Syrian
people's will so that they will accept U.S. hegemony and
reconciliation with Israel.
These aims explain the large number of terrorist attacks that are not
intended to weaken the regime, but to undermine the state and the
army's capabilities. These include blowing up infrastructure, such as
railway lines, gas and oil pipelines, water pipelines, electricity
plants, and public installations, and the assassination of scientific
and military cadres. (What political aim, for example, could be
derived from the assassination of the director of the Syrian missile
project?) In fact, via the monitoring of contacts between American and
Free Syrian Army (FSA) officers, it has been proven lately that these
attacks were planned by the U.S.
The argument over Syria is no longer meaningful. The picture is now
clear, with no embellishments or shades of grey. We are now in the
midst of a war between the Syrian army and the armed groups of every
shape and color. The final word today belongs to force, not to debate
or demonstrations or political and media hallucinations. It is the
outcome of the war on the ground that will decide the political
situation.
For the Americans, if the regime falls, they will reap an all-out
victory in the Middle East at no cost. On the other hand, there is
nothing to prevent them from negotiating with Damascus after it
decides the battle militarily. In the first instance, the Gulf rulers
will find themselves lining up behind their American master. In the
second case, they will have to pay the price in the form of terrible
vengeance.
But regardless of its outcome, the greatest loser in the Syrian crisis
is Turkey. Today, it has lost its regional status and is mired in its
hostility with Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Russia. But its greatest loss
lies in the dramatic explosion of its Kurdish problem. The secession
of the Kurdish region, which includes some 20 million people, is now a
possible item on the agenda.
Damascus delivered a strategic blow to Ankara when it recognized the
Syrian Kurdish problem and armed the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)
fighters who are now seeking to carve out a safe zone inside Turkey
with the aim of transforming it into a base for liberating the entire
Kurdish province.
A united Kurdish state is looming on the horizon. And this in turn
will reopen the file of Iskandarun Province [Turkish Hatay] as well as
the issue of Arabs, Alevis, and Armenians in Turkey. This adventure in
Syria has burnt the fingers of a major regional state of Turkey's
stature. What are we to expect in the case of a state such as Jordan?
In Jordan's case, we are not only referring to the country's limited
capabilities. We also have in mind the realistic elements of the
project to transform Jordan into an alternative homeland for the
Palestinians. These factors will come together with a qualitative leap
as soon as - God forbid - we move towards anarchy.
"The likelihood of this is growing as demonstrated by numerous and
shocking indications," concludes Hattar.