Written by Nasser Kandil,
There are many analyses about the dangerous strategy after the announcement of the US President Donald Trump of the withdrawal from Syria, most of which are related to a theory based on the American intentions to abolish the nuclear understanding with Iran, a military strike against it and linking the withdrawal from Syria with making the US troops in Iraq and Syria out of Iran and its allies’ targeting. Some people say that this linking stems from Russia’s choice between being away from Iran and gaining Syria or being under the threat of turning Syria into a swamp for exhausting Russia, while others consider that announcement valueless and mere an electoral attempt before voters that have not achieved the promises of interest in the internal affairs as promised by Trump’s electoral campaigns, therefore the talk about withdrawal was to appease them with the promise to return to the American interior.
Trump’s decision to freeze the funds allocated to the Syrian file which its value is two hundred million dollars and the wish of the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman from the US President to reconsider the decision of the close withdrawal from Syria, mean that the announcement has been taken seriously, otherwise its non-seriousness makes it a stupid psychological warfare waged by Trump against his allies. While those who advocate the interpretation of linking the US decision with escalating options ignore that the revenge reactions in any confrontation with Iran are the American interests and troops in the Gulf, while those who advocate the analysis based on threatening Russia with exhausting it in Syria through the withdrawal, ignore that the past four years were the title of this war, from the birth of ISIS to the resolving of Ghouta, where the Russian response to the American option was in the field and then it reached to the threat of responding to the war of missile with one alike, but what are the tools of attrition if they are not ISIS, Al Nusra, the Army of Islam, and Corps of Rahamn? And where are they now?
The American decision is serious; it is the announcement of the end of the mission in Syria. The mission which its duration was determined, it is more important than fighting ISIS or the validity of the settlement in Syria, it is the fate of the domination on Ghouta by Washington’ allies ran by Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, and Israel. Ghouta is that area which was difficult to be liberated by Syrian army during the past years and which includes half a million citizens and fifty thousand militants and which is equipped with a network tunnels against the threat of ground and air bombardment that most of its victims were from the civilians. Thus it is easy to turn it into pressing diplomatic and media campaigns, and maybe supported by a fabricated chemical strike to pave the way for military strikes that stop any military campaign. The bet was on the steadfastness of Ghouta for months against any military campaign, as the steadfastness of Jobbar alone for years. Keeping Ghouta under the protection means the continuity of the hope of invading Damascus one day and disrupting the movement in it every day, and the continuity of the hope of diving Syria by linking Ghouta with Tanf base leaving the uninhabited badia between them, and dividing it into two parts, northern that includes Homs, the coast, Hama, and Aleppo, and southern one includes Damascus, Daraa, Quneira, and Sweida. Across the Badia the besieged Ghouta besieges Damascus with Ghouta, eastern Qalamoun, Tanf, and Daraa, and with the western Qalamoun, Quneitra, and Daraa. But after resolving of Ghouta, the last castle fell along with the last hope.
The Americans read the meaning of the operation which targeted them in eastern Syria and led to the killing of two soldiers by an explosive device. They know that after Ghouta the restoration of the rest of the Syrian geography will be according to a Syrian calendar. Even if this operation was executed by a party that is not related to the Syrian state project, its similar will be present within a resistance that was established in the eastern of Syria, which Washington experienced its similarities in Lebanon and Iraq, so it does not need to wait the humiliated withdrawal to know how to behave, since the mission was accomplished and the project fell.
Is not surprising that Bin Salman talked in one statement about the wish of postponing the decision of the US withdrawal and the recognition of the staying of the Syrian President? The scene has become clear; it is the withdrawal because the mission of overthrowing the Syrian President failed.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,