نقاط على الحروف Compromises of condoning instead of compromises of mutual consent

Written by Nasser Kandil,

All those who follow up the issues of the world and the region agree on considering the battle of liberating Aleppo a pivotal event which drew the balances. The battle of Aleppo is the outcome of two major transformations; the first one is the nuclear understanding with Iran with a decisive American partnership. Second, the crucial Russian interference to change the rules of the war in Syria and to end the negative balance that threatened Syria’s unity, and led to its division and chaos. Therefore the Iranian partnership with Russia was a main condition to achieve what has been achieved. It became clear that the nuclear understanding according to the American understanding was an American offer to Iran to accept the compromise of condoning that is based on obtaining the advantages of the understanding in exchange for getting out of the war in Syria, after it became clear that such an agreement is impossible by mutual consent. The compromises of condoning are innovative formulas to avoid the embarrassment caused by the compromises of mutual consent, they based on rules of behavior of a compromise that is not officially settled but practically understood.

Once again, Washington tried another compromise of condoning with Russia at Helsinki Summit, entitled Russia’s acceptance to abandon the protection of the Iranian role in Syria in exchange for recognizing its unilateral victory. As Iran refused the content of the compromise of condoning which included the American understanding of the nuclear issue and stuck to the narrow details of the understanding as the technical aspects, Russia refused the content of the compromise of condoning and justified the legitimacy of the Iranian  role in Syria and its importance, it linked it with the Syrian sovereignty, and it worked according to the content of Helsinki understandings as a framework to ensure the return of the Syrian refugees, which according to the Americans it is just an understanding that its aspired content is a Russian  condoning of the American pressures which target the Iranian role and presence in Syria, along with the role and the presence of the resistance forces. But when they did not find any Russian response they got out of the official statement of Helsinki understanding concerning the refugees as they got out of the nuclear understanding with Iran.

After the clear and decisive positions of  both Iran and Russia, Israel tried to propose the compromise of condoning to Russia once again, through the attempt of imposing a military fait accompli, by the continuation of its movement in the Syrian airspace and targeting what it called Iranian bases and positions that threaten the security of Israel. It put the Russian refusal versus the future of the Russian-Israeli relationship which the occupation government was thinking that it occupied an internal status in the Russian considerations that is above the war in Syria and the alliance with Iran, thus was the message of dropping the Russian plane. The Russian response was clearer and more decisive through handing over S-300 missiles to Syria and the changing of the rules of engagement.

Practically the handing over of S-300 missiles to the Syrian army is more important than changing the tactical rules of engagement and it is closer to a strategic change in the balances.  It is a proposal to Washington to accept the compromise of condoning, through recognizing the exclusivity of the Russian control over the Syrian airspace in exchange for non-collision. There were condemning and warning statements by the US Department, but the Pentagon which is involved in the military issue hastened to accept the compromise of condoning, it issued a statement in the name of the coalition led by Washington in Syria, in which it said that the missiles do not affect the collation’s work.

Iran accepted the initiative and proposed a compromise of condoning entitled targeting the groups which threaten the security of Iran in Syria and Iraq under Washington’s observation in exchange for non-collision. Washington accepted the proposal practically and condoned. Iran along with its Iraqi allies formulated a political compromise of condoning that led to the election of the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the Parliament and the Prime Minister without any Iranian-American understanding and without paving the way for collision. The figures which assumed the Iraqi constitutional positions under Iranian support and its allies are close to Iran but are not classified among Washington’s enemies, and they are not figures of an American-Iranian compromise that stand in between, but at the same time, they are not figures that are close to Washington that are not classified among Iran’s enemies.

The track of compromises of condoning started to enter politics from the gate of Iraq. Syria will witness their successive steps through accepting the policy of the fail accompli without compromises of the mutual consent. Maybe the new Lebanese government is one of the models of the compromises of condoning or a beginning of the return to the compromises of mutual consent.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

2018-10-12
عدد القراءت (289)