The US as the Chief Architect of the Syrian Crisis

The armed conflicts in Syria are continuing unabatedly. Although the Syrian army has succeeded in precluding rebels’ military dominance plan in the city of Aleppo, the clashes have not tilted in favour of any side of the conflicts.

The close distance between Aleppo and Turkish borders and Turkey’s generous logistic support to the anti-government rebels have impeded the total retreat of Syrian armed rebels from the city. The fall of Aleppo is one of the greatest dreams of the supporters of anti-government armed groups. The United States, Europe, Turkey, and those Arab states who are opposed to the Syrian government, all demand the defeat of Syria’s army in the city to fulfil their dream in creating a buffer zone and forming a transitional government in the Syrian territory.

The plans for overthrowing Bashar al-Assad administration have now simply past one or two projects and in the last 18 months he has overcome tens of such plans which were all supported by the US and its allies in the Middle East. This has been the case while the West, under the leadership of Washington, has totally shifted its political focus from efforts to solve the Syrian crisis through political negotiations to attempts at launching a civil war against the regime. This is why no political plan has been applicable so far.

The pace with which street protests were transformed into organized armed rebellion in some of the cities in Syria has encouraged the belief that from the very first formation day of these protests, the Democratic administration of the USA has never had the intention to work out a political agreement between the Syrian government and the opposition groups.

On the other hand, the United States has never favoured a rapid domination by the Syrian rebel groups in Damascus, but with the pervasiveness of a wave of violence, the US has developed the hope that the launch of a widespread and all-encompassing civil war in this country will exterminate the Syrian army once and for all; the same scenario the Americans experienced both in Iraq and in Libya.

Washington believes that the survival of the current Syrian army is a threat to the security of Israel and the United States in the Middle East, and thus it is compulsory to rout it, because unlike the armies in Egypt and Tunisia, the US has no influence and dominance over the Syrian army. This is the angle from which the United States is looking at the issue and shutting its eyes to the most terrible and heinous terrorist acts carried out by the rebels, so that in the shadow of a growing violence, the project of defeating Syrian army may be worked out.

The unique characteristics of opposition groups’ movement indicate that it doesn’t have intellectual, political and financial independence, therefore, if one looks at the process of street protests’ formation in a part of some Syrian cities and compare it with the current situation of these protests, one can clearly find out why this movement entered the military phase so rapidly.

All these facts indicate that what is now known as the national movement, liberation army, or the Syrian National Council is never an independent movement, but has become a tool in the hands of the world’s major powers including the US and the UK in order to gain dominance in the region and protect Israel’s security. The US used to see Syria as one of the main actors in the Middle East, but today it has turned this country into a playground of its own. This has made many experts believe that the first stage of the US war against Iran has begun in the Middle East, and the second stage will be imposing a new war on Lebanon in the form of tribal and religious clashes, a fire which will be fuelled by Salafist and atheist forces who have flooded into Lebanon during the past year with the financial support of some wealthy Arab countries and security-based silence of the US and France to establish a new front against the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon.
Unlike many experts who suppose that the plan of Damascus’ fall and occupation was formulated after the bombing of Syrian National Security Council headquarters in which four Syrian influential figures were killed, only with the intention to cause the swift overthrow of Assad administration and the absolute supremacy of the opposition groups, the author of this piece believes that one of the main and most important objectives of this military project is to lead these armed conflicts to the Palestinian camps, particularly to Yarmouk in Damascus, since the Americans are not reluctant to turn Syria into the Somalia of the Middle East so that they can impose their policies.

While US and its allies are pursuing the scheme of alienating and separating key military and political figures from Assad regime, their refusal to welcome these figures after their separation from the Syrian government shows that the opponents of Bashar al-Assad are greatly interested in the psychological collapse of the Syrian regime. All the prominent military and political figures that have alienated themselves from the regime have turned into a hot topic for debate in opponent satellite channels and media outlets for a few days and then disappeared completely from the news.

Based on some precise information, the British intelligence services play a pivotal role in this programme and due to their knowledge about the political, religious, sectarian and tribal contexts in the Middle East; the British are conducting the widespread psychological war against Syria. These evidences and information indicate that the escalating events called as the emergence of tribal-religious confrontations (between Shiites and Sunnis) in the Middle East and especially in Syria (and also) the religious threats uttered by the atheists and Sunni Salafists against other Islamic sects including the Shiites, are all under the direct control of Britain, and its mastermind is the same decrepit old London who has had a dark track record and an extensive role in triggering religious wars from Indian Subcontinent to the Middle East.

One of the major effects of war in Syria will be the probable project of disintegrating the Middle East, the plan which many experts regard as the new Sykes-Picot Agreement.

‘Danny Ayalon,’ Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister, in the wake of the military developments in Syria, has expressed optimism that this country (Syria) and Lebanon will be divided into a number of smaller province-like regions in which independent governments will be formed on the basis of religious sects and tribes. In Ayalon’s belief, the formation of such governments on the one hand weakens Israel’s opposition states, and on the other hand, provides Israel with the possibility to make new alliances in the Middle East.

Danny Ayalon’s statements have not been baseless. Burhan Ghalioun, the former chairman of Syrian (opposition Transitional) National Council, in an interview with Wall Street Journal on December 2, 2011 argued that: if Syria after Bashar al-Assad is governed by his opponents, it will end all its relations with Lebanese Hezbollah and all other resistance movements and will turn into a source of peace in the region. Ghalioun’s indication in this position refers to making peace with Israel. The action of Ghalioun in adopting this stance was regarded as presenting his credentials to the Americans in order to secure his chance to extend his position as the chairman of Syrian National Council for a second round which was exactly the way it happened.

The US which believes in creative and goal-oriented unrest, supports the thesis of forming disintegrated governments in the Middle East, so that by the new tribal, sectarian and border disputes, the existing conflicts with Israel can be reduced to a minimum and even some of the nascent governments may develop new alliances with Israel. In other words, the United States in its new political plans for the Middle East is pursuing the thought which argues that when all the Middle Eastern minorities have a right to own an independent government, why Israel should be deprived from this right. In fact, one can say that this is the most dangerous part of the American thought of the New Middle East.