Kassioun Editorial 1177: Western Promises... the Road to Hell!

The essence of the project, as we have indicated many times, is to make a deal under and above the table with the West, based on its promises, with the aim of undermining the political solution based on UNSC Resolution 2254. That is on the one hand, and on the other, moving Syria from its historical political position to the opposite side. That is accompanied with promises to end the sanctions, the blockade, in addition to other multifaceted arrangements, including talks about early recovery, decentralization, a safe and neutral environment, etc.

Nevertheless, examining the behavior of the sides to the supposed deal leads to thinking that the actual point of convergence is not the deal itself, as much as it is the implicit agreement to pass the time and perpetuate the existing de facto situation, until God creates what you do not know.

This estimation puts us before two theoretical possibilities: The first is that there is actual reliance on the promises of the West, and the second is that there is an attempt to prolong the balancing process on multiple things.

Regarding the first possibility, what should be clear and understood, by virtue of the lived reality on the one hand, and by virtue of the long historical experience with the West on the other hand, is that the West’s promises are false promises that will not be fulfilled. This opinion has become widespread at the global popular and official levels, including among the Astana tripartite countries directly linked to the Syrian issue. In this regard, the supreme leader of Iran was the last to say something in this context, when he said: “Now they [the West] are planning to try removing Syria from regional equations by other means, including promises they will never fulfill”.

Further and deeper than that, and by examining Washington’s behavior towards those who are supposed to be its allies, in Europe, the Arabian Gulf, Turkey, and many other places in the world, the common result over several successive decades is that Washington no longer has anything to offer its “allies” – let alone its opponents and enemies – except sanctions, extortion, and threats. That is, any side that had a strong relationship with Washington over the past decades did not get from it any real development or benefits, except to avoid its harm, and always partially, because there was harm in any scenario. This is the case with the retreating powers globally, which lack any ability to build actual major projects, and their concern becomes destroying others’ projects.

As for the second possibility, centered around “wasting time” and “waiting”, and based on the Syrian experience, then perhaps this policy was correct to some extent decades ago, amid a less severe and less widespread international conflict than the current situation, and considering that Syria itself was not a direct arena of conflict, war, blood, and death.

Reproducing the previous policy today is not just playing on the edge of the homeland, but rather pushing this homeland towards ruin, devastation, and comprehensive destruction.

In the end, the “carrot and stick” policy of the West, particularly of the US, may be the same strategic goal, and not just a tool to reach a different final goal. The comprehensive, hybrid chaos that is required to be spread and deepened throughout our region, including in Syria, is the main formula remaining in the US’ arsenal.

Therefore, completely severing going along with Western promises, and providing a true patriotic political will to move towards a comprehensive political solution on the basis of UNSC Resolution 2254, are the only way out of the disaster. They are also the only tool to restore the unity of Syria and the Syrian people, and ending foreign presence on its territory.

(النسخة العربية)