Is the “Geneva II” a dedication of the West’s alliance with Al-Assad against terrorism?

According to those leaks, an American official has finally met with Syrian opposition parties informing them the following:
First, you must neglect the fact that Al-Assad might step down before the “Geneva II”. Perhaps you have to be convinced that he will stay for a long and not a short period awaiting the outcome of the negotiations, which some part of them will be carried out publicly in Geneva, and the rest will take place away from spotlight through the American-Russian and American-Iranian contacting.

Second, the Western-Iranian understanding is serious more than some people think. Therefore, you have to get used to the idea that Tehran would play a role in the regional and international negotiations regarding Syria. We could never reach any result in Syria if Iran felt that this threatens its interests. Tehran is greatly helping in fighting against terrorism nowadays.

Third, the Syrian army is playing a prominent role in fighting against global terrorism. Hence, it is better to find a quick formula to reach an understanding between the army and the “Free Syrian Army” and between the moderate parties in the ranks of the insurgents. This is an urgent Western requirement, so as not to broaden the scale of terrorism. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced what has been agreed upon with the Americans lately: “Both the government and the opposition have to agree on a mechanism to fight terrorism”.

Fourth, Lebanon should be kept away from the implications of terrorism and the fighting should not be transferred to it for two reasons: First, it is the desire of the West to neutralize that country and to protect it. Second, because transferring the fight to Lebanon means diverting attention from what is happening in Syria. The same advice was given to those who were accusing the army in Lebanon in the last period.

In fact, French pressures were imposed recently on Washington regarding Lebanon. Paris’ position stresses the need to prolong the term of President Michel Suleiman, and emphasizes that Washington has to convince Iran to admit so. Tehran is not convinced yet, and it usually keeps the decision to its ally Hezbollah. President Al-Assad also considers that this is up to Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

Some of the audience disagreed with the American position. Someone asked: Does this mean that Washington and the West are now accepting the continuation of Al-Assad in power? The answer was clear: “President Obama did not change his opinion on the need for Al-Assad to step down, but this is better to happen as a result of negotiations and elections and not through a military action or through an external war. There must be a political solution, and this has become the focus of an international consensus. Moreover, the priority now is to fight against terrorism”. Washington was convinced that the opposition failed to form a military force that is not alarming, and thus it left “Daash” and the “Nusra Front” and those who belong to them leading the scene.

Those leaks reached to whom they may concern. The reply came from the Saudi ambassador to Britain, Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, who said in an article published by the “New York Times” yesterday: “Saudi Arabia will do its best, being supported or not by our Western partners. We will continue our support for the Free Syrian Army and the opposition, and al-Qaeda’s operations must not become a reason not to move forward”. Saudi Arabia cannot afford the loss of its role in Syria. Qatar was able to tolerate and to change. The Qatari ambassador told the leaders of Hezbollah significant words, but there were no leaks about this. Nothing will be leaked about the mediation of the great writer Mohamed Hassanein Heikal between Iran and Egypt through the party.

The same newspaper raised lately the following question: “Should the United States continue to consider Saudi Arabia as a force that helps establishing stability in the region or as a dangerous ally that its policy will lead to more bloodshed and repression ...”? The newspaper was referring in particular to the role of Saudi Arabia in suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and supporting the military option.

These are only words spread in newspapers, some would say. This is true, but there is a general atmosphere in America that is now accepting, and even encouraging, the convergence with Iran, while on the other hand there is a growing discontent regarding the roles of some countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The same goes for Turkey, which will receive a few weeks later the Iranian President Hassan Rohani. Recep Tayyip Erdogan is now sinking in the corruption scandal that is rocking his government.
Turkey will not find at the moment better than Iran to improve its position in the region. Iran in turn will not find now better than Turkey to stop sending arms and fighters into Syria. Both parties will not find better than their convergence to pressure Saudi Arabia mutually. Are not both Ankara and Riyadh at odds on the Egyptian territory nowadays because of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Tehran has passed a new path with the Gulf state, and has resumed its flights yesterday to Bahrain. Is not it strange to resume flights with the state that is considered the security field of Saudi Arabia, where the “Peninsula Shield” is spread to prevent the fall of the regime?

The threads of the game have become more visible. The current escalation between Russia and the West over Ukraine brought the fiery rhetoric of President Vladimir Putin back to the top: “The Iranian nuclear dilemma is fading and the missile shield is remaining in place, and this is unacceptable”. Lavrov waving his hand added: “The mentality of the Cold War is still controlling some states in the Atlantic”.

It is hard to think that Washington will increase the gap with Moscow in this global sensitive period. It is necessary to put pressure on the European allies to ease the pressure on Ukraine. The thread of understanding must be maintained. In these understandings, both Moscow and Tehran are not willing to abandon the Syrian ally. In the context of these understandings, too, Western security officials will continue to go to Syria. Perhaps raising the rank of the visitors to diplomatic official ones will not be delayed... It seems that this will not be delayed.

The international politics knows no ethics and no constants, it only knows interests. Who was ever going to imagine that the well-known Syrian Communist opposition man Michel Kilo will become the most prominent ally of Saudi Arabia and the West and will play a prominent role in hitting the Muslim Brotherhood within the coalition before going to Riyadh and after that! Politics is interests, and nothing else.