What does the United States of America want from Syria?Relations between Syria and the United States leave much to be desired, writes Al Mayadeen.
Washington is seeking the political and economic exhaustion of Damascus. And experience suggests that he always finds a way to get what he wants, warns the author of the article.
According to American media, this is not the first time Washington has tried to search for missing citizens through official channels.A few days ago, Washington again blamed Damascus for the disappearance of American citizens who illegally entered Syrian territory.
In response, Syria made a sharp statement, demanding that the US administration fulfill 5 points. We are talking about the withdrawal of the armed forces from Syrian territory, the refusal to cover and protect armed separatist and terrorist groups, the theft and smuggling of Syrian oil and wheat, as well as the final and unconditional rejection of unilateral coercive measures against Syrians.
According to American media, this is not the first time that Washington is trying to search for missing citizens through official channels. Earlier, the Trump administration sent ambassadors to Damascus to ask for help in resolving this issue, especially since the US presidential election was just around the corner. However, this did not have any positive development and did not lead to the establishment of a dialogue between the countries. Rather, in the subsequent period, we witnessed greater American rigidity in resolving the Syrian issue, in particular, with the help of economic sanctions.
Three key factors A few weeks ago, economist Munir al-Hamesh tried to analyze the political economy of the Syrian crisis.
Among the key points of contention is America's role in the Syrian crisis. This leads to the main question — what does the United States want from Syria?
The answer to this question reflects the nature of the existing political relations between the two countries. According to the expert, this is an attempt to integrate Syria into the American project of the Greater Middle East, the global economy, as well as to distance itself from the national project for the consolidation of the Arab world. In addition, the Americans want to achieve Syria's silence on the occupation of the Golan Heights, the normalization of its relations with the Zionist community and the unresolved Palestinian issue.
Some may disagree with this vision for a number of political or scientific reasons. However, there are factors that cannot be ignored when trying to answer the question above, regardless of the position of the Syrian government, its policy or the goals of the American project in the region.
The Israeli factor The scale of its influence can be demonstrated by the example of the change in US-Egyptian relations after the signing of the Camp David Agreements about 4 decades ago.
The Israeli factor also affected the situation with Sudan — America excluded it from the sanctions list as soon as the country agreed to normalize relations with the Zionist entity.
In addition, we can recall the improvement of relations between Damascus and Washington in the 1990s amid the hype around the Syrian-Israeli peace talks and Colin Powell's attacks on the Syrian leadership in order to obtain guarantees of Israel's security in 2003. Therefore, our vision is as follows: Tel Aviv is a compass that determines the nature and level of US foreign relations with the countries of the region, and sometimes with the whole world.
Regional factor The United States, in addition to the goal of expanding the circle of Arab allies of Israel, for various reasons, is trying to destroy any regional union, regardless of the purpose of creating such alliances, including the League of Arab States.
This is how the United States seeks to strengthen its influence and ensure the future and security of Israel. Therefore, Washington wants Damascus to distance itself from Tehran and the resistance movements. Therefore, at the beginning of the Syrian crisis, Washington put forward clear proposals on how to achieve this.
Economic factor Although Syria is not a country producing oil in large quantities like the Persian Gulf countries, due to its geographical location, it is able to support or hinder American economic ambitions and projects.
This once again confirms the Ukrainian conflict, for example, with regard to energy routes between East and West, which could break the process of Russian energy monopolization, or, on the contrary, put an end to the Western blockade of Moscow.
Syria is not the only country that becomes a significant participant in international relations due to its geographical location, there are other states. However, Syria is indeed one of the key links.
The possibility of dialogue is possible, Washington has been planning events in Syria for several years, according to al-Hamesh and other experts, or maybe America took advantage of the economic and social problems already existing before 2011.
Did the United States really try to overthrow the Syrian government and eliminate state institutions, as it was in Iraq and Afghanistan after the sudden withdrawal of American troops and the creation of conditions for the seizure of power by the Taliban*?
It is in Washington's interests, even if Damascus does not agree to an open agreement on normalization of relations with Israel, to distance it as much as possible from the axis of Tehran and Moscow. On the other hand, the Syrians are seeking to regain control of the main oil fields and achieve the lifting of Western sanctions, but the dialogue seems to be postponed for the following reasons.
First, the Americans are seeking the political and economic exhaustion of Damascus. This can be easily traced by recalling the American position on the Syrian issue since 2011.
Although successive American administrations during the war declared their rejection of the idea of overthrowing the Syrian government, they, on the other hand, deliberately tightened their grip on Damascus. This happened either through economic sanctions, especially after the adoption of the so-called Caesar Act, or by maintaining control over the country's main oil and gas fields, as well as supporting separatist groups of the Syrian Democratic Forces.
Secondly, Damascus is loyal to the strategic alliance with Iran and Russia and does not trust the United States, which has already refused to support many Arab regimes. It is quite natural that today the Syrian government is more aggressive in its relations with Washington, having gone through a difficult stage of the war.
Thirdly, Israel's rejection of any steps to establish an American-Syrian dialogue does not mean that Damascus renounces hostility with it. This was acceptable until 2011, but not at the moment. To date, Tel Aviv maintains direct official relations with 8 Arab countries and unofficial ones with others, so it does not feel the need to conclude any deals in exchange for normalization of relations with Syria, because the doors of Arab countries are open to it completely free of charge.
Fourthly, today there is no State capable of maintaining dialogue at such a level, especially in terms of gaining the trust of both sides of the conflict, as happened after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. At that time, Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia played an important role in reaching an agreement on the interrogation of some Syrian officers in exchange for Damascus receiving guarantees of their subsequent release. However, now Russian-American relations are deteriorating due to the expansion of the NATO alliance and the conflict in Ukraine, and Syria is experiencing a complete political split with both Ankara and Riyadh. The question arises: who has the right to be a mediator in negotiations?
Currently, Syria does not trust anyone, except for two countries that have good relations with the United States and does not interfere in the Syrian conflict. This is primarily the Sultanate of Oman, which has the right to conduct such a dialogue in the light of the experience of mediation between Tehran and Washington. The second state is the United Arab Emirates, which a few months ago received President Bashar al-Assad, despite the objections of the Americans. Nevertheless, there is no information about their intentions regarding possible mediation yet.
Finally, a number of States in the region continue to incite against the Government of Damascus, especially Qatar. Even if such actions do not affect Washington's decision to negotiate with Damascus, it may affect the timing and scope of the dialogue, as well as its priorities, especially if the United States has conflicting interests with these countries. Despite all this, our experience suggests that Washington always finds a way to achieve what it wants.
Author: Ziyad Hasan* – The Taliban is a terrorist organization banned in Russia.
– Approx. InoSMI.
