International politics is not governed by principles. It is a set of interests that meet or contradict. And such interests can be typically applied in Syria.

Al-Akhbar Daily

Sami Kleib

International politics is not governed by principles. It is a set of interests that meet or contradict. And such interests can be typically applied in Syria.

For, the sympathy or hate which some feel for the Syrian regime remain useless feelings. And the most important thing is the international balance of powers.

According to this balance of powers, half of the world will not hesitate to congratulate President Bashar al-Assad for his certain victory in the elections. This axis comprises Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa, which are members of the BRICS countries.

Also among this axis several countries in South America, Iran and Iraq, in addition to a number of Arab and international parties and forces.
If these countries are weighted according to their population, then they are half of the world.

Also, if these countries are weighted according to their economic abilities, they are considered as the rising powers which are about to replace the previous economic forces.

Two of these countries, Russia and China had for four times vetoed international resolutions against Syria, and will continue to do so.

The Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea Lebanon did not pay attention to this fact. He said earlier in a press conference that only Suriname, Venezuela in addition to a third country will congratulate Assad. It is his right to say these words, since he hates the Syrian regime. But in the term of international interests, there is no place to love or hate.

What’s new?
In the last few days, two dangerous terrorist attacks took place. Such kind of terrorism requires the world to talk more about international interests than principles and feelings.

An attack on a Jewish museum in Brussels was carried out by a French of North African origin. The United States was also surprised by a suicide bombing in Syria’s Idleb carried out by an American for the first time.
As for the international interests, the Syrian bloodshed in the last three years does not matter. The interests of several countries were for the fight in Syria to proceed for a long time.

Regarding the international considerations, the war in Syria is exhausting the Syrian army, as well as Iran and Hezbollah.  As for the interests also the Sunni-Shiite sedition is to create a new front between the fighters of Hezbollah and the Takfiris. All these (scenarios) were to take place but for terrorism.

Following Brussels attack and the suicide bombing by the American, the interest calculation should be by another way. It will be very hard for the states which want to improve the level of armaments to opposition fighters to convince Congress, the public opinion and their treasuries by this idea. The war in Syria is being more and more a war between terrorists and non-terrorists.

International interest currently requires being on the opposite side of the terrorists. Critics say the Syrian regime is the one who had encouraged terrorism since the U.S. occupation of Iraq, it was he who freed terrorists and that it was he who practiced terrorism. In the terms of international interests, these sayings are just fruitless words.

The situation in Syria can’t be like that. The terrorism which has infiltrated Syria via known passages can go back, through these same passages. That has actually happened. The Syrian army is the only side who can prevent this (terrorism infiltration), in cooperation with the armies of neighboring countries.

U.S. President Barack Obama has set the red line. No military intervention from outside.
Saudi Arabia has listed the terrorist organizations, including ISIL, Nusra Front and the Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore, Western international interests and the Gulf countries, from one side, meet with the interests of Russia, Iran and Syria.

This leaves three options. The first option is to let the war in Syria destroys people and stones, and this is impossible because of the growing threat of terrorism.

The second option meanwhile is to provide the militants in Syria with anti-aircraft and other sophisticated weapons, and this is difficult due to multiple red lines, including the Russian ones.

The third option is to open public communication channels to cooperate with the Syrian army, as is the case with both Iraqi and Egyptian armies. Perhaps the third option is the easiest despite the embarrassment.

Why there is embarrassment?
Simply because the problem of the Atlantic West and its allies is no longer maintaining the Syrian regime and its army, but how to deal with this army, following the election of President Assad for a third term. As for reforms and regime change, these slogans are no longer on the list of international interests.

The problem of the West Atlantic is the source of strength of the other axis.
Hailing reelection of Assad and congratulating him, starting from Thursday, are part of an international equation demanded by Russia, Iran and their allies. This pushes towards certain agreement somewhere. It is necessary to agree on countering terrorism and to accept, even if reluctantly, Assad’s staying power.

As for the most dangerous militants, they will go on, until further notice, with their attacks and bombs. The attacks may intensify in the coming days in order to affect the electoral process.

Another time the international interests sacrifice its allies and leave the (Syrian) opposition in the middle of the road, even if there were too much talk about supporting it.

The world after the attack of Brussels and the U.S. suicide is no longer as before. The issue is no longer linked to the Syrian blood.

 

Translated by Marwa Haidar