Washington sets Geneva success as a prerequisite for troops withdrawal – What does it mean?

By Humeidi al-Abdullah:

 The United States has recently said that it would not withdraw its troops from Syriaunless the forthcoming Geneva round of talks was a success. This means the following:

First, the United States is setting some impossible conditions ahead of Geneva conference to torpedo any potential agreement. Of such impossible to meet conditions, one might cite two primary pre-requirements: Demanding Syria and Russia  to withdraw the forces that fought against terrorist organizations at the request of the Syrian government,  meaning Iran and Hizbollah in particular. Some US-based think tanks are demanding a yet another requirement, namely to cut down the Russian military presence in Syria.

The second condition is “power-sharing” between the Syrian government and some pro-US groups that would willingly implement Washington’s strategy. Such groups may include the separatist “Kurds”, the so-called “Syrian Democratic Forces” known by their initials (SDF) or some other individuals convening under the umbrella of the so-called “Riyadh Platform”.

Second, the US would covertly request the “opposition figures” expected to take part in the forthcoming Geneva talks to strictly adhere to these conditions and never show any flexibility so that failure of the talks would be taken as a “justification”  not to withdraw US troops from Syria.

This bluntly translates into an overt attempt to preempt Geneva of any potential possibility of success to squeeze the situation in Syria and ignite another round of confrontation. The confrontation this time would ensue between Syria and allies on the one hand and the US and its associated forces, on the  other. Such a potential confrontation would take place in the areas  currently under the control of pro-US forces in the provinces of Raqqa, Hassakah, and Deirez-Zour as well as Ein al-Arab town in Aleppo Province.  This is the real meaning of Washington’s conditioning the withdrawal of its troops on the success of Geneva (Syrian-Syrian talks) conference.

This begs the inevitable question: Would Washington  stick to such demands till the very end, risking a potential confrontation? Such a confrontation might be inevitable if Washington insisted on such demands. Had Syria been prepared to accept such demands, the war would not have lasted that long and Syria would not have offered all these dear sacrifices. Syria would not have been obliged to ask for help from allies such as Russia, Iran and Hizbollah. The US conditions are surely rejected. Syria can not accept such impossible demands. Syria’s allies  fully understand the Syrian worries because Syria is right in rejecting such unfair demands and because such demands target these allies and jeopardize their interests in the first place.

Hence comes the question: Is the United States  prepared to go into a major war in Syria  that would be far more costly than any of its previous ones? This question is so difficult to answer, taking into account the unpredictability of the current Administration, which seems to be unable to honor any of its commitment nor keep up any of its political stances.

Translated into English by Syrianfacts



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *