The critical juncture between two major projects

By Nasser Qindeel

If we were to recount history, we can safely say that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was one link of  many other links forming the open-ended series of confrontations. At that time,  the US,  its multi-national forces and those of  France, Britain and Italy maintained sizeable military presence and sponsored the 17th of May Treaty. Back then, Saudi Arabia was also there. It sponsored the Casablanca Arab Summit meeting.

In response to all of this,  the February 6, 1984 uprising was staged, heralding thereby the known  process thateventually culminated in the liberation of Southern Lebanon in 2000.

The Liberation of the South was the pivotal juncture that heralded the defeat of the US project. Likewise was the Iraq war and its subsequent occupation which were meant to be used as a platform to subjugate Syria and Iran. That was another link in this long series of confrontations. Back then, the US was directly present on the ground to tame and perhaps penalize the forces of resistance. But once again the US project has failed to attain its  set objectives. Syria stood her grounds and so did Iraq. What is more significant is that Iraq  itselfbecame problematic for Washington.

The war on Syria, in as much as it was a war on the country herself, it was also a war between these two distinct projects, the outcome of which would decide Syria’s future alignment and stature.

But lo and behold, the war is charting a constant path setting an irreversible course for the subsequent developments: Syria will surely recover from this plight and will restore well-being.

The Syrian state will resurrect in a better shape and will gain further vigor. And Syria would be more faithful to her self-chosen principles and options. Syria would surely continue to uphold her  position within  the axis of resistance. This applies also to the war on Yemen. This war is one between two conflicting projects. From the first day of the war, the Foreign Minister of the Saudi-backed governing body said that “Israel” might rest assured that al-Hudaidah’s missiles threatening the security of the Israeli Eilat Sea-port would be destroyed. Unlike his expectations, these missiles are now a tool of deterrence threatening the Saudi capital.

The next few days into this confrontation might be decisive. Washington is obviously no longer interested in carrying out its threats nor in turning the table. It is looking instead for a face-saving exit by  busying herself with the North Korean Nuclear file. And while  Israel and Saudi Arabia are plunged in a state of fear and anxiety, Syria and Iran are bracing to meet the foreseeable optimal expectations with a great sense of self-confidence and assuredness.

In June and beyond, things would get clearer and one would  know who is really strong and who is weak. The resistance project  would  surely know how to save and preserve the trove of victories it has accumulated over the past  four decades, because they are substantive signs of the balance of powers. To be saved, these signs should not be bombastically boasted, but rather should be kept in careful care.

Translated from Arabic by Syrianfacts



Leave a Reply

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