Political analyst Dmitry Evstafiev – about the dangers of US’ plans in case that the settlement in Syria fails.
Originally appeared at Izvestia, translated by Theo N. Kaufman exclusively for SouthFront; Edited by Yoana
Talks, held by the government of Bashar al-Assad’s around elections and the prospects for maintaining the political process after this, putting it mildly, are a bold step that only a few pushed towards the recently announced decision in reference to the “CIA analysts’ Plan B” on Syria, which will be used if the process of political settlement will go on a deadlock.
And for a good reason
In general, US maneuvers around the “Plan A”, ceasefire and a political settlement, are becoming more “head-on”. The US administration operates under increasing time pressure: Barack Obama has less and less time to proclaim himself the “appeaser of Syria” and to remove the last of his presidencies imagined dividends. The problem probably is that Obama needs to keep his reputation and success until November, and what happens after that date, does not matter.
As it turned out, however, a political settlement “Plan B” has nothing to do with it, as it provides an increasing supplies to “moderate opposition” of weapons, known for its constant falling in the hands of the “extremists” together with aid obtained from the US money and weapons. And it is very significant, as “Plan B” Americans recognize that their customers in Syria have a highly questionable political prospect.
The deliveries for the “moderate rebels” of man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) are the “Plan Bs” core, which should protect the “moderate opposition” of Russian air strikes.
And it is – the most important, decisive moment. US policy in the Middle East made a “complete revolution” and went back to the same political “fork”, as the 1986 decision on the supply of MANPADS “Stinger” to Afghan “freedom fighters” as they were called by Ronald Reagan.
Recall that it was the supply of US (and Chinese) weapons to “the Afghan Internationals” which instigated the progenitor of “Al Qaeda” and “its spiritual grandfather” ISIS, the organization with which the United States today are having a self-sacrificing battle. The Americans were correct in their hints that “Al-Qaeda”, and not only they, were established and operated with the Saudi money. What they do not want to remember is the fact that its progenitor, “the Afghan Islamic International” was created by American hands.
That is the American policy back to the square one, with almost the same allies, with the same ideas and the same lack of understanding of the consequences. Only this time on a new technological level and the scope of global violence.
And it is very dangerous
By the way, a perfect zigzag of US administration says that not only the image-making, but also the political situation, in terms of practical people in Washington, DC, looks at least sharply.
Of course, all the main participants in the American political and propaganda process together around Syria denied the existence of such a plan, noting that if that’s the case, then MANPADS will be equipped with some “geo-location systems” that restrict the area of combat use, etc. However, the existence of such a specific “Plan B” and it not being refuted, is immensely important, and this inevitably leads to correct conclusions.
He continues: everyone understood that the plan is still there, but also that it is too risky to raise his voice at a higher level than the anonymous “sources in the CIA”.
American “Plan Problem B “on Syria is not in the fact that it will lead to the destabilization of the entire Middle East. The problem is that the very appearance of information about this “Plan B “, even for propaganda purposes, as a means of pressure on Russia (and to a lesser extent – Iran and Assad), shows the degree of geopolitical irresponsibility that currently reigns in Washington. There are things that even the opponents are not afraid of. The current US administration, in an effort to take revenge for impotence on the war propaganda front, passed certain “red lines” by removing one more stop in the global information war.
Whether the United States dare to go to the “red line” in practical politics, it is still a big question. However, we must remember that irresponsibility is never s a “focal” – it either does not appear at all, or is manifested everywhere. It is possible that the rumors about a “Plan B” will turn into a “planning reality” when serious people discuss the pros and cons of the supply of MANPADS and other similar weapons.
The bad news is that the lessons of history for the United States does not exist
Yes, of course, at that time, in the 1980s and 1990s, for obvious reasons, “Stingers” were not used to shoot at the US planes. This was tied to the positive relationship between the Americans, and “the Afghan International” in general, but a little later it manifested its ugly face on September 11, 2001. But the future is “long way ahead” and hard, again plunging the US into a “cycle of violence” that has lasted for almost 16 years, and that at each new turn it shows of new manifestations. The Taliban, the direct offspring of the US and Saudi policy toward the “Afghan International” already looks like the IS for the scouts. And we can only guess, what kind of monsters, including the “Monsters of the mind”, could give rise to the proverbial “Plan” B “.
A key conclusion emerging from “Plan” B “is that in order to ensure that the US policy in Syria (and the Middle East in general) succeeds, it has to become more and more chaotic, more and more focused on fast results and that it becomes more unscrupulous about who it calls its “partners”. And there are serious doubts that Washington will be able to find the strength to get out of the “cycle of violence” in the Middle East, which the US has launched.
Simply put, the “window of opportunity” for Russian-American cooperation in resolving the conflict in Syria and Iraq is rapidly closing. If not already closed.
The author – is a member of the PIR Central Board of Executives