US BOWS TO RUSSIAN DEMAND TO KEEP ASSAD IN OFFICE. ISRAEL FOLLOWS SUIT
After two tries, US Secretary of State JOHN KERRY finally turned President BARACK OBAMA away from his four-year insistence that BASHAR ASSAD must go, as a precondition for a settlement of the SYRIAN conflict. The US Secretary announced in MOSCOW: “The UNITED STATES and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change.”
After KERRY'S first try, OBAMA still stuck to his guns. He said in MANILLA that he didn’t believe the civil war in SYRIA “will end while the dictator remains in power.”
USA ARE NOT SEEKING SO-CALLED REGIME CHANGE
Almost a month went by and then, after a day of dickering with Foreign Minister SERGEI LAVROV culminating in a joint conference with PUTIN at the KREMLIN, KERRY confirmed this evolution in US policy. The focus now, he said, is "not on our differences about what can or cannot be done immediately about ASSAD." Rather, it is on facilitating a peace process in which "SYRIANS will be making decisions for the future of SYRIA."
This statement brought WASHINGTON in line with MOSCOW’S demand for the SYRIAN president’s future to be determined by his own people.
On this demand, IRAN’S AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI is even more obdurate than PUTIN.
WASHINGTON’S “surrender” to the RUSSIAN and IRANIAN line on ASSAD’S future was offered in the short-term hope of progress at the major international conference on the SYRIAN question taking place in NEW YORK.
Another major US concession – this one to TEHRAN - was scarcely noticed.
The UN nuclear watchdog's 35-nation board in VIENNA closed its investigation into whether IRAN sought atomic weapons, opting to back the international deal with TEHRAN rather than dwell on IRAN'S past activities.
This motif of going forward toward the future rather than dwelling on the past was a repeat of the argument for keeping ASSAD in power. It provided an alibi for allegedly letting TEHRAN get away with the suspicion of testing a nuclear detonation at its PARCHIN military complex, without forfeiting sanctions relief, by the simple device of denying access to UN nuclear agency monitors to confirm those suspicions.
The OBAMA administration handed out certificates of legitimacy to the SYRIAN dictator, who allegedly is responsible for more than a quarter of a million deaths, and to IRAN’S advances toward a nuclear weapon.
These epic US policy reversals carried three major messages:
1. The OBAMA administration has lined up behind PUTIN’S MIDDLE EAST objectives which hinge on keeping BASHAR ASSAD in power.
2. WASHINGTON endorses RUSSIA’S massive military intervention in SYRIA, although as recently as last month OBAMA condemned it as doomed to failure.
3. The US now stands behind IRAN - not just on the SYRIAN question - but also on the existence of an IRANIAN-SYRIAN-HIZBALLAH alliance, based on a solid land bridge from IRAN and the GULF up to the MEDITERRANEAN coast under RUSSIAN military and political protection and influence.
OFFICIAL VERSUS UNOFFICIAL ISRAELI STANCE ON ASSAD AND IRAN
Even more surprising were the sentiments heard this week in JERUSALEM.
Our military and intelligence sources cite officials urging the government to accept the AMERICAN policy turnaround. In some military circles, senior voices were heard commenting favorably on ASSAD’S new prospects of survival in power, or advising ISRAEL to jump aboard the evolving setup rather than obstructing it.
Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring wrote in June 2012: ISRAEL’S INTERESTS
ISRAEL PREFERS THE ASSAD REGIME TO CONTINUE, FOR IT IS A KNOWN ENTITY
……..This is almost certainly because the ISRAELI Prime Minister would, on balance, prefer the Assad regime to continue; it is a known quantity and any new regime could severely destabilize the effective balance-of-power between two uneasy neighbors’…………
Those same “experts” long claimed that Assad’s days were numbered. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
Israel was “forced to yield” on the IRANIAN nuclear program, but its acceptance of the permanence of ASSAD and the indefinite presence in SYRIA of his sponsors, IRAN and Hizballah, will come at a high price for ISRAEL in the next conflict.
Comment by Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring: Above paragraph is the “official” stance on IRAN. Behind the scenes, ISRAELI IRANIAN relations look somewhat different.
Comment by Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring in 2012:
CORE OF THE ISRAELI DEFENSE FORCE (IDF) AND THE ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ARE TOTALLY OPPOSED TO A MILITARY STRIKE AGAINST IRAN’S NUCLEAR FACILITIES
Adapted by Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring from the original article published by DEBKAFile’s