Earlier, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said that Damascus, through the Iraqi side, received notice from the Secretary of State John Kerry of the upcoming strikes on terrorist bases. However, Damascus did not give permission to bomb its territory and oil fields. Later, the State Department of the United States stated that permission from Damascus had not been sought. According to the head of the State Department press service Jen Psak, Washington warned Syria about the air strikes on “Islamic State” militants in the country through the Permanent Representative of Syria to the UN.
According to Reuters, citing the Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby, during the aerial operations aircraft struck several oil fields under the control of the “Islamic state”. So now the question remains – who will pay for the destruction of the oil facilities belonging to the Syrian government? After all, the destroyed fields produced 2 million dollars worth of oil per day. Clearly Syria should file a lawsuit in the International Court of Justice against the USA, KSA, and UAE, demanding compensation.
But this is just the beginning of the White House’s air piracy and banditry. Therefore, they decided to undertake political hooliganism at the UN as well. On September 24 Obama “distinguished” himself. On the list of threats named by the President of the United States at the opening session of the UN General Assembly, Russia is in second place. As poignantly noted in the comments of the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov: “We were awarded second place as a threat to international peace and security. First place was the Ebola virus, second was “Russian aggression in Europe”, third was ISIL and other terrorists who are now hosted in the Middle East, especially in those countries in which the United States intervened illegally, in violation of international law.” According to him, Obama’s speech can not be considered to be peacekeeping. “It is the American view of the world, which the president presented, repeatedly emphasizing his own and his country’s exceptionalism.” said the head of the Foreign Ministry.
At the same time Lavrov reminded all of who bombed Serbia and Libya, and invaded Iraq while bypassing the global community. The Russian Foreign Minister, in his speech at a meeting of the UN Security Council on the fight against terrorism, also stressed that terrorism in the Middle East cannot manifest without the assistance of foreign “sponsors”. In his words, “ISIL, Dzhabhat en-Nusra, and other terrorist groups have been maturing in the Middle East for a long time. They have gained more opportunities for their criminal activities in the context of a weakening – not without external involvement – of state institutions and the support of various external sponsors. Once they take power, extremist groups threaten the future of entire nations, which is clearly seen in the examples of Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and is under threat in Lebanon, Yemen, Mali, and the Central African Republic”.
Lavrov did not pass over other aspects of terrorism – the participation of foreign nationals in terrorist organizations. Thus, in the “IS” alone, there are 12 thousand fighters from 70 countries, including the USA and the EU. The Russian minister also noted that “after the (American) intervention in Iraq, the bombing of Libya, and outside support for extremists in Syria, the problem of foreign terrorists and insurgents fighting in the ranks of terrorist organizations in many countries of the Middle East, Africa, the Afghan-Pakistan border was seriously exacerbated. It requires a comprehensive approach, covering the financial, administrative, social, and ideological components of the problem and ensuring respect for the sovereignty of all nations.”
In this regard, Russia has offered a comprehensive review of the problem of terrorism in all its dimensions in the space of the Middle East and North Africa, including through the convening of a UN representative forum with the participation of countries in the region, the African Union, the League of Arab States, the permanent members of the UN Security Council, and other interested parties. The agenda of the forum should address the long-standing conflicts, the most important of which is the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Lavrov did not hide the fact that while the United States is building an international coalition to deliver massive blows against ISIL, Russia took the opportunity to say: “We told you so.” Moscow will continue to impede the formation of a wider range of “support” until the Syrian government gets a more prominent role.
In the past, differing positions in the Syrian conflict did not result in the impossibility of any sort of cooperation. In 2013, Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin acted as mediators at the conclusion of an agreement on the transfer of Syrian chemical weapons to international control, and as a result, at the last moment managed to avoid the use of United States air strikes on Syria. However, the almost complete destruction of trust between the two countries, which occurred mainly due to Western intervention in the internal affairs of Ukraine, as well as existing doubts about the true motives of the United States in the Middle East, limit the possibility of achieving such a breakthrough moment. “There is a widespread suspicion that the United States will first bomb the Islamic State, and then strike at the Syrian army.” said Fyodor Lukyanov, analyst and head of a team of consultants on the Kremlin’s foreign and defense policy. “Of course, Russia does not want to make the situation in the Middle East even more difficult for the Americans than it is now. But why would we help?”
Indeed, there is no need to help Washington in its aggressive policy. Moreover, as cynical as it may sound, the more bogged down Washington gets in conflicts in the Middle East, the less opportunities it will have to confront Russia in Ukraine and in other areas. In the meantime, having gone into Iraq and Afghanistan, the Americans have been busy digging themselves out of problems there for 10 years, and the Russian Federation had the opportunity to implement their plans, including rapprochement with the EU, promoting the global gas market, and creating regional structures within the CIS, as well as with China and other major powers that reject American diktat (SCO, BRIC).
Russia has since 2011 warned of potential terrorism that would arise after the “Arab Spring”, when the goal of regime change was ranked more important than common tasks related to the prevention of the spread of terrorist threats. And, as is well known, ISIL is a legacy of the United States’ policy in the Middle East, which it carried out for many years, as well as further proof that the West should not try to distinguish between “bad” and “good” terrorists acting against the rule of Assad in Syria or elsewhere. And Russia is not the only country to doubt the plans of the United States under the anti-terrorist campaign in the Middle East. When America tried to enlist the support of a coalition against ISIL, it faced other obstacles: Turkey is not allowed to conduct offensive operations from their airbases, and Egypt said that the focus should not only be on the “Islamic State”.
In any case, Russian-American relations have suffered greatly during the confrontation between the United States and Russia in Ukraine, as well as in connection with the sanctions imposed by Western countries against Moscow. The situation in Syria would be very different if it were not for the conflict over Ukraine, which left many in the West with a negative outlook with regard to cooperation with Russia on Syria. Obama, however, instead of using the issue of the “IS” to restore partnership with Moscow through antiterrorist measures, proclaims sheer nonsense from the rostrum of the UN. The question inevitably arises: was everything in order with the assessments of American leaders? Or are the current administration’s affairs so bad in the United States and abroad, that it is necessary to bring back the bogeyman of the Russian threat?
It’s very silly, especially now that the United States is clearly starting to experience problems because of the aerial operation launched against the “IS”. In the West and in Arab countries many voices have already stated that a ground operation will be indispensable. For example, England and Jordan have already indicated that they are willing to send their forces if an international coalition is created. But the question arises – who will give this mandate? After all, only the UN Security Council is authorized to make such decisions. However, Washington, when it wants, quietly ignores it, creating a coalition on the basis of NATO, or simply from satellite countries, as happened during the occupation of Iraq in 2003, the air strikes on Libya in 2011, and is happening now in the bombing of Syria. It is only a matter of time until the United States and other “allied” troops re-enter Iraq and possibly Syria. And once again it will become bogged down in war, losing people and a lot of money.
This may be the beginning of a full sunset on the West, and certainly the end of the American empire. And then the international community will be able to once again live according to the laws, and not by American cowboy rules.
Alexander Orlov, political scientist, expert in Oriental studies, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outloook“.
