Who pays for a respectable withdrawal of Obama and Putin from Syria crisis?

Although the US had threatened Syria under pretext that the country had attacked the insurgents with chemical weapons and continued its unilateral threats after it failed to win the green lights of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and kept all its diplomatic systems at the service of this aim, at the very moment that all expected Barack Obama to issue the order for attacking the country, he postponed the military invasion by leaving the decision to be made by a Parliament which was spending its summer holiday. He did not stop threatening. In other words he preferred not to descend the threatening baton he had raised because it is more dangerous than when it descends besides that the cost is much less.

Therefore the threats for a military attack have been continuing so that Obama can have two birds with one stone: firstly, if under any circumstances it did not intend to attack, at least his threats would not discredit the threats and US leaders and secondly, to make the best of the threats to turn it into a clear achievement and a way for honorable fruitful withdrawal from the crisis…

On the other hand, though, US threats were challenging for Russia. Because Russia did not want to lose its last ally in the Middle East and Mediterranean coasts, it supported the ruling government against greedy US, its European and regional allies since the beginning of the crisis in Syria. It resisted against the baseless accusations of the US and foiled the political struggles by the US, Europe, Arab states and Turkey to achieve international support making serous efforts for the end. Although it was quite clear that if the US invaded Syria then there would not be able to do much; therefore, a military attack would be a challenge both for the US and Russia.

It would not bear many achievements for the US but withdrawal would be a form of failure. On the other hand a military invasion, for Russia who did not have enough military capabilities to defend its ally, would be a failure and preventing that would mean a success.

Hence, a mutual agreement between Russia and the US for disarmament of Syria from its chemical weapons was the honorable way for the US and Russia out of the present situation in Syria.

Although this agreement distanced Syria from an attack, it has to pay for the costs. In fact Syria has submitted its deterrence capability against the Zionist regime threats. Syria which has never had nuclear weapons and certainly no country in the world is ready to defend the country against the Zionist regime which is armed with 200 nuclear war heads started to prepare an arsenal of chemical weapons, which was a hinder for any illogical act by the Zionist regime. Now this arsenal is the cost for a respectable withdrawal of Obama and Putin from the crisis and alleviation of threats to attack Syria.

To clear the Middle East and the whole world from Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) including chemical weapons is a humanitarian, moral and strategic necessity which is supported by Islamic Republic of Iran.

As the experiences of Iran and resistance shows, it is possible to base the deterrence capabilities on other powers distancing that from the classical frames founded by the west, including Weapons of Mass Destruction and nuclear warheads.

However, dual policy of the west in confronting the countries that have Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and their silence against the Zionist regime once again indicates the injustice of the international bodies and its decision makers.

HK