La Syrie selon Robert Parry

Brèves de crise


Un commentaire est associé à cet article. Vous pouvez le consulter et réagir à votre tour.



La Syrie selon Robert Parry

L’excellent commentateur Robert Parry a un long article sur son site ConsortiumNews, ce 11 septembre 2015, à propos de l’affaire syrienne impliquant la Russie. Il aborde cette crise sous le même angle que nous prenons ce même 11 septembre 2015, mais en acceptant l’hypothèse que le “blocus” du régime Assad réussisse, – c’est-à-dire que les Russes soient effectivement empêchés de venir à son aide, ou bien décide dans ce sens. Il évoque alors la situation qui résulterait d’une prise de pouvoir à Damas par tel ou tel mouvement djihadiste, Daesh ou tel autre, c’est-à-dire un paysage de catastrophe absolue qui plongerait tout le Moyen-Orient dans le désordre le plus complet, avec effets et conséquences partout...

Parry termine sur l’énigme qui enveloppe pour l’instant cette crise, qui se résume à ceci: “Mais où est donc et que fait donc le président Obama?”. Il indique qu’une de ses sources lui a indiqué qu’Obama ne bougerait pas tant que le vote du Congrès permettant l’accord nucléaire avec l’Iran de tenir n’aura pas eu lieu, c’est-à-dire d’ici le 17 septembre 2015. Par ailleurs, signale cette même source à Parry, Obama aurait encouragé Poutine et les Russes à augmenter leur engagement en Syrie aujourd’hui dénoncé avec quelle violence par l’administration (?) Obama. On comprend que les Russes doivent vraiment se demander avec quelle type de désordre mental il négocie actuellement... On donne ici la conclusion du texte.

«Now, with Official Washington lining up behind a blockade of Russian assistance to the Syrian government – even if that would mean an Islamic State/Al Qaeda victory – the great unknown is where President Obama stands. A source familiar with the back channels between the White House and the Kremlin told me that Obama had encouraged Putin to step up Russian aid to the embattled Syrian government as part of the fight against the Islamic State and that the Russians are now bewildered as to why Obama’s State Department is trying to sabotage those efforts.

»As odd as that might sound, it would not be the first time that Obama has favored a less confrontational approach to a foreign crisis behind the scenes only to have neocon/liberal-hawk operatives inside his own administration charge off in the opposite direction. For instance, in 2009, Obama bowed to demands for what turned out to be a useless “surge” in Afghanistan, and in 2014, he allowed neocon Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to start a new Cold War with Russia by helping to orchestrate a “regime change” in Ukraine.

»As Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Nuland would presumably be at the center of the recent arm-twisting in Bulgaria and Greece to get those countries to block Russian flights to Syria, which has been a longtime neocon target for “regime change,” a goal that the neocons now see as within their grasp. Typically, when his underlings undercut him, Obama then falls in line behind them but often in a foot-dragging kind of way. Then, on occasion, he’ll break ranks and make a foray into genuine diplomacy, such as Syria’s 2013 agreement to surrender its chemical-weapons arsenal or Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal – both of which were achieved with significant help from Putin. But Obama has proved to be an unreliable foreign-policy partner, bending to the hawkish pressure from many of his subordinates and even joining in their rhetorical insults.

»Today, Obama may feel that he has gone as far as he dares with the Iran nuclear deal and that any foreign policy cooperation with Iran or Russia before Congress decides on the agreement’s fate by Sept. 17 could cause defections among key Democrats. Once the deadline for congressional review passes, Obama could get serious about collaborating with Iran and Russia to stabilize the situation in Syria. By strengthening the Syrian government’s military – which has protected Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other minorities – and incorporating reasonable Sunnis into a power-sharing arrangement, there would a chance to stabilize Syria and push for elections and constitutional reforms. But that would require dropping the slogan, “Assad must go!”

»So, while President Obama is saying little about his Syrian plans, his State Department has moved off on its own aggressive course hoping to finally achieve the neocon/liberal-hawk dream of “regime change” in Syria – regardless of what nightmares might follow


Mis en ligne le 11 septembre 2015 à 11H42


Nous avons récolté 392 € sur 3000 €

faites un don