Syria… Wrong Calculations
The Syrian crisis has undergone several stages since its outbreak in 2011, It has witnessed change of maps and balances of forces and the reversal of roles of the players.
Still, the picture has never been such surreal like nowadays. Ambiguity shades stances of all players and tremendous confusion afflicts accounts of these players.
The most influential example of this confusion is the US uncertain position on the military withdrawal from Syria. After US President Donald Trump's announcement of his country's intention to get out of what he described as the land of "Sand and Death," there have been contradictory signals from US officials and even from Trump about the nature and the time span of this withdrawal.
This indicates the US administration is reconsidering the withdrawal whose impacts have not been delayed on the ground through the buoyancy of Daesh, the Kurdish confusion that led them to rapprochement with Bashar Assad's regime, as well as the green signal noticed by Tehran in the decision to strengthen its presence and the presence of its sectarian militias.
The latest manifestation of this strategic clash is the current diplomatic confusion between Washington and Ankara, as Trump has changed the common tone between the two countries into a new level by threatening to destroy the Turkish economy if Turkey attacks the Syrian democratic forces, before returning later in a phone call with the Turkish President to de-escalate the tone and talk about the establishment of a buffer in northern Syria that meets Ankara's concerns.
Complexities of the Syrian situation do not allow any misreading. Here is the Manbij attack, which left four US soldiers killed, proves that the US withdrawal is difficult.
Syria has become a regional woolen ball in which the accounts of the super and regional powers interlock with secessionist tendencies and trans-boundary terrorism projects, and any step in the wrong direction will contribute to fueling the Syrian fire. It goes without saying that this fire will burn everyone.
Actually, it is contributor owing to its humanitarian and political consequences that have not been avoided even by the Scandinavian countries. Under these realities, it seems risky to jump to conclusions about the future of the Syrian crisis by talking about what is called the rehabilitation of the current Syrian regime.
This conclusion disregards the calculations of politics and interests and involves a moral error that condones the bloody legacy of this regime and the series of atrocities that it has committed along with its supporters for eight years.
Thus, the international community, in light of these clashes and overlaps that have dominated the scene, should remember the essence of the Syrian issue which was initially a peaceful popular revolution against an unjust regime but has been distorted by the brutal behavior of the regime and external interventions into an open armed confrontation.
So, any solution keeping this regime in any way is nothing but a spelling of blood and more tragedy of millions of Syrians, whatever the titles under which this solution comes.