Great Expectations: US, Russia in Joint Operations Against Terrorists in Syria

Rasa - On Monday, September 22, the United States and Russia brokered a ceasefire deal and agreed to engage in joint operations against the Nusra Front in Syria. US officials are now suggesting that almost certainly is not going to happen.

News ID: 423679

Date: 19 September 2016 - 00:19

RNA - Washington wants Moscow to “use its influence” to ensure that humanitarian aid shipments begin to flow nationwide, warning that the US won’t engage in the joint targeting operations unless that happens. Likewise, the Pentagon has serious reservations about coordinating air strikes and sharing intelligence with Russia, and has raised objections on numerous grounds.

The problem is, Russia has nothing to do with the aid shipments. The UN aid shipments have been stuck at the Turkish border, because the UN hasn’t been able to get assurances they would be allowed through all of the checkpoints between the border and their destinations.

The Syrian government, the one faction with whom Russia can exert real influence, has already said they will let all UN aid vehicles through all of their checkpoints. The UN, however, has been unable to secure similar guarantees from the many US-backed terrorist groups and rebels involved, particularly the Nusra Front (that recently changed its name to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham) which has condemned the ceasefire.

Another problem is that the rebels have no intention to split with Nusra – as demanded by Moscow. They are still engaged in joint offences against government forces and civilian targets, hence violating the ceasefire. Worse yet, Washington supports their alliance, instead of demanding the split.

Perhaps, this was the intended result all along; that the US would have a pretext to renege on the ceasefire agreement to go after Nusra, something they have been reluctant to do for years now. But that's not all there is to this latest saga:

1- The Democratic Party is using the bogus ceasefire deal to boost the position of its presidential nominee, Hilary Clinton, in the race to the White House. After the deal, the White House spokesman made that clear: “This deal has been arranged in such a way to meet all our goals. Unless all our goals are met, Washington will not accept the deal.”

2- Any time the Syrian Army makes gains against terror groups, Washington comes up with a new truce deal. The idea is to re-supply proxy forces, give them a breather, and mobilise them for fresh offensives. This is precisely why all previous truce efforts failed.

3- The truce has nothing to do with “humanitarianism” and everything to do with helping the besieged terrorists in Aleppo. Without having the Castello Road open, they cannot get American weaponry and fresh recruits from other areas. The main focus is on ensuring rapid, safe, unhindered and sustained access to all terrorists in need via this road.

4- Under International Law, the Syrian government has every right to target terrorist groups everywhere. On the pretext of truce, Washington’s stated goals are to ground the Syrian Air Force, eliminate the Resistance Front, and pave the way for future deals. Washington pursues an identical policy in Iraq.

5- The US and Russia cannot carry out joint operations without coordination with Damascus. They will violate international protocols and Syrian sovereignty. Washington is using the truce to legitimise its military presence there.

6- The suspicious deal is for the Syrian government only. It does not include the terrorist groups of ISIL and Nusra. It says the Syrian government cannot target terror groups like Nusra, which Washington supports as “moderates”!

7- The truce fails to mention the military presence of Turkey in Syria, much less demand Turkey end its airstrikes. This could give a perfect opportunity to Turkish forces to advance toward Aleppo using the Castello Road on the pretext of fighting ISIL, hence making the conflict more complex than what it is already.

8- For Moscow the truce is an official agreement and a formal document, but for Washington it's just an action plan. Also, the UN calls it a memorandum of understanding. The Americans have once again lied to convince their Russian counterparts to sign it.

No wonder Washington doesn't want to make the agreement public and have the United Nations Security Council endorse it. Washington doesn't want to make the deal public, not because it would “not compromise operational security,” but because it would never press its proxy forces to end violations of the truce, let alone distance itself from Al-Qaeda-linked groups, establish the Joint Implementation Center with Moscow, and work for a permanent solution to the conflict.

111/847/C