Israel came out sharply against the US-Russian deal on Syria.
The Israeli leadership for the first time openly expressed its dissatisfaction with the US-Russia agreement on the zone of de-escalation in southern Syria. At a meeting with journalists in Paris after talks with French President Macron BinyaminNetanyahu said that the agreement on Syria contradicts the interests of Israel, as it perpetuates the presence of Iran and Shiite militias near our border.
A senior Israeli official said in a confidential conversation with Haaretz correspondent Barak Ravid that Netanyahu had repeatedly urged US and Russian leaders to take into account Israel's interests in the forthcoming agreement on southern Syria.Both the Americans and President Putin, with whom Netanyahu spoke earlier this month, responded that they understood Israel's concerns. However, when the text of the agreement became known, it turned out that it completely ignored the interests of the Jewish state.
In particular, theJerusalem is not at all happy that the Russian military will monitor compliance with the agreement in the zone of de-escalation near the Golan Heights. The worst enemies of Israel Iran and Hezbollah are the main allies of Moscow in the Middle East. Earlier in public statements, the Israeli leadership welcomed the ceasefire agreement in Syria, criticizing it only through diplomatic channels. "The agreement in its current form is very bad for Israel, since it does not take into account any of our security interests - there is not a single reference to Iran, Hezbollah and other Shiite militias"Barak Ravid quotes a high-ranking source.
With Russia everything is clear, but American officials were equally deaf to the needs of Israel: Brett McGurk, the envoy of Washington in the coalition against the IG, and Michael Bretney, the envoy of the State Department in Syria, who came to Jerusalem to discuss Syrian affairs.
The head of government also told reporters that much of the meeting with Macron was devoted to the situation in Lebanon, the strengthening of Iran's presence in this country and the continued strengthening of Hezbollah's positions in southern Lebanon.
Netanyahu took advantage of the special relationship between Paris and Beirut and asked Makron to hand over to the head of the Lebanese government Saad Al Hariri that Israel is concerned about the prospect of setting up Iranian military factories and bases in the Cedar Country, and also because Hamas intends to start operating from its territory."I told Macron that the seeds of a future very difficult war are sowing in Lebanon now, and the government in Beirut should not bring it nearer,"Netanyahu told the correspondents.
PS. In an effort to weaken the Assad regime in order to solve the Golan Heights issue and counting on the benefits of a long civil war where Israel indirectly supported Islamic militants, Tel Aviv was surprised to find that the output is worse: Iran's military infrastructure now directly approaches Iran's borders, and "Hezbollah," which Israel could not defeat in the 2006 year, in recent years has significantly increased both quantitatively and qualitatively, having received Russian and Iranian weapons that, within the promised "future war", the horse but it can be used against Israel. Of course, this was not the expectation in Israel of making its bets in the Syrian war, but the current irritation clearly reflects the fact that Israel, like other members of the anti-Asad coalition, has fully mitigated the consequences of those strategic changes that occurred after the formation of the Russian-Iranian alliance and Russia's entry into the Syrian war. This not only saved the Assad regime and led to its strengthening, but also created long prerequisites for expanding Iran's influence and the formation of the "Shiite bridge" in the framework of General Suleymani's visionhttp://colonelcassad.livejourn..., Which provides Iranhttp://colonelcassad.livejourn...A direct overland route through the territory of Iraq and Syria to the borders of Israel and southern Lebanon.
Attempts to prevent it at the tactical level were, but the block that the Americans tried to build from At-Tanf and to interfere with Iran's plans did not work, it was simply bypassed to the north, which revealed the lack of American forces for cutting off Iran's strategic plans. The attacks on the "Hezbollah" only provoke Iran to increase the supply of weapons to it, preparing the ground for strengthening its influence from the border regions of Western Syria and southern Lebanon.
Since there is no military way to prevent a more systematic flow of military cargo from Iraq to Syria, Israel can not, and the deal No.3 between the US and Russia makes it easier for Iran to build up efforts in southern and south-eastern Syria, then Israel began to publicly complain that its strategy went into Deadlock, and threaten the "future war" .. But in fact not so long ago from Tel Aviv there were very different optimistic mantras on the subject of the struggle with Iran with the help of Sunni radicals:
Professor Efraim Inbar.
RT: Why do you see the continued existence of IGIL, preferable to its destruction?
Efraim Inbar: We must recognize that Iran is the main source of instability and the main danger for peace in the Middle East. As a result, we must concentrate our efforts on restraining the influence of Iran. And IGIL fights the Assad regime - no less cruel than Igil, and the Iraqi government, which is in fact Iran's satellite.
RT: However, Iran does not decapitate and does not rape 8 and 9-year-old girls, etc. This is what IGIL does here and now. This is reality, is not it?
EI: I believe that you should be more careful in assessing Iran's human rights policies. Iran is on the US list of states that support terrorism. Iran causes problems in Saudi Arabia; They tried to destabilize the situation in the countries of the Persian Gulf; They support the cruel regime of Assad. And of course they committed themselves to destroy the Jewish state. Therefore, I do not think that we should forget about the danger of Iranian politics.
RT: Teheran would have serious questions about such statements, is not it? With regard to the struggle of "bad guys with bad guys", do not you think? Is this too simplistic? The actions of the Assad government can not be equated with the actions of IGIL, is that not so?
EI: If you are careful in the calculations, I'm sure you will come to clear conclusions that the Assad regime killed many more people than IGIL. Also in the Middle East there is not always the privilege of a clear moral choice. This is the Hobbesian world, and you should try to limit the power of your enemies, and the main one is Iran.
RT: You also argue that instability can be a positive thing. Given the number of people who were killed and forced to leave their homes as a result of the Syrian conflict, is this not at all doubtful, at least, a statement?
EI: Stability is good if it serves your purposes. We live in a world where in many places people kill people and we do not interfere everywhere. In the Middle East, the worst country that strives for the goal of genocide, the destruction of the Jewish state - must be stopped. And EGIL fulfills this function.
RT: Do you think that this bloodthirsty group should be able to continue its existence simply to maintain the absolute dominance of Israel and the United States in the region?
EI: I do not think that the current US administration is interested in domination in the Middle East. In fact, in recent years they have left the Middle East. And this problem is partly because the Obama administration behaves irresponsibly, and the United States does not fulfill its role as a great power under it. Iran, led by Islamist radical ideology, can not be allowed to be part of the stability in the Middle East. I approve of the fact that [the Islamic state] is fighting with Iranian attorneys, which is no better than IGIL in any moral consideration.
Head of the military intelligence of the IDF Herci Halevi.
Israel does not want the situation in Syria to end when Da'ish is defeated, the super-powers leave the region and we [Israel] remain before more powerful Hezbollah and Iran with better opportunities. Such an end result is problematic. We [Israel] must influence events in such a way that we do not find ourselves in this situation. Stable Syria, where ISIS is defeated, will mean that the US and its allies ("great powers") will be withdrawn from the region, leaving Israel one on one with Iran and Hezbollah.
Actually, this very clearly reflects the logic of Israel's air strikes and other measures to support radical Sunni groups in Syria.
Former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon.
Now we are witnessing the collapse of artificial states. This is the result of Western influence in the region, especially after the Sykes-Pico agreement and post-colonial era after World War II. Then the Western European leaders believed that the European system could be applied to the Middle Eastern states, but they ignored the realities. Western countries gave out wishful thinking and tried to dictate to the Middle East how to act properly.
Even in Europe there was not much success: in Yugoslavia there was a collapse of an artificial state. The states of the Middle East are more like Yugoslavia than other European countries. And when tyrannical regimes were overthrown - as in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen - we saw internal conflicts. In Libya - tribal, in Iraq - religious, in Syria - between Alawites, Kurds and Sunnis.
It is necessary to understand that it is impossible to unite Syria.It is necessary to get used to the fact that we will see the Syrian "Alawistan", "Kurdistan", "Sunnis". After the terrorist "Islamic state" (IG, it is forbidden in Russia - "Gazeta.Ru") there will be a Syrian "Sunnistan".
This is a challenge for the superpowers. Or a chance. The meeting between Trump and Putin will allow us to discuss common issues, as well as fill the Middle East vacuum, in which today the three political forces are fighting for power, hegemony and influence.Negotiations between Trump and Putin can give a positive result.
The result of the talks between Trump and Putin was clearly not the same. Which was expected. There was an epiphany, since after the victory of the Russian-Iranian coalition in the battle for Aleppo, significant changes began in Syria, which have now led to the fact that the demands for Assad's withdrawal are gradually being removed, including by Western countries, and the role of Russia and Iran in post-war Syria A priori is recognized as significant. The success of Iran, more than vividly notedhttp://colonelcassad.livejourn...Former US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford.
Former US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford.
In view of the great support offered by Iran and Russia to the Syrian government, the "game is over" for the US plans to overthrow Assad or to compete with what he called Iran's success in this country.
"The Iranian position will be successful," added Ford. "Assad won, I want to say that he is a winner or he thinks so," he said, adding that "Maybe in 10 years he will regain control of the whole country."
Following the United States, French President Macron also withdrew the demands of Assad's departure.
"We really changed the French doctrine with regard to Syria, in order to bring our positions closer to our partners, especially with the United States.We have the main goal - to eliminate terrorists, all terrorist groups ", - quotes Macron BfmTV. He stressed that the allies are looking for Syria's political solution to the crisis, and in this context"I do not put Bashar al-Assad's departure as a condition for France's participation" in the settlement of the situation.
The meaning of the problem of Israel lies in the fact that trying to use Western aggression against Syria to solve its small-town issues, Israel completely underestimated all the consequences of the struggle with Iran by the hands of Sunni extremists (which, by the way, was foreseenhttp://usapress.net/blizhnij-v...), among which the main thing is that Assad resisted, and his weakened Syrian regime provided a platform for the Russian and Iranian military presence directly at the borders of Israel, and also ensured the high-quality organizational and military growth of Hezbollah, which Israel could not in the best years to overcome. Now Washington and Moscow are to blame for not taking into account the interests of Israel, although only recently in Israel it was believed that this is not the USA and Russia, but the Caliphate will successfully cope with the Iranian influence in the region. But the "blacks" did not justify high trust, and one of the "natural Sunni allies in the fight against Iranian influence" recently basely took and ran to Iran. Erdogan, who was engaged in approximately the same thing as Israel, not so long ago, went in the same direction. There is something from which to despair.