TEHRAN, Oct. 08 (Press Shia) – American analyst has said US is playing hard with Russia announcing the suspension of talks on Syria and there would be no military action in Syria as US knows well it would fail.
Nikos Retsos, war historian and writer, has talked with Mehr News on latest developments in Syria and the role US plays the conflict. Retsos believes that Syrian President Bashar Assad would be the certain winner of the crisis in Syria.
US announced on Monday, 3 October, the suspension of bilateral talks with Russia on Syria, blaming Russia for failure of the September 9 truce. How do you evaluate this? Is halting the dialogue setting the ground for a military option by US?
No the halting of dialogue is a U.S. gimmick to play hard with Russia. There won’t be a U.S. military action in Syria – period, because the U.S. will be the loser.
The ceasefire agreement reached by US and Russia on September 9 came to a halt just after a week mainly due to breaches of the pact by terrorists and lack of cooperation by American party as it failed to fulfill its obligation to separate groups it supports under pretext of being moderate from al-Nusra & terrorist groups. What is your analysis of this?
The U.S. -through Saudi Arabia- supports all groups in Syria now – including Al Nusra, because the ultimate U.S. and Saudi Arabia involvement in Syria is about ousting Assad. Any terrorist group in Syria, except ISIS, is considered moderate by the U.S. because all those groups are on Saudi and U.S. payroll to oust Assad. Nothing else matter to either the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.
What should be expected in Syria after all these developments? Is there any prospect for US and Russia rejoining on the crisis as two major players in Syria?
No. I don’t see the U.S. and Russsia rejoining for any matter in Syria because their objectives are on opposing sides, and their differences are irreconcilable.
How the US Presidential Elections would affect the Syrian issue? There are speculations that there wouldn’t be any settlement to the crisis till the elections by which the burden would pass to the next president.
Correct. Obama knows he cannot win the war in Syria, and he would pass on to the next president on January 20, 2017 to lose, so the loss won’t go into Obama’s war history record.
How do you see the role and influence of other regional players such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar? Do they continue to be an ally for US and accept its representation in possible negotiations with Russia or they would seek their own share?
Turkey is in a mess now, and I don’t see it as a player. Some Turkish artillery into north Syria is about the Kurds as Turkey is afraid that after the Syrian war is over, the Kurds would use their battlefield experience and weapons to have their own or an autonomous state within Syria in Rojava.
A revealed audio file of John Kerry’s meeting with some Syrian opposition groups shows Washington would agree with an election including Assad; but says it must be under strict international observation. When is a good time for such an election? and would US accept if Assad wins again or like the previous round it would reject it despite international monitoring?
I don’t see elections in Syria for at least 4-5 years as Assad would surely be the winner of the civil war, and he won’t need the approval of elections until full Syrian reconstruction. It won’t matter if the U.S. accept or reject the results of any future Syrian election because the losing party in a war cannot impose conditions at the winning party.
Nikos Retsos is an American war historian, human rights activist and humanitarian, peace activist, and writer on global issues exposing the twists, ethics, and issues of global conflicts or regional wars created by dominant geopolitical interests and politico-military alliances.
Interview by: Parnaz Talebi