Syrian Analyst: US, Israel Have to Consider Consequences of Attacking Syria
In an exclusive interview with FNA, the analyst said that Washington and Tel Aviv “have to make their own calculations about the repercussions of an attack on the allies of Syria; they would have to calculate their own losses after such action.”
Mr. Sahiounie also said that Saudi Arabia, as the main financier of terrorists in Syria, “faces a future of diminished power in the region” unless there is a change of policies in Riyadh.
Steven Sahiounie is an independent Syrian journalist and political analyst. He has been covering the Syrian crisis since it’s onset in 2011 and has published several articles in numerous media outlets, including Mint Press and Fort Russ News. He has also been interviewed by international news outlets such as Press TV.
FNA has conducted an interview with Steven Sahiounie about the ongoing crisis in Syria and the recent developments surrounding the issue namely the US’ plan for an independent Kurdish state on Syrian soil and the Turkish military intervention into the country.
Below you will find the full text of the interview.
Q: Since the beginning of the crisis in Syria, Saudi Arabia has been actively supporting terrorists in the country. These terrorists are now losing ground every day. What do you think would be the implications of such failure for the Saudi foreign policy?
A: Saudi Arabia has failed in their goal of overthrowing the legitimate government in Syria. I believe that the plan, structure and goals of the project were not Saudi in origin. Saudi Arabia was used by USA as the paymaster of their project to overthrow the Syrian government. Saudi Arabia played their role, because if they were to refuse to follow the direct orders of Washington, DC., their own government could be changed in 24 hours. The right to be a King in Saudi Arabia is not a natural thing: it depends entirely on the US government. Who sits on the throne in Riyadh is not up to the Saudi Royal family, and certainly not up to the Saudi citizens, who have no say, and no voice in the government. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy: you are either the King, or related to him, or you are no one. Some inside sources have said that the Saudi officials have given up hope on their cause in Syria, because they have seen the events on the ground, as the Syrian government has consistently been recovering areas in Syria that had been under the occupation of radical Islamic terrorists. Radical Islam is a political ideology, and is not a religion or a sect.
I don’t see the Syrian crisis as a Saudi foreign policy, but as a US foreign policy, in which Saudi Arabia was forced to play their role. The terrorists and their weapons and salaries were not enough to achieve the success that US had planned for. I wouldn’t lay the blame for the failed attempt at the feet of the King of Saudi Arabia, because he played his role well, and fulfilled his obligations to Washington, DC. The failure of the project will always sit with the American government: they failed to take into account the resistance and steadfastness of the Syrian people, and their allies, in the face of international attack and occupation. I don’t think this failure in Syria will affect Saudi foreign policy: they will stay a client state of the USA, and they have no intent on restoring a relationship with Syria, or some of their Persian Gulf neighbors. The King of Saudi Arabia faces a future of diminished power in the region, and subservience to American whims and schemes, unless he could take a new path by making friends with his neighbors, and sharing peace and prosperity with his subjects and neighbors.
Q: We have seen the Israeli regime and the so-called US-led coalition targeting the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allied forces many times. What do you think is the reason for such moves?
A: The Israeli goal in Syria is to make sure there is destruction and chaos across Syria. Israel wants to ensure they never have to give back occupied land in Syria. Israel wants to keep the Syrian military weak, or their ultimate goal would be the complete destruction of the Syrian military, which is also the US goal. By destroying the Syrian military, the US and Israel could have achieved the overthrow of the legitimate government in Syria. The Syrian government has remained strong, united and effective during 7 years of war because of the unity and loyalty of the Syrian Arab Army, and the resistance of the Syrian people, who have sent their sons, brothers, husbands and fathers to serve in the military. The US and Israel may continue to attack the Syrian Arab Army and their allies on the ground in Syria, but we expect the eventual victory in Syria. The US and Israel have to make their own calculations about the repercussions of an attack on the allies of Syria: they would have to calculate their own losses after such action.
Q: The so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have received tremendous amount of arms and support from the United States, initially with the stated aim to fight Daesh (ISIL or ISIS). But apparently, the US is now preparing the ground to establish an independent Kurdish state in Syria. What do you think the US is seeking to achieve by disintegrating Syria?
A: The US has a long history of dividing nations for the purpose of subjugation. For example: the US-NATO attack on the former Yugoslavia; the US-NATO attack on Libya; the US attack on Iraq. From the outset of the attack on Syria, which began in March 2011, experts knew that the end-goal of the USA was a divided Syria, and in fact the various maps of the proposed ‘states’ within a future Syria have been on the media for years. They have paraded these proposed maps in front of our eyes so many times; there are people who are probably convinced that Syria is already divided. The old military scheme of “Divide and Conquer” is still in use today. Cut things up: making them smaller and easier to control, subjugate and confiscate the valuable resources available. The American government found their perfect partner in the Syrian Kurds. There is a part of that community who are willing to be a traitor to their own country and citizenship, and willing to maim and kill their own neighbors for the promise of their own ‘homeland’ and substantial paychecks to achieve the goal. However, not all of the Syrian Kurdish community is part of the plan, or in support of it. By using this small community of traitors and criminals, the US military found a willing partner in their plans to cut up Syria, thus preventing a united Syria, with its original borders. This plan also dovetails into the Israeli position: to show the world that ancient people are deserving of their own homeland, newly established, from the existing lands of the Middle East. This new Kurdish homeland would legitimize the 1948 establishment of Israel, as a homeland for the Jews, who are also an ancient people. If the ‘international community’ will support this new Kurdish homeland, from original Syrian soil, this would reinforce the Israeli position that their homeland is also a legitimate claim. As we know, the goals of the USA and Israel are most times interwoven and sometimes indistinguishable.
Q: The US announcement of its plans to recognize a Kurdish state in Syria has seemingly provoked Turkish invasion on Kurdish areas. What are Turkey’s objectives in its military intervention and how do you think this recent development would affect the process of reaching peace in Syria?
A: The Turkish military has invaded Syria at Afrin. However, this is not the first time Turkey’s military has been used officially to kill and destroy in Syria. We must not forget the role of the Turkish military in the attack, invasion and occupation which resulted in the destruction of Kessab, Syria on the North West border in 2014. In fact, Kessab has still not recovered from that devastation. Turkey has suffered at the hands of Kurdish terrorists who have killed and maimed thousands in Turkey for decades. However, Turkey knows full well that Afrin is Syrian, and the Syrian military with their allies are capable of stabilizing Afrin and preventing any Kurdish terrorists attacking either Turkish citizens, or Syrian citizens. Thus, this Turkish invasion of Afrin is a subterfuge for the real intent: to cut up Syria, not in favor of the Kurdish homeland plan, but for the new Turkish district of Afrin, which the Turks have long argued would be a ‘safe-zone’ for Syrian refugees, who could then be relocated there. Also, this could be the “No-Fly-Zone” which Turkey has long campaigned for. Conceivably, the Kurds living in Afrin would then be displaced, and their homes and farms occupied by Syrian refugees who are loyal to Turkey. The Syrian refugees in Turkey, who are loyal to Turkey, are all directly connected to various terrorist groups, such as Free Syrian Army and other Al Qaeda aligned groups. Turkish history tells us of the genocide of Armenians and other Christians in 1916, and the survivors were displaced, with their homes and farms given to Turcoman settlers, originally from Central Asia. I hope that history will not repeat itself.